Sitting of 21 May 1982

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

  Derelict Land Bill
  Order for Second Reading read.
  9.34am
  The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Giles Shaw): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  On 9 December last the Secretary of State announced to the House his initiative on the derelict land scheme. From that time the scheme has taken a new direction. Grant priority is now being given to schemes in which public sector reclamation is immediately followed by private sector development, for industrial, commercial and other purposes, under an agreement reached beforehand between the authority and the developer concerned in each case. To advance the venture public expenditure on reclamation in 1982–83 was at the same time specially increased to £45 million. This is the "new look" derelict land scheme.
  That scheme is now being followed by this "new look" legislation in the Bill. What the Bill chiefly does is to marshal into one slim statute, by repeal and re-enactment, the existing statutory provisions relating to the making of grants for the reclamation of derelict land in England. I shall not rehearse the old provisions that are now being replaced—they are set out at the beginning of the explanatory and financial memorandum. Suffice to say that in operating the "new look" scheme English local authorities and the Department of the Environment will, if Parliament so approves, be able to rely on one effective legislative measure that streamlines previous provisions made over the years with various, and sometimes slightly different, objectives. The bulk of clause 1 is devoted to achieving this.
  Clause 1 also includes two quite new provisions. First, in section 117 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 the Government introduced a new provision enabling the Secretary of State to pay grants towards expenditure incurred by the private sector and the nationalised industries in carrying out reclamation works, that is to say, without involving the local authorities in the process. The new provision prescribed the maximum rate for this grant at 50 per cent. The Government have since decided that the rate should be raised to 80 per cent. with the object of giving greater encouragement to those two sectors to carry out reclamation works with grant aid on their own account. That increase was announced in my
  572
  right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Budget speech, and subsection (5) fulfils that undertaking.
  Hon. Members will have observed that the grant can be paid in two ways—clause 1(5)(a) relates to grants made on capital expenditure and clause 1(5)(b) to grants paid on costs incurred in borrowing money to finance a scheme. The latter reflects one of the earlier provisions but, as an option, the Government do not expect it to figure very much, if at all. The concentration will rightly be on the outright capital grants payable under paragraph (a). That is the first new feature. The second new feature is to be found in clause 1(7) coupled with subsection (8)(b).
  Subsection (8) as a whole does two things. As part of the consolidation of the existing legislation it provides in paragraph (a) for the re-enactment of the power in section 8 of the Local Employment Act 1972 to designate areas as derelict land clearance areas for the sake of improving the economy of the area. That power has been exercised in the past by the Secretary of State for Industry and the intention is that he will continue to use that power as occasion requires by virtue of subsection (8)(a).
  The new feature of the subsection is to be found in paragraph (b). The object here is to enable reclamation to be undertaken in areas where it is visibly needed, primarily for environmental reasons, but where the economic justification traditionally required for the re-enacted power in paragraph (a) is not forthcoming. I do not expect more than occasional use of that new power—which is secured by an order made with Treasury consent—because areas where derelict land grant is most needed lie by and large in the assisted areas and the derelict land clearance areas already designated.
  Clause 3 embodies the last substantive provisions relating to England. In the 1980 Act we took a new power to grant aid reclamation for dealing with land which had either collapsed or was expected to collapse as a result of former underground mine workings—except, of course, for coal mining. We now wish to follow that up by giving local authorities a general power, as distinct from whatever particular powers they may have used from time to time, specifically picking up the 1980 grant-making conditions. This is achieved in subsection (1). It may surprise hon. Members to hear that the general power for local authorities to carry out derelict land reclamation works reposes in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, but that is the fact of the matter.
  Clause 3(2) contains another minor provision. The power under section 89(5) of the 1949 Act to purchase land compulsorily for reclamation is thought to be restricted by section 6(3) of the Local Authorities (Land) Act 1963 to derelict land as such, and not to extend to non-derelict land required in connection with the reclamation, for example, as spreading land. It is common for compulsory purchase powers for the purpose of carrying out works to extend to nearby sites needed for working purposes. Clause 3(2) removes any doubt on this score in respect of the power in section 89(5).
  I now turn to the Welsh Development Agency provision in clause 2. I have left this to this stage because the arrangements for derelict land reclamation in Wales are quite different from those in England. In Wales, as hon. Members know, reclamation is a main responsibility of the agency, which operates under its own Welsh Development Agency Act 1975. The law in England, broadly speaking, relates to powers that local authorities require to carry out

  573
  works and to powers for the Government to make grants and to declare the areas in which grant can be made at various rates. I therefore felt it more helpful if I dealt with the English provisions in the Bill all at once.
  Though it takes up quite some space in the Bill, clause 2 essentially consists of a formal transfer to the Welsh Development Agency of new powers given to the Secretary of State in the 1980 Act. It is now considered appropriate for these powers to rest with the agency so as to increase further the agency's ability to improve prospects for industrial development and employment by making the environment more attractive.
  The powers are identical to those provided in that Act for the Secretary of State for the Environment to be exercised in England. In brief, they will enable grants to be paid by the agency, first, to any person instead of only to local authorities; secondly, where land has become or is likely to become derelict as a result of surface collapse due to underground mining operations, again excepting coal; thirdly, towards the cost of surveys to discover the extent of dereliction; and, finally, for infrastructure connected with development.
  The transfer of these grant-making powers is achieved in clause 2 by the substitution of a new section 16 in the Act of 1975. I shall not enter upon the merits of the four provisions, as they were all argued during the course of the Local Government, Planning and Land Bill and accepted by Parliament as they now stand. I am sure that if hon. Members wish to raise points about them, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, who will reply to the debate, will be pleased to deal with them, and he will also attempt to answer questions relating to the other parts of the Bill that I have described.
  In terms of size, the Bill is a modest one. Nevertheless, I hope that it will play a valuable part in helping to fulfil our commitment to bring derelict land into beneficial use. The House will be aware that the Government set great store by the recycling of urban derelict and unused land. A number of measures have been introduced, including the land register scheme. We believe that with this improved derelict land scheme we are making a genuine contribution to dealing with the question of derelict land. It will mean not only the removal of eyesores and the improvement of the environment, but, we hope, the bringing of new life, new jobs and new opportunities to areas hitherto classified as derelict.
  I commend the Bill to the House.
  9.44 am
  Dr. David Clark: It is always a pleasure to speak on the subject of derelict land as I have taken a particular interest in it ever since I became a Member of the House. Indeed, 12 years ago I made my maiden speech on just this topic. At that time, I was living near South Yorkshire. I recall reading Sir Walter Scott's "Ivanhoe" and appreciating the very telling point illustrated by the opening words of that book. It begins:
  "In that pleasant district of merry England which is watered by the river Don, there extended in ancient times a large forest, covering the greater part of the beautiful hills and valleys which lie between Sheffield and the pleasant town of Doncaster."
  That area is industrial South Yorkshire.
  When I first related that passage to the topic under discussion today, I saw a great contrast. Now, however,
  574
  when I travel through the same area every week on my, way North, I see a great change. There has been a marvellous improvement in the environment of many of our industrial areas in the past 12 years. Since 1970, Labour and Conservative Governments and local authorities have tackled the problem, and areas such as the one that I have mentioned are becoming very pleasant indeed.
  If anyone needs further convincing, he should read the document on reclamation produced by Durham county council. County Durham has probably suffered more than any other county from mining dereliction. Living near there and seeing the changes that I have seen, I realise that the landscape has been transformed. Where once there were coal spoil heaps there are now golf courses, leisure areas and even dry ski slopes. This is vital to the regeneration of the northern industrial areas. We have suffered because we were at the forefront of the Industrial Revolution. We are determined to wipe away the environmental handicaps and the blight and to restore the natural beauty of the area which is so attractive and which we believe will be so attractive to industrialists in the future.
  Mr. Anthony Steen: I wholeheartedly agree that much derelict land from coal spoils and so on has been most artistically reclaimed. Nevertheless, according to the Civic Trust there are still 250,000 acres of dormant, derelict and vacant land, primarily within the conurbations, which it may not necessarily be appropriate to landscape into golf courses or parks but which should be used for urban regeneration—housing, flats, facilities for industrial uses, and so on. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the main thrust of the Bill should be towards regeneration of that kind rather than increasing the amount of leisure land, useful and pleasant though that may be?
  Dr. Clark: I was coming to that, but perhaps I may digress a little now to take up the hon. Gentleman's point. He is quite right. I represent an urban area without a single field. I have referred to recreation areas, but land has also been improved for farming, afforestation and many other purposes. In many of the county areas we have brought back into production land that was not productive, but there is still great scope for improvement in the industrial areas.
  I disagree slightly with the hon. Gentleman, however, as I believe that we should not forget that we need lungs in the conurbations. Not all cities are so well endowed with parks as London. One of the great attractions of most capital cities is the amount of open space, but many metropolitan areas do not have the advantage of areas such as the Town Moor in Newcastle or other well-known open spaces. Therefore, I believe that some derelict land should be used for aesthetic purposes as well as for providing homes and job opportunities, important though these are.
  The Minister introduced the Bill in his usual plausible and convincing way, but certain provisions in the small print of the Bill are worrying and I hope that the Government will be able to reassure us about them. We make these points constructively because we want to see the Bill work. Labour Members want to see a greater clearance of dereliction because so much of it is to be found in our constituencies in the North, the North-West, Yorkshire and Wales, and also in parts of Scotland not

  575
  covered by the Bill, where so much money is now spent and where there has been the transformation to which I have referred.
  With these subtle changes, the Opposition are slightly concerned that much of the good work that has been taking place over the past 12 to 15 years will be dissipated and lost. That is not only our view. It is shared by certainly five county councils and by the Association of County Councils. I am not saying that they oppose the Bill but they have serious worries about which I hope assurances will be given.
  The Government have been very good in their presentation of words on this subject. When it comes to action, their record has not been anywhere near as good. I should like to show what I mean. I have to substantiate an allegation of that nature. I believe that the Government, owing to financial constraints, have been inclined to try to delay programmes. I shall mention two programmes where money could have been obtained for nothing. The EEC had two non-quota schemes, one for former steel-making areas and one for former shipbuilding areas.
  My constituency happens to be a former shipbuilding area. In August 1980 we submitted a detailed plan to the Government for a £500,000 scheme which would have improved the river front along the Tyne. We are still waiting for that to come through. I have seen the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Industry about it. Our Euro-MP has seen the Commissioner about it. No one has so far accepted responsibility for that improvement which, at no cost to the British taxpayer, could have had a major impact on a large industrial river. I should say, incidentally, that water pollution in the river is declining rapidly. There are salmon in the Tyne, including 20 to 30 pounders. What we need is that little extra in the form of cosmetics to make the situation even better. It is that sort of thing that makes us wary of the Government's intentions.
  In the past two years there have been a number of changes in the arrangements and guidance given by the Department of the Environment. Part of this arises from the 1980 power, but great difficulties have been caused for those authorities that have been trying to implement the Act and improve schemes for reclamation. I was shattered to discover, if the information is correct, that no decisions have been given to any local authorities on submitted programmes for 1982–83. Here we are involved with programmes that need a considerable lead time, yet, one month into the next financial year, the Government will not give the go-ahead to detailed submissions made by the local authorities. One is bound to ask how intent and determined the Government are in following through this matter. We judge the Bill by the actions of the Government. I hope that the Minister can give me some good news.
  Mr. Giles Shaw: I understand fully the two points the hon. Gentleman makes in the allegations, as he describes them, against the Government. I make two in reply. On the commitment to derelict land clearance, the Government, having increased the total amount to £45 million this year and having forecast an amount of £70 million next year, have shown clearly their commitment to derelict land clearance.
  With regard to the fact that approval has not been given for what might be termed traditional derelict land clearance schemes this year, I can assure the hon.
  576
  Gentleman that the matter has now been cleared and that regional controllers in our Department are available to give local authorities advice and the result of the applications. I should like to make it clear that, of the £45 million being spent this year, about £29 million is being devoted to on-going traditional land clearance schemes to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.
  Dr. Clark: I am partly reassured by what the Minister says, but I still stand by my point. If we are running good business, we must give local authorities sufficient advice. I am glad that the Minister agrees. I hope that this mix-up will not occur in the future if it can be avoided.
  I have studied the figures. I understand the 20 per cent. increase this year. I am, however, a little perplexed by a matter upon which I hope the Minister will be able to elaborate. At Question Time on 21 April, the Secretary of State was challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse). When my hon. Friend referred to the £70 million, the Secretary of State said that this was something different and had nothing to do with the £45 million. I understand from what the Minister has said today that the Secretary of State was talking about next year. We are therefore talking about a further increase next year from £45 million to £70 million.
  Mr. Shaw indicated assent.
  Dr. Clark: That has clarified one point. However, it raises the other point about whether the Minister is happy with the extension of powers that the Bill seeks.
  We welcome the extension. As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) has already mentioned, there are areas, especially in the conurbations, where the definition of derelict land is widened by the Bill and where extra money is needed. I wonder whether the Minister can assure those authorities that have traditionally needed considerable sums of money for land reclamation. I am thinking principally of regions such as Wales, the North, the North-West, Yorkshire and the East and West Midlands, which take the largest amount of money. Is the Minister fairly confident that those regions will have available as much money in real terms in the next two or three years as in the past? If that is the case, it would be greatly reassuring not only to the counties but also to the Opposition. It will enable Labour Members in Committee to make judgments on the matter.
  Another complaint that I receive from the counties is that there has been a stop-go approach over the past two years, as I think the Minister acknowledges. That has created considerable difficulty. There are problems over staffing. I was saddened to hear the Secretary of Slate again last week taking the opportunity to single out and knock Labour authorities for not reducing their staffing levels. In the Home Counties there are not the problems that one finds in Northumberland, Durham, Cumbria, Lancashire, West Yorkshire and South Yorkshire, and so on. I had thought that the Government were with us in trying to rebuild the Northern region and the other industrial regions. What we see is the Secretary of State almost encouraging councils to dispose of staff. As the Minister knows, in matters of land reclamation and dereliction in particular, there is need for a team of highly qualified and highly specialised and trained staff. It is sad to see pressure brought to bear for staff reductions if the intention is that we should go ahead with reclamation schemes that both sides of the House want.
  Mr. Christopher Murphy: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is no correlation between the regeneration of industrial areas and the need for a greater number of local government staff? Surely the correlation should be between industrial regeneration and private enterprise. That would be the most successful way of achieving the objectives.
  Dr. Clark: I cannot entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman. We hear that argument in my region, the North. We have to live in that area and we see the spoil heaps. It is not only a question of industrial regeneration. Why should such a beautiful area be blighted by private capital? That has caused the offence. I have no confidence that private capital will remedy the situation. In the past 20 years no Government have shared that view. Of course, there is a place for private capital, but we should not get carried away. Private capital can play only a small, if perhaps important, part in the scheme.
  I began by saying that in the past 12 years there had been major improvements. That is to the credit of Governments of both parties because they have had an on-going scheme. That scheme has rested on the skill and expertise of local government staff. It is sad that Conservative Members—we went through this last Wednesday—should bash away again at local authority staff.
  Northumberland, of course, has seen the light. It was Conservative controlled. The brief that I have was produced by a Conservative-controlled Northumberland county council. It was worried about its planning team. It is not only a question of Labour and Conservative. The problem is more acute now, because Labour-controlled areas have more problems.
  Mr. Steen: It has been said that expertise in land reclamation does not necessarily belong to local authority employees. The beauty of bringing in private firms is that they are much cheaper, because a specific task can be contracted out. In that way, a permanent local authority infrastructure is not needed to carry out such jobs. The Bill involves increasing the amount of money that the private sector can get. There is no criticism of public authorities, but they have been appallingly slow. The Bill gives the private sector a further incentive by upping the grant—I am glad that the Minister is shaking his head in the right way—from 50 per cent. to 80 per cent. to encourage the constructive use of land. Therefore, the Bill is not knocking anyone; it merely brings in another sector.
  Dr. Clark: I was about to deal with private land. I have great experience of this matter. In one constituency there was great opencast excavation of clay. It was carried out by private operators. It is on record that time and again I had to ask the Minister how we could get the private contractors to honour their obligations. I say unequivo-cally from the Dispatch Box that private industry has not served our cause well when it comes to the reclamation and reinstatment of opencast mining. If hon. Members want substantiation of that fact, they should talk to those hon. Members who come from West Durham. When the National Coal Board reinstates land it is done effectively and well. When private developers do it, most of them consistently avoid the planning regulations. On occasion, when everything has been taken out, the firm suddenly goes bankrupt, leaving a horrible scar on the surface. Therefore, there are major problems.
  Mr. Giles Shaw: I remind the hon. Gentleman of the Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Act 1981, which insists on reclamation clauses being attached to planning permissions. We very much hope that that will reduce that type of problem.
  Dr. Clark: I know that the Minister is aware of the problem, because such experiences were at their worst in his county. I hope that the 1981 Act will solve the problem.
  The availability of grants to persons other than local authorities is more likely to hinder progress than to assist it. The whole thrust of my argument is that the present system of grants works well. It would be tragic if a well tried and efficient method of dealing with the problem, to the benefit of the public, was altered. I accept that the Minister has tried to do something that he thinks right. I suspect that he is under a bit of pressure from some of his Back Benchers, who want more private capital investment. However, we are risking a well-worked scheme.
  I shall explain several grave worries that cause not only me but experts outside the House anxiety, because of the possibility of more private involvement in urban and other land reclamation. It was put to me that private schemes would be introduced only when they were linked to high value afteruse, such as the setting up of industries in our main urban and inner city areas. I can see a need for that, but it is important that a unique opportunity to reshape our landscape should not be lost because we have let Mammon take over again. When we rebuild, replan and redevelop our cities, we must ensure that there is as much opportunity for recreation and leisure as there is for house building and industry. It is feared that private money will be attracted only to the possibility of a higher after-use value.
  My next worry is that there may be a reduction in the standard of reclamation. The standard could be reduced as a result of commercial pressure on finance. In addition, the private sector would not have the resevoir of experience that has been built up in the public sector. Some people may say that that does not apply, but the Secretary of State was concerned about that point in 1980, when he spoke about his Bill. I do not know whether he has found a way round it since then. On 6 February 1980, the Secretary of State said:
  "We would of course want to see the present high standards of local authority reclamation maintained in any private or public sector schemes and we are looking into possible ways of ensuring this."
  We have received no news from the Department. It would be helpful to know whether the Secretary of State found a way of meeting his criteria. Indeed, I hope that the Minister will let us know whether the Department has found a way of ensuring that the private schemes are of the same high standard as the public schemes.
  It has been pointed out to me that several authorities face an unwillingness by private landowners to sell derelict land. It will remain in an unsightly condition, with no certainty that reclamation will take place. That raises a difficulty. One of the big metropolitan authorities told me that often the only way to go ahead with a decent development scheme was to draw together several owners. There is mention of operating under a licensing system. That is the simplest and quickest way to involve the private sector. Local authorities have carried out the schemes on the basis of licence agreements negotiated with the private

  579
  sector. The repayment of any after-value resulting from the schemes ensures for the Department of the Environment a return on profit as the private firms develop the land. That system already operates in some of our progressive metropolitan county areas.
  Until recently, local authorities could obtain grant for schemes carried out in that way. Many schemes have been successfully completed where the local authority undertook the works on licence. However, recent Department of the Environment guidelines point out that land that is not in local authority ownership will not normally be eligible for grant. Therefore, we are saying that a scheme that has worked in many areas—in which progressive local authorities have worked with private operators—is unlikely to be available in future. The Department of the Environment should be encouraging local authorities and publicising the work of authorities such as the Tyne and Wear county council.
  In a press notice released on 6 April this year the Minister said that he proposed to invite local authorities to work up investment programmes in co-operation with private interests, and to submit them. That is difficult to square with the Bill, but perhaps it is a Committee point. I am sure that the Minister wants to encourage private participation in the most effective way, but what is most effective in one area may not be effective in another.
  Mr. Giles Shaw: It is important to understand the basic provisions of the Bill. The hon. Member is referring to the discrepancy in ownership and grant availability. In development land clearance areas the local authority is the prime recipient of grant aid and can claim 100 per cent. for clearance schemes. Under the Bill it will be open to the private sector, nationalised industries and other statutory undertakings to claim an 80 per cent. grant. The ownership is not material, although the claim for grant aid is.
  Dr. Clark: I am not sure that the Minister has answered my point. The Tyne and Wear county council, for example, is worried that licence agreements will be precluded in future and, according to the Government's memorandum, will be allowed only in exceptional instances. That is serious and I hope that the Minister will consider it. If my interpretation is right I am sure that we will be able to reach an accommodation in Committee.
  I have described some of the problems of privatisation. The Minister mentioned mining areas. Clause 1(2)(b) identifies "derelict, neglected or unsightly" land. That does not appear to include shafts and drift mine entrances other than those connected with coal mining. If that is so, grants will be paid for shaft filling and capping in an area of derelict land which is being reclaimed, but not for similar work to disused shafts associated with other forms of mining such as lead mining in the North Pennines and tin mining in Cornwall. Most such mines are not in derelict areas. Will the Minister consider the possibility of including filling and capping shafts and drift entrances to the workings of minerals other than coal?
  We are worried about the way in which the Government intend to introduce private money. It may lead to underspending. We are not convinced that private industry, except in some major conurbations, will be prepared to take up the challenge and find the extra 20 per cent. Counties and the Government will put money aside which may not be used. We fear that private sector capital
  580
  will be introduced in a way which may be right for certain parts of the country, but that most of the country will be disadvantaged by the scheme.
  I am partly reassured by what the Minister has said, but we are anxious to ensure that we do not spread the butter more and more thinly. That would negate the whole 15-year bipartisan programme. In the past two or three years there have been growing financial constraints and an unwillingness by owners to sell to local authorities. It has been difficult for local authorities to maintain a significant rolling programme.
  The principal need is not for a major change in legislation, but for a recommitment to the long-term strategy. Most derelict land is unlikely to be of interest to the private sector. If the environmentally underprivileged assisted areas are to be cleaned up, every assistance must be given to the local authorities. Together we have been successful in reclaiming derelict land. We do not want the Bill to be scuppered.
  10.15 am
  Mr. Christopher Murphy: One of the many legacies of the Norman conquest was the Domesday Book, an invaluable guide to our land use in the Middle Ages. Nine hundred years later we are faced with a contemporary Domesday Book—the land register, initiated by the Government and equally invaluable in identifying the land use of today.
  The emotive word "wasteland" conjures up pictures of vast dereliction and decay. It is an equally appropriate word to use to encapsulate the purpose of the Bill, because the waste of land is what we are today seeking to overcome.
  It should be noted that neither the Social Democratic Party nor the Liberal Party has seen fit to show any interest in this important subject, as the lack of attendance in the House today bears witness.
  This great natural asset of land has been misused and abused in Britain with increasing frequency over recent decades. Now that vacant land lying dormant—far too often in public ownership—can be quantified, the opportunities for better husbandry are greatly increased. In recent years private surveys have identified more than 250,000 acres of such land in Britain. That is equivalent to an area the size of several new towns. To get an authoritative analysis and to act swiftly upon it by disposing of land held unnecessarily in the public sector is essential if we are to capitalise on this limited resource.
  Much of the vacant land is clearly derelict, in the sense that it has been so damaged by industrial and other development and then abandoned that it is incapable of beneficial use without treatment. That is why the Bill should prove to be immensely important in achieving, the objective of reclaiming land.
  As more and more urban land is revitalised, so it is to be hoped that more and more country land will be safeguarded from the ravages of development. No longer should it be necessary for metropolitan expansion when new internal opportunities are created.
  Such an approach harks back to 1944, when Professor Abercrombie stated:
  "There is a fundamental need for putting a limit on London's growth by accretion. A stretch of open country at the immediate edge of the building mass of the suburban area is imperative "
  That view, which helped bring into existence the concept of the green belt, is as pertinent today as it ever was.

  581
  It is not sufficient to believe that designating a green belt is all that is necessary to safeguard good agricultural land or to conserve attractive countryside, which has been rightly identified as Government policy.
  Mr. Steen: It is probably worth stating again that, according to Dr. Coleman of King's college, about 60,000 acres of good agricultural land have been lost each year over the past decade and that the urban sprawl is continuing. Will my hon. Friend say something about that?
  Mr. Murphy: My hon. Friend rightly introduces that problem, which worries all Conservative Members. He has backed my argument.
  Vigorous monitoring and enforcement of the green belt is essential at all times, for without it there is a great danger that the rural scene will continue to be defaced and derelict urban land will continue to lie dormant, thus ensuring the increasingly evident urban sprawl. The more effective the use that can be made of existing derelict town and city land, the less the outward pressures for urban expansion that will otherwise overtake rural areas. There can be little doubt that both town and country dwellers will be the beneficiaries of such an approach.
  The Bill can do much to regenerate the land hoards in our already built-up zones and turn them almost into treasure trove. But let us not think of them as providing potential only in terms of bricks and mortar, concrete and tarmacadam. The ribbons of development have already run through fields and meadows, via riversides and forests, up hills and down dales. Might there not also be an opportunity for an inner city farm, a town wood, an urban market garden or a suburban copse? The end of dereliction could also be the start of some rural green among the urban grey.
  10.21 am
  Mr. Den Dover: I welcome the Bill because it clarifies some old legislation and brings it together, and it increases the grants available to private enterprise and other bodies in assisted areas from 50 per cent. to 80 per cent. However, there is still a difference between the percentages allowed to local authorities and private enterprise in assisted areas. It is now 100 per cent. as opposed to 80 per cent., and in other areas it is 50 per cent. for each.
  I consider that private enterprise is much more efficient and cost-effective in carrying out any function, especially in getting land ready for development or in providing a better environment, than any public body. I hope that my hon. Friend will consider whether the 80 per cent. should be further increased to 100 per cent. or whether the 100 per cent. figure for local authorities should be reduced to 80 per cent., giving more incentive to private enterprise to enter this most important area.
  The cost of improving the appearance of the land or of making it ready for development is not just the cost of reclamation or upgrading. Two factors are of paramount importance. The first is the value that local authorities put on the land in their books. Too many authorities have the land at a high historical cost, plus perhaps some allowance for inflation or interest. I submit that often the land in question has a negative value, because enormous costs are attached to making it useful.
  582
  Furthermore, local authorities should give more consideration in their planning procedures to allowing private enterprise to make good use of derelict land, especially in inner city areas. The cost of reclaiming and upgrading land is much smaller that the cost of development, and there is potential benefit to the community, to private enterprise and to the local authority in terms of the rates that it will receive.
  It is important that the land in the land banks should be sold by auction to private enterprise or public bodies to realise its true market value. It should not be priced historically, which bears no relation to its true value in today's market. Local authorities must give enormous encouragement to private enterprise to develop land, not just to reclaim it, and planning officers and councillors must show much understanding to ensure that the best use is made of derelict land in our cities, towns and rural areas.
  10.24 am
  Mr. Anthony Steen: I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Chorley (Mr. Dover) and for Welwyn and Hatfield (Mr. Murphy) on two enlightened and interesting speeches, because they highlighted some important matters that the Bill hopes to remedy. My hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn and Hatfield dealt with the serious problem of urban sprawl. We must not simply bypass that problem. It is increasing, and it is a serious indictment that 60,000 acres of good agricultural land are lost every year. Something must be done about it. The idea that one could have city farms or a copse in an urban jungle should not be passed over. It could revitalise areas of dereliction. Allotments could be provided for those living in high-rise flats.
  Mr. Giles Shaw: If my hon. Friend had attended a committee meeting yesterday he would have heard me say that the amount of agricultural land taken for development has been steadily reducing from about 45,000 acres a year between 1965 and 1970 to about 23,000 acres between 1975 and 1980. I accept that much agricultural land is being taken out of agriculture, but not all of it—certainly not as much as my hon. Friend suggests—is taken for development purposes.
  Mr. Steen: I am grateful for the intervention, which raises an important point. The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has answered questions about that and his figures are not on all fours with those of the Department of the Environment. Another problem is that the Department of the Environment's answers tend to differ a little because they include forest land.
  However, I suspect that neither set of figures is correct. No one knows how much good agricultural land is lost simply because there is no register for it. I wonder from where my hon. Friend gets his statistics. Is it merely an estimate by someone in his Department, or do local authorities submit returns stating any change of use of a piece of land? I suspect that there is no such register and it is pure surmise for my hon. Friend to say that the figures have declined. Dr. Coleman's figure of 60,000 acres in her second land utilisation study is more reliable. Even her figure is out of date, but at least she has analysed the change of use of land in Britain. Her figures are to be preferred unless my hon. Friend can produce evidence to show that there is a register on which he can rely. I suggest

  583
  that the true figure is the larger, but, whether it is or not, an enormous amount of agricultural land is being lost when we still have urban land that could be reclaimed.
  The Bill must be welcomed on that basis alone, but it must be viewed in the context of the Government's overall strategy towards urban renewal. A prerequisite of that demands putting idle city land to use quickly at a price that makes it profitable to develop. That is an essential ingredient in any strategy aimed at revitalising our inner city areas.
  I said in my book "New Life for Old Cities", which was published last October, that releasing idle city land was the first task for the Government in order to reduce the number of acres of land lying idle. The Civic Trust estimates it at 250,000 acres, most of which is hoarded by public owners and nationalised industries. They are holding on to it in the hope that one day they will receive an artificially high price for it.
  I drew attention to vacant privately owned land that is idle by public inaction because the planners refuse planning permission and thereby prevent the owners from developing it. The Bill will not compel public authorities to release the land that they hoard, although my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has established registers in city and local authorities whose purpose it is to identify such land. Having identified the land—in fact, we knew already where it was—the problem is how to sell it fast enough. Comparatively little land has been sold since the registers were set up.
  If the Bill is to be made more effective, it should have a clause added to it that will compel local authorities and public undertakings to auction their surplus land to the highest bidder. Let market forces determine its value and not the local valuation officer, who is compelled to place an historical value on land which hardly ever bears any relation to what the market is prepared to pay for it. The market will pay only what it believes will make for a viable and profitable transaction and not what the district valuer believes it should fetch.
  A further paradox is the willingness of the planner to see green field sites developed beyond city boundaries from which the city obtains no rate income. Good agricultural land is lost thereby because of the failure to insist on a rigid planning regime within a city's boundaries. The Bill will not help private developers to obtain planning permission more easily. If planners insist on rigid zoning, vacant, dormant and derelict sites within city boundaries are unlikely to be utilised, whatever grant the Government offer for the installation of infrastructure.
  It is the planners' approach which has made areas of our cities deserted and, therefore, dangerous. Streets that are busy are safe streets. Streets that have people watching for space to walk on them are safe streets to walk along. Dangerous streets are those which are deserted, because no one has any reason to pass along them except during certain hours of the day. The development of inner city sites is needed for environmental and aesthetic reasons, but it is also needed to rebuild communities, to bring back people to the inner city areas and to make the streets within them safe once more.
  The Bill seeks to attract more private development, and to do this it is offering a higher percentage of public money for the provision of infrastructure. That is to be welcomed. However, if the public sector is to obtain 100 per cent. of infrastructure costs by way of Government grant, why should the private sector receive a less substantial grant?
  584
  Why should it be discriminated against? The increase from 50 per cent. to 80 per cent. must be welcomed, but why is it not more? I acknowledge that a step has been taken in the right direction, but I hope that the Government will consider amending the grant that will be payable to the private sector to increase it to 100 per cent. so that the private sector is on all fours with the public sector.
  The development of vacant sites will create new jobs for unskilled and unemployed inner city workers, but equally important is the improvement that it will make to the rate base. That in turn will augment the city council's income, creating new prosperity and helping to bring back some of those who left the cities in the past decade.
  There are vacant sites in the inner cities, but most vacant sites are in the outer city and not in the inner city or the middle city. The rural urban fringe has two-thirds of all vacant land. Inner city sites tend to be oddly shaped and small for development. It is the vast tracts of land on the rural-urban fringes where the Government's grant will be of the greatest use. When talking about derelict vacant land the House should be concerned with the two-thirds of it that lie on the outer city boundaries—it is that land which the Bill is concerned about—rather than the one-third which is contained in inner city areas.
  Offering incentives for private developers to plough money into the revitalisation of dead land by increasing the grants that are available is a step in the right direction and must be seen as the right approach. It is an enlightened Government who tell private developers that they may bypass the local authority and go straight to the Department when they want infrastructure grant. That is the example of entrepreneurialism that I welcome in the Bill, but something further will have to be done if sites are to be developed on any scale. Cheap money must be made available so that developers have a real incentive to develop abandoned city sites. Extra incentives will be needed if sites are to be developed north of Northampton. There must be some reason for developers to go north rather than south, where the value of land is higher, as are the profits.
  The Bill is a welcome addition to the Government's already extensive commitment to city regeneration. However, I am convinced that if more than merely a token of the 250,000 acres of dormant land is to be converted so that it may be used for constructive purposes a number of additional measures and steps must be taken contem-poraneously with the passing of the Bill if the thrust of the Bill is to be effective.
  10.37 am
  Mr. Harry Greenway: I congratulate by hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen) on his speech and on the work that he has done in this important area. He has been positively Messianic, and commendably so.
  In Ealing there is a shortage of land for housing. The vacant land that remains is rapidly being taken up. Not far from Ealing there are many areas of dockland that are largely untouched. I shall fight the trend in outer city areas and inner city areas to cover available land with concrete. I saw the result of that trend when I lived in East London, and especially when I was a prospective parliamentary candidate. I saw Tower Hamlets covered with concrete. Children, old people and all other members of socity had to travel many miles to reach any grassland upon which they could recreate, sit or meet animal life.

  585
  That is a ruinous and miserable way of life and we cannot allow it to continue. Tower Hamlets—and East London generally—is within striking distance of the docks, and all the derelict land that is available could and should be built upon so that areas like the green parts of Ealing—it is still known as the queen of the suburbs because it had so many lovely green areas—are not ruined. It is being subjected to great pressure to accept industrial and housing development on its few remaining green spaces.
  Mr. Steen: Is my hon. Friend aware that there are 14,139 acres of vacant, dormant and derelict land in the metropolitan area of Greater London?
  Mr. Greenway: I am aware of that figure and it is the burden of my remarks. In some areas of London, football and other pitches have been used for building development. They have been taken from the community, though children and adults used them regularly. If we are to have a balanced way of life in urban areas, it is essential to retain areas that may be used for recreation.
  We must have a much more imaginative approach. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree said, it is absurd that the historic value of land is charged, the price being calculated by valuers. The valuer's price is nearly always miles beyond the price that would be reached at an auction, which might be a satisfactory method of disposing of vacant land. I urge the Government to consider a radical approach to the disposal of such land.
  Let it go to auction. That is better than having it lie idle, unsightly, unwanted and grotesque, while the countryside is rapidly disappearing. Every 10 years land of the acreage of Oxfordshire disappears under concrete, and the process is gaining momentum. If we are not careful we shall become a concrete jungle, with cattle standing on concrete, eating imported food.
  Here is an opportunity to improve the way of life of urban people. I have taken children from the city to the countryside. At the age of 15 or 16 they may see a worm for the first time or exclaim "That is a bird!" They see pigeons in London, but not natural animal life. Observing animals is a good education for everyone.
  The derelict land should be used also for city farms, where children can see life in the raw. We can learn about everything from sex to death from animals. All the crises that occur to humans occur to animals. People are more civilised if they learn to care for animals. We need grants to facilitate such projects. It would help to have 100 per cent. grants towards the infrastructure for reclaimed derelict land for local authorities and private enterprise. I agree that it is absurd to make a distinction between the two. The proposal is a big step forward, but we need to go much further.
  Derelict land could be put to other uses to help the community and give a proper balance to the lives of those who are obliged to live in urban areas. Jungle playgrounds are tremendously successful for children. Derelict land can be converted for such purposes, but as long as it is so costly for the developer that will never happen. Great opportunities could be lost, and it would not cost the Government much to avoid that happening. The land is lying idle, but it could be put to excellent use with a little pressure, money and imagination.
  In other countries cycle tracks are set up and go-karting areas are provided. The land could also be used for horse
  586
  riding. Without much difficulty or expense a small area could be reclaimed and covered school and stabling erected. These facilities could be made available to people of all levels of ability and income, including the disabled, who would gain much, and of whom there is a preponderance in urban areas. East London has an enormously high number of disabled and deprived children, as has Liverpool, which I visited with the Select Committee on Education, Science and Arts. They are all excellent children. All children are excellent if properly brought up.
  We have a great and inexpensive opportunity to reclaim the land and put it to important and direct use for the community for homes and to make a complete and massive improvement in the lives of urban dwellers by offering access to balanced facilities, with a chance to see animals and follow other pursuits.
  Mr. Murphy: I endorse everything that my hon. Friend says about people's lives in the East End. We were both candidates in Tower Hamlets and saw the terrible depression created by concrete. The Government must take on board his remarks in order to bring hope to the families in that and other areas.
  Mr. Greenway: The tragedy of communities in East London and elsewhere is that their closest contact with animals is the meat that they buy from the butcher. Council restrictions forbid the keeping of dogs, cats, mice or other animals in flats, and animals cannot survive in the area. Those people's lives are deprived because they do not have the space for recreation and to "grow tall", as the Americans aptly put it.
  10.46 am
  Mr. Donald Coleman: Land reclamation in Wales is a reminder of one of the most tragic happenings in Wales's history—the Aberfan disaster. Following the tragedy, my noble Friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, the then Secretary of State for Wales, set up the derelict land unit at the Welsh Office, which was the first of its kind in the United Kingdom.
  Few hon. Members here today were present for the debate on the disaster on 26 October 1967, so I shall quote what my noble Friend said:
  "One of the results of the disaster at Aberfan was to give a new stimulus also to the effort to clear up the land left derelict by industrial processes of the past, a problem of which everyone has long been uncomfortably aware, especially in the mining valleys of South Wales. The objective of this effort is not only to reclaim land now useless so that it may be available for industry or housing or other beneficial use, but also to make these areas more attractive to incoming industry and for those who live in them. To pursue this objective more effectively, shortly after the disaster I set up in the Welsh Office in Cardiff a derelict land unit to work closely with the local authorities in preparing schemes of rehabilitation and getting them carried out."—[Official Report, 26 October 1967; Vol. 751, c. 1911–2.]
  Since then land reclamation in Wales has continued to be regarded as a matter of first importance.
  Because of our industrial past there is considerable derelict land. In South Wales the coal tips are the most frequent evidence of spoliation, while in North Wales the beauty of the environment is intruded upon by the slate tips. Other industrial wastage, such as that from the metallurgical industries, has also created problems in need of solution in various parts of Wales. That is the legacy to us in Wales of private enterprise, which has had so much attention in the speeches of Conservative Members.

  587
  In the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975, which was opposed by the Conservative Party, then in Opposition, the Labour Government raised the grant for land reclamation in Wales from 80 per cent. to 100 per cent. Since 1976, when the WDA became operative, it has met the cost of schemes to reclaim land made derelict by past industrial activity and put it to social and productive use. Under the powers of the 1975 Act, the projects were usually carried out by local authorities, having been submitted to and approved by the agency for inclusion in a continuing programme of work.
  Two main priorities have motivated the agency in selecting schemes to support, and I hope that they will continue when the Bill becomes an Act. The first is the removal of risk to life and property. The second is to provide land for industry, for housing and other community needs, and for country parks, playing fields and open spaces. I should like the Minister to give an assurance that those established priorities will in no way be disturbed by the provisions of the Bill.
  The WDA, as I said earlier, began its work in 1976. It inherited a very large programme of work to reclaim 1,721 acres of derelict land. By March 1981, that commitment had almost been discharged, at the cost of £17·2 million. During the years 1976, 1977 and 1978 the agency announced additional programmes of work to reclaim a further 4,000 acres of land, and the cost of that work has been estimated to be about £46 million. Under the WDA's direction, at least 108 individual schemes, involving the reclamation of 2,900 acres of land, will have been completed. We are aware, from the WDA's report of its first five years of work, that it has paid out £31·7 million to reimburse the costs incurred in land reclamation.
  I have put the agency's record in land reclamation clearly before the House this morning because it is a formidable record of land reclamation in Wales, and also because it shows the extent of land dereliction in the Principality, and emphasises the importance put upon land reclamation in Wales.
  In December last year the Secretary of State for the Environment announced that the sum available for the derelict land programme in England was to be increased from £40 million to £45 million. On 21 April this year, in reply to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Eastington (Mr. Dormand), the Secretary of State for the Environment said:
  "The amount available to county and district councils for grant aided derelict land reclamation has been increased in 1982–83 to £45 million, an improvement of some 20 per cent. on last year."—[Official Report, 21 April 1982; Vol. 22 c. 247.]
  We welcome that improvement, and the fact that the Secretary of State now makes provision in the Bill to accomplish those undertakings. We welcome, too, the fact that in England there will be increased provision allocated to local authorities and to private concerns which may wish to apply for grant aid; but the position in Wales is a little different and gives cause for anxiety.
  We are told that this year the Welsh Development Agency is to be allocated £10·4 million for land reclamation, which is exactly the same amount as last year. Therefore, it is a cutback in real terms. That is unfortunate, because I am advised that local authorities in Wales have made proposals to the agency which total more than £85 million. In my county of West Glamorgan, we
  588
  have put forward schemes to the value of £14·6 million. They clearly underline the problem of derelict land in Wales, both in the south and in the north.
  Under the provisions of the Bill, the percentage of grant aid available to private concerns in Wales, as in England, will be increased from 50 per cent. to 80 per cent., and we welcome that, but unless there is an increase in the resources of the Welsh Development Agency, Wales will be in a worse position in future than it was last year.
  There is a further aspect of the matter which gives cause for concern among the local authorities. Any substantial demand from the private sector will, on the evidence that we have, reduce the amount of money available to local authorities.
  It is because of those worries that are being expressed in Wales that I seek assurances from the Minister. First, will he assure the House that the WDA—which will be called upon, under the Bill, to make a larger financial commitment to land reclamation in Wales—will receive a greater allocation of money than has already been announced?
  Secondly, will the Minister assure the House that the local authorities will not be disadvantaged in their applications because of the greater involvement of private concerns? We shall, of course, expect that local authorities will continue to receive 100 per cent. grants for land reclamation schemes, as hitherto.
  Thirdly, where grants are made to private concerns for land reclamation, will those private concerns be required to pay to the Welsh Developmet Agency part of the enhanced value that the land attracts as a result of reclamation, as now happens with local authorities?
  As my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) said in opening the debate, we do not intend to oppose the Second Reading of the Bill. However, the matters that he and I have raised are serious matters, particularly where they affect Wales, and we are determined to protect Wales. In giving the Bill a qualified welcome, we demonstrate our belief that this generation has a responsibility to succeeding generations not only to clear up the mess left to us from the past, but to enhance the environment and the life of these islands.
  11.1 am
  The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Wyn Roberts): It is clear that there is unanimity on both sides of the House about the desirability of reclaiming derelict land. It is equally clear that both sides recognise that the Bill is an additional step in assisting reclamation.
  I shall answer the points raised in the debate in a moment, but first I should like to say a few words about the particular effect of the Bill in Wales, following the remarks of the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman).
  As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment said in his opening speech, clause 2 makes an addition to the powers of the Welsh Development Agency. It also recasts the agency's land reclamation powers to bring them back into line with the powers exercised in England. I particularly want to stress, in answer to the points raised by the hon. Member for Neath, that we are introducing an improvement in the area of land reclamation in Wales. The WDA already has the power to pay 100 per cent. of the cost of local authority land reclamation schemes in all parts of Wales, and this power

  589
  is not affected in any way by the Bill. In effect, the whole of Wales has been a derelict land clearance area, and this will remain the position when the Bill comes into force.
  The additional power which is being given to the WDA is the ability to pay grants to individuals and to bodies in the private sector, as well as to other public bodies. Since 1980 this power has rested with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales. We are now transferring it to the Welsh Development Agency and—as in England—raising the relevant level of grant to 80 per cent., so that all the reclamation powers in Wales will be in the hands of one body, the WDA. We believe that the private sector should be encouraged to play a part in the reclamation of derelict land in Wales, and the improvement in the powers of the WDA will help to bring this about.
  I think it is fair to say that Wales has led the rest of the United Kingdom in land reclamation. As the hon. Member for Neath said, the derelict land unit in the Welsh Office was set up in 1966, after the tragedy of the Aberfan disaster, and in the 10 years of the unit's existence it reclaimed about 7,750 acres of land in Wales and made a significant start on the major areas of industrial and mining dereliction.
  When the Welsh Development Agency was founded in 1976, the work of reclamation in Wales was handed over to it, and I believe that it is correct to say that this element in its work has not been the subject of partisan debate. We are all agreed that the agency has continued to do an excellent job. Between 1976 and 1979, over 2,000 acres were reclaimed in Wales. Since 1979, schemes have been approved to reclaim another 2,000 acres. An additional 2,750 acres are in the agency's programmes for the next few years.
  The new power proposed in the Bill is a natural extension of the agency's land reclamation work. We do not for a moment anticipate that schemes from the private sector will take up more than a minority of the land reclamation carried out in Wales. Of course, the great bulk of the work done by the WDA will go on as before, but it is right that there should be scope for private sector bodies to receive grant assistance where the demand exists.
  The local authority programmes will continue to form the great majority of the agency's work, and I assure the hon. Member that we are under no illusion about the amount of work which is still to be done, and which can only be done, under the local authorities' normal programmes. The bids from local authorities for inclusion in the WDA's latest reclamation programme added up to many times the amount which could be carried out with any imaginable level of resources that could be available. But this has always been the case. We have a choice of priorities, and my right hon. Friend and I rely upon the agency's advice on the work which needs to be done.
  We do not know the level of demand which will be created in Wales by the new powers to aid schemes outside the local authority sector. When these schemes are submitted to the agency, they will have to be considered alongside other schemes in the normal local authority programmes, and the Secretary of State will take careful note of the agency's views on the priorities to be adopted, bearing in mind that schemes outside the local authority sector can be carried out at a lower total cost to public
  590
  funds than local authority schemes which entail 100 per cent. funding. The effect of the new power can only be that more reclamation is carried out, and not less.
  Mr. Coleman: Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear that private schemes involve not just private individuals, but statutory undertakings as well? Will he make it clear that this definition applies also to public corporations which are not involved in the local authorities?
  Mr. Roberts: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He knows as well as I do the extent of the agency's activities in this area. One has only to read its last annual report to see the authorities that have been involved.
  The hon. Member said that the resources available for reclamation by the WDA in Wales had decreased. I point out to him that only a couple of months ago, on 3 March, the Secretary of State gave approval to a new £16 million WDA reclamation programme, to be carried out over coming years. Another 1,350 acres of land in Wales will be reclaimed and £2·8 million will be spent in the hon. Gentleman's own county of West Glamorgan, including a further £1½ million on the lower Swansea valley in the enterprise zone there.
  Expenditure in Wales is being maintained at a very worthwhile level. Perhaps I should not say this with English Members present, but the WDA spent about £10 million on land reclamation in the last financial year and will spend more than £10½ million this year. It is nonsense to say that the budget is not being maintained. About one-fifth of the agency's grant-in-aid from the Government goes on land reclamation. We believe that that is a very fair proportion of the resources available to the WDA and it compares well with the record in the past.
  I assure the hon. Member for Neath that the existing priorities for reclamation will remain. Safety will, of course, remain the overriding factor and resources will always be found to deal with genuine emergencies. I hope that he will accept that reclamation schemes for safety purposes in Wales have mostly been completed, but the priority will remain absolute when the need arises.
  There has been a remarkable degree of unanimity in the debate and a general welcome for the Bill. If there has been a difference between the two sides of the House, it has related to the respective roles of local authorities and the private sector. Let me make it clear how the Government see the role of local authorities on the one hand and the private sector on the other.
  Local authorities have, without question, a leading role, as they always have had, but the Government believe that the right way to achieve general economic regeneration is through the infusion of private sector investment into the economy, with the stimulus to regeneration that that will bring.
  We have decided to make use in the derelict land scheme of the public lead that reclamation can give to the redevelopment of derelict and idle land. That is the general thrust of the WDA and the new look that is being given to the scheme in England. Priority is being given to schemes where local authority land reclamation, supported by 100 per cent. grants, leads at once to development by the private sector for industrial, commercial and other purposes, by a previous agreement with a developer. That is the way forward and it will give the scheme the most productive edge for helping in the drive for economic regeneration.

  591
  Much has been said about the Government's decision to raise the level of grant to be paid to the private sector, nationalised industries and other public bodies to encourage them to reclaim derelict land. We have carefully considered the appropriate rates of grant and we regard the present 50 per cent. to the private sector as too low. The proposed 80 per cent. should provide an incentive to the most economic use of public funds by ensuring that the private sector has a 20 per cent. stake in the cost of reclamation works. That is the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Mr. Steen), who asked why we were not prepared to give 100 per cent. grants to the private sector.
  Mr. Steen: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer on the injection of a bit of private money as well as public money. However, does he agree that after the Bill has been passed the issue to be tackled will be how to ensure the release of land in public ownership? Unless it is released at a price that developers can afford, even infrastructure grants will not enable them to make a profit.
  The most pressing need is to write down the historic value of the derelict land of nationalised industries and local authorities—auctions will probably be the best way—so that it can be purchased by the private market. The 80 per cent. infrastructure grants will allow developers to get on with the construction.
  Mr. Roberts: We want land in local authority ownership to be developed productively. The land registers show that about 62 per cent. of derelict land is in the possession of such authorities and we have powers to press them to dispose of that land under the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980.
  I was asked about the quality of the work done and the schemes completed by the private sector. Before a grant is paid, reclamation work will have to be completed to the satisfaction of the Department of the Environment. The work will be inspected by one of the Department's professional officers to ensure that it has been carried out to a satisfactory standard. That applies also to the WDA.
  As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary said earlier, priority is being given in England to joint local authority-private sector schemes leading to immediate development. The programme, which will cost £45 million, could not be allocated until the Secretary of State had had an opportunity to consider the bids received for priority schemes. Allocations have now been made and are being notified to local authorities through the Department's regional offices.
  The hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) raised a number of matters, including disused mine shafts. Those can already be reclaimed under the normal rules, including capping. The hon. Gentleman also referred to the South Tyneside improvement scheme, which was put to the European regional development fund as a non-quota scheme. Such schemes rely on the Commission proposing ways of dealing with them and the Tyneside scheme will have to wait for a decision until the Commission has approved an overall measure for shipbuilding closure zones.
  The Department of Industry is pressing for approval of the measure by the summer. Once approval is given, individual schemes such as that on Tyneside can be considered.
  Dr. David Clark: The hon. Gentleman's reply about the South Tyneside reclamation scheme will cause great disappointment. The scheme has been ready for 18 months and I had a personal assurance from the Prime Minister that it would receive approval within a matter of weeks. Now we are told that it will be a matter of months. As I said earlier, we approve of the Government's intentions, but when we look at the record we have to doubt their commitment to carrying out those intentions.
  We need clarification about the sums available for the system in ensuing years. We are to extend the areas eligible for grant. If there is not a great increase in the money available, the butter will have to be spread much more thinly and areas such as Wales and the Northern region will suffer badly. I had the impression from the Under-Secretary of State that this was to be increased to £70 million in 1983–84. That was my impression, and I was largely reassured by that.
  I checked the statement made by the Secretary of State on 21 April. When he was challenged by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) about the £70 million, the right hon. Gentleman said:
  "I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I point out that the figures he mentioned"—
  the £70 million—
  "relate to a different programme. The £70 million is the sum that I am earmarking for next year's programmes—a combination of derelict land and urban programmes."—[Official Report, 21 April 1982; Vol. 22, c. 248.]
  The House needs some reassurance about this and, indeed, an explanation. Are we talking about £70 million for this derelict land scheme, or about £70 million for a much wider scheme including the urban aid scheme which is in operation? If we are talking about the latter, how much of it are we devoting to derelict land schemes in future years?
  Mr. Roberts: Let me deal first with the hon. Gentleman's question about delay over the Tyneside improvement scheme. He will recollect what I said about it. I do not think that he can blame the Government for the delay. As a non-quota scheme, it is clear that the delay is on the part of the Commission. We have been pressing the Commission to establish its scheme, and we are hoping to get the overall measure by the summer.
  When the hon. Gentleman referred to the increase in spending from £45 million to £70 million in 1983–84 he quoted my right hon. Friend and of course my right hon. Friend was right. The hon. Gentleman was also right to question whether the money was simply for derelict land schemes. Of course it is not. As my right hon. Friend said, it is for rather more than derelict land clearance. However, the division has not yet been made. It will cover rather more than derelict land. Nevertheless, the increase from £45 million to £70 million is significant.
  Mr. Greenway: My hon. Friend mentioned the level of spending. He said very little about the way in which the money was to be spent. What is spent and what is thrown up as a result of this valuable measure will be extremely important. May we be assured that my hon. Friend's Department and the Department of the Environment will watch the way in which the grants are used and try to see that a balance of restructuring comes between leisure and industrial and other forms of development?
  Mr. Roberts: I assure my hon. Friend that each scheme to which grant is given will be examined very carefully at all stages of its progress.

  593
  In England, the Bill rationalises existing legislation on derelict land; that is to say, the relevant provisions of the Local Government Act 1966, the Local Employment Act 1972, both as amended by the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980, and the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949. It also provides new powers for the Secretary of State.
  In Wales, the Bill makes a number of changes in the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975 and expands the agency's powers.
  I am glad that the measure has received a general welcome from all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate. Like my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, I commend it to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

  Derelict Land Bill

    DERELICT LAND [MONEY]
    Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
    Resolved,
    That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to repeal and re-enact with amendments section 97 of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, section 9 of the Local Government Act 1966 and section 8 of the Local Employment Act 1972 and to amend section 89 of the said Act of 1949 and section 16 of the Welsh Development Agency Act 1975, it is expedient to authorise—

    (1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

    (a) grants in respect of relevant expenditure as defined in the said Act of the present Session;

    (b) any administrative expenses of the Secretary of State under that Act;

    (c) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable out of such money under any other Act;

    (2) any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable out of or into the Consolidated Fund or the National Loans Fund under any other Act.—[Mr. Lang.]

  Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Bill [Lords]
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Bill [Lords]
    New clause 1

      CONTINUANCE OF CERTAIN EXISTING JURISDICTIONS
      '(1) Schedule 8 does not affect—

      (a)the operation of any enactment which confers jurisdiction on a Scottish court in respect of a specific subject-matter on specific grounds;

      (b) without prejudice to the foregoing generality, the jurisdiction of any court in respect of any matter mentioned in Schedule (proceedings excluded from Schedule 8).

      (2) Her Majesty may by Order in Council—

      (a) add to the list in Schedule (proceedings excluded from Schedule 8) any description of proceedings; and

      (b) remove from that list any description of proceedings (whether included in the list as originally enacted or added by virtue of this subsection).

      (3) An Order in Council under subsection (2) may—

      (a) make different provision for different descriptions of proceedings or for the same description of proceedings in different courts; and

      (b) contain such transitional and other incidental provisions as appear to Her Majesty to be appropriate.

      (4) An Order in Council under subsection (2) shall not be made unless a draft of the Order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'.—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      11.25 am
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Peter Fraser): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 3, 6, 7 and 25.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: This group of amendments recasts those provisions of part III which govern the application of the new Scottish rules of jurisdiction in what we hope is a somewhat more straightforward form, principally by removing to a new schedule those preservations of existing jurisdictions which are at present to be found in clauses 20 and 21. The amendments, which also make certain substantive alterations in these provisions, are parallel in purpose and effect to amendments which were made to part II, applying to England, in Committee.
      The clause contains the preservation of existing special jurisdictions of Scottish courts which is presently dealt with by clause 20(2) and introduces the list of specific preservations now to be contained in the new schedule. It also introduces for the first time a power similar to that in clause 17 at any time by Order in Council to adjust the list in the schedule. This will enable us in particular to preserve any special jurisdictional provisions which, perhaps because they do not confer jurisdiction on specific grounds, do not fall within the general exclusion under subsection (1)(a) of the new clause.
      The new schedule gathers together the particular exclusions from the scope of the new rules at present contained in clauses 21 and 20(6), and adds in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 a preservation of three special jurisdictional provisions, relating respectively to the rectification of the register of aircraft mortgages, the recovery of charges for

      595
      air navigation services, and proceedings brought in pursuance of an order under the Continental Shelf Act 1964, which would not be covered by the general exclusion in subsection (1)(a) Of the new clause.
      Finally, paragraph 14 of the new schedule, formerly clause 20(7), has been somewhat altered by the omission of certain words which were intended originally to deal with certain problems relating to Admiralty jurisdiction in Scotland. This is now dealt with separately by paragraph 6, and the words in question were therefore unnecessary and might have given rise to difficulty in interpretation.
      If the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) will refer to subsection (4), relating to the Order in Council, he may gain some hint of the Government's attitude to his later amendment.
      Mr. Donald Dewar: As one who has come late to the Bill and who has been wrestling over the past day or so with its intricacies, I may say that any proposal that is advertised as bringing a rather more straightforward form to the legislation has my cordial support.
      I take it from what the Solicitor-General for Scotland said that these amendments do not make any substantive change but are largely presentational. If that is the position, I see no point in delaying the House on the matter.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    Clause 16

      ALLOCATION WITHIN U.K. OF JURISDICTION IN CERTAIN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS
      11.30 am
      The Solicitor-General (Sir Ian Percival): I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 9, line 41, at end insert—
      `() In section 15(1)(a) of the Maintenance Orders Act 1950 (domestic proceedings in which initial process may be served in another part of the United Kingdom), after sub-paragraph (v) there shall be added—
      "(vi) Article 5(2) of Schedule 4 to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982; or".'.
      The amendment provides for the service of process in maintenance proceedings when a magistrates' court in England and Wales has jurisdiction over a person domiciled in another part of the United Kingdom by virtue of clause 16 and schedule 4. It is therefore a consequence of the provisions of article 5(2) as set out in schedule 4, which enables a maintenance creditor to proceed in the court in the area where she is domiciled against a person domiciled elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
      The amendment ensures that process can be served in those circumstances by linking the Bill to the provisions of an existing scheme for serving process in different parts of the United Kingdom. That scheme is contained in section 15 of the Maintenance Orders Act 1950. The amendment adds a reference to the Bill to the list of domestic proceedings in which the 1950 Act procedure may be used.
      Amendment agreed to

    Clause 17

      EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN PROCEEDINGS FROM SCHEDULE 4
      Mr. Peter Archer: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 10, line 19, leave out subsection (4) and insert
      `An order in Council under subsection (2) shall not be made unless a draft of the Order has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament'.
      I am grateful to the Solicitor-General for Scotland for the hint that he threw out in an earlier debate, which may shorten our proceedings.
      The amendment is similar to one which I moved in Committee. It relates to certain powers which the Bill gives the Lord Chancellor to say that, in relation to certain classes of proceedings, the Bill shall not take effect to change the law and that the existing law shall continue to apply. So in effect it says that after the Bill reaches the statute book the Lord Chancellor may alter what it says. He may change the law back to what it was previously. In its present form the Bill provides that he may do so in regulations which shall not require the affirmative approval of either House.
      The Solicitor-General and I discussed the matter in Committee. We largely agreed that there was no simple answer to whether a power to make regulations should be subject to the negative or affirmative procedure. I think that the Solicitor-General agreed that where it is subject to the negative procedure, the prospects for obtaining a debate on a Prayer to annul regulations must depend on the good will of the Government's business managers. I do not suggest that they are lacking in good will. But we know the pressures under which they have to work. They may not share the passionate feelings of the Opposition, still less the passionate feelings of individual Members, about the importance of a matter which they see primarily as one more constraint on parliamentary time. I agreed that it was not appropriate to insist on the affirmative procedure for all regulations. That necessarily takes up a little of the time of the House. Where regulations relate to technical matters which give rise to no controversy, the negative procedure is adequate.
      But we are discussing a power to alter the law. We begin from the proposition that normally the power to change the law should be subject to effective parliamentary control. At the end of our debate in Committee the Solicitor-General invited me to reconsider the matter in the light of his arguments. And he fairly offered that if I wanted to persist he would invite his noble Friend the Lord Chancellor to reconsider the matter.
      Subsequently, I tried to formulate a general criterion to enable us to tell whether a power should be subjected to the negative or affirmative procedure. I confess that I did so without success. There is no criterion. The test has to be pragmatic on each occasion. However, I was led to persist by an argument which the Solicitor-General used to justify the negative procedure. He said that the power would probably be used in relation to a number of localised jurisdictions. The Lord Chancellor may wish to preserve a particular jurisdiction for a particular county court or specific sheriff court.
      I understand that we do not want everlastingly to bring to the Floor of the House local matters which are not in dispute. I do not believe that, normally, the Government, in exercising their powers under the clause, will have any

      597
      difficulty in securing acceptance on the nod. But in matters relating to localities, on the odd occasion local feeling may run high. That is the sort of case in which an individual hon. Member should have an opportunity of presenting his case to the House if he thinks it right. I doubt whether it will happen frequently.
      I do not propose to repeat all the arguments which we deployed in Committee, but I should be grateful if the Solicitor-General would tell us whether, since I tabled the amendment, he has had a opportunity to discuss it with his noble Friend, and if so, with what result.
      The Solicitor-General: I have had an opportunity to consult my noble Friend on this matter. The answer to the question asked by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) is that we are content to accept his amendment.
      We had a fairly full discussion on this matter in Committee. I share the right hon. and learned Gentleman's view about the difficulty, if not impossibility, of finding criteria that would cover every case. In the Bill there are many instances which everyone will agree should fall into the negative resolution class. In the Bill, instances that readily fall into that class are subject to negative resolution. Likewise, there are many which we would say should fall into the affirmative resolution class.
      The matter that the right hon. and learned Gentleman raised falls somewhere in the middle. There are arguments both ways. I have considerable sympathy for the argument that he put forward, having put it forward from the Opposition Benches often myself. Therefore, I welcome the fact that the argument prevailed. I am happy to accept the amendment.
      Mr. Archer: I am grateful to the Solicitor-General. On Report I have knocked on his door only once and he has readily opened it.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 20

      RULES AS TO JURISDICTION IN SCOTLAND
      Amendment made: No. 3, in page 12, line 40 leave out subsection (2).—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 13, line 1 leave out `respective'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment No. 5.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The purpose of these minor drafting amendments is to make it clear that the new Scottish jurisdictional rules introduced by part III relate only to territorial jurisdiction and have no effect on the competence of either the Court of Session or the sheriff court.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 5, in page 13, line 2, leave out `and' and insert 'or of.
      No. 6, in page 13, line 27 leave out subsection (7).
      No. 7, in page 13, line 35 leave out Clause 21.—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

    Clause 26

      RETENTION OF SECURITY IN ADMIRALTY PROCEEDINGS IN ENGLAND AND WALES OR NORTHERN IRELAND IN CASE OF STAY, &C.
      The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 16, line 39 leave out from 'may' to the end of line 4 on page 17 and insert
      'if in those proceedings property has been arrested or bail or other security has been given to prevent or obtain release from arrest—

      (a) order that the property arrested be retained as security for the satisfaction of any award or judgment which—

      (i) is given in respect of the dispute in the arbitration or legal proceedings in favour of which those proceedings are stayed or dismissed; and

      (ii) is enforceable in England and Wales or, as the case may be, in Northern Ireland; or

      (b) order that the stay or dismissal of those proceedings be conditional on the provision of equivalent security for the satisfaction of any such award or judgment.'.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 9 and 41.
      The Solicitor-General: These amendments improve clause 26, which provides for the retention of property arrested in Admiralty proceedings before a court in England or Northern Ireland, where the court grants a stay of those proceedings in favour of a reference to arbitration or to a court in an overseas country. In most cases the ship will have been released against bail or other security provided either to the court or privately to the plaintiff.
      The amendments to clause 26 will ensure that the court may make a stay of proceedings conditional upon the provision of equivalent security, for example a bank guarantee, to satisfy any award or judgment given in the arbitration or foreign proceedings.
      Amendment No. 41, which amends schedule 12, introduces a transitional provision which ensures that the new power contained in clause 26 will not apply to property or other security given before it comes into force.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 9, in page 17, line 11, leave out 'bail or other security '.—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]
      The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 17, line 15, leave out subsection (4).
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 12, 19, 21, 22, and 24.
      The Solicitor-General: These are purely drafting amendments.
      Clauses 26, 31, 32, 33 and 34 all make various provisions about overseas judgments, and each defines the term "judgment" in the same way. The amendments delete all those definitions and substitute a single definition to the same effect in clause 50, which is the general interpretation clause.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 31

      OVERSEAS JUDGMENTS GIVEN AGAINST STATES, ETC.
      The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No. 11 in page 19, line 19, after 'not', insert
      `(except as mentioned in paragraph (c))'

      599
      This amendment is of a purely drafting nature. It makes it clear that subsection (2)(a) is subject to subsection (2)(c). I shall be happy to give a fuller explanation if hon. Members wish, but for the time being I am content merely to move the amendment.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 12, in page 19, leave out lines 43 to 45.—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

    Clause 32

      OVERSEAS JUDGMENTS GIVEN IN BREACH OF AGREEMENT FOR SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES
      The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 20, leave out lines 3 and 4 and insert
      'Subject to the following provisions of this section, a judgment given by a court of an overseas country in any proceedings shall not be recognised or enforced in the United Kingdom—'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 16.
      The Solicitor-General: Amendments Nos. 13, 15 and 16 are of a purely drafting nature, but amendment No. 14 makes substantive changes by inserting two new subsections.
      Subsection (1A) makes further provision as to when proceedings in a foreign court will be regarded as being contrary to an agreement for the purposes of a subsection (1)(a). Clearly proceedings taken abroad will not be contrary to an arbitration or jurisdiction agreement if the agreement in question was void. However, the subsection covers certain other cases where the agreement, though valid, was unenforceable or incapable of being performed. An example would be where disputes under a contract were to be referred to a named arbitrator who in the event declined to act so that effect could not be given to the decision to go to arbitration. If there was no mechanism for appointing someone else to act in his place, it would be reasonable for the plaintiff to resort to the ordinary courts. A similar idea is contained in section 1 of the Arbitration Act 1975 which provides for our courts to stay their proceedings in the face of an arbitration agreement but makes exception for agreements which are void, inoperative or incapable of being performed.
      Subsection (1B) will ensure that our courts will assess the validity of an arbitration or jurisdiction agreement in accordance with their assessment of the law to be applied and will not be bound by any decision of the foreign court as to whether the agreement was valid. The likelihood is, of course, that the foreign court will be bound by its own law to treat the agreement as invalid.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 14, in page 20, line 13, at end insert—
      '(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply where the agreement referred to in paragraph (a) of that subsection was illegal, void or unenforceable or was incapable of being performed for reasons attributable to the fault of the party bringing the proceedings in which the judgment was given.
      (1B) In determining whether a judgment given by a court of an overseas country should be recognised or enforced in the United Kingdom, a court in the United Kingdom shall not be bound by any decision of the overseas court relating to any of the matters mentioned in subsection (1) or (1A)'.
      No. 15, in page 20, line 14, leave out subsection (2).
      No. 16, in page 20, line 17, leave out 'this section' and insert 'subsection (1)'.—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]
      11.45 am
      The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 20, line 23, leave out from 'of' to 'section' in line 25.
      It would perhaps be convenient to take at the same time amendments Nos. 18 and 20, as all three are purely drafting amendments.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I understand that it is for the convenience of the House to take at the same time those Government amendments.
      Mr. Archer: This is a purely pedantic intervention on my part. Amendment No. 17 seeks to delete certain words following the word "of', but the word "of' occurs twice in line 23. The amendment is therefore ambiguous. I think that there is little doubt that the intention is to refer to the first "of ". I can imagine, however, that at some subsequent time officials may be in difficulty about what is to go on to the statute book.
      The Solicitor-General: I am obliged to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for drawing attention to that. Even if there is a choice, no doubt the intention of the amendment is obvious and effect will be given to the meaning that makes sense. I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I shall do my best to ensure that that happens.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 18, in page 20, line 29, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'.
      No. 19, in page 20, line 31, leave out subsection (5).—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

    Clause 33

      CERTAIN STEPS NOT TO AMOUNT TO SUBMISSION TO JURISDICTION OF OVERSEAS COURT
      Amendments made: No. 20, in page 20, line 38, leave out 'treated' and insert 'regarded'.
      No. 21, in page 21, line 11, leave out subsection (3).—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

    Clause 34
      CERTAIN JUDGMENTS A BAR TO FURTHER PROCEEDINGS ON THE SAME CAUSE OF ACTION
      Amendment made: No. 22, in page 21, line 22, leave out subsection (2).—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]
    Clause 48

      MATTERS FOR WHICH RULES OF COURT MAY PROVIDE
      The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 32, line 5, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
      '(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsections (1) and (2), the power to make rules of court for magistrates' courts, and in Northern Ireland the power to make Judgment Enforcement Rules, shall include power to make such provision as the rule-making authority considers necessary or expedient for the purposes of the provisions of the Conventions and this Act relating to maintenance proceedings and the recognition and enforcement of maintenance orders and shall in particular include

      601
      power to make provision as to any of the following matters—

      (a) authorising the service in another Contracting State of process issued by or for the purposes of a magistrates' court and the service and execution in England and Wales or Northern Ireland of process issued in another Contracting State;

      (b) requesting courts in other parts of the United Kingdom or in other Contracting States to take evidence there for the purposes of proceedings in England and Wales or Northern Ireland;

      (c) the taking of evidence in England and Wales or Northern Ireland in response to similar requests received from such courts;

      (d) the circumstances in which and the conditions subject to which any powers conferred under paragraphs (a) to (c) are to be exercised;

      (e) the admission in evidence, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed in the rules, of statements contained in documents purporting to be made or authenticated by a court in another part of the United Kingdom or in another Contracting State, or by a judge or official of such a court, which purport—

      (i) to set out or summarise evidence given in proceedings in that court or to be documents received in evidence in such proceedings or copies of such documents; or

      (ii) to set out or summarise evidence taken for the purposes of proceedings in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, whether or not in response to any such request as is mentioned in paragraph (b); or

      (iii) to record information relating to the payments made under an order of that court;

      (f) the circumstances and manner in which a magistrates' court may or must vary or revoke a maintenance order registered in that court, cancel the registration of, or refrain from enforcing, such an order or transmit such as an order for enforcement in another part of the United Kingdom;

      (g) the cases and manner in which courts in other parts of the United Kingdom or in other Contracting States are to be informed of orders made, or other things done, by or for the purpose of the magistrates' court;

      (h) the circumstances and manner in which a magistrates' court may communicate for other purposes with such courts;

      (i) the giving of notice of such matters as may be prescribed in the rules to such persons as may be so prescribed and the manner in which such notice is to be given.'.

      It is perhaps as well if I say something about the amendment, as it affects maintenance proceedings which are of great importance to many people.
      The amendment extends the power to make rules of court for the purposes of the maintenance provisions of the Bill. As it stands, clause 48(3) refers only to the making of rules in relation to the recognition and enforcement of maintenance orders. It does not cover the rules which may be needed in relation to maintenance proceedings which may be taken in a magistrates' court against a defendant domiciled in another contracting State, by virtue of article 5(2) of the convention.
      Clause 48(3) is therefore reworded to provide for the making of rules in both sets of circumstances, that is, in relation to maintenance proceedings under the convention and to the recognition and enforcement of maintenance orders. At the same time, we have taken the opportunity to indicate the kinds of rules which may conceivably be needed to ensure that we fulfil our obligations.
      The amendment refers only to England and Wales and Northern Ireland because it is considered that adequate powers to make rules for the sheriff court already exist in the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971.
      Amendment agreed to

    Clause 50

      INTERPRETATION: GENERAL
      Amendment made: No. 24, in page 33, line 12, at end insert—
      "'judgment", subject to sections 15(1) and 18(2) and to paragraph 1 of Schedules 6 and 7, means any judgment or order (by whatever name called) given or made by a court in any civil proceedings;".—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

    New schedule

      PROCEEDINGS EXCLUDED FROM SCHEDULE 8
      1. Proceedings concerning the status or legal capacity of natural persons (including proceedings for seperation) other than proceedings which consist solely of proceedings for adherence and aliment or of affiliation and aliment.
      2. Proceedings for regulating the custody of children.
      3. Proceedings relating to tutory and curatory and all proceedings relating to the management of the affairs of persons who are incapable of manaaging their own affairs.
      4. Proceedings in respect of sequestration in bankruptcy; or the winding up of a company or other legal person; or proceedings in respect of a judicial arrangement or judicial composition with creditors.
      5. Proceedings relating to a company where, by any enactment, jurisdiction in respect of those proceedings is conferred on the court having jurisdiction to wind it up.
      6. Admiralty causes in so far as the jurisdiction is based on arrestment in rem or ad fundandam jurisdictionem of a ship, cargo or freight.
      7. Commissary proceedings.
      8. Proceedings for the rectification of the Register of Aircraft Mortgages kept by the Civil Aviation Authority.
      9. Proceedings under section 7(3) of the Civil Aviation (Euro-control) Act 1962 (recovery of charges for air navigation services and proceedings for damages against Eurocontrol).
      10. Proceedings brought in pursuance of an order under section 3 of the Continental Shelf Act 1964.
      11. Proceedings under section 6 of the Protection of Trading Interests Act 1980 (recovery of sums paid or obtained pursuant to a judgment for multiple damages).
      12. Appeals from or review of decisions of tribunals.
      13. Proceedings which are not in substance proceedings in which a decree against any person is sought.
      14. Proceedings brought in any court in pursuance of—

      (a) any statutory provision which, in the case of any convention to which Article 57 applies (conventions relating to specific matters which override the general rules in the 1968 Convention), implements the convention; and

      (b) any rule of law so far as it has the effect of implementing any such convention.—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    Schedule 4
      TITLE II OF 1968CONVENTION AS MODIFIED FOR ALLOCATION OF JURISDICTION WITHIN U.K.
      Mr. Dewar: I beg to move amendment No. 26, in page 71, line 39 at end insert—

      'ARTICLE 5B
      A person may be sued in Scotland:

      (a) if any moveable property belonging to him has been arrested there; or

      (b) if he has any beneficial interest in any immovable property situated there.'.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take amendment No. 39, in schedule 8, page 83, line 16, leave out
      `where he is not domiciled in the United Kingdom'.
      Mr. Dewar: I approach this matter with some trepidation. I have not been involved in the earlier stages of the bill. I did not serve on the Standing Committee, although I have read the short debate on these matters. I do not imagine that I shall delay the House for a great length of time, but a number of fairly substantial points have been canvassed in lengthy correspondence between the Solicitor-General for Scotland and his officials and the Law Society of Scotland. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), who bravely raised these issues at an earlier stage, remarked upon terminology which he did not readily appreciate. I have a fellow feeling for him at this moment, although I am thankful for the fact that the initial disputes about actions of forthcoming and multiplepoinding have been disposed of and that we do not have to wrestle with those conundrums on this occasion.
      It is clear that strong feelings are maintained by the Law Society of Scotland on the questions raised in these amendments. I notice that Mr. Robert Brodie, writing for the Scottish Courts Administration to the Law Society of Scotland on 14 May, said:
      "Both the Lord Advocate and the Solicitor-General are very grateful indeed for the time and care devoted by the Society to examining this technical but important Bill."
      It is a disagreement—I would not say a dispute—over some highly technical matters, which has been maintained with great good humour on both sides. I think that the Solicitor-General will appreciate that the arguments were put shortly in Committee—in fact, referred to rather than put—and the matter almost by common consent postponed until the Report stage in the hope that the parties could reach agreement or that one would decide that it was no longer worth while or necessary to maintain its position.
      My understanding is that the Law Society does not take that view. It has made representations not only to myself but to a number of my right hon. and hon. Friends. The amendments were originally put down in the name of the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), who, I know, for good reasons, cannot be present today. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the initiative that he took in tabling the amendments, beating my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West and myself by a short head. We were, however, glad to add our names.
      The most important amendment is the one that would add article 5B to schedule 4. It will mean that a person may be sued in Scotland if any movable property belonging to him has been arrested there or if he has any beneficial interest in any immovable property situated there. I should like to start with (b) and then move to (a). I understand that (a) is the main subject for concern and perhaps the rather more important of the two. I wish to know, in relation to the suggested (b), what is the current situation and what the Government propose. I am conscious of the fact and make no apology for the possibility that I may have got matters wrong. Although trained as a solicitor, I am no expert in civil jurisdiction. I leave these matters to real lawyers and confine myself to other fields.
      I understand that under the Bill it will be possible to found civil jurisdiction in Scotland self-evidently if the potential defender against whom the action is to be raised has a principal domicile in Scotland. In other words, if he owns heritage or a house and lives in that house, jurisdiction can be founded upon that fact. In terms of article 3 in schedule 1 concerning countries within the
      604
      European Economic Community, one can found only if the principal residence is in this country. One cannot found on the fact that a person owns heritage generally if he does not live in it. I hope that that is clear. It is important to make sure that I am arguing basically on the right premise.
      I accept that the Government have made a concession in the sense that for an action that is raised against a national who is not within the EEC against a potential defendant who lives outwith the EEC domain, there has been an extension to the sheriff court of jurisdiction which hitherto lay merely with the Court of Session. That seems to me to be a rational extension. But the important loss to which the Law Society draws attention, and the reason for the amendment, is the situation in which an Englishman does not have his principal residence in Scotland. Let us say that he is a man of style who has a shooting box or a Highland estate but lives in Godalming or darkest Surrey. Presumably he could not found in Scotland a civil action on the basis of the ownership of that heritage. I trust that this reflects the position, but no doubt the Solicitor-General will inform me if I am wrong. It seems to me, and I am supported by the Law Society, that it would be better if a beneficial interest in immovable property situated in Scotland gave a right to found a civil action.
      The real issue in the amendment, which has been very much canvassed, is the arrestment of movables to found jurisdiction. The amendment suggests that if one can arrest movables in Scotland as one can arrest a bank account, one should be able to found jurisdiction on that. That right would survive if the amendment were adopted but will, I understand, die under the terms of the Bill as drafted.
      I hope that the House will allow me to go back to my dim, and I was going to say and almost boyhood, memories, but that cannot be right. I shall say simply my dim memories of instruction in civil law. If my memory is correct, the relevant section is section 6 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1907. I believe that the jurisdiction that we are considering is contained in section 6(c). It says:
      "Where the defender is a person not otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of Scotland, and a ship or vessel of which he is owner or part owner or master, or goods, debts, money, or other movable property belonging to him, have be en arrested within the jurisdiction"
      one can found jurisdiction on that. It is a section with which all hon. Members are familiar because of the romance associated with nailing notices to masts of ships, beloved by the press when it occasionally happens.
      I believe that this survives in some other part of the Act, although I shall not try to trace it. What goes, however, is the other movable property in section 6(c). This is open to serious debate and argument. Perhaps the easiest approach is to take examples. It is always difficult to construct models. I believe, however, that I want an explanation and some exposition from the Solicitor-General of how the system will work.
      Let us suppose that I have bought from an English firm a washing machine which turns out to be seriously defective—so defective that I have, in the law of Scotland, a good action for damages. Let us suppose that I go back to the shop where I bought it only to discover that the shop has closed, but I find that there are movables, say a bank account, that I could arrest. As the law of Scotland stands, I could arrest the money in the bank account and trot along to the sheriff court and raise my action. As the Bill envisages the law, I should presumably have to sue in an

      605
      English court. The Solicitor-General shakes his head. It is a fundamental point. The hon. Gentleman will perhaps inform me if I am wrong.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I should like to deal with this matter in more detail, but part of the savings, and part of the grounds of jurisdiction, in the Bill make specific provision for consumer contracts. In the example that the hon. Gentleman puts forward the situation would, as I see it, be covered by consumer contracts which would enable the consumer to sue in the courts of his own jurisdiction.
      12 noon
      Mr. Dewar: I noticed the provision on consumer conracts in one of the schedules. There is the rather strange concept of a consumer as distinct from a normal pursuer. Article 14 in schedule 4 states:
      "A consumer may bring proceedings against the other party to a contract either in the courts of the part of the United Kingdom in which that party is domiciled or in the courts of the part of the United Kingdom in which he is himself domiciled."
      I assume that that is the Solicitor-General's point. I accept that that may have to be taken into account in the balance of the argument. It is an important point. Ministers argue strongly that there are means of founding, for example, on contract—on the basis of where the contract is made and where it is to be carried out. Therefore, the grounds raised by the Law Society are largely covered. I accept that it may be possible to cover many of the cases. I am not pretending that there are not several innovations—particularly in the schedule to which the Minister referred—which would remove some of the difficulty. Many practitioners in this area have put it to me—not frivolously—that there is a simplicity and usefulness about the arrestment of movables and the founding thereon which will be a distinct loss to practitioners in that part of the law of Scotland.
      The Minister will no doubt argue in the same way as Mr. Brodie argued in a letter to the Law Society on 14 May. It will be argued that there is little danger of the provision being an embarrassment, because the number of actions in sherrif courts based on letters of arrestment is very small. It is suggested that out of 17,761 ordinary actions in 1979, only 54 were based on the issue of letters of arrestment. The figures for 1980 and 1981 are 101 and 69 respectively. Perhaps that puts the dispute in perspective. However, that is always a double-edged weapon, because both sides could give way if the matter were not very important.
      I am sceptical about the figures, because I am not sure whether they relate to actions raised or decrees obtained. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that point. I have been told—it is a carried story, but from a good source—that often actions to do not get as far as decrees. However, the fact that an action can be raised concentrates the mind of the debtor greatly. As a result, the matter is settled before the expense of litigation has been undertaken. Therefore, we are losing a substantial advantage in terms of simple and comprehensive civil jurisdiction in Scotland.
      Let us assume that the law is as the Solicitor-General would wish. Let us also assume that I have decided to raise an action in Manchester as the result of some dispute. Let us further assume that there are movables in Scotland which I would normally have arrested in order to found my
      606
      action, and that I am looking forward—having got my decree—to getting hold of the movables to settle the debt. Clearly, there is a grave danger that the movables in Scotland will move. They have a habit of doing that, particularly in such stress situations.
      Presumably, there must be some machinery to arrest on the dependence of the action in England. It has been suggested, and it seems reasonable, that I would look to clause 27 for that purpose. That clause begins with the following pregnant line:
      "The Court of Session may, in any case to which this subsection applies".
      Therefore, I assume that any action to arrest on the dependence would have to be taken in the Court of Session. No one has more respect than I for the grace of life in that court. However, there are difficulties about litigating in the Court of Session. I refer, for example, to the problems of employing agents and counsel, although they no doubt welcome the opportunity to make a living. However, the procedure is expensive and a little cumbersome. Does the Solicitor-General not accept that there is some value in the argument that if the arrestment on the dependence—often an important part in the process of genuine recovery—must be made in the Court of Session, there will be considerable expense and difficulty?
      If we are to arrest on the dependence, what about the lower limit on Court of Session actions? Presumably there is a bottom line beneath which it is impossible to litigate in the Court of Session. If I am pursuing for £300 or £400 in a county court in England and want to arrest in Scotland, is there any difficulty in going to the Court of Session? Will I be met with the objection that the court is not interested in matters as small as £300 or £400? Will I discover that the arrestment is not possible? The gap may not be very important, but, if it exists, the Minister should deal with it.
      These are matters of some importance and moment. I shall listen carefully to the Solicitor-General's response. I recognise that the Solicitor-General will argue that these jurisdictions are exorbitant and have always been objected to. He will argue that they are incompatible with the scheme set out and that, like it or lump it, the Scots will have to do without it.
      The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised to know that that view does not commend itself to the Law Society of Scotland. For example, a contract might be concluded not in Scotland, but on delivery to a haulier in England. In such circumstances, the arbitrary terms of the contract, or the fact that it has a standard clause saying that it is actionable only under English law, might reduce the apparent comprehensive cover of the provision in the schedule, which gives a jurisdiction based on the law of contract. I refer to article 5(1) as set out in schedule 4.
      There are difficulties and anxieties about the way in which we are removing well-established Scottish procedures. I hope that the Solicitor-General will consider the matter sympathetically. I do not suggest that this is a head-on nationalist case. I do not think that the Law Society imagines that there will be a great rush of litigation in English courts. That would greatly overstate the position. However, there is a feeling that we are not receiving effectual consideration from Ministers.
      Mr. A. J. Spencer-Kennedy said in his letter:
      "We really do no more than acknowledge gratefully the Lord Advocate's explanation of the two provisions"
      That is article 5(1) and clause 25.

      607
      "We accepted that they went some way towards filling the gap left by the abolition of arrestment to found jurisdiction. If our cake is to be taken away we naturally welcome any crumbs that are left behind."
      The point is that they are crumbs that do not properly fill the gap. There will still be difficulties.
      I have said enough to demonstrate the concern that is felt over this matter. I hope that I have not made my case too imperfectly, but I do not have any particular expertise in this field. Despite various references, this is the first opportunity that we have had to debate the subject at any length, because of the difficulties of time, and because negotiations are still in progress.
      The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Pollock)—who is also a member of the Faculty of Advocates and therefore, presumably, a man of skill—made a brief speech. Indeed, in the solicitor's trade, we are always told that such a person is a man of skill. He said that
      "it is important that the Law Officers appreciate that concern is not confined to the Opposition Benches but is shared on the Conservative side … I hope that the Government will have a well-reasoned view to put to the House on Report if they ultimately reject those submissions."—Official Report, Standing Committee B; 9 April, 1982; c. 32–33.
      The hon. Member for Moray and Nairn was broadly taking the same view as the Law Society of Scotland.
      Mr. Brodie seems to have shut the door, presumably acting on behalf of the Minister. In the letter that I have already quoted he said:
      "The re-introduction of the Scottish exorbitant jurisdictions would compel the Government to reconsider the terms of the Bill."
      That is true, because if something is popped into the Bill, that means that its terms have been reconsidered. I am not convinced that it is the wrecking matter that Ministers suggest.
      We are at the end of the Bill's progress. Normally there is a get-out, because both Ministers and the Opposition can promise to reconsider and in another place or at a later stage table further amendments. It is difficult for Ministers to adopt inexpertly drawn amendments. I make no criticism of those who drafted the amendments under discussion. I hope that the Minister will not have a closed mind.
      May I raise one further point? During the debate on new clause 1 the Solicitor-General for Scotland referred to the possibility of orders in connection with specialised jurisdictions. Is there any machinery, apart from further primary legislation, to open the door to meeting some of the points genuinely expressed by the Law Society of Scotland and other Scottish legal interests?
      12.15 pm
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I welcome the opportunity to debate the issues originally raised by the Law Society of Scotland. I fear that, subsequent to the Bill's Committee stage, there has been a misunderstanding of my attitude to what was said in Committee to the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). When I mentioned that it was only during the recess we had received the views of the Law Society for Scotland, I was not criticising. My remarks arose because earlier I had promised to provide those views to Opposition spokesmen as soon as they were available. We did not have an opportunity to debate the views in Committee, and I am happy that we can do so today.
      608
      The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) should go back a stage further. What is important and at the centre of the Bill is that problems are caused by jurisdictions throughout the convention countries continuing to adopt bases for jurisdiction which other jurisdict ions do not recognise. At present, if a country, be it within the United Kingdom or elsewhere, purports to exercise a jurisdiction that is not recognised by other countries, whenever one goes to that other country to attempt to enforce a judgment, it is necessary to look behind that judgment to ensure that the country exercising jurisdiction did so on a proper basis, on grounds which are recognised. The Bill's purpose is to simplify that. If there is a common basis for the exercise of jurisdiction, once the judgment is obtained, enforcement in another jurisdiction becomes much simpler.
      The hon. Member for Garscadden and the Law Society of Scotland appear to recognise that. They say that it is important and desirable, and a valid reform of the law, but that in Scotland there should be a basis for jurisdiction which is convenient and helpful in their daily business. They want an enforcement procedure which is simpler throughout the convention countries but, notwithstanding that, within the United Kingdom they want to keep jurisdiction which is otherwise regarded as exorbitant. That cannot be done between the convention's member States.
      There are three categories—the countries that are within the convention, those that are outwith the convention, and the United Kingdom. It is clear from schedule 1(3) that in no circumstances could this country continue to exercise jurisdiction simply on the basis of the presence within the United Kingdom of property belonging to the defendant or the seizure by the plaintiff of property situated in the United Kingdom. That cannot be done between convention countries because it is specifically excluded.
      In relation to third countries outwith the convention the arrestment opportunity still exists. That is not altered. Another set of circumstances relates to where the jurisdiction applies to Scotland when a Scottish pursuer seeks to have judgment obtained in Scotland enforced outwith Scotland, in another part of the United Kingdom. The Scottish courts have jurisidiction based on the arrestment of movable property, and the Court of Session, but not the sheriff court, has a jurisdiction based on possession an interest in heritable property. Both those bases of jurisdiction, at least in circumstances where the proceedings have no connection with the property in question, would be regarded as exorbitant by most other countries. Paragraphs 13.163 and 13.164 of Lord Maxwell's report made that clear.
      Court of Session judgments based on arrestment to found jurisdiction are at present expressly excluded from enforcement in other parts of the United Kingdom by section 8 of the Judgments Extension Act 1868. Sheriff court judgments would not be so enforced.
      I am surprised that the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West has appended his signature to the amendment. The amendment is designed not simply to maintain the status quo in Scotland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, in supporting the amendment, is saying that effect would have to be given to judgments not recognised in England because of the 1868 Act and enforced elsewhere. That is not preserving the status quo

      609
      but it represents a substantial increase in the number of Scottish arrestments to found jurisdiction as against persons domiciled elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
      Mr. Archer: I am grateful to be given the opportunity of putting on the record that I appended my signature because I thought that it was right for an opportunity to be given for the debate to take place. I was not necessarily asserting any view about the debate.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I could not resist twisting the right hon. and learned Gentleman's tail in some small manner. I recognise that it is important to discuss the matter.
      There are no equivalent rules of jurisdiction in the 1968 convention. Indeed, by article 3 the taking of jurisdiction on such grounds against persons domiciled in another contracting State is prohibited.
      Following the advice of the Maxwell committee, rule 2(8) of schedule 8 has the effect of retaining, and in the case of jurisdiction based on presence on interest in immovable property, of extending to the sheriff court, these jurisdictions as against persons domiciled outwith the rest of the United Kingdom and the EEC.
      In ceasing to apply those grounds of jurisdiction against persons domiciled in other parts of the United Kingdom, we are again following the advice of the Maxwell committee, which considered their use in the United Kingdom context to be exorbitant. It will be appreciated that schedule 4 allocates jurisdiction within the United Kingdom on the basis of rules similar to those contained in the 1968 convention and that the courts of other parts of the United Kingdom are equally giving up certain grounds of jurisdiction that are commonly considered exorbitant as against persons domiciled in Scotland. Thus, it will no longer be possible for a person to be sued in England and Wales simply because a writ has been served on him during his temporary presence there. The ability to present a Scotsman who is climbing the steps of the shuttle to Glasgow with a writ, if that is the only basis on which jurisdiction is taken against him, will no longer exist. That is one of the grounds of jurisdiction in the 1968 convention that is specifically prohibited by article 3.
      The hon. Member for Garscadden used the example of contract. It must be appreciated that although the basis for asserting jurisdiction on arrestment of movables in Scotland would be lost, in many ways the jurisdiction of the Scottish courts is being extended as against persons domiciled in other parts of the United Kingdom. That extension would limit greatly the cases in which the two jurisdictions that are to be lost could be usefully employed.
      Schedule 4 is not simply a matter of domicile. With respect to the hon. Member for Garscadden, he somewhat over-simplified the position. It is not just a matter of exercising jurisdiction on the basis of domicile. In the convention reflected in schedule 4, a number of rules are set out and the hon. Gentleman will see that provision is made for actions grounded on contract or, if I may use the Scottish term, delict or to establish a tortious law. Articles 5(1) and 6 of schedule 4 will give jurisdiction to the Scottish courts in many circumstances where at present there has had to be reliance on arrestment, as will articles 13 and 14 in relation to transactions involving a consumer. The hon. Gentleman will see that that is a wide jurisdiction.
      Mr. Dewar: Perhaps the Minister will define "consumer". In a sense, anyone who buys anything for his own use is a consumer. Obviously a wholesaler buying for resale is not a consumer, but a firm can buy a piece of machinery which it intends to use in its business. Article 14 caught my eye. It has not been debated at great length and I am curious to know how wide is the term "consumer", because it has a lay connotation of any individual who buys anything for his own use.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: If the hon. Gentleman examines article 13, he will find the definition of a consumer. It is very wide. He will also find the definition of "contract" and then he will see what article 14 provides. If anything surprises me about this legislation, it is that there have not been queries about the matter. I doubt whether the Law Society of Scotland would have objected to it, but others might have done so.
      Clause 27 provides for the first time a procedure by which, where a person must be sued in another part of the United Kingdom, his assets in Scotland can be secured. The hon. Gentleman raised that point and drew our attention to the fact that the procedure is operative only in the Court of Session. I am glad to say that it is not just a matter of the faculty mafia having its way yet again. Paragraph 5.241 of Lord Maxwell's report states:
      "Such an application should, we think, be competent in the Court of Session only. This is the only court which is at present competent to grant warrant for inhibition, though the Sheriff Court can also grant warrant for arrestment."
      The hon. Gentleman may be happier with what the report next states:
      "The Court of Session seems the most appropriate to handle cases with a foreign element. We recommend, however, that the application should not require the employment of counsel and that a solicitor anywhere in Scotland should be able to sign it."
      That may give the hon. Gentleman some cause for comfort. The provision is not covered by clause 27. It must be covered by rules of court rather than the Bill, and I can do no more than afford him the hope that it might be included in the rules of court.
      There would be no problem about the lower limit because what is being sought is not an action in the Court of Session but simply a warrant for arrestment. The substantive action is not being considered.
      Therefore, while the practical concerns of the Law Society of Scotland which have led them to propose the amendments are entirely understandable, their acceptance would put in question the entire basis of what is generally agreed to be the useful scheme of allocation of jurisdiction within the United Kingdom set out in schedule 4. For those reasons, the Government will continue to resist them.
      Many of the fears that have been expressed are unnecessary. As the hon. Member for Garscadden is aware from a letter sent by Mr. Brodie to Mr. Riddell, the point was made that in more than 17,000 actions in the sheriff court in 1979 only 54 letters of arrestment were granted. Some of those were probably outwith England or the EEC. Furthermore, of the 54 letters, some would in future be covered by the extensions to the jurisdiction in schedule 4.
      While I appreciate the concern of the Law Society of Scotland, it seems to me that the general scheme of the Bill is desirable. If we were to attempt to accept the amendments, far from maintaining the status quo, we would have to introduce an alteration not only to the law

      611
      of Scotland but to the law of England. Naturally, some Englishmen would consider that undesirable and unacceptable.
      Mr. Dewar: I thank the Solicitor-General for Scotland for his careful reply. There is much common ground between us. I understand that there are difficulties about accepting the amendments, given the Europe-wide framework of the convention which must be accepted or rejected as a whole. The specific exclusions in article 3(b) and (c) of schedule 1 strike specifically at those matters and tie the hands of the Solicitor-General. These matters are worth discussing because they draw attention to the difficulties presented by this sort of legislation. The news in clause 3 that Mr. P. Jenard and Professor Dr. Peter Schlosser are to become institutional writers in Scots law by statute strikes me as being extremely strange. I was unfamiliar with their works and I hope to remain unfamiliar with them. These gentlemen are rather strange bedfellows with the great institutional writers of Scots law.
      I welcome the reassurance that the Solicitor-General for Scotland was able to give about the distinction between the enforcement of a decree—indeed, an arrestment on the dependence of a decree pending another in another court—and the lower limit on initiating actions in the Court of Session. If the hon. Gentleman is right in saying that no difficulty will stem from that distinction—and he uttered soothing words about the possibility of further action in an administrative sense—following the Maxwell recommendation, his reassurance will be helpful.
      12.30 pm
      Article 13 defines a consumer's rights, and I find it interesting. It seems that anyone who buys anything outside his trade or profession and who lives in Scotland can found an application in connection with that purchase in Scotland. That appears to be so on a first reading of the article. That is a wide jurisdiction. It will give rise to some interesting developments. It is sweeping in its terms. I do not necessarily quarrel with that, but I find it rather surprising. It underlines the concern that there will be endless horrors for young lawyers in Scotland who will have to master this measure when it is enacted. The main part of the Bill is set out in only 30 or so pages but there are well over 70 pages of impenetrable schedules. That is always a bad sign in any legislation.
      My doubts and those of the Law Society of Scotland have not been assuaged. There will be some disappointment when it is learnt that the Solicitor-General for Scotland was unable to take a more helpful line. At least we know where we stand, and I do not think that there is any virtue in delaying the House further on these matters. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Schedule 5
      PROCEEDINGS EXCLUDED FROM SCHEDULE 4
      The Solicitor-General: I beg to move amendment No. 27, in page 76, line 29, at end insert—
      PROCEEDINGS EXCLUDED FROM SCHEDULE 4
        'Register of aircraft mortgages
        8. Proceedings for the rectification of the Register of Aircraft Mortgages kept by the Civil Aviation Authority.

        Continental Shelf Act 1964
        9. Proceedings brought in any court in pursuance of an order under section 3 of the Continental Shelf Act 1964.'.
        The amendment is concerned with the allocation of jurisdiction within the United Kingdom. New rules for this purpose are contained in schedule 4. Certain proceedings are for various reasons excluded by schedule 5, leaving the present law to continue to apply to excluded proceedings.
        The amendment adds two categories of proceedings to the list in schedule 5—that is to say, those which are excluded. The first in paragraph 8 is proceedings for the rectification of the register of aircraft mortgages. Such proceedings do not take place every day of the week, but they are important. At present they can be brought in the High Court in England or Northern Ireland, or in the Court of Session in Scotland. If schedule 4 applies, they will have to be brought in England because that is where the register is kept. Article 16(3) gives the English courts exclusive jurisdiction. We see little advantage in depriving Northern Ireland and the Scottish courts of jurisdiction that they have hitherto exercised. Therefore, these proceedings are to be excluded from schedule 4 by the amendment.
        The second category of proceedings concerns acts or omissions taking place on an installation on the continental shelf. Again, these proceedings do not take place every day of the week, but they are of importance when they arise. These proceedings can at present be brought in the courts in the part of the United Kingdom to which the relevant area of the continental shelf belongs. This allocation of jurisdiction seems unexceptionable. However, it is not clear that it may be continued under schedule 4 as article 5 refers only to courts that are part of the United Kingdom, and the continental shelf might not, strictly speaking, be covered. Again, these proceedings are excluded by the amendment.
        Amendment agreed to.

    Schedule 6

      ENFORCEMENT OF U.K. JUDGMENTS (MONEY PROVISIONS)
      Mr. Dewar: I beg to move amendment No. 28 in page 77, line 44, at beginning insert
      'Subject to sub-paragraph (1A) below,'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 29, in page 77, line 47, leave out 'the superior' and insert 'a'.
      No. 30, in page 77, line 48, at end insert—
      '(1A) A certificate issued by a superior court shall be registered in a superior court and a certificate issued by an inferior court shall be registered in an inferior court'.
      No. 31, in page 78, line 3, at end insert—
      "'Inferior court" means in Scotland, a Sheriff Court and in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, any court, other than the High Court, having jurisdiction to hear and determine civil causes'.
      No. 32, in page 78, line 5, leave out 'superior'.
      No. 33, in schedule 7, page 80, line 31, at beginning insert—
      'Subject to sub-paragraph (1A) below,'.
      No. 34, in page 80, line 33, leave out `the superior' and insert 'a'.
      No. 35, in page 80, line 35, at end insert—
      '(1A) A certificate issued by a superior court shall be registered in a superior court and a certificate issued by an inferior court shall be registered in an inferior court.'.
      No. 36, in page 80, line 38, at end insert—

      613
      "Inferior court" means in Scotland, a Sheriff Court, and in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, any court other than the High Court, having jurisdiction to hear and determine civil causes.'.
      No. 37, in page 80, line 47, leave out 'superior'.
      No. 38, in page 81, line 3, leave out 'the superior' and insert 'a'.
      Mr. Dewar: The House may be relieved to know that these amendments can be dealt with considerably more briefly than the previous group. It is common ground that they do not raise matters of principle. They are concerned with administrative convenience and the efficiency of the system.
      I am speaking from a Scottish point of view, although the amendments may have wider implications. Any decree from Scotland but within the rest of the United Kingdom or the EEC must be recorded in Scotland for enforcement. As the Bill is presently drawn, that must be done through the Court of Session. Lawyers in Scotland and the Law Society of Scotland have taken exception to that exclusive right. The amendments would ensure that if the decree is obtained in a superior court, it must come back to the Court of Session, but if it is obtained in an inferior court of whatever country it can return for enforcement to the relevant sheriff court. It is a simple matter. Everyone can make up their minds quickly on the Scottish merits, but the Minister may say that there are wider implications.
      I shall be selfish and deal with the Scottish scene, which I know. We must consider a number of interests. The solicitor's trade is not necessarily the most important, but it must be given due consideration for the efficiency of the system. There is the expense and convenience of those litigating, those who are pursued and those who have a decree and wish to enforce it. It would be more convenient for all parties if the sheriff court, which is sited in the area where the arrest and enforcement will ultimately take place, were used.
      The Minister has previously argued that there is no great inconvenience in centralisation in Edinburgh. There are not that many decrees. The Court of Session has the expertise and it is almost a service to unfortunate country sheriff clerks who may suddenly get a Belgian decree through the post and exclaim "Cripes, what's this?" I am not impressed with such arguments. Under the judgments extension legislation that has operated for about 100 years, sheriff clerks have coped with such problems, which have not given rise to complaint.
      Let us not take anything too outré or unlikely, but assume that a person living in Aberdeen wished to litigate and discovers that the only jurisdiction in which he can found is in England. The defender may carry on business in Manchester. It is not an article 14 consumer action, so there is no possibility of founding on contract. He goes to a solicitor in Aberdeen who instructs a solicitor in Manchester. He, in turn, raises the necessary action in the English courts and gets decree. That is unavoidably complicated. Presumably he sends the decree back to the solicitor in Aberdeen, who sends it to Edinburgh to be checked and recorded in the Court of Session, presumably employing Edinburgh solicitors for the purpose. The documents are ultimately returned to Aberdeen. Assuming that the goods against which diligence is to be done are in Aberdeen, at the end of the long and complicated train, sheriff officers will be unleashed in Aberdeen.
      614
      That is a paper chase. On balance of convenience—I can do nothing to get rid of the Aberdeen, Manchester and back to Scotland trail—let us at least make the process a triangle and not something geometrically more complicated, with documents travelling to and from Edinburgh with the consequent delay and expense.
      I am prepared to listen to arguments about the amendments affecting England and opposition there, but if I were deciding a system for Scotland and looking at the convenience of the legal system there, I have no doubt that I should work on the basis of the amendments, not the Bill. There is a case to be answered. The argument strongly favours my proposal. I hope that at this late stage the hon. Gentleman will consider the amendments sympathetically.
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The amendments would, in effect, retain the existing system for registration of judgments within the United Kingdom as it applies to money judgments, and extend it to non-money judgments, by requiring that judgments originating in an inferior court in one part of the United Kingdom should be registered in another part only in an inferior court. Similarly, superior court judgments could only be registered in the appropriate superior court. The Bill, on the other hand, presently provides for a unified system of registration of judgments through the superior courts.
      As the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said, this is a question not of principle, but rather of what on balance would be the most convenient system. We have taken the view, supported in Scotland by the Maxwell committee—and, it is fair to say, without opposition in any part of the United Kingdom other than that from the Law Society of Scotland—that, on balance, the advantages of a unified system of registration through the superior courts are decisive.
      Judgments under the 1968 convention—other than maintenance judgments, for which there is a special regime—will, whatever their origin, be registered in the superior courts. That is required under article 32, as the hon. Member will be aware. Foreign judgments for enforcement under the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933, which in future will have the possibility of being judgments of inferior courts, are already enforced by registration in the superior court.
      Further, within the United Kingdom there is being introduced for the first time a system of registration of non-money judgments which may well give rise to more complex problems than do money judgments. For money judgments, a very simple registration procedure is envisaged which could be operated directly by solicitors or by the parties, so that there would be no substantial inconvenience in having to deal with a superior court rather than a local court.
      If the hon. Gentleman remains concerned about the matter, I invite him to study what the Maxwell committee said in paragraphs 15.63 to 15.66. He will see spelt out an extremely simple procedure for the registration of judgments. As envisaged there, it would not involve an elaborate procedure of passing the judgments necessarily through to an Edinburgh solicitor or to counsel before it could be done. It is very simple and straightforward. The real complication might arise with non-money judgments. I think that the hon. Gentleman would recognise that in those circumstances simply to translate what the English court says into Scottish legal jargon might be desirable. It

      615
      would be useful to have a centre of expertise in translating some of the more obscure terms of English law into the clarity of thought that is part of the Scottish legal system.
      Finally, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, comparatively few judgments, whether from other parts of the United Kingdom or from outwith the United Kingdom, are sought to be registered. In 1979, for example, the sheriff courts dealt with only 91 applications relating to the Inferior Courts Judgments Extension Act 1982. That total includes judgments from other parts of the United Kingdom received for registration and Scottish judgments sought to be enforced elsewhere in the United Kingdom. It seems desirable in the circumstances, both on grounds of efficiency and as being most helpful to applicants, to concentrate expertise in the registration of all foreign judgments in one place.
      The Government's view is that the provisions of the Bill, as it stands, are to be preferred to those contained in the amendments.
      Mr. Dewar: I had not expected any other answer from a well-briefed Minister, but the hon. Gentleman put it across, as always, with delicacy, and softened the blow as best he could. I hope that he will look sympathetically at any administrative rules covering the recommendations of the Maxwell committee, because there is a danger, despite the good will at his level, that the matter could become a little over-complicated and fouled up with administration.
      I hold to my point and the Minister holds to his, but he is the Minister. The best that I can do in the circumstances, with what good order I can manage, is to leave others to judge the arguments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

    Schedule 11

      CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      12.45 pm
      The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move amendment No. 40, in page 96, line 16, after 'and', insert `aliment'.
      This amendment corrects an error in the amendment to section 15(1)(b) of the Maintenance Orders Act 1950, which is made by paragraph 2 of part II of schedule 11. It is purely formal.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Schedule 12
      COMMENCEMENT, TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS
      Amendment made: No. 41, in page 101, line 15, at end insert—
      COMMENCEMENT, TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS

        'Section 26
        The power conferred by section 26 shall not be exercisable in relation to property arrested before the commencement of that section or in relation to bail or other security given—

        (a) before the commencement of that section to prevent the arrest of property; or

        (b) to obtain the release of property arrested before the commencement of that section; or

        (c) in substitution (whether directly or indirectly) for security given as mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b).'.—The Solicitor-General

        The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Michael Jopling): I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Bill, has consented to place her Prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
        Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
        Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

  Civil Aviation Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  12.46 pm
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Ian Percival): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This is a pure consolidation measure, bringing together in one Bill the law relating to the Civil Aviation Authority, aerodromes, regulations on civil aviation, and the law governing aircraft. It does not change the law. We are grateful, as always, to the Joint Committee, which has considered the Bill in detail on our behalf and is satisfied that the Bill represents the existing law. It is a useful consolidation measure. I commend it to the House.
  Mr. Peter Archer: I shall not delay the House. In two sentences I can say that we share the feelings of gratitude which the Government have expressed to the Joint Committee and its Chairman. Certainly nothing will be done by the Opposition in any way to discourage the Government from bringing forward measures of consolidation on law reform.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—Mr. Gummer.
  Bill immediately considered in Committee; reported, without amendment.
  Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

  Business of the House
  Mr. Michael English: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Item 26 on the Order Paper is not Government business. It is starred on the Order Paper as if it were. It is private Members' business, and this is a day when Government business takes precedence but has no absolute right. If the Government do not wish to move the items up to No. 25 on the Order Paper that is their business. I am glad to see that the Government Chief Whip is in his place. I should like to ask him whether he would give the Queen's Consent to the Second Reading of the Succession to the Crown Bill.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Ernest Armstrong): I understand that leaving the star off against item No. 4 is a printer's error. I am informed that it is Government business.
  Mr. English: The Succession to the Crown Bill is not Government business. It is my business. It is a Private Member's Bill. I am pointing out that there has been an error—that it has a star, but that it is not Government business.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That may be, but the hon. Gentleman cannot move his motion now.
  Mr. English: It is only that Government business has precedence. If the Government do not wish to take any matter up to item 25 on the Order Paper, that is their privilege, but it is well before the time for unopposed business. I wish to move the Second Reading of my Bill, and there is a Privy Councillor here who is able to give the necessary Queen's Consent.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not willing to accept the hon. Gentleman's motion.

  Patent Office
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Gummer.]
  12.50 pm
  Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Orpington is full of inventive geniuses and small businesses. It is also the home of the printing, publishing and sales departments of the Patent Office. I need no excuse to draw attention to the need to ease ministerial inhibitions on the Patent Office so that it can improve the service that British trade, industry and inventors require from it.
  I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister for Consumer Affairs to the oversight of the Patent Office. I am pleased that it is now the responsibility of a Minister of State, though I regret that the debate has been forced on my hon. Friend so early in his tenure of office. It follows parliamentary questions that I put to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade on 1 February and 3 March this year.
  The Minister will be aware that, in return for the payment of fees, the Patent Office provides three basic services: the granting of patents, the registration of trade marks and the registration of designs. I am concerned about all three services and especially about the effect of their shortcomings on small businesses, but in the short time available to me I intend to concentrate on the administration of the patent system.
  The system was devised centuries ago to encourage, by granting freedom from competition for a limited period, the making and disclosures of inventions, the development of inventions and their introduction to the market as new products and processes. In other words, the system is calculated to encourage both primary and secondary innovation.
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recognised, in a speech to the parliamentary and scientific committee on 25 February 1981, that we had a long way to go before we would be giving proper recognition to our inventors. She said that scientific excellence is admirable, as are engineering competence and technological capability, the successful formation of new businesses and the creation of wealth. But, said my right hon. Friend, most to be admired are those rare, gifted persons who can do all of those things.
  My right hon. Friend said that underlying many of the difficulties facing our innovators is the supercilious and dangerous attitude that some sections of society display towards engineers and entrepreneurs. She added:
  "The only long-term solutions to the distressing level of unemployment which this country now faces are more products which will sell and more business. We need more firms of every kind; some will result from larger organisations adapting themselves to an increasingly competitive world; some will be small firms providing new services, or old services in a new way; and above all some will be new technology-based firms.
  That the new technologies will create new jobs, millions of jobs, there is no doubt. What I am doubtful about is whether we in the United Kingdom will have our proper share. It is my purpose to see that we do and we should. We have the skills and the inventiveness. The Government's job is to do all that it can to make the necessary changes easier to bring about.
  We must develop in those in Government service respect for the risk-taking businessman so that I hear fewer complaints about cumbersome procedures, masses of paper and a lack of urgency when firms try to obtain development planning permission, try to register a company or seek help with a research and development project."
  620
  In wanting fewer complaints about a lack of a sense of urgency when a firm tries to register a company or develop an idea, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister might have exemplified the delays and other difficulties encountered in trying to register a patent or a trade mark. There are bottlenecks at the examination stage and also at the stage of printing the patent to be granted.
  The recently published annual report of the Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks for 1981 said that 29,556 applications were awaiting full examination at the end of the year—an increase of 2,322 on the previous year. The Rayner report on the Patent Office, a copy of which the Minister's predecessor was good enough to place in the Library at my request, notes, at page 18, that the possible backlog of patent examination in 1984—continuing the current rate of accumulation of arrears—is estimated at 2½ years' work at current levels of manpower and output. The New Scientist on 29 April 1981 said that the output of a patent examiner, which used to be an average of two and a half reviews of applications per week, has dropped to two and that the Patent Office has been forced to extend the maximum pending period for a patent application from 3½ years to 4½ years. This examination, the so-called substantive examination, does not normally take place until after 18 months have gone by after the application was filed and early publication of its specification has taken place. The backlog of patents awaiting printing and granting is believed to be more than 14,000. With only 500 to 600 being granted each week, the backlog must necessarily take a very long time to be overhauled unless more printing capacity is brought into play.
  I am well aware that there are ad hoc arrangements for taking the proven most urgent cases out of turn for grant but that is only a palliative—a sort of first aid directed at the problem—and is no substitute for a speed-up in granting all cases, including those which are only moderately urgent, as soon as they are in order for grant.
  Without grant, money-raising is inhibited, as is the licensing or sale of a patent and the assertion that patent rights exist. All this is very frustrating for inventors and damaging for the national economy.
  The House is, of course, well aware of the manpower constraints under which the Patent Office, in common with other Government offices, has been operating. The Comptroller-General, in his report for 1980, said that
  "persistent undermanning had impaired the efficiency of the Office."
  In his report for 1981, he states again that shortage of staff has caused problems, with consequential increases in arrears of work. He says that at the end of 1981 the approved complement was 1,392 but that the actual number in post was more than 40 fewer. I should like to know from the Minister where those vacancies exist. This is a shortage which presumably is due more to recruitment problems than to ministerial restraints or financial constraints and, if there are any vacancies at the Orpington office, I hope they will be filled quickly from local applicants.
  The fee-earning services of the Patent Office are required to break even each year and appear actually to make large surpluses, totalling, according to my calculations, £13½ million in the last six years. The provision of adequate staff to carry out the services required by the clientele of the Patent Office is not therefore something which causes a net increase in

  621
  Government expenditure. On the contrary, this revenue-earning service should be encouraged to earn more revenue.
  No one can sensibly quarrel with the general Government policy to reduce the total size of the Civil Service, so as to reduce the total claim which the central Administration makes on the country's resources. However, it is wrong to reduce manpower to the serious detriment of services where the public interest is served and the consumers need it and are willing to pay for it.
  An example of such a service in relation to the Patent Office would be the maintenance of a collection of English translations of those European patents—United Kingdom—granted in foreign tongues. Many patents originating in other European countries and granted to cover this country, and perhaps other European countries, dominate the activities of traders and industrialists here. A central holding of those granted in their own language, translated into English, is a good example of a service which is better done centrally than peripherally. It would put an end to the wasteful exercise of each interested company having to make its own translation. Many patent agents are able to cope with French or German, but that does not apply to the majority of patent searchers.
  The Minister ought to have the staff available to carry out this useful and highly beneficial exercise. All he has to do is to call in such translations from the patent owners abroad. I am sure that he accepts the desirability of requiring such translations. The necessary machinery is in sections 77 and 78 of the Patents Act 1977, waiting to be triggered as soon as the handful of clerical staff needed to administer the scheme can be assembled.
  The Minister's predecessor, in his written answer to me of 1 February, said that he was satisfied that steady progress was being made towards modernising the Patent Office and increasing its effectiveness. I hope that the Patent Office will soon be able to slot in the holding of translations of foreign language European patents supplied by their foreign owners as a result of these improvements to its procedures.
  In this connection I should like to see a wider range of indices of the efficiency of the Patent Office included each year in the annual report. Examples would be the average number of patent applications reviewed by an examiner each week, the average delay before substantive examination takes place, the average delay between an application being found to be in order and the patent being printed and granted, the number of non-standard letters issued each week—put at one per examiner in 1979 by the Rayner team—and the average number of patent specifications printed each week now that there are two streams going through under the new law.
  The written answer of my hon. Friend's predecessor also referred to further computerisation of Patent Office operations. Future capital investment within the Patent Office is a matter of concern, with surpluses on current account being siphoned off into the Treasury each year. This operates like a tax on inventors. Such surpluses seem likely to be the rule so long as the financial objective is to break even in every 12-month period. The Rayner report referred to manifest difficulties being experienced in operating the Patent Office within the present public expenditure framework. It wanted to see capital reserves built up.
  622
  Has the Minister any proposals to lay before the House in furtherance of that recommendation? In particular, has he any proposals under which the financial objective would revert to that which seemed to work very well some years ago—namely, a break-even taking one year with another in four-year cycles?
  I referred to the statutory publications of the Patent Office—the annual reports of the Comptroller—General. I now wish to touch on another—the reports of patent and other cases decided by the comptroller or by any court or body, being cases which the comptroller considers to be generally useful or important. I am told that some decided cases of importance to practitioners are not appearing in the reports, or are not reported as soon as might be desired. Some are not placed promptly in the open-access boxes in the Patent Office library, or, to give it its proper name, the Science Reference Library. That library is, of course, the concern of the Department of Education and Science and the Patent Office is, perhaps unfairly, criticised for delays in handing over to the library judgments of topical concern to patent agents and the patent Bar.
  This leads me to the dissatisfaction which is often expressed with the working of court procedures for litigating patent disputes. The present procedure appears to be complex, unwieldy, time-consuming, expensive and unpredictable. With the opportunities for forum shopping that will be presented after the enactment of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Bill, to which the House gave Third Reading a few minutes ago, and the ratification of the European convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments which will presumably soon follow, some parties to patent litigation may choose to litigate abroad rather than here, to the disadvantage of British industry.
  I hope that we shall soon have a new body to keep civil procedure under review, in accordance with the report of the Law Commission for 1980–81 and the recommendations of the Review Body on the Chancery Division of the High Court, chaired by Lord Justice Oliver, which were published in Cmnd. 8205. The Lord Chancellor has indicated the Government's acceptance of the recommendations of the review body. For the patent system, we need reforms which are probably beyond the scope of the existing patents procedure committee, as this sits infrequently and is concerned mainly with minor adjustments.
  Returning nearer home, can the Minister say anything about the implementation of the Rayner recommendations relating to the printing, publishing and sales branches of the Patent Office in my constituency, to whose management and staff Rayner paid well-deserved tribute? I should be interested to learn of any progress with the Property Services Agency on smoothing the work flow by changing the physical arrangements at the Orpington office.
  I could go on about room for improvements in the patent system at greater length.
  As there is a little more time available, I should perhaps mention some additional matters. There is, for example, the tighter wording of the strict time limits imposed by the 1977 Act which have caused hardship to some applicants. There is also the need for wider cross-indexing and fuller classification of patents to enable industry to locate the patents that it has to avoid or those which contain wanted new information. There is also the need to remedy the

  623
  failure to correct past errors in the cross-indexing of the names of all joint inventions in cases where they were indexed under the name of the first of the joint owners.
  I welcome the reorganisation that I believe is now in train in the trade marks registry. This will strengthen the Government's case for the Community's trade marks office to be located in London. In sum, the Patent Office does a very good and worthwhile job for the country. I hope that the Minister will help it to do even better.
  1.11 pm
  The Minister for Consumer Affairs (Dr. Gerard Vaughan): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) for his kind remarks. This is a matter in which I am glad to be involved. If we did not already fully recognise the extent of inventive genius in Orpington, we certainly do so now. I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing the whole of this matter before the House. It is opportune at a time when we are hoping to negotiate to bring the European Community trade marks office to London. That would be a great asset.
  I share my hon. Friend's view that we should give greater recognition to our inventors and inventions. We are fortunate in this country in the way in which we develop inventive skills. I find that this is one of the major reasons why so many overseas companies are anxious to open laboratories and factories here. We have the precious capacity to develop high technology and to train technical workers in our laboratories. It is not surprising that other countries should want to tap that.
  I agree also that we need to develop more opportunities for people here not only to invent but to have good, sensible access to other people's inventions as quickly as possible. It would be tragic and damaging to our business if we allowed delays to hold up development of new techniques when they become available. That is one reason why I am so glad to be discussing this subject with my hon. Friend today.
  I welcome the constructive comments of my hon. Friend. The Patent Office was reviewed in 1980 by a team under Sir Derek Rayner as part of the Government's general review of the efficiency of the Civil Service. The review found, as we would have expected, that the professional capacity and knowledge of the staff were very high and that the office enjoyed a very good standing both in this country and abroad. But the review also commented on the severe backlog in processing patents and trade marks and on the increasing cost of the work of the office. My hon. Friend is right. This is a matter for serious concern. As a Minister new to this work, it is something that I shall follow up to see whether I can do more to help.
  A number of measures have already been taken to tackle these problems. Others will follow over the next few years. For example, I am now able to report that the office is dealing promptly with all requests for searches that it receives and that it is steadily reducing the backlog of requests for a full examination. The backlog was reduced from over 30,000 at the end of October 1981 to 27,470 at the end of April 1982. That is still a very large number outstanding, but there has at last been some reduction.
  The office has streamlined its procedures for granting and publishing new Act patents and the output of publications has increased from 36,000 in 1977 to 51,000 in 1981. The backlog of new Act grants should be cleared by early next year. Therefore, there are signs of progress, even if they are not enough. The office hopes to be able
  624
  to cut future publication costs by about £1·5 million per annum from a present total of £5·5 million, so again there is an improvement.
  The position on patents is improving steadily, but that on trade marks is not so happy. The office has increased the number of examinations and registrations affected, but there is still a serious backlog, which we cannot deny. However, changes are under way. A new structure has been proposed for the branch and, together with other changes being planned, that should go a long way towards solving the branch's problems.
  The various changes require extensive consultation, not least with the office's customers. The standing advisory committees on patents and trade marks have played, and continue to play, a constructive part. I am deeply indebted to them for their valuable contribution. However, such consultations take time, although we are doing everything possible to speed them up.
  My hon Friend asked several detailed questions. I appreciate that it is essential to have sufficient staff for the job. He asked me how there could have been 40 recent vacancies when we recognise the need to get on with the work. On 1 April 1981 the number of approved staff was 1,392. The approved figure for 1 April 1982 is 1,340. Therefore, the 40 apparently unfilled posts were the result of phasing out. I assure my hon. Friend that posts were not being left unfilled.
  My hon. Friend asked about the Orpington office. I understand that eight posts seem to be unfilled. Those posts are presently occupied by those in posts in other parts of the Department. Therefore, we are discussing not unfilled posts, but posts that are presently being used in another part of the service. They are all part of the same service, but they are in a different location. Later we expect to transfer those posts—but not the holders—to the Orpington branch.
  My hon. Friend was correct to say that each year the Office has made a profit. That profit goes to the Treasury. That is the present arrangement. Under the present cash limit system, it is not proposed to change it.
  My hon. Friend was also right to talk about translations and to ask whether a central system would be an improvement. Several industries have told us that there are problems and have suggested that we should use the legal provision in the 1977 Act to provide a central register.
  We do not have any hard evidence of difficulties. The Science Reference Library, to which my hon. Friend referred in another context, provides a service for industry, but I understand that demand is low. There is certainly no pressure for the service to be expanded. If my hon. Friend has evidence of a need, I shall be glad to receive it. To operate such a scheme centrally would require at least 10 extra staff, and about 25,000 files would have to be laid open to inspection. Unless the need is greater than we believe it to be, surely our staff are better used in reducing the backlog.
  My hon. Friend asked about capital investment. He is correct in what he said. We are consulting, but it is not a major problem at present. It will become a problem with the change to the new computer system. We shall examine the issue when that happens.
  We do not think it necessary to set up a trading fund. Concentrating on the implementation of the various recommendations by the Rayner Committee on improving efficiency should be the first priority.

  625
  Questions about court proceedings are for the Lord Chancellor.
  My hon. Friend asked about the printing, publishing and sales branch at Orpington. We are moving steadily through a four-year programme of implementing the Rayner recommendations. We are not at the stage of examining that part of the work. Perhaps we shall never have to make changes at the Orpington branch office, but if it is necessary it will occur much later in the programme. I ask my hon. Friend to reassure the staff. I shall keep in touch with him when necessary.
  There is no doubt that the office has been going through a difficult period. I am confident that it is winning the battle. As a result of the impetus of the Rayner review and the good working relationship between the Patent Office and its customers, in the next few years we can hope for the emergence of a modern and streamlined organisation well able to cope in an efficient and cost-effective way with the demands made upon it.
  It has been important to discuss this matter, and, I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing the subject before the House.

  Motor Cars (Personal Importation)
  1.23 pm
  Mr. Den Dover: It gives me great pleasure to raise a subject of major importance to many of my constituents, motor dealers and manufacturers here in Europe and elsewhere. I refer to the personal importation of motor cars.
  In the last few months there has been much publicity about the route by which individuals can, instead of living abroad and bringing in a car according to the intention of the 1978 exemption, take a day or two's holiday, buy a vehicle in Europe and bring it to this country. It is possible to dodge the requirement to meet certain national standards for construction, design and safety. Many questions have arisen in the past few months and I wish to air some of them with the Minister. Many of them will be of interest to European Ministers and the Department of Transport, and I make no apology for raising them.
  The only long-term solution is for manufacturing costs and selling prices in the United Kingdom to come down to the levels in Europe and elsewhere. However, during the past few years there have been many imports from Japan and other countries because British prices are so much higher—perhaps £1,000 on a smaller vehicle and £3,000 or £4,000 on a prestige vehicle. Those price differentials have led people to seek a way of overcoming them in their own interests.
  I shall not criticise the work of authorised dealers or manufacturers in the United Kingdom, who have tried to do what is best for the consumer, but there are people who will take every opportunity to bring in a vehicle that meets the approval regulations much more cheaply than they could buy it here. The loophole by which people are exempt from the national type approvals laid down in 1978 should be examined closely to see whether we are complying with the needs of the European Community in terms of our pricing, whether there is fair competition or whether we should impose a restriction to make it available only to those who are resident outside Britain and who are returning here. There was once a 12-month restriction.
  There have been major scare stories that if the prices come down British dealers will be squeezed out and that manufacturers must make hundreds of thousands of workers redundant, but I do not believe them. If we can successfully export British cars to Europe and elsewhere, we can compete in world markets and reduce our domestic prices. I hope that my hon. Friend will reply to some of my points and assure the House that he will raise the matter with his colleagues on both the trade and the European aspects.
  1.27 pm
  The Minister for Consumer Affairs (Dr. Gerard Vaughan): The House will appreciate that we are discussing this matter at short notice, but my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) is right. He has brought to the attention of the House a matter of considerable interest. I have received many letters on the subject from people who are worried that a loophole is being exploited in a way that will damage the British car industry, or from those who believe that it is irregular that there should be such a difference in price between the same

  627
  car bought here or bought overseas and imported here. There was much worry that the Government were proposing to make immediate changes to stop it.
  I assure my hon. Friend that we have no major changes in mind. We see it as part of the normal trading competition within industry and as something that industry should deal with in the first instance. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport commissioned a review on the arrangements for the personal import of cars. As a result of that, he said:
  "There has been concern that the Government intend to restrict the current arrangements under which people importing a car which they have used abroad are exempt from our national type approval checks. The Government will not consider any changes to the terms of that exemption until and unless arrangements are in place to ensure that type approval information is readily available to individuals and independent dealers and until I am entirely satisfied that their operation does not impede the purchaser's choice of supply. But in the
  628
  meanwhile there will be no changes. My officials are, therefore, approaching the manufacturers and their accredited dealers to discuss how individual purchasers and independent dealers can be given prompt and ready access to the type approval information they need, and to which they have a right in international trading law. Once that information is generally available, it will be more convenient for purchasers to register individually imported cars in the normal way—that is, showing compliance with type approval—leaving the personal import exemption to people genuinely making a change of residence for whom it was provided."
  This subject has been raised in the House at rather short notice. I understand entirely my hon. Friend's reasons for doing so and I recognise the importance of the issue. He will have the opportunity of reading in Hansard the statement to which I have referred. If he wishes to put any questions to me subsequently, I shall be glad to receive them.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at half-past One o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER
  Computers
  Computers
  Cabinet Office
  Cabinet Office
  Security and Intelligence Service
  Security and Intelligence Service
  French Prime Minister (Talks)
  French Prime Minister (Talks)
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Nursery Education
  Nursery Education
  Wigston Schools
  Wigston Schools
  University Grants
  University Grants
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Mr. David Fingleton
  Mr. David Fingleton
DEFENCE
  Task Force (Satellite Communications)
  Task Force (Satellite Communications)
  Falkland Islands (Journalists)
  Falkland Islands (Journalists)
  Winnin Decoy System
  Winnin Decoy System
ENERGY
  Alternative Energy Strategy
  Alternative Energy Strategy
  Severn Barrage
  Severn Barrage
  Renewable Energy Sources
  Renewable Energy Sources
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Magistrates' Courts (Enforcement of Fines)
  Magistrates' Courts (Enforcement of Fines)
  Horserace Totalisator Board
  Horserace Totalisator Board
  Foreign-born Husbands
  Foreign-born Husbands
  Illegal Immigrants
  Illegal Immigrants
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Select Committees
  Select Committees
TRADE
  European Community (Air Services)
  European Community (Air Services)
  Balance of Trade
  Balance of Trade
ENVIRONMENT
  Grants to District Councils
  Grants to District Councils
  Industrialised Buildings
  Industrialised Buildings
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Law of the Sea Treaty
  Law of the Sea Treaty
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Council of Ministers
  Council of Ministers
SCOTLAND
  Bottle Banks
  Bottle Banks
  Health Boards
  Health Boards
  Crime Statistics
  Crime Statistics
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Agricultural Produce
  Agricultural Produce
  Farm Incomes (Sheep)
  Farm Incomes (Sheep)
  Beef Herd
  Beef Herd
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  Beef Premium
  Beef Premium
  Intervention Board (Disposal Policy)
  Intervention Board (Disposal Policy)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Aviation Gasoline
  Aviation Gasoline
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  European Community Budget
  European Community Budget
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
EMPLOYMENT
  Apprentices
  Apprentices
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Youth Opportunities Programme
  Unemployment Statistics
  Unemployment Statistics
  Redundancy Payments
  Redundancy Payments
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Christmas Bonus
  Christmas Bonus
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Glue Sniffing
  Glue Sniffing
  Valium and Librium
  Valium and Librium
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Sheffield
  Sheffield
  Family Expenditure
  Family Expenditure
INDUSTRY
  Recycled Materials
  Recycled Materials
  Synthetic Fibres
  Synthetic Fibres

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

Shipbuilding Industry: Trading Loss
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the British shipbuilding industry has reduced its trading loss in the past year.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, the accounts for 1981–82 are currently being prepared, but on British Shipbuilders' present estimates their trading loss for that year will be within their loss target of £25 million which is well below their trading loss of £41 million for 1980–81.
Lord Gainford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer. Does he have any information on the orders received by companies that build smaller vessels and on whether those orders are enabling those companies to break even, even if they are not showing an actual profit?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, British Shipbuilders, in order to get Intervention Fund assistance, are required to give the Department of Industry an assurance in respect of each order that the order is being taken at break even. Financial assistance in respect of individual contracts is available to all shipbuilders in the United Kingdom, in both the private and the public sectors.

Namibia: Independence Negotiations
11.7 a.m.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will report on the condition of the negotiations for the independence of Namibia.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, Foreign Ministers of the Five met in Luxembourg on Monday, 17th May, to review their continuing efforts to achieve an early settlement of the Namibia problem in accordance with Security Council Resolution 435.
With permission I shall circulate the text of their communique in the Official Report.
Following is the communique referred to:
NAMIBIA: COMMUNIQUÈ ISSUED BY FOREIGN MINISTERS OF THE FIVE, LUXEMBOURG, 17 MAY 1982
The Foreign Ministers of Canada, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, the UK and the USA met in Luxembourg on 17 May 1982 to pursue their efforts to achieve an early settlement of the problem of Namibia in accordance with Security Council Resolution 435.
The Ministers noted the replies received from the parties concerned to the Five's proposal for constitutional principles for the Namibian constituent assembly. In the light of these replies, Ministers instructed their officials to accelerate the resolution of outstanding issues with a view to maintaining their target of beginning implementation of UNSCR 435 during 1982. They expect soon to present proposals to the parties concerned notably on impartiality and UNTAG.
They stressed the need for positive and flexible responses to these proposals when they are presented, in order to achieve early implementation of UNSCR 435.
The Ministers agreed to keep under review additional negotiating mechanisms which might prove useful as matters develop.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, I am really asking for a little more information. Is it not the case that agreement has been reached on four points: the cease-fire; the withdrawal of forces to their bases; a United Nations Transitional Assurance Group; and the release of political prisoners and the return of refugees? Is it not the case that the disagreement now concerns the electoral system by which there will be a double vote—one direct to individuals and the other by proportional representation?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has said; namely, that disagreement rests at the moment upon the electoral system and that of course SWAPO have not accepted the proposals which at the moment have been put forward. But there is also a need for the Five to put proposals forward on impartiality and on the United Nations Transitional Assistance Group. The Five expect soon to present these proposals.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, to what extent does the noble Lord regard the disagreement over a system of election as a serious obstacle? Is not this something which should be resolved fairly quickly? As I recall, the noble Earl, Lord Avon, when he replied to a debate on this matter on, I think, 17th March, indicated that it might be possible to make some reasonable progress on this very question. It seems most unfortunate that this very important problem should go unresolved, when it is a matter upon which it should be possible to come to an agreement. Secondly, it was hoped at one stage that free elections would take place on 1st March 1983. Do Her Majesty's Government think that this is still a possibility?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the question of the electoral system is still under active consideration by the Five in the light of comments received, including the comments of the Front Line States' Foreign Ministers' Communiqué which was made in Dar es Salaam on 4th May. I cannot at this stage forecast the outcome, but I should like to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, by saying that the Five do not foresee a breakdown of negotiations on this point.

877
So far as making further progress is concerned, we believe that the parties wish the Five to continue their efforts, and we hope that all the parties will recognise the need for a positive response in order to achieve early implementation of Security Council Resolution 435 when the proposals are presented to the parties shortly.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, is not the problem here really the same as the problem with the Falkland Islands? SWAPO, like the Argentine, however much we dress up the terms, require a guarantee that will result in SWAPO's sovereignty, and that they could not obtain by any fair means.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, there is a similarity in that there is a resolution of the Security Council. I hope that in this case, as in the other, the Security Council resolution will be carried out.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, are the Government prepared to give earnest reconsideration to the electoral proposals? Are they not very complex—involving long lists of names—to Africans, many of whom are illiterate? Is not the only place where this is in operation West Germany, which knows something about it from long training, but everywhere else there is no knowledge of this complicated system at all?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think that the thing to do now is to wait for the proposals which the Five expect to present soon to the parties concerned, and to see what is the response of the parties concerned.

Falkland Islands Dispute: Civilian Workforce' Response
11.13 a.m.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will express their approbation of the response of the civilian workforce in assisting in the preparation of the naval task force following the aggression against the Falkland Islands.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for giving me the opportunity to express the appreciation of Her Majesty's Government for the magnificent support given by the civilian workforce in the present crisis. Throughout the Ministry of Defence the response was immediate and effective, with significant numbers of both industrial and non-industrial employees working long hours and shift duties to prepare the task force for deployment to the South Atlantic. Civilian employees continue to make a sustained and significant contribution in support of the military operations and a number are serving with the task force in Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels and on Ascension Island.
Lord Morris: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for
878
that most gracious reply. Is he aware that there are so many in this country who would rejoice in a Government capable of being imaginative, in the right way and at the right time, by honouring, acclaiming and recognising the dockers, the welders, the humpers, the warehousemen—the ordinary man, and not necessarily his so-called leaders—whose quiet determination has earned for us in these trying times the admiration of the whole world?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I appreciate my noble friend's remarks. Perhaps I may say that, in addition to the staff employed in the naval areas of the department, other civilians at Army and RAF establishments and also staff at headquarters divisions have responded magnificently to the additional demands made upon them.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is it not also true that a good number of the civilians, to whom very just tribute has been paid, had redundancy notices in their pockets at the time that their services were called upon?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, indeed some did. The issue of redundancy notices at Chatham and Portsmouth was recently postponed for the immediate future to enable us to take stock of the effects of the Falklands crisis.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, would my noble friend also agree that the wives and mothers of the men of the task force and those who made it possible should also have tribute paid to them?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, of course I warmly agree with my noble friend Lady Faithfull.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, would the noble Earl also associate the men of the Merchant Navy with his remarks?
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, if I did not include them in the earlier ones, I certainly do now.

Mr. Ian MacGregor: Remuneration
11.15 a.m.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will state the amount paid or payable to Lazard Fréres of New York in respect of the services of Mr. Ian MacGregor to the British Steel Corporation during the year ended 30th June 1981, the criteria established for its determination, and the agreed method of computation finally used.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Viscount Trenchard): My Lords, an initial payment of £675,000 was made on 1st July 1980 to cover the three-year period agreed for Mr. MacGregor's tenure

879
as chairman of the British Steel Corporation. That payment would be refundable in part if Mr. MacGregor were not to complete his full term in post. Two further payments will be made, totalling between nil and £1·15 million depending on the performance of the corporation under Mr. MacGregor. But these two payments do not fall to be assessed or made until mid-1984 and mid-1985. A document setting out the details of the various payments, and the criteria by which those related to performance will be assessed, was placed in the Library of the House on 15th April 1981.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, while thanking the noble Viscount for that reply, may I ask whether he will confirm that the criteria against which some judgment will be formed as to whether Lazard Fréres should receive nothing or £1é15 million remain precisely the same as those that were stated by his right honourable friend the then Secretary of State in the debate on 15th May 1980? Is he aware that in the Financial Times of yesterday there appeared the statement:
"the performance fee to be paid to Lazard Frères in New York at the end of the chairman's contract next year will depend, inter alia, on progress in hiving off segments of BSC to the private sector"?
Is the noble Viscount aware that that was not one of the criteria that were originally set out by his right honourable friend? Will he confirm that this is not part of the criteria against which Mr. Ian MacGregor will be required to work?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, the noble Lord remembers well those times, as I do, because on 14th May 1980 we had quite a long debate on this subject. The criteria—and they have not been changed—are those which were issued on the date that I mentioned, 15th April 1981. The noble Lord should refresh his memory on them because heading No. III is "Privatisation". That is one of the four criteria which the committee will judge and in that respect the article in the Financial Times is correct. Not having read the full article, I cannot answer exactly, but if he will read criteria III again in the document, which is still in the Library, I think that his memory will be refreshed.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the information that he has just given is information that has been on the record for a very long time? The supposed new criteria, which the supplementary question mentioned, would seem to flow naturally from the terms that were laid down in the White Paper that was issued at least two years ago.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I am aware of that. I do not know exactly what is the noble Lord's purpose in tabling this Question at this time. I well remember that on 14th May in this House he suggested that my then right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Industry had made an ass of himself; and at column 311, in the same debate, I suggested that time would show, and:
"that it will not be he who will be seen to have made an ass of himself ".
880
I believe that the progress of British Steel under Ian MacGregor—and there will be the provisional results for 1981–82 out in a matter of weeks—will be shown to vindicate my then right honourable friend's very wise judgment in getting a man of immense knowledge and drive to try to arrest the huge losses of British Steel, which were running at £1·3 million a day in 1980–81.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, while paying respect to the expertise of Mr. MacGregor, does the noble Viscount not think that it may be an appropriate moment to review the ideology of this fanatic rush to the privatisation of much of public property? Does he not realise that private enterprise in some sections has had so much public money that we have now established a new principle; we are subsidising private enterprise by public money? In other words, we are going in for the "Lakerisation"—if I may invent a word—of all kinds of industry that pretend to be private and live on the public purse.
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, we on this side believe that the evidence is clear that the charge on the taxpayer and the public purse of the public sector as a whole is still far too large. The progress that has already been made at this stage by taking a chairman from the private sector, in the United States in this case, is already evident even in the second half of the last year that has been published. Losses before interest declined from £1·3 million a day in 1980–81 as a whole to £0·8 million a day in the first half of 1981–82. I believe that the progress will continue, and one part of the job, and one of the criteria, is privatisation.
Lord Morris: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he believes that this is the correct forum for discussing the contents of a very able man's pay packet?
Viscount Trenchard: No, my Lords. In answering a question, however, I wanted to try to put matters into perspective.
Lord Molloy; My Lords, would the noble Viscount the Minister agree that this might be the forum to discuss the pay packets that they do not now get of 160,000 British steelworkers who have lost their jobs since Mr. MacGregor took over? I should like the noble Viscount's answer to that. There are many people who have examined the situation of British Steel and acknowledged at the time that world demand was diminished. But is the Minister aware that that demand is now creeping up and that perhaps the criteria he referred to ought to be re-examined by all sectors of British Steel and the Government, and in particular the Iron and Steel Confederation of British Industry, which is the trade union side, so that a united endeavour can be made to see that British Steel is not finished off?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, all I will say is that the very unhappy position of British Steel when Mr. MacGregor took over, when it was literally bleeding to death through a major artery which no Government could have sustained, has now been

881
sustained, albeit there have been decisions which I know Mr. MacGregor has found disagreeable to take to ensure that the corporation becomes more competitive and to bring forward the day at which real jobs can again be created.
Lord Sherfield: My Lords, would the noble Viscount agree that Mr. Ian MacGregor is doing an excellent job as chairman of the British Steel Corporation, and so far at least has earned every penny of the emoluments that he has received?
Viscount Trenchard: I entirely agree with the noble Lord's sentiment.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, will the Government nonetheless bear in mind that there are still many people who are willing to do their best for a flat rate?
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that I still stand by the remarks that he was kind enough to quote from the debate in which I participated in May 1980? Is he also aware that, at the time that that appointment was made, it was not envisaged that there would be the mass redundancies on the scale already referred to by my noble friend Lord Molloy? Is he also aware that one of the performance statistics that will presently be revealed is that there are 38,000 more redundancies yet to be expected?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I will certainly accept what the noble Lord says, that neither he nor I on 14th May 1980 were looking at market estimates for steel which were anything like as depressed as the eventuality has in fact produced, so that the task that Mr. MacGregor has had to face was even more formidable than anybody in this House at that time realised. It is a remarkable performance, in view of that, that progress is already evident and that more will be evident.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, does the Minister recall that the moment that Mr. Ian MacGregor stepped into this country 20,000 men lost their jobs in the steel industry?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I do not know what the noble Baroness would have wished Mr. MacGregor to do with losses of £1.3 million a day. I believe that without the appointment of a man of his calibre and character, and without the determined progress that lie is now achieving with a united team at British Steel, the ultimate redundancies in British Steel would have had to be much greater. As I say again, I believe the day on which real progress can once more start has been brought immeasurably nearer by Mr. MacGregor and his team.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that it is fairly simple to close down works and leave towns like Corby and Consett completely derelict, but more important is that there should be measures to provide work in those areas, and apparently that that must be done by some form of public enterprise?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I think that many steps have been taken in those areas in very difficult circumstances, but Mr. MacGregor himself has started surveys of every form of additional market that British Steel might be able to meet. Those of us who mentioned at the time of his appointment that he was essentially a builder and a constructive man have had our thoughts also well borne out; but we have to get to the end of an appalling recession in steel and to get the corporation competitive before that forward progress can really show.

Business of The House
11.28 a.m.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Young): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. On Thursday, 13th May, my noble friend the Chief Whip explained to the House that it was the Government's intention, following requests during the first day in Committee on the Local Government Finance (No. 2) Bill that the Bill should be recommitted in respect of Clause 4. When my noble friend made this announcement last week it was not clear whether the recommitment stage would be taken on the same day as the completion of the Committee.
Following the rearrangement of business made necessary by yesterday's debate, it is now agreed that both stages will be taken on Monday next, 24th May. The Motion therefore enables the Bill to be recommitted and for a Committee on Clause 4 to be taken immediately after the rest of the Committee stage has been disposed of.
Moved, That the Local Government Finance (No. 2) Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of Clause 4 when it has been reported from the Committee of the Whole House on Monday next and that Standing Order 43 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with to enable the Committee (on recommitment) to be taken that day.—(Baroness Young.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill
11.30 a.m.
Further considered on Report.
Clause 33 [Work undertaken by local authorities and development bodies under certain agreements with Manpower Services Commission]:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Bellwin) moved Amendment No. 171:
Page 40, line 29, leave out from (" Commission ") to ("1982") in line 30 and insert ("on or after 1st April").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are now dealing with technical amendments which contain transitional provisions for the implementation of Clause 33, which was introduced in the Bill in Committee. Their effect is to apply the exemption from the direct labour organisation legislation for schemes carried out by authorities in relation to certain agreements with the Manpower Services Commission from 1st April 1982,

883
the start of the 1982–83 financial year, and not from the date of Royal Assent to the Bill. The beneficiaries will be a number of authorities with small direct labour organisations which will be exempt from the relevant legislation in 1983–84, instead of being caught by a technicality.
I assure noble Lords that these amendments will not create any loophole which could be exploited. Local authorities will not be able to treat MSC-funded schemes as exempt from the DLO legislation until after Royal Assent. The amendments simply provide that, after Royal Assent, schemes entered into between 1st April 1982 and Royal Assent will retrospectively be disregarded for the purpose of counting towards the total of 30 employees, which is the threshold above which an authority is subject to the full requirements of the DLO legislation in the following financial year. They are a careful piece of tidying up and I commend them on that basis.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 171B:
After Clause 33, insert the following new clause:
(" Insurance etc. of local authority members and persons voluntarily assisting local authorities and probation committees
.—(1) In section 140 of the Local Government Act 1972 (insurance by local authorities against accidents to members)—
(a) the following subsection shall be substituted for sub-section (1) —
"(1) A local authority may enter into a contract of insurance of Class 1 in Part I of Schedule 2 to the Insurance Companies Act 1981 against risks of any member of the authority meeting with a personal accident, whether fatal or not, while engaged on the business of the authority."; and
(b) the words in subsection (3) from "but" to the end shall cease to have effect.
(2) The following sections shall be inserted after that section—
"Insurance of voluntary assistants local authorities.
140A.—(1) A local authority may enter into a contract of insurance of a relevant class against risks of any voluntary assistant of the authority meeting with a personal accident, whether fatal or not, while of engaged as such, or suffering from any disease or sickness, whether fatal or not, as the result of being so engaged.
(2) In this section—

"local authority" includes—

(a) a board constituted in pursuance of section 1 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 or reconstituted in pursuance of Schedule 17 to this Act;

(b) the Common Council of the City of London; and

(c) the Council of the Isles of Scilly; and

>"voluntary assistant" means a person who, at the request of the local authority or an authorised officer of the local authority, performs any service or does anything otherwise than for payment by the local authority (except by way of reimbursement of expenses), for the purposes of, or in connection with, the carrying out of any of the functions of the local authority.

Insurance of voluntary assistants of probation committees.
140B.—(1) A county council and the Greater London Council may enter into a contract of insurance of a relevant class against risks of any voluntary assistants of a relevant probation committee meeting with a personal accident, whether fatal or not, while engaged as such, or suffering from any disease or sickness, whether fatal or not, as the result of being so engaged.
(2) In this section—

"relevant probation committee" means—

(a) in relation to a county council, a probation committee for a probation area wholly or partly within the county; and

(b) in relation to Greater London, a probation committee for a probation area wholly or partly within an outer London borough (within the meaning of section 1 of the 1963 Act); and

"voluntary assistant" means a person who, at the request of an authorised officer of the probation committee, performs any service or does anything otherwise than for payment by the committee (except by way of reimbursement of expenses), for the purposes of, or in connection with, the carrying out of any of the functions of the committee.

Provisions supplementary to sections 140A and 140B.
140C.—(1) The relevant classes of contracts of insurance for the purposes of sections 140A and 140B above are—

(a) class IV in Schedule 1 to the Insurance Companies Act 1981 (permanent health insurance); and

(b) class 1 in Part 1 of Schedule 2 to that Act (accident insutance).

(2) Any sum received under a contract of insurance made by virtue of section 140A or 140B above shall, after deduction of any expenses incurred in the recovery thereof, be paid by the authority receiving it to, or to the personal representatives of, the voluntary assistant who suffered the accident, disease or sickness in respect of which the sum is received or to such other person as the authority consider appropriate having regard to the circumstances of the case; and a sum paid to any person other than the assistant or his personal representatives shall be applied by that person in accordance with any directions given by the authority for the benefit of any dependant of the voluntary assistant.
(3) The provisions of the Life Assurance Act 1774 shall not apply to any such contract.
(4) Section 119 above shall apply to any sum which is due by virtue of subsection (2) above and does not exceed the amount for the time being specified in section 119(1) above.".
(3) In the entry relating to Class 1 in Part I of Schedule 2 to the Insurance Companies Act 1981, after the words "the person insured" there shall be inserted the words "or, in the case of a contract made by virtue of section 140, 140A or 140B of the Local Government Act 1972, a person for whose benefit the contract is made ".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a new clause which replaces Clause 34 in the Bill and makes two substantive changes to the Local Government Act 1972, and in considering it I suggest it would be convenient to the House to deal also with Amendments Nos. 173A, 197A and 202 which are consequential upon it.
The first substantive change is to the Local Government Act 1972, to Section 140, which deals with the insurance by local authorities of their members against personal accident. When that section came into operation in 1974, the law relating to insurance companies was embodied in the Insurance Companies Act 1958. Since then, there have been two changes in the law relating to such companies. The first was contained in the Insurance Companies Act 1974 and the second in the Insurance Companies Act 1981. The latter Act specifies that only certain authorised insurers may undertake specified classes of insurance. The new clause amends Section 140 of the 1972 Act to conform with the new scheme under the Insurance Companies

885
Act 1981 but makes no changes to the powers of the local authority in relation to the insurance of its members.
The second substantive change deals with the insurance of probation service volunteers by county councils and the GLC in relation to that area of Greater London comprised in the outer London boroughs. In Committee I undertook to consider a proposal made by my noble friend Lord Ridley that local authorities should be empowered to provide accident and disability insurance for such volunteers. Section 140B meets that undertaking and enables insurance cover for such volunteers to be provided by local authorities who are empowered by Section 140A to insure their own voluntary assistants. Because the Inner London Probation Service is financed out of the funds of the Metropolitan Police, it was not possible to bring their volunteers within this legislation, but the new provision will enable insurance cover to be provided to 90 per cent. of probation service volunteers at minimal cost by those councils who make financial contributions to the cost of the probation service.
As a result of the introduction of Section 140B into the 1972 Act, drafting changes have been necessary to Section 140A and a new Section 140C has been included which contains provisions common to both Sections 140A and 140B. Consequential on the amendment is the deletion of the 173A existing Clause 34 from the Bill and Amendment No. 202 which alters the Long Title. Amendment No. 197A is also related; that is a drafting amendment consequent on the changes to the insurance companies law to which I referred, which makes otiose the words to be repealed.
Baroness David: My Lords, I have a slight protest to make about amendments being put down at a late stage. In the Marshalled List on Monday, the first day on Report, there was a new clause which we saw only that morning. As there were many references in it to other Acts and sections it was difficult to understand it and get advice at the last minute. This morning, when I collected the Second Marshalled List, I found there had been changes again to the new clause we are discussing; several lines had been removed from subsection (2). It is difficult for somebody who is not a lawyer to understand what is happening. We might have a little more consideration from the Government about the timing of such amendments, or at least we could be given notes on new clauses. The Government were generous enough to provide notes on clauses at the beginning of the proceedings, but we have not had notes on new clauses, and that is why I lodge this protest.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I appreciate what the noble Baroness is saying, and she makes a fair point. The problem is the great pressure of business. We attempt always to meet the wishes of all interested parties, to listen to what is said at different stages and to bring that all together, but that puts a strain on the whole system in such a way that sometimes we get the sort of situation which the noble Baroness, not unfairly, describes. I will not make what might be called defensive points; there would be no point in my doing that because, basically, she is right, and all we can do is
886
endeavour to do the best we can, and that, I assure her we will do.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, I have a question about the new clause arising out of my recollection of the days when I was chairman of a county council. Provision is made for compensation if a member meets with a personal accident, fatal or otherwise. What is the meaning of the word "accident"? I recall that we once had a member of the council who was inclined to threaten violence against the chairman, and on one occasion he had to be restrained by the police when he stood alongside the chairman and was about to throttle or hit him. Would such an incident provide for compensation to be paid for any injury a member of the council might suffer, in view of the provision's use of the word "accident"?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, the noble Lord will appreciate my reluctance to give an interpretation of the measure in answer to the sort of question he asks. Perhaps he will permit me to contact him privately on the matter, and of course he will be able to return to it at a later stage if he is unhappy with the reply.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
11.39 a.m.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 172:
After Clause 33, insert the following new clause:
("Discretion of Secretary of State to exclude costs of employment and training of apprentices from direct labour organisation accounts
. The following shall be added at the end of section 12(5) of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980—
"Provided that any direction issued under this subsection shall not require a local authority or development body to include in accounts under section 10 above an amount wholly attributable to the employment and training of apprentices which is greater than an amount considered to be reasonable by the Secretary of State.".").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this clause is concerned with direct labour organisations. We are extremely anxious about the decrease in the level of apprentice recruitment by Local authorities following the implementation of the direct labour organisation provisions of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980. We are further concerned that as part of the recent review of the DLO provisions by the Government, the cost of apprentice training will have to be charged in full to the statutory DLO account, whether or not an authority has employed those apprentices in the light of its other policies—for example, for educational or social purposes.
Unless alterations are made to the requirements, local authorities will have no alternative but effectively to freeze apprentice recruitment and to make a substantial number of apprentices redundant. That would be at a time of massive levels of unemployment among young people, and it would make neither sense nor reason. Ways should surely be found of ensuring that authorities can continue to take on high levels of apprentices and have the costs of them above normal commercial levels charged to a central fund within the local authority. I should have thought that that was really in line with the Government's often-stated approach and attitude towards the employment of young people.
The initial view taken by the Department of the Environment before the recent review was that where an authority employed apprentices for educational, social or other reasons, then the cost of apprentices who were above normal commercial levels could be charged to another account within the local authority, or alternatively a contribution made to the direct labour organisation account from a central fund of the local authority. The amendment that I am moving proposes to seek to implement these proposals through the Act and directions made under it. The amendment gives the Secretary of State power to decide appropriate levels of apprentice costs to be attributed to the statutory DLO account. In our view any amounts attributable through the amendment should not exceed normal commercial levels. That would leave those authorities who wished to employ apprentices above normal commercial levels—that is, for social, educational or other purposes—in a position to do so without being bound by the rate of return and other requirements of the DLO account.
The Government have already set a precedent by introducing Clause 33 during the Committee stage, and this new clause excludes Manpower Services Commission funding schemes from the tendering provisions of the DLO legislation. We very much support this change and ask the Government to accept the amendment on apprentice training that I am now moving.
Before the Minister replies, I should like to refer to the Government circular that has been sent out between the Committee stage and this stage of the Bill, and I have here a copy of the relevant paragraphs. It suggests that apprentice costs can be entered separately, but we believe that that is rather too vague, and in any case we should prefer a much firmer commitment by the Secretary of State to exclude the costs above the commercial level, and I believe that the right way to do this is to include it in the legislation. I beg to move.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, my noble friend will know that the Manpower Services Commission has now submitted to the Secretary of State its proposals for the Youth Training Scheme, which is due to come into force in September 1983. I am sure that all the local authorities will want to make a major contribution to the scheme and in course of so doing they will take on (as it were) a number of young people. They will not be apprentices, they will not be employees. What they will be is yet to be determined. The present idea is special status carrying the title "trainee". All I would ask is that my noble friend, in responding to the noble Baroness, should take that point into account.
Lord Evans of Claughton: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will be sympathetic to the amendment and to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, raised. Whatever political persuasoni we hold, we all recognise that the terrible problem in many parts of the country, in particular in the North, is the very high level of unskilled labour, and I should have thought that any step which could make it easier for people to be trained for skills should be taken by the Government. I hope that, as a means to that end, the amendment, or something similar, will be accepted.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I appreciate the reasons which have motivated the tabling of the amendments, but I fear that the Government cannot accept them. The intention which is clearly expressed in the side note to the new clause—though I must draw to your Lordships' attention the Government's view that the proposed new clause is inconsistent with its apparent intention—is that part of the costs incurred by local authorities on apprentice training should be excluded from the accounts of those authorities' direct labour organisations. I must make it clear that, while the Government are concerned to see training programmes maintained throughout the construction industry, we are not persuaded that it would be right to exclude any part of apprentice training costs from a local authority's DLO accounts. We consider, as do the construction industry firms with which DLOs are in competition, that such costs are an integral part of the costs that have to be borne by any organisation carrying out construction and maintenance work, and that, on those grounds alone, it would be quite wrong to exclude them from DLO accounts.
However, in the circular to which the noble Baroness Lady Birk, referred, we have suggested that any authority which believes that it has incurred apprentice training costs over and above those which are related to its DLO needs should identify these, as agreed with its auditor, as a special item in its accounts, so that their impact on the rate of return achieved by the authority on its DLO activities can be properly assessed. I should have thought that that was really the fundamental point. That appears to us to be the proper way of dealing flexibly with the situation which has been described by the noble Baroness.
In any case, the amendments as drafted are technically defective and, it must be said, would appear to have an effect which is almost the precise opposite of what the proposers intend. The new clause is based on the mistaken premise that it is only by ministerial direction that apprentice training costs are required to be included in an authority's DLO revenue accounts, and it therefore seeks to preclude the Secretary of State from making such directions except for an amount which he considers reasonable. That is not the case. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State has issued no directions under Section 12(5), and does not intend to issue any. It is the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 itself which requires all costs incurred by an authority's employees engaged in construction or maintenance to be charged to its DLO accounts.
In particular, under Section 13 of the 1980 Act, a DLO revenue account maintained in relation to any description of construction or maintenance work undertaken by an authority is required to show a true and fair view of the financial result of the authority in relation to those descriptions of work. The Secretary of State would therefore need to use his powers under Section 12(5) positively to exclude them. Indeed, the Secretary of State already has the discretion which the proposed Title amendment describes, but, as I have explained, he does not consider it appropriate to use that discretion for this purpose.
Seeking to restrict the existing powers of my right honourable friend under Section 12(5), as the proposed new clause does, might make it impossible for him to

889
fix a method for determining the costs of construction or maintenance work in a DLO revenue account by excluding the whole or part of an authority's training costs. However, I must stress that no evidence has emerged which has persuaded my right honourable friend to give any such directions or to change the advice which he has given to authorities, which is that they should include all the costs relating to apprentices in their DLO accounts.
I hope that what I have said will reassure your Lordships that the Government are not unsympathetic about these matters. The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, and those made, by implication, by my noble friend Lord Sandford, in addition to those which the noble Baroness herself made, are very important. The training of people is a basic part of the Government's policy because we recognise that this is where the future must lie. For all the reasons that I have given—and I shall take up the point that my noble friend mentioned and look into the matter of special categories—we do not believe that the amendments are necessary, let alone desirable, and I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw them.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his careful reply. May I say that if there are technical faults in the drafting I am sorry about that, but obviously I cannot deal with that at this stage. What is more important is the principle involved, the principle being that there is an area of uncertainty and we are left with the position where DLOs can face closure if they are considered unprofitable. There is the element of uncertainty where the Secretary of State, according to my interpretation of the circular, can assess the impact and has to look at the position in each case. I can only return to what I said when moving the amendment, which is that, frankly, my noble friends and I—and from what the noble Lord, Lord Evans, has said, he seems to be in agreement; and I am also grateful for the interjection by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford—believe that this is too vague. The Minister agreed about the whole question of employment for young persons and the terrible unemployment that exists at this moment. To leave this in what I think is far too vague a situation is something that we should not do when we are at the moment considering a piece of legislation which it should be part of and in which it would have a very good position.
In spite of the argument that the Minister has put forward, it is still not firmly stated how far costs above the commercial level can be excluded where social costs are involved. It is this that we are concerned with; costs should not have to be counted against commercial profitability. The net result would be that local authorities could be in a position of having to sack apprentices—which would add to the unemployment situation—because of the present unsatisfactory position of this legislation. I am afraid that, in spite of what the Minister has said, and in spite of the technical deficiencies—which could be righted easily by us or by the Government putting forward an amendment to deal with them—I shall have to test the feeling of the House and ask it to divide.
11.54 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 172) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 46; Not-Contents, 64.

DIVISION NO, 1

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Gosford, E.

Amherst, E.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Ardwick, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Banks, L.

Jeger, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Bernstein, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Beswick, L.

Leatherland, L.

Birk, B.

Listowel, E.

Bishopston, L.[Teller]

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.[Teller]

Boston of Faversham, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Molloy, L.

Brockway, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Northfield, L.

Collison, L.

Oram, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Peart, L.

David, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Underhill, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Whaddon, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Wigg, L.

Feversham, L.

Willis, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Winstanley, L.

George-Brown, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Gladwyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abercorn, D.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Kinloss, Ly.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Lane-Fox, B.

Ampthill, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Auckland, L.

Long, V.[Teller]

Avon, E.

Lyell, L.

Balerno, L.

McFadzean, L.

Bellwin, L.

Mancroft, L.

Bessborough, E.

Marley, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Merrivale, L.

Caccia, L.

Mersey, V.

Cathcart, E.

Morris, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Mottistone, L.

Coleraine, L.

Mountgarret, V.

Cottesloe, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Craigavon, V.

Oxfuird, V.

Crathorne, L.

Porritt, L.

Cromartie, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Rugby, L.

Davidson, V.

St. Davids, V.

Derwent, L.

St. Just, L.

Eccles, V.

Sandford, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller]

Elton, L.

Shannon, E.

Enniskillen, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Faithfull, B.

Spens, L.

Gainford, L.

Teviot, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Teynham, L.

Greenway, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hailsham of St. Marylebone,

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Young, B.

Halsbury, E.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
12.1 p.m.
Clause 34 [Power of local authorities to insure voluntary assistants]:
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 173:
Page 41, line 33, at end insert—
("( ) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that a

891
local authority may make provision for sums equivalent to the sums mentioned in subsection (1) of this section by means of a fund established under paragraph 16 of Schedule 13 to this Act, and any sum so provided shall be treated in all respects as if it were a sum received by the local authority under a contract with authorised insurers in accordance with this section.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am now in the rather ridiculous position—is the Minister attending?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, this Minister is attending.
Baroness David: I am now in the rather ridiculous position of moving an amendment to a clause which is about to be deleted. This, of course, has come about because of the very recent new clause which was put down instead of Clause 34, and which was shown in the Marshalled List to be inserted after Clause 33.
I am absolutely bound to withdraw my amendment when I have spoken to it. The alternative to that would have been to put down at the very last minute a manuscript amendment to the amendment which the noble Lord has moved and which has gone through the House. It would not be very satisfactory to have a manuscript amendment at the very last minute; it would be more sensible to speak to the amendment as it was and to try to establish the principle. I hope the Minister will be able to accept that. If not, at any rate I have the opportunity—I think quite justifiable—to put down an amendment at Third Reading when the new clause will be incorporated in the Bill.
Amendment No. 173 was moved at Committee stage by my noble friend Lord Mishcon. It was withdrawn on the promise of a communication from the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin. He received that letter. We thought that a fuller explanation would be useful. Some of the people who work for local authorities are paid under a contract of employment, but some are not. A local authority wish to provide "benefits" to people working for them who suffer accidents or permanent disablement during the course of such work. The local authority may not wish to distinguish between employees and volunteers. Some local authorities establish a fund (they call it an insurance fund) under paragraph 16 of Schedule 13 to the Local Government Act 1972 on the lines described in the second alternative in Lord Bellwin's letter out of which "benefits" are provided to employees by way of payments. As no doubt the noble Lord has his letter, I do not think that I need read out that part of his letter.
The result to the worker is the same whether benefits are received under the fund or from an insurance company. There are two implications, however, of considerable relevance to the local authority. First, local authorities having an insurance fund have to operate two different schemes to ensure that the benefits are paid to the two different categories of worker. This is administratively inefficient and should attract some sympathy from the present Government having regard to their current local authority policies in trying to reduce expenditure and to get rid of employees.
Secondly, in respect of non-paid workers or volunteers, the administrative arrangements involve paying a premium to an insurance company and going into the formalities of contracts of insurance et cetera. The
892
cost of such premiums is generally higher than the cost of the local authorities subscribing to or topping up their own "in-house" fund, as insurance companies inevitably have to cover for the risk element, overheads and profit in the premiums.
The real question as indicated in the last paragraph on page 1 of Lord Bellwin's letter is whether it is a function of a local authority to make use of volunteers. The letter suggested that it was not. The use of volunteers has been a feature of local government for many years in connection with many areas of the council's functions for example, social services and education. We had hoped that the department would concede that the power to make use of the voluntary assistants would be seen as being within the provisions of Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972 (subsidiary powers of local authorities to do things calculated to facilitate or conducive or incidental to the discharge of their functions). We think that volunteers can come under that. In that case it would presumably follow that the council could establish a fund on the lines of the second alternative in Lord Bellwin's letter and the amendment need proceed no further.
As we understand the department's comments in Lord Bellwin's letter, it is suggested that as the local authority have no functions at all in relation to volunteers, the making use of volunteers is ultra vires. It must be questionable as to whether it is the department's intention to come to this conclusion.
In conclusion, then, we hope that the Government will either concede that local authorities may establish funds on the lines of the second alternative in Lord Bellwin's letter under the existing law or, as it now has to be, concede the principle of the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Evans of Claughton: My Lords, I find it more difficult in this particular case to understand the reasoning behind the Government's rejection of the proposal enshrined in the amendment, though I have not had the advantage of seeing the correspondence. As a person who has been a member of the appropriate committees in local authorities dealing with insurance in the past, it seems to me that, (a) it is so much more convenient to fund your own insurance, (b) so much less bureaucratic, and (c) less expensive, that I would have thought on all three grounds it would have attracted the Government's support.
I cannot understand the point that the local authority has no function so far as voluntary workers are concerned. Again, I understand it to be the case that Conservative Governments—and other parties, certainly my party—want to encourage the involvement of voluntary workers, particularly in the field of social services, recreation and so on. It should be stated that for some presumably abstruse legal reason a local authority has no functon in relation to voluntary workers. As the noble Baroness, Lady David, said, if they have no function then almost by definition it must be ultra vires to have voluntary workers associated with the local authorities. I hope that the noble Lord the Minister can clear up what to me seems a very mysterious unwillingness on the part of Government to accept a reasonably economic way of dealing with the problem of insuring voluntary workers and other workers.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I understand the point that the noble Baroness is making about the procedural way of dealing with this matter; but she may find it helpful to have on the record what the Government now feel about the position. In view of what the noble Lord, Lord Evans, said, I feel obliged to make some comment on it and I do so as follows. Even if the amendment were to be put forward at this moment, the Government could not accept it. Perhaps it will assist if I say briefly—but I hope clearly—how the Government see the position. I immediately say that there is much legality in this matter, as the noble Lord, Lord Evans, said.
Before a local authority can establish a fund under paragraph 16 of Schedule 13 to the Local Government Act 1972, it must be satisfied that it has a function in connection with which the fund can be established. In the case of officers employed by an authority, it is considered that adequate functions exist under Section 112 of the 1972 Act, when read in conjunction with the rule expressed in Section 111, to enable an authority either to establish a fund for the payment of premiums under a contract of accident insurance or to establish a fund where there is to be no contract of insurance and to invest the sums of ratepayers' money necessary to pay benefits to officers who are the victims of accidents, and so on, while in the local authority's service.
However, as the letter to which the noble Baroness referred stated, there is nothing mysterious about it, as the noble Lord, Lord Evans, suggested. The legal position is that a local authority first of all has no such functions in relation to a volunteer; in fact they have no functions at all in relation to volunteers. As I commented in Committee when the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, moved the same amendment, it seems doubtful that a fund which can only be established by an authority in connection with its function, such as a fund under the provisions of paragraph 16 of Schedule 13, can be established to meet expenditure in relation to persons such as voluntary assistants in connection with whom a local authority has no functions.
A quite specific new function is conferred under Clause 34, or rather the clause that replaces it. That is a function to enter into a contract of insurance against accidents with an authorised insurer. In connection with this function, the view is taken that a fund may be established under paragraph 16 of Schedule 13 to the 1972 Act for the purpose of defraying expenditure in the payment of premiums under that contract. However, the view is also taken that a fund of the kind envisaged by the amendment could not be established under Schedule 13 and a declaratory provision of this kind would accordingly be of no effect.
However, the enactment of a new power to establish such a fund is not in any event thought to be justified in the case of volunteers. I entirely endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Evans, said about the Government's attitude towards volunteers, but the fact is that if local authorities wish to insure them against accidents they should do so by means of a contract of insurance; and that is precisely what has been authorised by the local Act precedents on which the replacement of Clause 34 is based.
It seems here that we are talking very much of a
894
legality rather than of desirability. Clearly, without going into this subject at greater length, I do not think there is much difference between any of us on desirability: it is the way it is tied in with the functions of authorities. If the noble Baroness or the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, wish to pursue this matter further through correspondence or in any other way, clearly we shall be interested to see what is said, but the position at the present time is as I have stated it.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for expanding a little on the letter which he wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. May I make it quite clear that when I spoke first I said we considered that voluntary assistants would be seen as being within the provisions of Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972, which says that
"… to do any thing … calculated to facilitate, or is conducive or incidental to, the discharge of any of their functions."
That is what we thought would cover volunteers so that they would come under this fund set up under Schedule 13 to the Local Government Act. So if the noble Lord, with the leave of the House, would answer that question, I should be grateful. We now realise that volunteers can be insured through a contract of insurance under the new clause, but it is going to be a more expensive way of doing it, and more costly both in money and time of employees of the authority.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, I will certainly write to the noble Baroness about her particular query and I will also at the same time take the opportunity to look into the last point she makes about expense, and so on. Perhaps I could do the two together and then she could decide what she wishes to do at the next stage.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 173A:
Leave out Clause 34.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this amendment. I spoke to it in connection with Amendment No. 171B; and also consequential are Amendments Nos. 197A and 202. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Underhill Lord Underhill moved Amendment No. 174ZA:
After Clause 34, insert the following new clause:
("Hackney Carriages
. Notwithstanding the provisions contained in Part II of Schedule 14 to the Local Government Act 1972 in relation to the applying of section 171(4) of the Public Health Act 1875 to their area, a local authority may license hackney carriages to stand and ply for hire only on specified hackney carriage stands within their area as may be stated in the licence. A local authority shall not exercise the power contained in this section without first consulting persons or associations of persons representative of the hackney. Carriage trade within their area").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I should explain that it deals with the same issue as the one I moved on Committee stage, but there are changes from that first amendment.

895
Without going into full details, I should mention that this relates to the 1972 Local Government Act, which dealt with the reorganisation of local government areas including districts, and transitionary arrangements had to be made over the licensing of hackney carriages.
The 1972 Act gave the new district councils three alternatives. The first one need not concern us greatly —that referred to the deletion of all reference to the licensing of hackney carriages. The second was that a council which may have had separate licensing in the old constituent parts could decide to de-zone and have one licensing area, with taxis able to ply throughout the area. The third option was to continue de-zoning on the previous areas of the small district councils.
The key issue involved in this amendment is that, because of the provisions of the 1972 Act, once a local authority had decided on de-zoning, it could not reverse that decision and had to stay with it. I mentioned the position of the Bradford Council earlier. They had raised the matter with me because, from experience, they found that when they had decided on de-zoning, the hackney carriages tended to gravitate to the centre from the outside areas and they were not providing a proper service to the people in the outside areas. The Council therefore wanted the opportunity to reconsider the position, but when they made representations to the Home Office in accordance with the provisions of the Act, they were told that the decision they had made was statutorily irreversible.
At Committee stage I mentioned Leeds, and the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said that no direct representations had been made by Leeds to the Home Office. I have endeavoured to check the position and I find that Leeds were faced with the same problem. They may not have made actual representations, but I am told that they raised the matter with the Home Office and were also told that the decision was irrevocable. Hence they could go no further with it. I have looked at the reasons given by the Minister for rejecting the amendment I moved at Committee stage. He said then that we must think about the consumer. That is the reason for this amendment—to ensure that an adequate service is provided for consumers at all levels, not only in the city area but also in the outlying townships.
The Minister also said that the amendment would override the principles of supply and demand. In a matter of this kind, to rely solely on the operation of supply and demand works against the public interest. It may be in the interests of the public in the central area to which the operators gravitate, but there is no balanced service for the public throughout the district area.
Another argument given by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, was that the amendment went much too far in restricting hackney carriages to single ranks or very small areas. It is to go towards meeting that criticism that the words,
"to ply for hire only in specified parts of their area, and",
have been left out of the new amendment which I am moving this morning. The present amendment will restrict hackney carriages to specified stands, but all hackney carriages will be free to accept "flag down" passengers in any part of the district. The public could flag down any hackney carriage in any part of
896
the district, but when not carrying a passenger the taxis would return to the specified hackney carriage stands. That would provide a more balanced service and would be in the interests of the consumer—that is, the general public.
The noble Lord also said:
"The Government are … doing everything we can to remove unnecessary controls and restrictions especially over small business."—[Official Report, 5/4/82; col. 17.]
I think that all noble Lords would wish to achieve that. But I would remind the Minister that this very Bill imposes a number of restrictions on businesses, including small businesses, where it is considered necessary in the interests of the public, and I suggest that this matter which I am asking the House to consider this morning is one of those instances.
There is a further change from the previous amendment which also fits in with the Government's view. The last sentence has been added to the amendment which I put forward at the Committee stage, and that last sentence provides:
"A local authority shall not exercise the power contained in this section without first consulting",
the hackney carriage trade in the area. That is a very important provision, which, I think, will go towards meeting the Government's point about restrictions on small businesses. Unless the principle of the amendment is accepted, the position will remain that a local authority is not allowed to reconsider a decision, even though a possible change may be in the interests of the public throughout its area. If a council wants to reconsider its decision, it is prevented from doing so. That, I suggest, is a denial of local choice.
May I make the point that the 1972 Act permitted a council to continue zoning, if it considered that desirable? Why should an authority in 1982 be prevented from doing what it could have done in the years after, I think, 1974, with ministerial approval? In other words, what I am now seeking to do could have been done before, but, having decided on de-zoning, they cannot reconsider the matter. That appears to me not only illogical, but a debarment of local choice to reconsider a decision which a council may now feel works against the interest of its people. I beg to move.
12.23 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, moved a similar new clause in Committee, my noble friend Lord Belstead made it very clear that the Government would oppose it. The noble Lord took it away and, on Friday night of last week, came back with the Mark 2 version, to which we gave very close attention—originally in some haste, because we might have met it on Monday—but I regret to say that the result of that attention is to reveal that this is no more acceptable than his Mark 1 version.
Although the noble Lord has tried to argue otherwise, we are here discussing the imposition of an additional restriction on part of the taxi trade. The noble Lord would wish district councils to reduce the area within which certain taxis may ply for hire. He wants to concentrate trade in patches, rather than in the

897
centre of a town. That is how I take what he said earlier. This would mean that a taxi-driver would have to ply for trade, not where his commercial judgment told him that he should, but where the borough council told him that he should. Indeed, even as redrafted, the clause would enable a council to prevent a driver from earning his living except at a given rank; and the relevant words are in the fifth line of the amendment:
"to stand and ply for hire only on specified hackney carriage stands".
Furthermore, any taxi whose area was restricted would, presumably, have to accept any hiring to go elsewhere. I am not at all certain, from what the noble Lord said, whether his intention is that they can then pick up a fare to go back. But if any fare that they find between the delivery of the first fare and their return to their rank, where they are allowed to ply for hire, does not want to go to the district of that rank, then the taxi driver is still going to make an empty return journey.
I fully appreciate the very real difficulties faced by prospective hirers in outlying parts of a town, who find it more difficult to obtain a taxi than those in big city centres. Nevertheless, I do not believe that the solution proposed by the noble Lord is the right one, or that it would be in the public interest or the interest of the consumer, as he suggests it is. If there is unmet demand in outlying areas, and all the taxis are making a better hiring elsewhere under the present system, the answer is not further restrictions. Rather, the local authority should increase the number of taxi licences, or should prescribe a fare tariff which encourages drivers to seek hirings in outer areas.
Indeed, it is becoming increasingly common—and I do not doubt that your Lordships make use of the service yourselves—to order taxis by telephone. Already about half the taxis in England and Wales, outside London, are equipped with two-way radios, and the response to a telephone call can, therefore, be extremely rapid. I think that we should encourage this kind of development, which improves the service available to the public, rather than seek to tie taxis to ranks where the demand is low, preventing them from using these technological advances.
The noble Lord has suggested—and I think it is a welcome suggestion—that the licensing authority should consult the local taxi trade before imposing restrictions, but this suggests that one of the main purposes of his proposed new clause is to protect part of the taxi trade from competition. The noble Lord said that the laws of supply and demand were inadequate to protect the consumer. In the short run that may be true, but in the long run I am convinced that that is not the case and that an economy of this sort suffers from regulations rather than profiting from it. Taxi-drivers who have traditionally worked in big city centres naturally resent any influx of drivers from outlying districts which increases competition. If consulted by the local authority, they would naturally support restrictions on the competition to their trade. That is certainly the case in Bradford, where I understand that the trade is divided between those originally from Bradford itself, and those originally from elsewhere in the district. I believe that the noble Lord has close experience of that.
The Government are not prepared to accept this sort
898
of protectionism; nor do we agree that newcomers to the taxi trade being licensed on a less favourable basis than those already in it is fair or just; nor do we feel that one should generalise from the particular cases to which the noble Lord has referred. That is what the noble Lord is doing. We are being asked to accept far-reaching changes in taxi law across the nation, on the basis of difficulties which have arisen in one or two districts. The noble Lord referred to the three options in the 1972 Act and implied, I think, that it was accidental that the option, when exercised, became irreversible if it was to de-zone. We think it is right that it is irreversible and that it is in the consumers' interests that it should be.
I really can say no more, except that the noble Lord mentioned Leeds as another area where similar problems arose some years ago. According to my recent inquiries about the present position in Leeds, the situation is now reasonably satisfactory, and no local authority other than Bradford has indicated to us that it supports the noble Lord's proposed new clause. Therefore, we really think that it would be going from the particular to the general, against the interests of very large numbers of the population of towns in this country, and indeed with no clear indication of any support whatever from the majority of the centres of population and the bodies which govern them. So I am afraid that I must recommend your Lordships not to accept this amendment. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw it.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I appreciate the very detailed reply which the Minister has given. Regarding Leeds, my understanding is that the vacuum which was created there was filled by private hire cars. However, the problem is that although the council there license these private hire cars they do not control the fares. Therefore there is a vacuum which is filled in an undesirable way. The Minister wants it both ways. Last time his noble friend criticised that amendment on the grounds that I was placing restrictions upon small businesses. Now it is suggested that I am giving an advantage to operators by trying to allocate different areas to them. It seems, therefore, that according to one amendment I have one argument and that according to another amendment I have a different argument.
Lord Elton: My Lords, what I was suggesting was that if the noble Lord left the status quo he would be fair to small businesses. If there were restrictions, as he now proposes, he would be very unfair upon those who want to come in and be small businesses.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, the only other point I would make is that all the criticisms which the Minister has made, and which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, made at the Committee stage, could have been made at the time when a local authority decided to keep zoning, which it was permitted to do under the 1972 Act. Yet the law allowed it to do that. Therefore the law allowed a council to do something which the Minister now says is completely undesirable and against the interests of consumers. That is one of the important points I am making. If the law allowed it, then surely it should be possible, with all the local knowledge, for a council to go back, if it wished to do so.

899
In view of the Government's firm attitude, I have no alternative but to withdraw the amendment. However, I think that the Minister, despite his arguments, will recognise that there is a devil of a lot of logic in my argument concerning what was permissible then no longer being permissible now. I wonder whether the Minister could give an assurance that this question will be dealt with in the consultation document on taxi legislation which the Government have promised, and which I believe we were to have had at the end of 1980? I do not know what progress has been made. This is a matter which could be discussed in the taxi trade document. I wonder whether the Minister could give that assurance?
Lord Elton: My Lords, by leave of the House, all I can do is to undertake to take the noble Lord's representations to my right honourable friend.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 35 [Lost and uncollected property]:
12.33 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 174ZB:
Page 42, line 13, leave out from ("property") to ("; or") in line 15 and insert (" on buildings or premises owned or managed by a local authority comes into their possession otherwise than by express agreement with the owner of that property").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we come now to the problem of lost property. In moving Amendment No. 174ZB I should like to speak to Amendment No. 177ZA. I moved amendments during the Committee stage. The aim then was to clarify the situation because, as I said then, there seemed to be nothing in principle to distinguish between, on the one hand, lost and uncollected property and, on the other, abandoned and trespassing property. So again I am trying to obtain some clarification.
The principal amendment which I moved in Committee was for the purpose of bringing within the clause property left on local authority premises by a tenant, licensee, trespasser or mortgagor. The Minister said that property left by the first three of those categories was already within the clause and that the clause made adequate provision for it. He said that under the clause, property can come into the possession of a local authority for the purposes of the clause either where it is lost by the owner on local authority premises or where it is left there without permission. Unfortunately, however, the Minister did not touch on the argument for that view, and the assumption we have had to make is that in his opinion such property falls within Clause 35(1)(a), on the ground that it is property which comes into the possession of a local authority after being found on their premises.
I am still not quite convinced that the Minister is right. Ultimately it would be for the court to decide whether or not property left by a tenant or a trespasser fell within Clause 35(1)(a). If, however, the Minister's view is correct, the clause is still defective. Subsection (5) provides for the vesting of property in the local authority six months from the relevant date. That
900
date is defined by subsection (11) in relation only to lost property, which falls within subsection (1)(a), and uncollected property which falls within subsection (1)(b). There is no definition of "relevant date" respecting property left by a tenant or trespasser in circumstances where the property cannot be described as lost—that is, where property has been dumped or deliberately left. Amendment No. 177ZA covers this part of it.
The difficulty in accepting the Government's view that the clause already covers property left on local authority premises without permission arises from the words "after being found" in subsection (1)(a), taking them in the context of the clause as a whole, including the references to lost property, particularly in subsection (11). The Government, it would seem, clearly accept that property left without permission should be within the clause, and any doubts there might be could be removed by redrafting subection (1)(a). That is what I have tried to do in my Amendment No. 174ZB. So I hope that the Government will accept the need for this clarification. I beg to move.
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, may I deal first with Amendment No. 174ZB. The Government cannot accept this amendment. It is not considered to be necessary. As I intimated when the noble Baroness, Lady David, moved a somewhat similar amendment in Committee, the clause will take effect whenever property comes into the possession of a local authority after being found in buildings or on premises owned or managed by them. Whether such property was lost, deliberately abandoned or simply left on the premises is irrelevant. It is the fact of its being found and taken into the possession of a local authority that is germane to the clause. However, the noble Baroness will no doubt be pleased to hear me say that the Government are prepared to consider Amendment No. 177ZA, with a view to tabling suitable amendments at Third Reading. The points which the noble Baroness makes, and has made, have, we feel, merit, but it is a question of bringing this forward in the best way possible, as I am sure the noble Baroness will appreciate. In those circumstances, I hope that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister for, at any rate, some satisfaction. I shall have to accept that subsection (1)(a) covers dumped property as well as something that has been left there unintentionally. And when it comes to the other amendment I shall not move it, having accepted that the Minister is going to do something about it. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 174ZB.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 174A:
Page 42, line 18, at end insert—
("(1A) Where—

(a) property is found on any building or premises owned or managed by a local authority; and

(b) it is subsequently handed over to the authority,

any right of possession of the property which was vested in a person by virtue of its having been found is extinguished.'.).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' leave, in moving Amendment No. 174A I should

901
like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 174B, C, D, E and Amendment No. 177A. Amendments Nos. 174B and 174E are minor amendments arising from Committee Amendments Nos. 119A and 120A which were tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and the noble Baroness, Lady David, but not moved. They take account of circumstances where trasspassing animals come into the possession of a local authority. I am grateful to the noble Baronesses for having drawn our attention to this matter. The remaining amendments are drafting amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness David: My Lords, I am very glad that the two amendments that I moved last time but withdrew—to deal with the problem of animals being left: horses, hens, or whatever—are being accepted here. Although the Government have not accepted my wording, which was "or keep", I am very happy with "look after it adequately".
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendment No. 174B:
Page 42, line 43, leave out ("continue to store it") and insert ("look after it adequately").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment together with Amendments Nos. 174C, 174D, 174E and 177A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bellwin Lord Bellwin moved Amendments Nos. 174C, 174D and 174E:
Page 43, line 4, leave out ("as against its owner").
Page 43, line 8, leave out from ("property") to end of line 12 and insert ("vests in a local authority under this section, the authority may give the whole or any part of the property to the person through whom it came into their possession.
(8A) Where the proceeds of sale of lost property vest in a local authority under this section, the authority may make a payment not exceeding the value of the property to the person through whom it came into their possession.").
line 19, leave out ("storing the property") and insert ("looking after the property adequately").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
12.41 p.m.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 175:
Page 43, leave out line 22.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we now come to another problem of lost property, but this time it has to do with airports, and it is a very complicated story. What these amendments seek to do is to revise the clause back into the form in which it was originally introduced to Parliament. There appears to be a certain amount of confusion on a matter which the Government have been inclined to argue as a matter of principle. Initially, the Government included exactly the principles we wanted in the Bill, but then they changed their mind. When we reminded the Government that Manchester Airport enjoyed these powers under the Greater Manchester Act 1981, the chairman of the Joint Airports Committee of Local Authorities was told by the Minister that this was not appreciated when the Bill was passing through Parliament—otherwise the provision would have been opposed.
The Government have also argued that the appropriate strategy would be to amend the Civil Aviation
902
Act 1980. The Bill before this House today includes amendments to just about every piece of legislation on the statute book, and therefore I do not believe that that is a reason for leaving out civil aviation. Neither do I think it is an argument to say that Members of this House should wait until civil aviation legislation is amended before seeking to remedy a defect. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, moved a similar amendment at Committee stage and he himself asked: where would be a more appropriate place in which to change the law on airport lost property than in a clause in a miscellaneous provisions Bill specifically on lost property? Evidently, the Government originally thought that this was the appropriate place because they drafted a similar clause.
The crucial issue here is the issue of vesting. The Government believe in vesting, otherwise they would not have come forward with the clause which specifically provides for it. By vesting property in an authority, there can be no doubt about the validity of any subsequent action to dispose of the property. Anything less than vesting creates continuing uncertainty and it is for this reason—which is really the core of the argument—that I am moving this amendment today. The Government have quite correctly now decided that this is an appropriate time to revise the law on lost property. All we are asking is that the Government should take this opportunity to revise the law relating to airport lost property.
Air travel, in terms of recovering lost property, is no different from other forms of travel. Indeed, it is usually much easier to retrace a journey made by air when trying to establish the point at which the property was lost, because there are not a great many intermediate points where something might have been left or lost. Since there is so much more air travel and since the distances between destinations are becoming shorter and shorter, I do not think it is a valid argument to question the matter of air travel, and for it to be brought into use against these amendments. In fact, the matter is made easier than in the case of rail or bus journeys, where lost property is eventually vested in the appropriate authorities.
When the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, moved his amendment at Committee—and I believe I am right in saying that it was rather late at night when he did so—he subsequently withdrew it because the Minister stated that he would write to the noble Lord about this. The Minister has written to him and the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, was kind enough to let me see a copy of the letter. With great respect, I do not really think that the letter answers the points which were originally raised by the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, and by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, when this matter was debated at Committee stage. This is further strengthened by the letter which the Minister has received from the chairman of the Joint Airports Committee of Local Authorities, who points out that the Department of Trade has, despite strong representations on behalf of the joint committee, refused to accept that vesting could be possible under by-laws made under the powers provided by the Civil Aviation Act 1980. So it does not look as though there will be very much hope down that avenue, even if one waited long enough for that avenue to open.
It seems to me that we have now got to the stage

903
where, with the many discussions which have taken place and the amount of correspondence which has passed backwards and forwards, the Government will take a different line on this; that they will go back to their original line in another place and accept this amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, before the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, sits down, will she confirm that she really said that the distances between airports were getting shorter and shorter? The travelling times might be, but not the distances, surely?
Baroness Birk: The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is of course right. I was trying to say that it takes less and less time to fly from one place to another.
Lord Evans of Claughton: My Lords, that metaphysical point having been dealt with, I would like to say that the noble Lord the Minister was kind enough to write to me and to throw a little light on what must be the rather depressing existence he has at the moment in moving these endless amendments. I have become convinced by what the noble Lord said in his letter that the matter should be left as it now is in the Bill, given the very convoluted history of the Bill in another place and here.
The noble Lord the Minister said that the effect of my amendment would be to entitle the authority—that is, the airport authority—to the proceeds from the sale of any property that had been lost and was to be disposed of, and that this might not always be just. He went on to say that the British Airports Authority did not find any need for the power. Frankly, I had decided that, broadly speaking, I would let the matter drop. The only point I find difficult to understand is the one which the noble Lord the Minister made in the penultimate sentence of his letter, where he said that, should local authorities wish to press the matter of vesting, the proper way would be for them to discuss it with the Department of Trade with a view to amending the Civil Aviation Act 1980.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, said, apparently the Government do want to change, and since they have not been inhibited from making amendments to all kinds of Acts, I would seriously be interested to know the reason—rather than try to make a party political point—why amendments to the Civil Aviation Act 1980 were not inserted. I ask that given that there seems to be a general demand from provincial airports for change, although possibly not—as the noble Lord the Minister said—from Heathrow airport authority. That is my only remaining doubt: since almost every Act under the sun has been amended, and since there is a genuine demand from airports, why has this not been included as an amendment to the Civil Aviation Act 1980?
Lord Bellwin: My Lords, will the noble Baroness allow me to refer to that last point first while it is in my mind? I really do not know the answer to what the noble Lord, Lord Evans, says. It sounds very reasonable, as does most of what the noble Lord says. Would that we could always agree; unhappily we rarely do, it would seem. Clearly, this is an area where one is
904
trying to get the best way of doing things. I used to be very involved in airports; I was chairman of a local authority airport. This kind of problem came up from time to time, so I am very sympathetic to what the noble Baroness is seeking to do.
But, my Lords, we are concerned about the effect of the amendment. It would be to extend the provisions of Clause 35. In the debate at Committee stage on a similar amendment I explained that because special problems arise at airports, and they certainly do, specific provision has been made for their operation, their regulation and for the conduct of persons while on aerodromes. In the case of local authority aerodromes, provision is made in the Civil Aviation Acts 1968 and 1980 for the making of by-laws regulating such matters, including by-laws relating to lost property, and some by-laws have been made under this legislation without a vesting provision. I also explained that since specific legislation already existed it was unnecessary and, we felt, confusing to accept an amendment which would have the effect of providing two pieces of statute dealing with the same issue in different ways. The Government therefore could not accept the proposed amendment.
However, as the noble Baroness rightly said, I did undertake to look into problems alleged to arise out of the present legislation, and in particular the fear of the possibility of fraudulent claims and that local authorities would not be able to pass good title to a purchaser of lost goods. It was then that I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Evans, and to my noble friend Lord Ridley, and indeed also to the Joint Airports Committee of Local Authorities, JACOLA, to reassure them that their fears were unfounded. I still feel that there is no reason to depart from that original view.
With regard to the Civil Aviation Act, I am informed that it cannot be amended in a Bill dealing with local authorities because the Civil Aviation Act relates to air travel and aviation. However, if your Lordships still have doubts on the points that have now been thoroughly debated, I feel that to deal with this problem, which is a fair one to raise—although the noble Baroness referred to the point that it seemed to her a tortuous way of going about it—the recommendation would stilll be to seek an amendment to the Civil Aviation Act 1980. If she would like me privately to discuss it with colleagues in the Department of Trade, I shall be glad to do so.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, may I thank the Minister for his reply and his clarification of this matter? I am still worried by the point made in the reply, the letter from Councillor Emmerson to the Minister, when he says:
"The Department of Trade, despite the strongest representations on behalf of the Joint Committee, refuse to accept that vesting could be possible by by-laws made under the powers of the Civil Aviation Act".
If the noble Lord the Minister is suggesting that he will discuss this matter with his colleagues, as I understood him to say, and since I seem to have lost part of the sturdy support of the noble Lord, Lord Evans, if I push it further, I do not think that this is the occasion to press it to a Division. I should be very grateful if the Minister would follow it up, as I am sure he will.

905
This is a matter of complete mystification to us all, and obviously to other people. I hope that in some way the situation can be clarified. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 176 not moved.]
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 177:
Page 43, line 32, leave out from ("board") to ("and") in line 33 and insert ("constituted in pursuance of section 1 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 or reconstituted in pursuance of Schedule 17 to the Local Government Act 1972").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this drafting amendment clarifies a reference the clause makes to planning boards. It enables that the clause will be exercisable by any new planning board which might be constituted under the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 in the future, as well as by the two existing boards, the Lake District Special Planning Board and the Peak Park Joint Planning Board. Corresponding provision is made to Clause 34. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 177ZA not moved.]
1 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 177A:
Page 43, line 39, leave out ("hands") and insert ("possesssion").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Bellwin spoke to this amendment with amendment No. 174B. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 177B:
After Clause 36, insert the following new clause:
("Advances for acquisition of land, erection of buildings or carrying out of works.
In section 3 of the Local Authorities (Land) Act 1963—(a) the following subsection shall be substituted for subsection (1)—
"(1) Where a local authority are satisfied that it would be for the benefit or improvement of their area, they may, subject to the provisions of this section, advance money to any person for the purpose of enabling him—

(a)to acquire land; or

(b)to erect any building or carry out any work on land."; and

(b) the following subsections shall be substituted for subsection (3)—
"(3) The amount of the principal of an advance made under subsection (1)(a)of this section shall not exceed nine-tenths of the value of the land.
(3A) The amount of the principal of an advance made under subsection (1)(b)of this section shall not exceed nine-tenths of the value which it is estimated the mortgaged security will bear upon the completion of the building or other works in respect of which the advance is made.".").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I should like, with the leave of the House, to speak to Government Amendments Nos. 177B, 177CA, 177E and 177F, which it seems appropriate should be taken together. Noble Lords will know that we have been giving serious consideration to the role of local authorities in promoting employment and providing assistance to firms in their areas. The consultation paper setting out our views and proposals was published on 11th March. The proposals were that all local authorities should have a general power to assist in any way they
906
saw fit firms employing not more than 25 persons, subject only to a limitation on expenditure of a halfpenny rate product. Additionally all local authorities would retain their power of industrial development under the Local Authorities Land Act 1963, but extended to allow more flexibility.
We had, of course, been aware of the urgency with which the district councils view the need for swift action as a result of the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Sandford at Committee. It was in response to my noble friend that my noble friend Lord Bellwin undertook to consider the results of the consultation exercise with urgency and to look at the possibility of a Government amendment at Report stage. The amendments before your Lordships now have been tabled as a result of that undertaking, If I apologise that some part of those amendments have been tabled very recently, it is because we literally were negotiating up to the last moment; in fact we were taking counsel's opinion as late as Wednesday evening. I should like to pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Sandford for all his help, for all his pressure on the Government, and I hope we have now resolved this matter.
The Government are grateful to all those who have taken the trouble to respond to our consultation paper. We have given careful consideration to their comments. As was perhaps to be expected, there were wide differences of opinion, particularly within local government. In view of this, the Government have decided to table amendments to the Bill on those matters generally agreed to be useful and which are, we hope, non-controversial. So the powers conferred by the Local Authorities Land Act are to be extended. Authorities will be allowed to make loans of up to 90 per cent. of the mortgage value of land or land and buildings in relation to which the loan is given instead of 75 per cent. as at present. Loans may also be made to any person who wishes to buy or lease any land or to carry out any works on land, provided in both cases that the local authority consider it to be in the interest of their area to make such loans.
These may seem small changes, but I have no doubt that they will be of considerable practical help to local authorities in helping viable local firms to establish themselves or to expand. The amendments will also extend to the end of 1986 the powers to assist industry contained in post-1974 local authority rationalization Acts. This is a small but desirable step. The Government's policy has been to ensure that local authorities' powers to assist industry in post-1984 local Acts should lapse at the end of 1984, in common with those pre-1974 local Acts powers which are due to lapse under the Local Government Act 1972. The Government have undertaken to make an order under the 1972 Act in relation to pre-1974 Acts deferring the deadline to 1986, because of a number of local authority rationalisation Bills still to be introduced. It would clearly be inequitable for the industry powers in post-1974 Acts to run to 1984, while others ran to 1986. Amendment No. 177F will, therefore, rectify the position.
In considering the question of local authorities' assistance to industry, it has of course been necessary to consider Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 and the power which enables authorities to incur

907
expenditure in the interests of the area or its inhabitants. The Government believe, as the nature of the amendments considered by the House today clearly indicates, that this section does enable authorities to provide various forms of assistance of this kind. However, we are conscious that the doubts felt by some local authorities are doubts reflected in the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Sandford.
In recognistion of these doubts we have, therefore, in Amendment No. 177CA made clear that Section 137 may be used to assist industry by making loans, guarantees or grants. Before tabling this amendment careful consideration was given to that in the name of my noble friend Lord Sandford. Although we are advised that it would add little to the scope of Section 137 in its present form, nevertheless, we recognise the desirability of avoiding doubt where doubt can reasonably be avoided. That is the purpose of the Government's amendment. It must be emphasised that this amendment only declares that authorities have certain powers in relation to powers to assist industry under Section 137, and in no way affects the responsibilities of local authorities under the law to apply satisfactory accounting procedures, particularly in the case of guarantees.
In the light of future experience, the Government will be considering whether a need will arise for further clarification of the procedures for the exercise of guarantee powers in particular. To this end they will look to local authorities to keep them informed of the ways in which the powers will be used in future and in the light of this will consider with the local authority associations what further steps, if any, will be needed in this field.
The amendment also deals with the doubt about the proper interpretation of a section which has caused some local authorities much difficulty. An authority may incur expenditure under the section in the interest of its area or its inhabitants. Subsection (4A) limits that expenditure to the product of a 2p rate. It is not clear, however, whether the limit relates to gross or net expenditure—that is, expenditure which would represent a charge on the authority's rates. Section 137 is available only where an authority has no other powers to incur expenditure on a particular activity. It has been used by authorities in certain cases to undertake spending on the urban development programme and the Youth Opportunities and Community Programmes of the Manpower Services Commission and the Department of Employment. The co-operation of local authorities in these programmes is much valued. But if the expenditure limit in the section relates to gross expenditure, some authorities could be prevented from participating because expenditure reimbursed by Government grant would have to be included and would take them well above the 2p rate product ceiling.
The expenditure on the Manpower Services Commission programmes is dealt with in Amendment No. 177E. Subsection (4B) in Amendment No. 177CA allows various sums to be deducted or netted off from the authority's gross expenditure under the section. The most significant item is perhaps the expenditure reimbursed by the Government on urban programme projects in paragraph (a), and other paragraphs of
908
the subsection deal with other items which the Government accept it would be reasonable to remove from the calculation.
I am conscious that in the limited time available to deal with this urgent issue we may have overlooked sums that might also fairly be treated in this way. We have therefore included an order-making power so as to be able to deal in a reasonably flexible way with other sums. Let me make it clear, however, that we have not excluded any such grants: we have put in all the ones that have occurred to us.
Amendment No. 177E has a close connection with Amendment No. 177CA. It serves two purposes. It provides express power for authorities to enter into arrangements for funding schemes under, for example, the Youth Opportunities Programme and the Community Enterprise Programme, under the provisions of the Employment and Training Act 1973. The effect is, first, that local authorities no longer have to rely on Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 and thus expenditure on these programmes would not count against the expenditure limit in that section. Secondly, doubts about the powers of authorities to participate in these programmes are removed. The doubts lay in the fact that authorities had to rely on Section 137, yet where the cost of a project was reimbursed 100 per cent. by the Manpower Services Commission or the Department of Employment there was no actual expenditure by the local authority, and arguably Section 137 was not, therefore, available to them. Amendment No. 203 is a consequential amendment to the Long Title of the Bill.
I have spoken long enough on the details of these amendments but I thought that the House would wish to know exactly what is in our mind. I should like briefly to sum up the Government's view. We recognise that this is an important subject which required urgent examination. It is one that we shall need to keep under review. Local government has a legitimate role in helping local firms within the context of national priorities. We shall all be interested to see how that role develops, but in the meantime we want to strengthen the legal basis to remove uncertainties just as quickly as we can. In considering how to do so we have taken very careful note of what local government itself has said to us in the consultation process. That is why the battery of powers after the amendment will be quite different from our proposals in the consultation paper and much closer to the present pattern. I believe that the proposals in the Government amendments will be generally welcome as useful and practical additions to local governments' armoury while preserving the freedom and flexibility of the present framework. It is in that spirit that I commend these amendments to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I think that all noble Lords who have just heard that statement from my noble friend Lord Avon will regard this as a happy outcome of a long saga. It is 22 months since the Burns Committee reported on this subject and it has required constant prompting—to use the mildest term I can—to get to this position. The last of those promptings took place as recently as last Wednesday, as my noble friend has said. But we are now there and I should like to thank the Government for having

909
dealt with the subject in the end in such a thoroughgoing way and for having really tried and succeeded in the end in meeting all the diverse points with which they have been confronted. I should also like to thank those Members of the House on both sides who have assisted in this complex, difficult and exacting process. I hope that now, as a result, the local authorities will be able to welcome the outcome, as I do, and get on with what I think nearly all of them regard as the most important activity that they can be engaged in at the present time. In view of what my noble friend the Minister has said—and I am grateful to him for having dealt with it so thoroughly—I shall not need to move my own Amendment No. 177D.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, in offering appreciation to the Government. I suspect that we owe a special word of thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, who probably took back from the Committee stage the message of strong criticism that we voiced at that time about the alternative proposals in the ill-fated Green Paper that these powers should be reduced to the spending of a p rate instead of a 2p rate. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, was able to indicate, together with the reports coming in of the views of local authorities, that the original proposal was misguided and ought quickly to be abandoned. I am pleased that it has been abandoned and that we are now back to what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, suggests is a satisfactory conclusion.
I do not want to qualify my thanks at all strongly, but I have a few further words to say. What we are doing in this series of amendments, all of which have been carefully and helpfully explained by the noble Earl, is to restore the status quo ante as we all understood it or at least as we hoped it to be. We want it stripped of all possible obstacles such as the MSC "funding" problem—to which I refer without going into detail—and the position left clear for local authorities to use the present Section 137 2p rate power to help all industry, and not just small industry, as again was proposed in the ill-fated Green Paper, in their areas if they so wish. All well and good and, as I say, I do not wish to qualify my thanks unduly.
But it still leaves us in a slightly unsatisfactory position, which I hope the Government will now reflect upon in the coming months with a view to making the position a good deal clearer. We are now left with a very general power in the 1972 Act—Section 137—to use the proceeds of a 2p rate to incur expenditure which, in the opinion of the local authority, is in the interests of its area. That power is now clearly being allowed to be used to help local industry.
But the difficulty that arises—and I say this as President of the Federation of Industrial Development Authorities, knowing the sort of district councils that are involved in this matter and the problems that arise—is that a small local authority, a district council, with a small revenue from a 1p or 2p rate, can very quickly be put in the position that if, as is so often the case, its unemployment is very high and it is desperate to help local industry, it can quickly use up the whole of this 2p rate to help industry and have nothing left at all of the proceeds under Section 137 to help other causes that it might be anxious to help in its area and other
910
matters which, as the 1972 Act says, would benefit its inhabitants.
These powers are used for all sorts of good works in local authorities. As I say, the problem is that these authorities with 15 per cent. or 20 per cent. unemployment—and I have given examples in this Chamber of local authorities with 28 per cent. unemployment—anxious to use to the full any powers they have to help local and small industry, will eat it all up. A few tens of thousands of pounds it may be, but they will then find themselves unable to use Section 137 for anything else at all. This really is an unsatisfactory recognition of the role of local authorities to help industry in present-day circumstances.
I shall not repeat what I said at the Committee stage, but I then set out the deficiencies of the present regional assistance policy and referred to the need not to rely totally on that policy as a form of aid to district councils, particularly outside assisted areas, where they have very high levels of unemployment. It would, I think, be a good thing if the Government would now reflect upon the fact that, as I said at the Committee stage, many of those district councils in England have no regional development agency, as there is in Scotland and Wales, to help them with industrial promotion and the attraction of industry.
So a limited number of very hard hit, relatively poor district councils, outside assisted areas, in England —and I put all those together to show that I am trying to define it as clearly as I can—will now suffer in that they will have restored the 2p poundage but will be unable to do anything else in the nature of extra good work, so to speak, once they have eaten it all up in helping industry in their area. That is why my federation, in a letter which we sent at the time of the consultations, proposed to the Government that there should be clear recognition of the power of local authorities to help industry by means of a special 2p rate rather than simply relying on the 2p under Section 137, on the understanding, as we said in the final paragraph of our letter, that Section 137 would then still be available for other purposes.
Local authorities have surely reached the stage of recognition of their work for industry, and for small industry in particular. They ought to have a clear power to help that industry. It ought not to be at the expense of other good things on which they can spend a very small rate poundage. I think that we must now move to a period in which we can have the authorities' powers in this matter clearly recognised by a specific power enshrined in an Act of Parliament. I know that the Government are concerned that the power should not be so great that it leads to profligacy and authorities advertising all over the world, as I said at Committee stage. So we have the qualification that it should be the product of a 2p rate to help industry or £250,000, whichever is the higher. That would keep a firm lid on the extent to which local authorities would have this clear new power to be able to assist industry.
I come finally to this point. We have all perhaps forgotten that Section 137(4) of the 1972 Act gives the Minister the power to fix a rate higher than 2p; that is, he can, by order, increase this 2p rate if he is so minded. That is a second possibility for which we must press. If we cannot have a special power for local authorities

911
to assist industry—and I think that that is the proper solution, limited as I have suggested—the alternative is to ask the Government, after a little more experience of seeing how this system works (I shall not be too precipitate), to consider the possibility of increasing the 2p perhaps to 3p, and in that way let us recognise the legitimate role of authorities in this matter.
I have spoken at some length, but I wanted to make it clear that, although I am very grateful for what the Government are doing in abandoning the proposals in the Green Paper and listening very readily, as they have, and very helpfully to local authorities, I am sorry to say that I cannot regard that as the end of the whole story. I think that local authorities today have a proper right to demand that their role in helping industry should be more clearly recognised by an individual power, rather than just left to be part of a general power under Section 137.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I find myself following the noble Lord who has just spoken with a rather different point of view. As your Lordships are aware, I am advised by the CBI and, as my noble friend Lord Avon said, we only received these amendments very late in the day. I understand the reason for that, but we have not had very much time to study them. At first sight they appear merely to underpin and re-emphasise powers that are already in the possession of local authorities, and to that extent we would not quarrel with them.
However, we do not much like the look of the new subsection (2B) of Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972, even if it is correct. The closing remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, about the possibility of increasing the amount of poundage that could be spent on this purpose fill us with horror. We might find ourselves in a position at Third Reading of putting down an amendment to deprive the Government of that power. Perhaps that is pushing it a little far.
Very briefly, our objections are that basically we think there is a duplication of agencies. There are all sorts of other sources from which people can be funded; for instance, banks, finance houses and heaven knows how many others. There is a lack of expertise in local authorities in this area. Furthermore, one would not think it particularly wise that they should enter into the financial jungle, because they are not really set up for that purpose in the first place.
We think also that there will be a burden on the rates, particularly for the people who do not have this financial assistance, and we suggest to the Government there might be a possibility of conflict with the Government's own inner-city policies in certain areas. But above all—and here I repeat what my noble friend Lord Bellwin said in part in answer to Amendment No. 172—there is an unfairness of competition as between those lucky businesses which are supported by the local authority (and one wonders sometimes what criteria they will use for doing that supporting) and those that are not. On the whole, we think that local government should stick to its own last and not turn itself into a financial organisation. We would hope that in the passage of time the Government will give even greater thought to this matter and perhaps phase out those parts of the 1972 Act which give these powers.
1.22 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, may I first join in the thanks from all sides of the House to the Government for having made the changes which were asked for, as far as debate was concerned, in the Unstarred Question asked by my noble friend Lord Northfield on, I think, 11th March, the day the consultation paper came out. From all sides of the House—I think I had better exclude the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, because I would not want to slander him in this way, if he took a different view, which he probably did—we were appalled at the proposal then of the ½p rate for industry.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has certainly done a good job in nudging the Government hard over this. As he said, this went on right until this week. It has, so far as the Government are concerned, taken from 11th March to get this clear statement and great improvement today, which ought to be considered a considerable success. Therefore, I think we will have to forgive the Minister for the late tabling of some of the amendments, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that it makes life difficult if one sees these things at the last moment.
I should like to support what my noble friend Lord Northfield has said. This was something we were discussing, although in the context of the ½p rate, but nevertheless the principle was the same. In many different areas of the country, particularly for instance in the North-East, where unemployment is very high, the using of the product of the 2p rate has been taken up, and has needed to be taken up. In other places it has not always been taken up. As there is nothing mandatory about this, I think that some of the fears expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, will not be realised.
I agree that there are these difficulties which arise, particularly with a small local authority where the amount of money that can be produced, even if they exercise the whole of their 2p rate, could be too small for them to be able to do anything worthwhile. I cannot possibly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, that this is local authorities not sticking to their last. This is part of the fact of local authorities in co-operation with other people. It may be co-operatives, it could be individual industrialists, or commercial promoters. Anybody concerned either with industry on the one hand or local government on the other, or in many cases both, would feel that this partnership was a way of matching local needs, local expertise, local knowledge, together with the creation of a certain amount of knowledge, together with the creation of a certain amount of wealth even on a small scale, and the improvement of productivity, which is what we must all be agreed is what we all want to see in this country.
Since the recommendation, to which my noble friend referred, in their reply to the consultation paper was either that the product of a 3p rate or £250,000—
Lord Northfield: A 2p rate, not 3p.
Baroness Birk: That is right, 2p, or £250,000, whichever is the higher. I do not think that anybody is going to be in the area of such big business that they could create any competitive problems with some of the larger businesses covered by the CBI. This is still fairly small stuff in the industrial field.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, would the noble Baroness allow me? The CBI does not cover only large businesses. It covers small ones. It has a complete small business section, and it is those it is particularly concerned about in this respect.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right, and I was aware of that. I thought I had covered that in my point about the co-operation between local authorities and also the opportunity that this type of partnership could give to people who probably would not even get their small businesses started, or under way, or who want help. It is also a way, as we pointed out in our previous debates on this matter, of using buildings, shops, empty buildings in local authority areas, where again this is of great importance.
When the noble Lord referred to competition, I presume he meant with money wanted by the inner city areas. I do not think that these are mutually exclusive. One of the best ways of trying to bring life to some of the most deprived of the inner city areas— and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, would agree—is to try to get some sort of industry, or commerce, or activity generated there so that this can be energised by the product of the rate. Therefore, I would agree with my noble friend that there should be a watchful eye kept on this, but the option should be left open, and where it can be shown that a local authority can genuinely use productively and without profligacy the product of a higher rate, then there would be a good case for looking at this once again.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, may I briefly intervene from these Benches to offer our thanks to the Government for having ironed out what at Committee stage looked to me to be an impossible tangle. Unlike many of your Lordships, I came fairly late into this particular arena. Indeed, it was during the Unstarred Question debate instigated by the noble Lord, Lord Northfield. The Government have done a comprehensive job here. They have sorted out a lot of the difficulties in a way which frankly I would not have believed possible.
Clearly, they have not answered all the questions. I find myself going some way down the road of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, in feeling that the problems that I suggested at the Committee stage, of local government getting into the capital market, are still a little bit open. Certainly local authorities, in my view, should not get into the risk capital business, and I reiterate that at this stage. My feeling is that we are always talking about trusting local authorities.
Lord Northfield: My Lords, there is a misapprehension about this. The majority of local authorities using money in this way are not in fact using it for loans for industry. It is for quite other purposes than helping industry.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, and I agree that that is the situation. All we are saying is that this is still somewhat loosely drawn, and a local authority that wished to do that within the terms that we have here could perhaps do so, and they should be discouraged from doing so. I do not see
914
how the Government could have drawn it more tightly. No. 177B seems to be drawn as tightly as it sensibly could be, and sets the tone for the rest of the series of amendments. The Government are also to be congratulated on No. 177F, for giving the two-year extension to the various Acts. Generally, therefore, with the same cautionary words I injected in Committee, the amendments have the qualified support of these Benches.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their general support and thanks to the Government for working this one out so speedily and I shall convey to my noble friend Lord Bellwin the kind of remarks that have been made. This short debate has been constructive and, as in the past, the issue has been fairly provocative. To the noble Lord, Lord Northfield, whose speech was, I thought, slightly Oliver Twistish in asking for a little more, I would stress what I have said—that we shall keep the subject under review. The 2p limit under Section 137 can of course be varied without further legislation, as the noble Lord himself pointed out. We think that in keeping to the general limit of 2p, rather than the figure in the consultation paper, we have moved sufficiently far in the direction he would wish. I would stress again that the 2p limit operates on a net basis and need not provide for the MSC schemes. I hope, therefore, that for the time being we can leave that as it stands.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, also spoke about the 2p, and I would ask her to bear in mind that the 2p limit in Section 137 is not the only source of assistance local authorities can use. Indeed, evidence shows that local authorities make substantially more use of their powers under the 1963 Act, which contains no specific money limit and which the Government amendments significantly extend.
As for the short intervention of my noble friend Lord Mottistone, I was not surprised to learn that such a view might be taken. We are of course aware, from responses to the consultation paper, that some would argue that the principal service local government can provide to the private sector is to keep the rates as low as possible. Of course, that implies only a modest level of intervention. The proposals set out in our amendments, I wish to make it clear, will not in themselves increase current levels of expenditure or change the existing constraints on that expenditure. Assistance to industry will continue to be subject to capital expenditure controls and the constraints imposed by rate support grant. I acknowledge the important contribution to the Government's thinking on this subject made by noble Lords on both sides of the House, and perhaps I may single out in particular the work of my noble friend Lord Sandford.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
1.33 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 177CA:
After Clause 36, insert the following new clause:
("Definition of certain local authority expenditure etc.
. In section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 (which gives local authorities power to incur expenditure for certain purposes not otherwise authorised, but limits the expenditure which it authorises)—
(a) the following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (2)—
"(2A) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1) above, the power of a local authority to incur expenditure under that subsection includes power to incur expenditure in giving financial assistance to persons carrying on commercial or industrial undertakings.
(2B) Financial assistance under subsection (2A) above may be given by lending or guarantee, or by making grants.";
(b) the following subsections shall be inserted after subsection (4)—
"(4A) For the purpose of determining whether a local authority have exceeded the limit set out in subsection (4) above, their expenditure in any financial year under this section shall be taken to be the difference between their gross expenditure under this section for that year and the aggregate of the amounts specified in subsection (4B) below.
(4B) The amounts mentioned in subsection (4A) above are—

(a) any grant paid to the local authority for that year under the Local Government Grants (Social Need) Act 1969, in s far as the grant is in respect of an activity in relation to which the authority have incurred expenditure in that year under this section;

(b) the amount of any repayment in that year of the principal of a loan for the purpose of financing expenditure under this section in any year;

(c) so much of any amount raised by public subscription as is spent in that year for a purpose for which the authority are authorised by this section to incur expenditure;

(d) any grant received by the authority for that year out of the European Regional Development Fund or the Social Fund of the European Economic Community, in so far as the grant is in respect of an activity in relation to which the authority incurred expenditure in that year under this section;

(e) the amount of any repayment in that year of a loan under this section made by the authority in any year; and

(f) the amount of any expenditure—

(i) which is incurred by the authority in that year in circumstances specified in an order made by the Secretary of State; or

(ii) which is incurred by the authority in that year and is of a description so specified; or

(iii) which is defrayed by any grant or other payment to the authority which is made in or in respect of that year and is of a description so specified."; and

(c) in subsection (5), for the words "subsection (4) above" there shall be substituted the words "this section ".").
[Amendment No. 177D not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 177CA agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 177E and 177F:
After Clause 36, insert the following new clause:
(" Arrangements under Employment and Training Act 1973
.—(1) A local authority to whom this section applies shall have power and shall be deemed always to have had power to enter into arrangements with the Manpower Services Commission or the Secretary of State under any provision of the Employment and Training Act 1973.
(2) The local authorities to whom this section applies are—

(a) a local authority as defined in section 270(1) of the Local Government Act 1972;

(b) a board constituted in pursuance of section 1 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 or reconstituted in pursuance of Schedule 17 to the Local Government Act 1972; and

(c) the Common Council of the City of London.").

After Clause 36, insert the following new clause:
(" Extension of duration of local Act powers to assist industry etc.
.—(1) In each of the enactments to which this subsection applies "1986" shall be substituted for "1984".
(2) The enactments to which subsection (1) above applies are—

(a) section 62A of the Isle of Wight County Council Act 1971, so far as it relates to section 18 to 20 of that Act;

(b) section 11(2) of the County of South Glamorgan Act 1976;

(c) section 52 of the Tyne and Wear Act 1976;

(d) section 9 of the County of Merseyside Act 1980;

(e) section 122(2) of the West Midlands County Council Act 1980;

(f) section 4 of the Cheshire County Council Act 1980;

(g) section 8 of the West Yorkshire Act 1980; and

(h) section 9 of the Greater Manchester Act 1981.").

The noble Earl said: I have already spoken to these amendments, my Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk moved Amendment No. 178:
After Clause 36, insert the following new clause:
(" Disclosure of documents in custody or control of Inland Revenue Valuation Office
.—(1) A document of any description containing any information defined in subsection (5) hereof which belongs to or is in the custody or control of the Inland Revenue Valuation Office shall be open to the inspection of any officer of a principal council duly authorised in writing for the purposes of this section and any such officer may make a copy of or extract from any such document.
(2) The powers contained in this section shall not be exercised otherwise than for the purposes of furthering or assisting in the performance of any statutory function of a principal council.
(3) A document required by this section to be open to inspection shall be so open at all reasonable hours and without payment.
(4) If a person having the custody of any such document—

(a) obstructs any person entitled to inspect the document or to make a copy thereof or extract therefrom in inspecting the document or making a copy or extract,

(b) refuses to give copies or extracts to any person entitled to obtain copies or extracts,

he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £200.
(5) The information referred to in subsection (1) above is—

(a) any record or information in respect of the tenure, type, age or number of rooms of any dwelling which constitutes an individual hereditament; or

(b) any record or information in respect of the amount of floor space by type of use (including industry, shops, offices, warehousing or other) of any building other than a dwelling which constitutes an individual hereditament).").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a simple and, I hope, non-controversial amendment which I hope the Government will accept. It simply seeks to enable a limited number of people from local government to gain access to Inland Revenue valuation records in order to obtain information purely about the physical size and use of individual buildings. The Inland Revenue hold this information, as it forms the basis of the assessment of rateable values to local authority rating. Local authorities wish to make use of a limited part of the information to help them with their forward planning. Therefore, information on the number of empty properties, different amounts of space allocated to different sorts of industrial and commercial use and so on, is vital in understanding the economic base of the local authority area.
Local authorities, I stress, do not wish to gain access to any confidential data about the business concerns which operate in those premises; they merely wish to obtain information about the physical form of the buildings. It is true that they can gain the information, but only as a result of long and tedious work on individual buildings, and that must of course add to the expense of research. As the Inland Revenue already holds the information, it should surely be easily accessible. There is a precedent, in that local authorities have access to data collected in the annual census of employment under the Statistics of Trade Act 1947. There have been no problems of breaches of confidentiality in those circumstances, so far as I can discover, and, with local authority officials being bound by proper rules of confidentiality under the proposed new clause—which they would be, as they are in many other matters—there should be no problem under the provisions.
The amendment has the support of all three local authority associations representing local authorities in England and Wales. While we could understand some hesitation on the part of the Inland Revenue as to the provision of access to Inland Revenue information, as we are talking here only about information on the physical form of buildings, I should have thought that the new clause would not pose any threat; on the contrary, it would make things work more smoothly, easily and cheaply for local authorities in this field.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: There may be a flaw in the amendment, my Lords. I agree that information supplied to the rating valuers should be available in the way my noble friend suggests. But that is not the only information held by the valuation office. It has particulars delivered on the basis of a statutory obligation to supply the valuation department of the Inland Revenue with particulars of property conveyed, including the consideration involved. That should not be material to what local authorities require for rating purposes. I am anxious that information which people are obliged to supply to the valuation office for entirely different reasons should not be made available for other purposes.
In general, I take the view that when the state demands that a citizen should stand and deliver for one purpose of the state's requirements, what the citizen gives up in the way of information should not be used by that department for purposes other than are required for the fulfilment of the statutory obligations. That is why we must be very careful that documents supplied for one purpose are not freely made available for others. However, with information given for rating purposes I see no objection, because local authorities used to have that information themselves when they were the rating authorities. So long as that is clear—and my noble friend made it clear that that was what she wanted—all right, but, as drafted, the amendment refers to any document in the hands of the valuation office of the Inland Revenue.
Lord Evans of Claughton: My Lords, I support the amendment, but it was salutary that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, should have made those comments. As a solicitor, I have to give a great deal of information
918
of a private kind to the Inland Revenue when transactions concerning the sale of land or houses are completed. There is no question about it, I think that the clause as drawn, though perhaps it could be more tightly drawn, is fairly tightly worded so that the only information given would be of a rating nature and would help with the forward planning of local authorities.
Provided that the clause is narrowly interpreted and closely circumscribed, I do not think that it would be another step towards a police state. It would provide a useful and helpful piece of additional information for local authorities. However, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that the provision must be very narrowly interpreted so that information which is confidential to the citizen is not given to local authorities. With that proviso, I support the amendment.
Lord Glenkinglas: My Lords, I have listened to all three points and I agree in large measure with much of what has been said. I agree that the proposed new clause is not a step towards a police state, but it might very well be a step towards increasing greatly the number of people employed by the Inland Revenue. If one gets this information and then has to sort out exactly what is wanted by a local authority on any particular point, one just cannot hand over the file, because that would completely vitiate what both the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and the noble Lord on the Liberal Benches, said. Therefore the proposal would inevitably mean a good deal more expense.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I am grateful for the way that the noble Baroness introduced the amendment. I do not doubt that the clause would be useful to local authorities, because it would enable them to obtain information which would assist them in the performance of many statutory functions. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said—by way of preview, as it were—it would breach the principle of confidentiality, which is of fundamental importance to our taxation system.
Information held by the Valuation Office is obtained from a variety of sources, but much of it is acquired under statutory provisions contained in the General Rate Act 1967, and in particular Section 82, which enables returns to be obtained from ratepayers, and Section 86, which gives the Valuation Office a power to enter, survey and value property. Some of the information obtained under these powers will be particularly sensitive; an example would be confidential information relating to the ratepayer's business. Another source of information for the Valuation Office comes from the particulars delivered forms, which are submitted to the Inland Revenue following transactions in land and buildings. These forms show the price at which vendors have sold their property.
One of the fundamental principles that underlie the administration of taxation in this country is that information which the taxpayer or ratepayer gives to the Revenue should not be divulged to a third party without the taxpayer's consent. Parliament has always attached the greatest importance to this principle, and every Revenue official is required to make a declaration of secrecy. The confidentiality rule is essential for the

919
proper working of the system, and without it, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for the Revenue to administer the tax system. Taxpayers and ratepayers would be understandably reluctant to give information if, for example, they felt that the information could pass into the hands of their local authority. I think that the noble Baroness can see the way in which the Government's mind is working and the doubts we have, and I look forward to her conclusions.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, for one moment it seemed to me that the Minister was agreeing entirely, and then he seemed to go off the idea altogether. It sounded as if he was himself in a slight dichotomy. My noble friend, quite rightly, and very lucidly, made the point about the dangers that would be encompassed if the proposed clause went too wide. However, he was also good enough to mention a very strict limitation, to which I had referred, and to which the amendment itself refers. If the Minister looks at subsection (5) of the new clause, he will see that it is drafted in what I might call severe terms:
"any record or information in respect of the tenure, type, age or number of rooms of any dwelling which constitutes an individual hereditament; or…
any record or information in respect of the amount of floor space by type of use "—
et cetera. The subsection asks for physical details.
I do not think that the noble Lord who was concerned about the cost need worry, because the information is all kept in compartments; it has to be kept in that way. In any case, as I explained when moving the amendment, searching out these matters, which takes a very long time, must in itself be rather costly. I was impressed by what the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Claughton, said. He is a lawyer, and he seemed satisfied that the restrictive way in which the clause has been drafted covers the point about protection of confidentiality. Frankly, I cannot see any reason why the Government should not accept the amendment. I realise that we want to get on with the Bill, but the noble Earl seemed to indicate that he would like to hear what I had to say. Therefore, I wonder whether he wants to come back with a second thought—I am sure that the House would give him leave—or clarify exactly what he meant, because I was not quite sure about it.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I would say that I do not think that the Government could at the moment accept the amendments because of the reasons that I gave; in particular the fundamental point that it would breach the principle of confidentiality. The great difficulty is that confidential information cannot be dissected from non-confidential information, except at great expense, and I think that it is a fundamental principle that we have to get over. What I do not have is an answer to the noble Baroness's narrower point, and if I may, I should like to pursue that further after the debate is over.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, in view of that rather mysterious answer, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
1.47 p.m.
Baroness David Baroness David moved Amendment No. 179:
After Clause 36, insert the following new clause:
("Trespass on school premises.
.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, it is an offence to remain on premises to which this section applies after being requested to leave them by an officer or other authorised employee of the local education authority or, without lawful authority, to be on such premises within one month after being so requested.
(2) This section applies to premises, including playgrounds, playing fields and premises providing outdoor recreational facilities, of a county or voluntary school or other school or college including an establishment of further education, being premises maintained in a whole or in part by a Local Education Authority or a Joint Education Committee but as respects premises of a voluntary school (other than detached playing fields provided by the Council) only following the written approval of the Governors.
(3) The Local Education Authority shall display on premises to which this section applies a notice stating the general effect thereof.
(4) A person committing an offence under this section—

(a) may be removed from the premises by a police constable or a duly authorised officer or employee of the Local Education Authority; and

(b) shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £50.

(5) No proceedings under this section shall be brought by any person other than a police constable or the Local Education Authority.
(6) In this section "Local Education Authority" means a Local Education Authority as defined in section 144(1) of the Education Act 1944.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment during an earlier part of the Report stage last Monday, in view of the fact that the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, moved a rather similar amendment—or at least it attempted to deal with the same situation. It was an ACC amendment. The Minister replied by saying that the local authority associations had not taken the action that they might have done and had not responded to offers from the department. Inquiries were quickly made the following morning to find out what had happened, and just before we started this session of the Report stage I was handed a copy of a letter that the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, had written to the Minister, and I think that it points out that the situation was not quite so simple as the Minister had made out on Monday.
I should like to refer to one paragraph of the letter. The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, wrote:
"It came as some surprise to us that Government required convincing of the need for this clause at Committee State, since officers of the Association had written to the Department of Education and Science on 5 January warning them of our intention to table this type of amendment, seeking their support and suggesting discussions if the Department thought them necessary. No reply was received to that letter. After Committee Stage the Association wrote to DES on 25 March noting their reluctance to take any action on this Bill. Because the Department felt unable to arrange a meeting which would have had the specific objective of producing an agreed amendment to this Bill, the Association made the invitation to which"
the Minister referred last Monday.
Then,
"The letters from the Home Office and Department of Education and Science followed: the latter seeking specific information was sent on 2 April.
"On receipt of those letters the Association let the Department know by phone that they would seek further evidence but were concerned that the evidence submitted by a number of local authorities was considered insufficient. Since the Department

921
had consulted the voluntary bodies, it was decided to leave matters until replies had been received all round and that any progress on the suggested meeting would depend on those replies. At the beginning of May the Association let the Department know again by phone, that further evidence from authorities had been received but reinforced their belief that action was required at Report State. DES informed the Association that the voluntary bodies had little comment to make on the proposal and that they could not support the amendment at this stage even with further consultation. It was agreed between my officers—
that is the ACC's officers, and the Ministers officials—
"that a meeting in these circumstances would be meaningless and I must say that my officers wondered just how much more evidence the Department would require in any event, whether for this Bill or the future legislation which they mentioned in the debate".
I think it would be fair to ask the Minister to comment on this because, as I say, it does not appear to be quite so simple as was made out on Monday. I beg to move.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I have indeed received a letter from my noble friend in the same terms, some of which the noble Baroness has read out—with, I presume, his knowledge. I have to say that there were exchanges between the Association of County Councils, my department and the Department of Education and Science after the Committee stage, but the tally of correspondence that I have been given does not entirely accord with that which my noble friend describes. I feel it really would be tedious if I were to give the tally—I think I ought to write to my noble friend—as they seem to diverge at the point when they become telephonic.
But what is central to my postiion is, first, that the Department of Education and Science clearly asked the association for a written statement of their case which has not yet been received, and that there does seem to have been some misunderstanding as to with whom the initiative for the next move lay. I understand that there is to be a meeting on Monday of almost all the interested bodies—I hope the voluntary bodies will be able to attend as well—which may clarify the way forward. Your Lordships will recall that one anxiety we have is that the position of the governors of the voluntary schools will not be sufficiently protected by the saver (or should I say "waiver") in the amendment as it stands in the name of the noble Baroness, and consultation with them has confirmed that they are anxious about this and do not at present see the need for the amendment.
However, I understand that there is a good deal of interest in this amendment, and although we still have reservations about the possibility of securing an amendment which adequately protects the position of the governors of voluntary schools, if we are satisfied with the principle of doing something, and if we can get round one or two possible legal difficulties, we will do our utmost to proceed. What I cannot guarantee is that we can proceed in time for the final stage of this Bill. In saying that, I should say that that was the observation made by my own department, the Home Department, on 25th March, when we said that we were not convinced of the need for the amendment—we said this in writing to the association—but we were prepared to consider it and suggested that they talked to the Department of Education and Science. At that stage we said that we doubted whether there was time
922
now to get the amendment framed correctly, and that reservation was also in the letter of the Department of Education and Science on 2nd April, to which I think my noble friend referred.
If my noble friend, when he returns to matters at Third Reading, feels that he would like a reply to his letter published in Hansard, as the noble Baroness has now published for him a part of his letter, then I do not doubt that he will ask me so to do. At this stage I would merely say that there was no intention to mislead, and I do not think there has actually been a misleading of your Lordships; but there are various interpretations of what has gone on.
I ought perhaps at this stage also to say that our reservations do not extend only to the position of the voluntary governors but also to the question of whether a criminal offence of trespass is something altogether desirable. Your Lordships will know that trespass is a tort and not a crime. There was, however, at common law an offence of conspiracy to trespass, which was not popular and which was abolished in 1977, there being substituted for it offences of trespass in relation to particular, distinct buildings.
I will not go into that further now, but I have to say that on these two grounds I have doubts whether we can get round the difficulties. If we find that there is a way round them, if we find that we are persuaded by the authorities concerned that they want this power, if it is not contrary to the public interest and does not curtail the rights of the governors of voluntary schools—and I am sorry to put so many hedges round this—then if it is possible we will come back at Third Reading. I think, though, that even if things had been other than they are in respect of both the correspondence and the timetable, we would have been in great difficulties in doing this in time for this measure, and it may be necessary to look for a vehicle in the future.
Baroness David: My Lords, I thank the Minister very much for that clarification. He queried whether I had the right to read from the noble Viscount's letter to him, but as it was sent under cover of a letter to me from Lord Ridley I felt I could use the information in it; and as the noble Viscount was not here himself I thought it was rather important to get the matter clarified today if we possibly could, before the meeting which it is to take place, I understand on Monday, when I hope very much that things can be sorted out with certainly the hope that something which is agreeable to all the associations might be put down for Third Reading. So I thank the Minister for his reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 37 [Minor amendments and repeals]:
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 179A:
Page 45, line 15, leave out ("Part I") and insert ("Parts I and IA").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, if I may, with Amendment No. 179A I should like to speak to Nos. 183B and 183C. These are drafting amendments

923
which would improve the layout of the repeal schedule. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 180 not moved.]
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 181:
Insert the following new Schedule—
("SCHEDULE
DOG WARDENS
PART I
DUTIES OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES
1. The local authority shall survey their area to determine the identity and locations of stray dogs and determine if requested to do so by any person whether a dog is a stray dog.
2. A local authority shall use their best endeavours to return to its owner any dog which may be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of section 3 of the Dogs Act 1906.
3. Where a person informs a local authority that he cannot maintain a dog which he owns and requests the local authority to assume responsibility for the maintenance of the dog, and where the local authority have satisfied themselves that the person making the request is the owner or that they cannot trace the person who appears to them to be the owner of the dog, they shall—

(a) obtain from the person making the request his written consent to the local authority's assuming responsibility for the dog; and

(b) deal with the dog in accordance with the provisions of section 3 of the Dogs Act 1906;

Provided that for the purpose of this paragraph it shall not be necessary for the local authority to serve any notice required under that section.
4. A local authority shall from time to time consult with local animal welfare societies and with the chief constable for the area on issues concerned with stray dogs and the welfare of all dogs within that area.
5. A local authority shall at the request of any person give advice on any issue of public concern relating to dogs or any aspect of keeping a dog as a pet and such advice may relate to problems caused by stray dogs.
PART II
POWERS OF DOG WARDENS
6. A dog warden may require a person who appears to him to be in charge of a dog to produce on request a valid dog licence issued in respect of the dog or to produce such a licence in person at the place specified by the person so required within 5 days after the production of the licence was so required.
7. A dog warden may require a person who appears to him to be in charge of a dog in respect of which an offence is being or has been committed to state his name and address and the name and address of the owner.
8. A dog warden may examine any dog on a highway or in a place of public resort to determine whether the dog has inscribed on its collar or on a plate or badge attached to its collar the name and address of the owner and whether it has attached to its collar a registration disc under the provisions of section (Issue of licences and registration discs) of this Act, and to enable him to obtain the information inscribed on such collar plate or badge or such registration disc.
9. A dog warden who has reasonable grounds for believing that a person is in charge, or is the keeper, of a dog in respect of which an offence is being or has been committed, may give advice to such a person on any issue of public concern relating to dogs or any aspect of keeping a dog as a pet and such advice may relate to problems caused by stray dogs.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the House will be glad to know that I am going to let sleeping dogs lie this morning. But it is distressing to have to abandon a perfectly good amendment like this. The trouble of course is that it is a perfectly good vehicle, but it has
924
not got an engine, which means that it will not get us anywhere. The House threw out the engine earlier in the week, so there is nothing much left except the bodywork. So I shall not pursue this amendment, but I should like the noble Lords on the Front Bench kindly to take note of the fact that I should like provision made, when we come to the Third Reading of this Bill, for a harangue of at least 15 minutes from me on the things that are in it, or some of them, and the things which are not in it, or some of them. I will be perfectly prepared to reserve all my emotion and my disappointment until then. In the meantime, I do not propose to move this amendment.
[Amendment No. 181 not moved.]
Schedule 6 [Minor amendments]:
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 182:
Page 85, line 35, at end insert—
"Direct labour
8.—(1) The following subsection shall be added at the end of section 21 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 (which exempts small direct labour organisations from the requirements of Part III of that Act)—
"(8) In this section "year" means a financial year".
(2) This paragraph extends to Scotland.".").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Bellwin spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 171. He also spoke to Nos. 198A and 201, which are consequential. I beg to move Amendment No. 182.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 183 not moved.]
Schedule 7 [Repeals]:
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 183B and 183C:
Page 86, line 41, at end insert—

("1980 c. 43.

Magistrates' Courts Act 1980

In Schedule 6, in Part III, paragraph 2.

PART IA
REPEALS IN LOCAL ACTS IN CONSEQUENCE OF SECTION 1")
Page 87, leave out lines 5 and 6.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, if I may speak to Amendments Nos. 183B and 183C together, I spoke to these amendments with Amendment No. 179A. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 183B and 183C.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
2.1 p.m.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 184 to 186:
Page 88, line 29, at end insert—

("1980 c. xiii.

Cheshire County Council Act 1980.

Section 31."

Page 88, line 31, at end insert—

("1981 c. ix.

Greater Manchester Act 1981.

Section 57.

1981 c. xviii.

County of Kent Act 1981.

Section 26.")

Page 88, line 32, at end insert—

("1982 c. iii.

Humberside Act 1982.

Section 46.")

The noble Earl said: With Amendment No. 184, with the leave of the House, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 185 and 186 and to speak to Amendments Nos. 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195 and 196. The repeals in these amendments complete the list of repeals incorporated in Amendments Nos. 133A and 133B which were accepted in Committee. Although there are several of them, they are effectively drafting amendments and there is no new principle involved. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 184 to 186 en bloc.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 187:
Page 88, line 41, leave out ("Section") and insert ("Sections 11 and").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendments Nos. 188 to 196:
Page 89, line 16, leave out ("and 32") and insert ("to 33").
Page 89, line 16, at end insert—

("1982 c. iv.

County of Avon Act 1982.

Sections 4 and 35.")

Page 89, line 25, at end insert—

("1980 c. xv.

Isle of Wight Act 1980.

Section 51.

1980 c. xxxvii.

South Yorkshire Act 1980.

Section 13.")

Page 89, line 28, at end insert—

("1981 c. xix.

South Yorkshire Act 1981.

In the Table, the entries relating to section 13(1) and (2) of the South Yorkshire Act 1980.")

leave out line 30.
Page 89, line 41, at end insert—

("1982 c. iv.

County of Avon Act 1982.

Section 24.")

Page 90, line 24, at end insert—

("1982 c. iv.

County of Avon Act 1982.

Section 26.")

Page 90, line 33, at end insert—

("1980 c. xxxvii.

South Yorkshire Act 1980.

Section 30.

1980 c. xliii.

Tyne and Wear Act 1980.

Section 20.").

Page 91, line 8, at end insert—

("1982 c. iv.

County of Avon Act 1982.

Section 46.").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 197 not moved.]
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 197A:
Page 92, line 7, column 3, at beginning insert—
("In section 140(3), the words from "but" to the end.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this with Amendment No. 171B. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 198 not moved.]
Clause 39 [Citation and extent]:
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 198A:
Page 45, line 45, after ("above,") insert ("and to paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 6 to this Act,").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amend-
926
ment with Amendment No. 171. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
In the Title:
Lord Elton Lord Elton moved Amendment No. 199:
Line 4, after ("Acts") insert ("to make provision for the control of sex establishments;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is the result of an undertaking which my noble friend Lord Belstead gave to the noble Earl, Lord Grey, at the Committee stage. The noble Earl had suggested that there was need for amendment of the Long Title to reflect the addition to the Bill in another place of the provisions in Clause 2 and Schedule 3. My noble friend accepted that that amendment was technically necessary but, in view of certain reservations about the wording proposed by the noble Earl, he asked to be allowed to consider the matter. The addition proposed in the amendment reflects the heading of Part II of the Bill, and I hope that it meets with the approval of your Lordships.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 200:
Line 14, after ("registers") insert ("to make further provision in connection with the acquisition of land and rights over land by boards constituted in pursuance of section 1 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 or reconstituted in pursuance of Schedule 17 to the Local Government Act 1972;").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with No. 162. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 201:
Line 22, after ("specified") insert ("to define "year" for the purposes of Part III of the said Act of 1980;").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this with Amendment No. 171. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 202:
Line 22, after ("specified") insert ("to amend section 140 of the Local Government Act 1972 and to provide for the insurance by local authorities of persons voluntarily assisting probation committees;").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this with Amendment No. 171B. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Avon The Earl of Avon moved Amendment No. 203:
Line 22, after ("specified") insert ("to provide for the method of determining whether a local authority have exceeded the limit on expenditure set out in section 137(4) of the Local Government Act 1972; to make further provision as to arrangements made by local authorities under the Employment and Training Act 1973; to extend the duration of certain powers to assist industry or employment conferred by local Acts;").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this with Amendment No. 177B. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Birk Baroness Birk had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 204:
Line 22, after ("specified") insert ("to give the Secretary of State discretion in section 12 of the Local Government, Planning

927
and Land Act 1980 to exclude the costs of employment and training of apprentices from Direct Labour Organisation revenue accounts;").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I spoke to this amendment with Amendment No. 172. I do not intend to move it now, but this is the only opportunity for me to make a point at the end of this Report Stage.
During the Report stage there have been a tremendous number of amendments taken back by the Government for reconsideration. They have been left to be considered by other noble Lords and, as I understand it, according to the arrangements for future business it is intended to take the third stage of this Bill on Thursday next. I would put it to the Government that this allows far too short a time and it is very unlikely that the Bill will be printed in time for those of us who want to put down amendments and also to consider what has been said during the crowded Committee stage and Report stage of this very wide and comprehensive Bill this week.

Employment Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time, and to be printed.

Administration of Justice Bill [H.L.]
2.5 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty The Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Administration of Justice Bill, has consented to place Her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.— (The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read a third time.
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 5, line 27, after ("account") insert ("(together with any other matter that appears to the court to be relevant to the action)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, may I speak to—but move separately—Amendment No. 4 at the same time. Amendment No. 4 is only the Northern Ireland version of Amendment No. 1. Amendments Nos. 1 and 4 are intended to give effect to a promise I made to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones. He was a little concerned at my first shot at meeting the requirements of the common law wife, as she is called, in fatal accidents cases. He thought that the first attempt I made would cause the courts to concentrate too much on the lack of security of tenure. When it came to debate, I think that we were not very far apart. This is intended to give effect to the common ground. I beg to move.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for having met the suggestions that were made. As it now stands, the provision of Clause 3(4) that, in dealing with the claim for dependency of the common law wife, there shall be taken into account the fact that the dependant had no enforceable right to financial support by the deceased as a result of their living together, while accurate as a matter of law, was little stark. It might lead an unsympathetic judge—although I am not conceding for a moment that there is such a creature—to give a merely token grant to the dependant in those circumstances. I am most grateful that the language that I have suggested has been more or less adopted and slightly improved upon.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 70 [Commencement]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 41, line 11, leave out from ("operation") to end of line 12 and insert ("on 1st January 1983.").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, it will be remembered that at the Report stage my noble friend Lord Renton drew attention to the somewhat complicated commencement provisions of what was then Clause 68 (now Clause 70) of the Bill. I undertook to take the amendment back with a view to simplification. I am afraid that I have not been able to go very far. This amendment is the result of inquiries I have made.
The basic reasons I gave for the complex commencement provisions are correct. There is a great deal of rule-making to be done. This involves not merely a drafting exercise but often lengthy periods of consultation. In other cases, administrative arrangements have to be made and it is not possible to give with any accuracy a forecast when these will be concluded. Therefore, the scope of simplification is somewhat limited. I accept that it would be convenient for practitioners and others to know that many of the substantive provisions of the Bill, including most of the provisions on damages and wills, will come into force on a particular day.
The period of three months which is in the present text can mean that the provisions come into operation in the middle of a week or at some other rather inconvenient time. On reflection, I think 1st January 1983 is both better and clearer. I hope that the House will agree that the amendment should be made. We cannot predict whether the amendment will mean that the provisions will be in force sooner or later than they otherwise would have been. But I think that it would be unwise on my part to select a date before the beginning of next year.
It will be remembered that my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross also raised a most interesting point about the commencement provisions of this and other Bills. I think that I had better write to him about that; I am afraid it will take rather a long letter. I do not think I should use Hansard as a means of communicating with him as it is not really relevant to the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I find myself in the sad situation of being able to thank my noble and learned friend only

929
for the thought and attention that he has given to this very complex matter. I do not propose to address your Lordships in reply to my noble friend at this moment. it will be seen that I have an amendment down. I have been doing my best to help, and any remarks that I have to make will be better made when we come to that amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
2.12 p.m.
Lord Renton Lord Renton moved Amendment No. 3:
Leave out Clause 70 and insert the following new clause—
("Commencement
70.—(1) The following provisions of this Act shall come into operation at the end of the period of 6 weeks from the date on which it is passed—

(a) sections 1 to 5;

(b) sections 7 to 14;

(c) sections 17 to 22;

(d) sections 30 to 32 and section 36;

(e) sections 49 to 53;

(f) sections 55, 56, 58 and 59;

(g) sections 60 and 61;

(h) sections 62, 64 and 66;

(j) sections 67 (other than subsection (8) thereof), 68, 70, 71 and 72.

(2) The remaining provisions of this Act shall come into operation at the end of the period of 6 months from the date on which it is passed.").
The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will see this amendment simplifies, clarifies and also shortens Clause 70 of the Bill. It would overcome, if it were workable, most of the problems regarding commencement which we discussed at Report Stage. Your Lordships will see that I divide the Bill into those provisions which will come into operation six weeks from the date on which it is passed and the remainder six months after that date.
May I begin with my first subsection in this new clause? It includes three groups of clauses which I suggest need not be long delayed in being brought into operation. It provides that they shall come into operation six weeks after the Bill is passed. The first group are those clauses which are already mentioned in subsection (10) of Clause 70 in the Bill as it stands and which would, under the Bill as it stands, come into operation on the day it is passed.
Noble Lords may well ask: why wait for six weeks? The answer is that, when a Bill has been passed which makes amendments especially to the statute law, it is desirable to give the printers sufficient time to get the Bill printed and the editors and annotators of the various works upon which the users of statutes rely sufficient time to bring the amendments to the notice of the users of statutes. Therefore, there is an advantage on an occasion like this in having a six weeks' interval, anyway. That is why I have suggested that those clauses should be brought into operation after six weeks.
I should mention in passing that the groups of clauses to which I refer are not those to which the Public BillOffice have so rightly put (a), (b), (c), et cetera, in the amendment, and, indeed, they are not in numerical sequence. My second group are those clauses which are at present covered in the Bill in subsection (11) of Clause 70 and will come into operation on 1st January 1983 as a result of the amendment just moved and carried by my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack.
Discovering which provisions of the Bill were covered
930
by subsection (11) was, I found, a somewhat elaborate process. It is a process which practitioners would be spared if my subsection (1) were accepted; and the various clauses have been, I hope, accurately set out.
The third group are Clauses 12 and 14(2), which are mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (4) of Clause 70 as it stands. Under that subsection they would have to be the subject of a commencement order by the Secretary of State, but, on examining them closely, I do no see any need to wait for that. Therefore, we have the position that those various clauses and, where necessary, the schedules to which they refer would all come into operation at the same time, six weeks after Royal Assent—a great advantage and a great simplification in clarity.
I must come clean with your Lordships with regard to subsection (2), because it seemed to me, when I was drafting this, that six months might be sufficient for all the administrative arrangements and rules of court to be completed. But, alas! I am told that owing to consultations which these days take place—consultations with the two branches of the profession as well as with the judiciary—and owing to the need to allow ample time for making rules of court, these various administrative matters and the drafting and passing of rules of court could not all be completed within six months. Therefore, I have to concede that my subsection (2) is not suitable.
Nevertheless, I ask my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor to consider there being moved in another placed an amendment to replace Clause 70 by a clause which would incorporate subsection (1) of my new clause on the Marshalled List today and which would introduce some more simple provision to cover the first eight subsections of Clause 70, as it stands. I do not believe it to be beyond the wit of the Lord Chancellor and those advising him to do something along those lines, and I am certain that the users of statutes would be deeply grateful if that could be done. I beg to move.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, we discussed this at somewhat considerable length, certainly on Report, and I am sorry that I have not convinced my noble friend, either on Report or in my remarks on Amendment No. 2, that I really have gone as far as I can in helping him towards a simplification of this clause. But as I have now explained my reasons twice, I do not think I can improve them by explaining them a third time.
This is rather an usual Bill but, with respect, I think that my noble friend has begun it from the wrong end and, having firmly taken hold of the wrong end of the stick, he now continues to hold on to it firmly and thinks that he is assisting the practitioners thereby. This is not simply a question of draftsmanship. Obviously, his clause looks much cleaner than mine, and it is much cleaner than mine. He starts from the idea that it must look clean on the face of the statute book and, as he knows, I normally agree with his immense industry and his determined efforts to make the statute book an easy and attractive book to read, and for practitioners to use.
But the provisions of this Bill are immensely complex and, once one has accepted that it is not simply a question of draftsmanship, one finds oneself in the kind

931
of position that I tried to explain on Report; that is to say, that the clauses fit themselves into a number of different groups, some of which require the use of rule-making powers, some of which require different commencement provisions in Scotland and Northern Ireland from what they do in England and Wales and some of which require administrative arrangements which will effectively demand different periods as between one another for their commencement. This is an inherent difficulty in the Bill.
Once one has grasped that, one then has to go back to the draftsman and what he tells you is, in effect, what I have been trying to explain to my noble friend, that this is not a question of turning the Bill into English, because that he could do in a variety of different ways, all of which might be simpler than what he has already done. He has to go back to departments and ask them what are the operational requirements of particular parts of the Bill, and he then has to translate that into English. So that, from the draftsman's point of view, you do not start by sitting down at a desk and trying to make a Bill a clean-looking document. You start from the position of a Minister who has to ask the draftsman to put into effect what are the requirements of different departments of Government for quite heterogeneous provisions of the Bill. This is really the nub of the problem as between my noble friend and myself.
I can only now give examples of the kind of problem I have in mind by referring to one or two objections to my noble friend's clause as it stands. For instance, a period of six weeks has been chosen for the provisions which are appropriate for early commencement. The Government prefer a fixed date. If there were to be such a period of time, six weeks is probably on the short side. We originally went in for three months, as I explained in my previous remarks on Amendment No. 2. From that point of view, six weeks is too short and two months would have been running it a bit fine, but would seem more desirable, in any event, so that practitioners might have time to assimilate changes. There would also be no risk of printing delays, which are of uncertain duration from time to time, leading to the Act being in force before copies were available.
However, even if one goes back on my desire to have a fixed date, subsection (1) could not be accepted, without further consultation. My noble friend has included provisions—for instance, Section 12 and Section 14(2)—in his subsection (1) which are subject to a Scottish commencement order. That will require rule-making, whereas ours will not. It is not thought therefore that the rules could be made in the time available, even though my noble friend thinks that it would be available.
The period of six months following Royal Assent is also, I am advised, unrealistic, having regard to the provisions of the Bill. The main point about having a commencement order provision is that it is impossible to predict when the relevant provisions can come into force when there are unquantifiable factors at work. The most important of these factors is to consult, primarily on the making of rules, and I am sorry to say that this process of consultation has, perhaps inevitably, become increasingly lengthy in recent years.
The Lord Chancellor's Department has been subject
932
to criticism by the Bar, for instance, that insufficient time is allowed. In these circumstances, if I started to have a fixed period for commencement, I feel that I should get into trouble. And particularly would this be the case for the implementation of the conventions affecting wills. The conventions affecting wills affect the three different jurisdictions, and different rules and different administrative arrangements would be required in each of them. Six months may well be too short a period for this purpose and, indeed, for other parts of the Bill where extensive consultation would be required.
I am very appreciative of my noble friend in his constant interest in the interpretation and drafting of statutes, because he has done an immense power of good not only in his report, which has now become a best seller again since we managed to have a second edition, but also in his constant attention to the form of Bills in this House. But on this occasion I cannot go along this road further than I have done. In the circumstances, I hope my noble friend will accept, with my compliments and goodwill, my rather negative response to his draftsmanship, which in itself, as draftsmanship, is unexceptionable.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I hope that I shall not be thought to be ganging up in the team against the constant efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Renton, in this field where he has shown great persistence—and rightly so. If my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner were here, he would no doubt give examples of legislation which has been allowed to lie dormant and would, no doubt, belabour the noble and learned Lord, as he used to belabour me. It is right that these great powers of the state should be belaboured in this way lest that which Parliament wishes to happen does not come to pass. Therefore, I fully sympathise with and, indeed, welcome his continuing efforts, but it does not entirely surprise me that he has not had much more success with the present sitter upon the Woolsack than he had with his immediate predecessor.
Seriously, though, there is value in this prodding. I know from experience that the obtaining of rules is not easy. It is not through any bloody-mindedness on the part of departments, because of the pressure of work—and sometimes the complexity. This, as the noble and learned Lord has said, is a highly heterogeneous measure, and I suspect that in his heart the noble Lord, Lord Renton, will sympathise with the difficulties of the noble and learned Lord in not being able to go the whole way.
Lord Renton: My Lords, in seeking leave to withdraw the amendment, I wonder whether I may make it clear that I should be the last person to enter into a tug of war between myself on the one hand and the Lord Chancellor and his predecessor on the other. I am not quite so daring or so foolish as to do that. But may I have the leave of the House to make three brief comments? First, I concede, as I did before, that the Lord Chancellor is going to have his problems of administration and rule-making, and obviously one should not ignore them. Secondly, having conceded that point, I think it is rather unfortunate that we could not have, perhaps in a little schedule, a list of those clauses which

933
are going to come into operation on the fixed date or another fixed date, or even on a date within so long after the Bill is passed, instead of people having to put metaphorical wet towels around their heads, as I did the night before last, in order to find out which of the provisions of the Bill are to be the subject of orders or special arrangements and which are merely to be mopped up by the last subsection of Clause 70. I have made that attempt and I hope that what I have done will not, in the long run, have been wasted, because it is something worth doing. All right, if my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor does not like Clause 12 and Clause 14 being included in subsection (1), let him have them out, but there is a strong case for the rest.
My only other point, and I raise it with great temerity, is that I am sorry to have to say that I do not believe that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, whom we all respect so enormously, made a valid point when talking about the fixed date. The date of Royal Assent will become a fixed date and as soon as that happens, a date three months after Royal Assent or six months after Royal Assent will equally be fixed dates and completely ascertainable. So, with respect, I do not accept that part of the argument. However, I am so grateful to my noble and learned friend, not only for the full explanations he has given of his point of view but also for his very kind encouragement, which is more than I deserve. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 6 [Damages for personal injuries etc.—Northern Ireland]:
The Lord Chancellor The Lord Chancellor moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 55, line 42, after ("account") insert ("(together with any other matter that appears to the court to be relevant to the action)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
An amendment (privilege) made.
2.32 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, in moving as I am about to do, that the Bill do now pass, I think that I owe a particular thank you to the House, in all its sections, for the co-operation I have had during the conduct of this Bill. It could never have got as far as it has if people had not understood my particular difficulties and tried to help me in them. In a heterogeneous law reform Bill of this kind, they have helped me by not pressing amendments which would have introduced elements of controversy, and I in turn have tried to reciprocate by responding to criticism where it has been made. I think that as a result of the criticisms to which the Bill has been subjected from time to time, it is now going to another place in a more acceptable form than that in which I introduced it some time ago. Having said that thank you, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Hacking: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, wishes this Bill to pass this House and to go to another place, I would just like to raise one matter with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. As the noble and learned Lord knows, I took an interest in the interest provisions—and I apologise for duplicating that word—in the Bill, which are contained in Schedule 1. I was urging upon the noble and learned Lord that consideration should be given to compound interest. At this stage I wish to do no more than to press that upon the noble and learned Lord.
There is one question that I should like to leave with the noble and learned Lord before the Bill leaves this House, and that is the effect of these new provisions upon commercial arbitrations in London. As the House will know, it is the duty of an arbitrator under an arbitration governed by English law, to apply the English common law, and in so far as it is applicable, to apply English statutory law. The difficulty which an arbitrator will face in seeking to apply statutory law here is that in the
terms of Schedule 1 the power to award interest is limited to proceedings before the High Court. If that is right, then the arbitrator will not be able to give effect to that clause. If that is again the correct position, the arbitrator will have to fall back upon English common law and fall back upon a case of 1893, if my memory is right, the London, Chatham and Dover Railway case, which prohibits the award of damages under common law. So there is, I believe, some concern about this. The noble and learned Lord himself wrote a textbook, which is still used, and indeed was quoted in the Techno-Impex case, Hogg on Arbitration, so he has some expertise in this field. I would be very grateful if he could consider this point, because I believe it to be of some substance and some concern.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, before we hear the noble and learned Lord dilating on arbitration, which I cannot wait to hear, I would like to express our good wishes for the future progress of this most valuable Bill. It is a reform Bill which has drawn upon the contributions of the Law Commission and of the other law reform bodies, and is a useful measure. On the whole, it is a humane Bill which will benefit those who, under the present law are disadvantaged, like the illegitimate child, or the person we dealt with in the first amendments, who, in the event of the death of the person with whom she has been living in a settled relationship, may suffer disaster, but who will, at least, now be entitled to claim her part of whatever estate may exist.
My Lords, many valuable ideas and proposals for further reform have been raised in the course of the debate. On the whole, we adhered to the request and advice of the noble and learned Lord the Chancellor that we should not seek to present too many new controversial measures. I was a little surprised when he accused me of bulldozing him at one stage, a venture which I would never dare to embark upon in respect of the noble and learned Lord anyway. So not every wish has been satisfied in the course of the discussion, but, as the noble and learned Lord has said, I think the Bill has been improved since it has gone through its course in the House. Some of the proposals that have been raised by noble Lords will no doubt be the subject of future legislation. The avenues of law reform

935
in a changing society must never be closed. I have little doubt also that some of the matters that were raised in your Lordships' House may be raised again in another place. But this is a valuable Bill, and I greatly hope that its progress will not be unduly impeded in another place.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord. As regards the point raised from the Cross-Benches by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, I will take on board his point and see what I can do about it and whether anything requires to be done. I quite understand the point he is making. He will of course notice that paragraph 2 of the schedule shows that the interest provisions are not entirely confined to the High Court, but it does not necessarily invalidate his point. Therefore, I will consider it and see what can be done. I imagine that if anything requires to be done it can be done by a perfectly simple verbal amendment. Perhaps he would leave it at that for the moment.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Planning Inquiries (Attendance of Public) Bill
2.40 p.m.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Despite the title, the matters that this Bill deals with are more generally known as public local inquiries. Indeed, the huge majority of such inquiries are heard in public and the evidence produced in the course of them is available to the public. But there has in the past been discretion to the inspectors who conduct these inquiries to hold some part of them in camera. That is a power which has been very rarely exercised and we understand from the Official Report of another place in May 1972 that it is Government policy that inspectors should in future not accede to requests that they should hear evidence in planning inquiries in camera.
However, my honourable friend Mr. Michael Hamilton, the Member for Salisbury, had an experience in his own constituency 15 years ago, in 1967, in respect of an area known as East Grinstead which led him to the conclusion that that position was not satisfactory and he has introduced this Bill the purpose of which is to confer, by law, on the Secretary of State alone a very much more limited power—limited by subsection (3)(a) and (b) and subsection (4)(a) and (b)—specifically to direct that only certain matters covered by those subsections in the circumstances cited there, shall not be made public and that that can only be done in respect of a particular inquiry. There is no general discretion available, either to the Secretary of State or to inspectors, that any other part of any other inquiries should ever be other than in public for any other reason.
To get the matter in perspective, perhaps I should remind your Lordships that in the course of a single year there are some 400,000 applications made to the planning authorities. Of those, some 16,000 go to public local inquiries. The case with which this Bill seeks to deal has only occurred on three occasions ever, since planning has been in force. On those
936
occasions commercial confidentiality was pleaded as a justification for the proceedings to be held in camera. One was at East Grinstead in the constituency of Salisbury in 1967 in respect of the extraction of chalk of some special characteristic; another was in 1969 in respect of the extraction of potash in solution from a mine near Whitby in the Yorkshire Moors Park; and the third was at Windscale in 1976 in respect of the processing of nuclear fuel.
When the Bill introduced by my honourable friend went into Committee in another place, the Department of the Environment sought to maintain scope for commercial confidentiality to be used as a justification for seeking for some parts of some public inquiries to be held in camera. That proposal was resisted successfully by a committee in another place and the Government have not pursued that approach.
In my view, the proper attitude to take in this matter of commercial confidentiality is that expressed in 1961 by Lord Kilmuir, the then Lord Chancellor, in respect of an application for ironstone workings. On that occasion he said:
"it must be for the applicants to weigh the risk of disclosing information to their competitors against the advantage to be obtained from its disclosure ".—[Official Report, 13/4/61; col. 645.]
That is quite clear; I am sure that that is the correct ruling. It should not be fudged; it should not be circumvented. In the past, but only on those few occasions, it has been done by administrative practice. My honourable friend has persuaded his colleagues in another place that Parliament should decide to stop it, and that is the sole purpose of this Bill. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Sandford.)
2.46 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, it is with great pleasure that from these Benches—and my colleagues are with us in spirit even if they are not here in the flesh—I rise to support the Bill. Although it is quite a small Bill, it was so well explained by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, when he moved it that much time and trouble will be saved by our not needing to go over it all again.
It is extremely important that inquiries of this nature—indeed, inquiries of almost any nature where the bars are not necessary as they are in this case—should be held in public, so that there is never any feeling that things are being hidden or that secrets are being stashed away, and people know and also participate. It was interesting reading the proceedings in another place to see that the honourable Member who introduced the Bill has for long lived with this very strong motivation to get the law changed as a result of a case with which he was concerned in his constituency. I think that it is quite right to have the caveat in subsection (4) which relates to national security, but I am not quite sure about paragraph (b):
"the measures taken or to be taken to ensure the security of any premises or property".
I am not quite sure exactly what that means. Does it mean keeping them safely under lock and key? Quite what does it mean? I am not quite clear about that.
The Bill will obviously be very quickly on the statute book because it had the support in another place of all

937
parties and I am quite certain that it has the support of all those of all parties or no party in this House. At this stage on a Friday afternoon, I simply want to welcome the Bill, wish it well and thank the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, for bringing it forward to this House.
2.49 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I think that everyone's thanks are due to Mr. Michael Hamilton for having introduced this Bill in another place and also to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, for taking up the good work here. Mr. Hamilton's hard work on this particular issue, stemming from his experience with the Wiltshire case many years ago, has been unremitting and I think was topped with one of the most interesting Second Reading speeches that it has been my pleasure to peruse, reading, as it did, at times as part of a rather nasty thriller. The secrecy which was involved in that case and which has finally landed up in this Bill was, indeed, most unfortunate.
Some considerable thanks are also due to the Government for finally seeing the point and for helping in producing a new first clause which undoubtedly is more effective, which they introduced in Committee in another place. I think that less thanks is due to them for their attempt—which thank goodness failed; it was not a very full-hearted attempt—to introduce the possibility of a reservation on the question of commercial secrecy. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has already quoted the proper doctrine on commercial secrecy, but it does not stop commercial interests from time to time trying to put a blanket of secrecy around a large number of subjects. When we were dealing with the clauses regarding what secrecy was to govern waterboards I think it was pointed out that even when the information was published in water board documents, if you were a commercial spy it would probably be easier and less expensive to send frogmen down the waterways to take extracts of the effluence than to wade through all the documents.
This measure undoubtedly is an improvement. It is a Bill on the right side. I have only one minor point that I should like to make at this stage. I am never entirely happy that the "say-so" on reservations—the matters which can be heard in camera—should be entirely in the discretion of the Secretary of State. There is a great deal to be said for the suggestion made by the Stevens Committee when it reported on mineral workings and the investigations into them. I should like briefly to quote what the Stevens Committee said in Section 16.19. They said:
"Moreover, it seems inevitable that any application to give evidence in camera is very likely to arise in the context of a proposal where the arguments are otherwise finely balanced, and which is already the subject of public controversy. Whatever decision may be taken by the Minister concerned at the time is bound to be unpopular with many people, and it will be difficult for the Minister to establish that his decision is an impartial one based on the facts, which ex hypothesi cannot all be disclosed. In these circumstances it has seemed to us that there might be merit in a procedure which provided that the decision as to whether or not an in camera hearing should be permitted in any particular case should be taken as a result of a more judicial process…".
The Stevens Committee went on to suggest that that process should in fact be a fairly rigorous one, one that would be expensive for the applicant, who would there-
938
fore not resort to it lightly. That would have the advantage of removing,
"what is liable to be an emotional issue from the political to the judicial forum, and would provide adequately for the interests of all parties not only to be served but to be seen to be served".
That is not a major point in this Bill; but in any Bills which deal with this type of matter, with public inquiries and seeing that justice is seen to be done and, where the Secretary of State undoubtedly has some kind of interest in what is going on, it is probably a good thing if a judicial process can be introduced, instead of having just the Secretary of State's "say-so". This is a matter which should be considered. It is one which should be considered in any Bills dealing with subjects of this kind, but it is a minor point in relation to the Bill as a whole.
The Bill itself does not deal with anything which is a very great problem. It has already been said that there have been only three cases in which this point has emerged. But it is right that we should have this Bill, and all thanks are due to the Members of both Houses who have brought it forward. The members of the Liberal Party undoubtedly support it wholeheartedly.
The Earl of Avon: My Lords, I join in thanking my noble friend Lord Sandford for his balanced introduction of the Second Reading of the Bill. I also add my tribute to my honourable friend the Member for Salisbury, to whose determination and persistence over 15 years we owe the appearance of this measure today. I should make clear that the Government in no way oppose the Bill. Indeed, the Government attach great importance to the principle of the Bill; that is, that planning inquiries should be held in public, and in that they are following in the footsteps of previous Administrations.
The position in law at present is that while local inquiries under the planning Acts are frequently referred to colloquially as public inquiries, there is no specific right for the general public to be present. Generally, rights of appearance under the Acts are confined to the principal parties directly concerned in the substance of the case going to inquiry. Those parties will usually be the appropriate local planning authority on the one hand and the applicant, appellant or statutory objector on the other. The statutory procedural rules also confer rights of appearance on certain other parties.
However, a right of appearance for certain parties does not mean that under the present law one or more of the sittings of the inquiry could not be held in private. On the contrary, successive Governments have taken the view that under the present law, the inspector has the discretion to hold proceedings in private should he consider it necessary or desirable to do so. As we have heard, that discretion has been exercised extremely rarely since the inquiry in 1967 which was the cause of so much deep concern to my honourable friend. And in 1972 the discretion was circumscribed administratively by the Government of the day undertaking that in future inspectors would not accede to requests that they should hear evidence in private at planning inquiries. That has meant that in practice a private sitting of a planning inquiry has been possible only with the express agreement of the Secretary of State. Furthermore, previous Govern-

939
ments have undertaken that the procedure to be followed at a private sitting shall be the subject of consultation with the Council on Tribunals.
Those administrative constraints have been carefully observed by successive Governments, and indeed have been observed by this present Government in the current inquiry at Canvey Island into the possibility that the methane gas terminal might have to be discontinued. There, it has been necessary to authorise the inspector to hold a private session to hear evidence about security matters. That authorisation has been given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, and the procedure for the private session has been discussed and agreed with the Council on Tribunals.
I repeat, however, that private sittings have been extremely rare over the years. That that has been so is evidence of the determination of successive Governments to uphold the principles to which the noble Lord, Lord Franks, lent his name—of openness, fairness and impartiality in public inquiries. Those are principles to which this Government strongly adhere. But the fact that there have been rare cases of private hearings, and that there is one now currently in hand, reinforces the Government's belief that there has to be some provision in this Bill for such cases. It was those rare cases that were in the Government's mind when they tabled their amendment to the Bill in another place.
Essentially, that amendment had the effect that, while oral evidence at inquiries must be heard in public and documentary evidence must be open to public inspection, the Secretary of State may direct the hearing of evidence in private if he believes that the disclosure of information would be contrary to the national interest by affecting national security adversely, or by harming the security of premises or property. It is that latter provision that is of interest in the context of the Canvey inquiry. If this Bill were already law, it would he possible to invoke the provision, quite rightly, for a private hearing of the security issues at Canvey. However, in that context, I should add that the term "the national interest" is a stiff test which means that privacy will never be able to be lightly invoked.
The Bill represents a reaffirmation in statutory form of the important principle that the proceedings of planning inquiries should be public. It is a principle to which Governments of both main parties have subscribed and to which this Government give their wholehearted support. But at the same time, the Bill allows for the very exceptional case where privacy is essential. That makes the Bill a thoroughly commendable working instrument, and the Government are therefore very content that it should be read a second time.
2.59 p.m.
Lord Sandford: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate and for the welcome they have given the Bill. It was useful that my noble friend Lord Avon was able to give an example of the need to have the exception that has been incorporated in the measure, and I hope that served to illustrate the kind of case about which the noble Baroness was asking. I shall read, if I may, the re-
940
marks of the noble Lord on the Liberal Benches on the point that he raised. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, was claiming that the point involved an amendment to the Bill; nevertheless, it is of interest in connection with it.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Gaming (Amendment) Bill
3 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time, and in so doing I should like to pay tribute to my honourable friend Mr. Michael Brown, the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe and to the ingenuity and skill that he used in getting the Bill through the other place, so making it possible for it to come before your Lordships for final comment. Anyone who understands the procedures of the other place will know that Private Bills usually arise as a result of a ballot. If one is lucky and one's name is drawn out of the ballot, one is able to choose a Bill that will add to and may improve the general legislation of the country. It is also well known that if one comes out of the ballot beyond sixth place, owing to the time factor the chance of getting a Bill through is very remote. My honourable friend Mr. Brown was eleventh in the ballot, and those who understand the procedures in the other place will know that in those particular circumstances it requires tenacity, skill and charm in order to overcome the shortages of time and get through the labyrinth of procedure. Mr. Brown did that, and he has proceeded with the Bill to a point at which I think your Lordships will find it acceptable.
Where I think his skill really came in was in using the Private Bill time rather sensibly. If one tries to use Private Bill time to promote something of high principle, which would make a great change in the legislation, the chances of gaining amity and the general support of Government and others are remote, since those are matters which quite properly ought to be subject to the general procedures of both Houses of Parliament. However, if one uses the Private Bill procedure in order to improve and rectify the details of existing legislation which has passed the test as to principle and has gone through all its stages, that can be a very valuable contribution towards tidying up and making effective the general legislation under which the country has to work. My honourable friend did just that in choosing the subject contained in the Bill before us today.
In passing I have to declare an interest. One of the companies in which I am interested may well have to use the procedures that were previously in vogue and which will again be in vogue if the Bill receives the approval of both Houses; and to that extent it is a declaration that I make. I think that it adds to what I might call the authority with which I take up the Bill in your Lordships' House, because in having an interest—which is a very casual one, I may say—I am aware of the problems and difficulties that apply in this instance. So one is speaking with at least a little knowledge, instead of merely picking up someone else's brief and having to rely entirely upon his evidence and past experience.

941
The main purpose of the Bill is to enable an application for a gaming licence or registration of a members' club or institute for gaming purposes to be made at any time of the year. Parliament, being ultra careful in 1968 when the Gaming Bill became an Act, laid down that anyone applying for such a licence must do so at a specific time. There was specified just one time of the year when applications for licences—no matter how many there were—had to be made. Restriction to one period caused much delay and congestion in the departments that had to vet the applications and examine all the accompanying details. The general purpose of the Bill now before the House is that applications, instead of being made at only one time in the year, can be made at any time, and that would avoid any rush in investigations by the Gaming Board and consideration by magistrates' courts. Instead applications could be considered over a peroid of time longer than would be the case if the 1968 Act were left as it now stands.
As a licensing magistrate, I am able to give an example of the usefulness of what the Bill proposes. Noble Lords who occasionally sit as licensing justices will know that in regard to ordinary licensed premises it is possible to transfer the licence or apply for the licence at any of the sittings of the licensing court, and the matter is then confirmed at the Brewster Sessions, which are at fixed times throughout the year. That means that in that field a licence can be obtained at any time, instead of being confined to one specific period. What this Bill will now do is to provide for gaming licences and the registration of members' clubs the same system as that which exists with the licensing justices and which has passed the test of many years as to its effectiveness and its control.
The background of the Bill ought to be on the record, I think, in your Lordships' House. The principal legislation governing gaming in this country is the Gaming Act 1968, which sets out in detail the provisions for the licensing of premises run commercially as casinos or bingo clubs; and Schedule 3 to the Act applies to the registration for gaming purposes of members' clubs and miners' welfare institutes in England and Wales. At present there is, as I have said, only the one opportunity in the year for such licences or registrations to be granted or renewed. In general such applications must be made in January or February, and the hearings take place some time at the beginning of May.
I can well understand why we all (or those of us who played a part in putting the Gaming Act on the statute book) thought at the time it was desirable that all gaming club licensing should be concentrated in a single session, so that it could be known how many were coming and the type that were coming and some order could be given as to its generality as well as to the specific applications. So the intention of confining it to one time of the year was rather sensible, since we were moving into a new field. The 1968 Gaming Act was quite new and was very important in terms of maintaining the standards we want in such places in this country; and I think it was right in that initial period to try to confine it so that we had that tight control as to the numbers and how it would be applied.
942
But the Gaming Board are now, after some considerable experience, in a position to monitor the gaming facilities on a continuing basis, such as this Bill will allow them to do. As I have said, the current procedure causes congestion in the work of the Gaming Board, who have to take an interest in every application which is made. At present, the pressure of work to which the board have been subject at a particular time each year has put a great strain on their staff, and it has sometimes meant that it has not been possible to carry out all of the inquiries it was decided to make before the hearing. All being dealt with together, it was impossible, with the amount of staff that they could hope to have, to be able to do that with efficiency and in detail. The additional licensing sessions, such as this Bill will provide, would ease the staffing position of the Gaming Board and will enable the board to do their very important work much more effectively and, I would say, efficiently.
Similarly, the present single licensing session also creates difficulties for the licensing justices, and both the Justices' Clerks' Society and the Magistrates' Association have pressed for the gaming legislation to he amended to bring the procedure more in line with that for liquor licensing, such as I have described. The Royal Commission on Gambling agreed that there was substance in the representations which were made to them on this issue, and they recommended that the change should be made. I would hope that opportunities in the future will be found for other recommendations that came from that Royal Commission to be taken into account as part of the tidying-up process which I think is necessary if this part of our general social life is to proceed satisfactorily.
Clause 1 of the Bill makes a number of amendments to the Gaming Act 1968 and provides for at least four licensing periods. Although initially it will not completely do away with the backlog that has been caused in the past, it means that over future years no further backlogs will be there to add to the problems. The second clause of the Bill runs a little at a tangent, but I think that it was sensible and useful to include it at this time. It is to do with the licence for the public playing of billiards, otherwise than in members' clubs or in premises with a full liquor licence. The Gaming Act 1845 restricted the hearing of applications for billiards licences to one session a year. This is very inconvenient for anybody who installs a billiards table, when he has to wait for many months to get to the nominated time before he can obtain a licence. I think that your Lordships will agree that there is no good reason why the law on billiards licensing which applies should be any different from what we are suggesting now for the gaming clubs and the bingo clubs. This Bill provides, therefore, for the application for the grant or transfer of billiards licences to be made at any session under the Licensing Act 1964.
This clause also enables the Secretary of State to make an order setting out the fees payable for such licences to be more than six shillings. As things stand at present, as set out in the 1845 Act, the fee was six shillings on the application for a licence. While in the Bill we leave with the authorities the power to decide how much it shall be increased, if at all, I hope that they do not feel that they have a duty to compound what six shillings in 1845 would be if applied to 1982 and

943
beyond. That would make the figure intolerable. I think that in this connection there will have to be taken into account the fact that we are living in a different century, but having gone through many periods of inflation the fee ought not to remain at that figure.
From my personal experience in a company that has been a victim of the delay because of the one section of the year being earmarked for applications, and from my own knowledge of the problems that the Gaming Board have had and from a knowledge of the congestion it causes in the licensing justices courts, I believe this is admirably using Private Members' Bill time—in no way to interfere with the principle and the general arguments hammered out when the Gaming Act first came on to the statute book, but after a few years of experience it takes into account some of the idiosyncracies and hiccups which show themselves and enables the procedure to run more smoothly without adding to the cost and difficulties of bureaucracy. In the hope that your Lordships will feel the same way about the Bill, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time—(Lord Harmar-Nicholls.)
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he inform the House whether he has had consultations with the Gaming Board about this Bill, and whether in general they approve its contents?
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, I cannot say that I have had consultations personally, but I have had a letter which has given every indication that what is recommended in this Bill would have their approval and they would find it very desirable.
3.16 p.m.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, upon introducing this Bill, and perhaps also join him in offering congratulations to his honourable friend Mr. Michael Brown, the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe, for the success that he achieved in piloting the Bill through another place.
I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, for explaining the purposes of the Bill so clearly. This is particularly valuable for those like me who have no detailed knowledge of the intricacies of gaming matters. I welcome the Bill, as we on these Benches do, because if it is passed it will achieve a valuable if modest reform, and one which I think is much needed. Something I know just a little more about than I know about gaming concerns the workings of our courts. In the past, some time ago, I had the task of appearing before the licensing justices at Brewster sessions. I seem to recall that those appearances tended to be rather sought after, so far as members of the Bar could properly seek after anything of that kind, and were relatively well paid—at least, in those days.
The serious point is that I can well understand the need to improve the system for dealing with the licences with which this Bill itself deals. The present system is convenient. It causes congestion, as has been said, and it can cause other problems in having only one
944
session each year for hearing applications for these licences. So I welcome the Bill for that overriding reason. The reform proposed in this Bill was recommended by the Royal Commission on Gambling in its report published in July 1978.
In making that recommendation the Royal Commission drew attention in Volume II of its vast final report, at page 299, to the representations it had received for a reform along these lines, representations from, among others, the Justices Clerks' Society, whom the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, has mentioned, and from the Gaming Board. Although this does not entirely meet the point raised by my noble friend Lord Bruce, which was dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, it indicates to some extent at least the approach to these matters which the Gaming Board were adopting at that time in the evidence they adduced before the Royal Commission.
I would add this in regard to the Royal Commission. We have had occasion before in your Lordships' House to consider small reforms arising from the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Gambling. I am bound to say that the more one delves into that report—and I have only half of it to read to your Lordships' this afternoon!—the more one realises how thorough, comprehensive and detailed the work of that body was, presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Rothschild.
It would be excellent if Parliament could get on with more of the reforms recommended by that Royal Commission. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, may not be able to say anything about that today, which would be understandable because he might be in danger of straying too far from order if he did so, as perhaps I am in danger of doing now. Nevertheless, I hope that he will give whatever encouragement he can to further efforts to introduce some more of these reforms and some more of the excellent recommendations which were made by the Royal Commission in its report. In the meantime, I hope that this partiular Bill will make progress and I wish the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, every success with it.
3.20 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I, too, should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls, who has introduced this Bill and explained its provisions so clearly and so knowledgeably. I join with him in his commendation of my honourable friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe in bringing it successfully to your Lordships' Chamber. It is a short but useful Bill and it will be of real practical assistance, both to the gaming industry and to those who have to administer gaming legislation.
At present, as we know, all applications for gaming licences have to be concentrated at a particular time of the year. A new applicant for a licence for a bingo club or casino has to apply to the Gaming Board before the end of October for a certificate of consent to his proceeding with the application. Such a certificate implies that the holder is a suitable person to run such an establishment. Once it has been granted, application may be made to the licensing authority in January or February for a hearing in the late spring. The Gaming Board then have to consider whether there is any reason for opposing a licence for the particular premises in question. The existing

945
timetable concentrates much of this aspect of their work into four months of the year. This puts the staff, as your Lordships will understand, under considerable pressure and does not always allow them time to pursue their inquiries perhaps as thoroughly as one might wish.
The Bill will introduce flexibility into the timetable by enabling applications to be made at any time, thus spreading the load of work on the Gaming Board. It will also be beneficial to the gaming industry because there will no longer be any question of an applicant for a licence finding that he has missed the boat, as it were, for a whole year.
Instead of a single licensing session the Bill provides for four sessions a year. A similar relaxation in the timetable is to be applied to the registration of members' clubs and miners' institutes for gaming. Here the single licensing session has been less of a problem, but there seems to be no reason why the timetable for such registrations should be more rigid than that for gaming licences, so a similar change, I understand, is being made. As I think my noble friend has told your Lordships already, the Justices Clerks' Society and the Magistrates' Association have advocated this change, and the Royal Commission on Gambling endorsed their recommendation. I think I can therefore say that all those concerned with gaming licensing welcome this Bill.
The second clause of the Bill deals with billiard licences which cover also similar games such as snooker or pool games that have recently been very much under the public eye, as the noble Lord, Lord Peart, would recognise. As my noble friend has explained, such licences are not required for billiard playing in members' clubs or in premises with a full liquor licence, but only for the public playing of billiards. The Gaming Act 1845 provides only one opportunity a year to obtain such a licence, and it is clearly sensible to allow more frequent hearings of such applications as well as to take power to make an order to increase the fee.
Here we get on to the delicate question of the amount of the fee which, as my noble friend said, stood at six shillings 137 years ago and stands at the equivalent today. I tried to discover what the answer would be if that were compounded with inflation. The machine gave up, but I understand it was the equivalent then to an average weekly wage—which in itself is food for reflection—and that would bring it up to £110 at the present time. I pause for a shiver of apprehension to pass down my noble friend's spine and then assure your Lordships that my right honourable friend has in mind only an increase to a figure in line with those for somewhat similar permits, such as those for commercial provision of amusement with prize machines; and the resulting fee is likely to be something like £8·50.
This is a useful and non-controversial Bill. I therefore take pleasure in welcoming it on behalf of the Government, and wish my noble friend every success in securing its speedy passage.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

British Railways Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time and referred to the Examiners.
Hertsmere Borough Council (Rowley Lane) Bill
Returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.
  THE NORTH ATLANTIC ASSEMBLY: DUTIES OF UK DELEGATION LEADER
  THE NORTH ATLANTIC ASSEMBLY: DUTIES OF UK DELEGATION LEADER
  STATE REGISTERED AND STATE ENROLLED NURSES
  STATE REGISTERED AND STATE ENROLLED NURSES
  HMS "SHEFFIELD" AND "HERCULES": DEFENSIVE SYSTEMS
  HMS "SHEFFIELD" AND "HERCULES": DEFENSIVE SYSTEMS
  WEST SEDGEMOOR
  WEST SEDGEMOOR
  THE CIVIL SERVICE: SHORT-TERM SICKNESS ABSENCE
  THE CIVIL SERVICE: SHORT-TERM SICKNESS ABSENCE
  THE CIVIL SERVICE: HOLIDAY ENTITLEMENT
  THE CIVIL SERVICE: HOLIDAY ENTITLEMENT