Sitting of 6 May 1983

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

  Solvent Abuse (Scotland) Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered. Order for Third Reading read.
  9.35 am
  Mr. David Marshall: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  It is rather unusual, to say the least, for a Bill that started its life as a ten-minute Bill to proceed as far as this stage and to have a good chance of becoming law. Only about 15 such Bills have been successful since 1945. Oddly enough, several of them have dealt with purely Scottish matters, as this Bill does. It has been suggested that because the Bill applies only to Scotland we should wait until suitable legislation covering England, Wales and Scotland can be drafted, but there is no reason for Scotland to wait. Scotland already has separate legislation for its education and legal systems and there is no valid reason for delaying the passage of the Bill on that ground.
  If the Bill becomes law, it is to be hoped that before very long England and Wales will see a similar Bill introduced to deal with the problem of solvent abuse in those countries.
  It is a privilege and an honour for a Back Bencher to get a Bill through the House. It is fair to say that it can be done only with the good will and support of all hon. Members, and that has certainly been so in this instance. In Committee there was almost unprecedented all-party support and unanimity. I place on record my gratitude to my right hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian) for all the assistance, advice and encouragement that he has given me from the very beginning. I must also compliment the Minister, the hon. Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay), on the manner in which he has assisted, co-operated and supported the Bill. I thank all hon. Members who have acted as sponsors, who served in Committee and who are in their places today to support the Bill. I thank the officials in the Table Office and the Clerks, from whom I received invaluable advice.
  The problem of solvent abuse is a cause of great public concern. Almost daily instances of the problem appear in the media. There are far too many tragedies as a result of solvent abuse. The problem is not confined to cities or to Scotland alone; it is to be found in rural areas and throughout Great Britain. It has increased greatly since 1981, and I believe that the substantial increase in unemployment and cuts in public spending, leading to lack of provision of amenities and facilities for young people,
  540
  have been major contributory factors. I admit that those are not the only factors, but they have had a considerable influence in bringing about the increase.
  It is a problem which the previous low-key approach adopted by authorities has failed to combat; hence the justifiable need for a much higher level approach and for legislation to tackle the problem.
  There has been a great deal of public interest in the Bill and I have received many letters of support from various community organisations and individuals both within my constituency and from many other areas.
  Scotland has a unique system of children's panels to which young people under the age of 16 may be referred for, among other things, care, protection, guidance and treatment. Their problems can be discussed in informal surroundings with parents in attendance. The Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, under which the panels operate, did not include solvent abuse as a ground for referral as at that time it was not a problem. The Bill, as amended in Committee, makes solvent abuse a ground for referral. I do not seek to make solvent abuse a punitive offence. I want to see the introduction of supportive and caring legislation that will encourage parents and youngsters to seek help with their problem.
  If the Bill becomes law, it will be the first statutory recognition of solvent abuse as a major problem, and the first step is often the most important one. It will enable us to monitor the scale and extent of the problem. We shall see after a reasonable time what further steps need to be taken.
  In a speech to the women's council of the Church of Scotland social responsibility department in Edinburgh on 29 April this year, the Lord Advocate said that the Bill had the Government's active support. As I said, I welcome that support. However, the Government could go much further without legislation — for example, by sponsoring an advertising campaign, similar to the anti-smoking campaign, warning youngsters of the dangers of solvent abuse. Sports personalities and people from the world of entertainment whom youngsters admire and respect could be used successfully to get the message across. Measures of that type would not need legislation.
  The Lord Advocate suggested in that speech that groups of parents could influence local shopkeepers to exercise control over the sale of solvents to children. But why cannot the noble and learned Lord be more positive? What about licensing and prohibiting sales to under-16s? Why not the outright prosecution of shopkeepers who knowingly and deliberately sell solvents to youngsters and who, in some cases, for a price, supply plastic bags as well? Let us put those people out of business, or at least out of the business of supplying solvents to youngsters.
  I commend the Sunday Post for its recent in-depth series on solvent abuse and for highlighting how easy it is for youngsters to obtain solvents. It is to be hoped that most of the shops mentioned will take steps to tighten up their methods of selling solvents. It would be interesting if the Sunday Post revisited those shops to see whether matters had improved and they had taken steps to deal with the problem.
  I am concerned about the difference in figures of the numbers of deaths from solvent abuse, particularly in the Strathclyde region. In a writen reply to the hon. Member for Bute and North Ayrshire (Mr. Corrie) on 1 March this year, the Secretary of State for Scotland listed six deaths in 1981. Yet the official report of the chief constable of

  541
  Strathclyde listed 11 male persons having died from solvent abuse in 1981. I hope that the Minister will explain why the figures differ and which is the correct one.
  I am aware that other hon. Members wish to participate in the debate and are keen that the Bill should have a speedy passage, so I will not detain the House. The Bill is not the final answer to the problem. Indeed, it does not even touch on the problem of adults who abuse solvents, and sadly the number of such cases is increasing. I reiterate that the Bill is the first measure in an effort to combat this menace and to do something to help our young people. For that reason alone I commend it to the House.
  9.43 am
  Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The House should warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) because the Bill is for him a personal triumph and we hope that it will go a long way to helping resolve the problem with which it deals. It is unusual for a Scottish Member to have a ten-minute Bill become law, and I congratulate him warmly on that. I agree with him that this will not be the last measure or the final answer, but it is an important first step in dealing with the problem.
  This issue has given rise to concern for a number of years. Indeed, in March 1979, during the closing stages of the previous Parliament, I tabled two new clauses on this subject in the belief that something needed to be done, though I was not certain that the way in which I proposed to tackle it was the appropriate way. At that time, four years ago, it had been confirmed by the Lord Advocate that about 40 cases had been reported in the previous 10 years, of which four involved the deaths of those concerned. He confirmed that there had been an increase in the number of cases reported to the police. Only last week the Daily Telegraph reported another death and, as the hon. Gentleman said, the number of deaths has increased in recent years.
  The hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth (Mr. Ewing), describing the symptoms, said four years ago that persons intoxicated by solvent sniffing behaved as though they were drunk and that, as with alcohol intoxication, a small proportion of them displayed aggressive tendencies. Similarly, the Lord Advocate confirmed that 14 cases of glue sniffing involving aggression had been reported to him. It was that possibility of aggression which I believed first caused Mr. Jimmy Dempsey to raise the matter in the House; on 6 December 1968, in an Adjournment debate, he spoke about a tragic case in which a young person who had inhaled solvent lit a firework which was thrown at a 14-year-old who subsequently died of his injuries. In that debate Mr. Dempsey called for a prohibition on selling certain commodities to persons under 18.
  That debate and the remarks of Mr. Dempsey prompted me to table the first of the two new clauses to which I referred. That stated that it should be an offence for a person deliberately to inhale solvents or other similar substances, it asked the Secretary of State to define certain substances and it said that it should be treated as an offence under class C of the control of drugs under section 5 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. With the knowledge that we now have, it is clear that that would not have been the appropriate way to proceed. The Bill before us is a much
  542
  better way to move forward because it involves a considerably less harsh approach, one which is likely to be more successful. Parents, teachers and members of the public appreciate what the hon. Gentleman said and will understand that the purpose behind the Bill is to give assistance to those in need of care and attention, and not just to have punitive measures. For that reason I am sure that the Bill will receive strong support from those most concerned.
  The problem is how shopkeepers and retailers should deal with the matter. We first became widely aware of the issue when the case of Mr. Mohammed Malik was reported in The Scotsman on 10 February 1978. He had been charged with selling glue to 12 children
  "wilfully, culpably and recklessly, knowing that they would inhale it to the danger of their health and their lives."
  The sheriff quite properly dismissed the charge on the ground that the complaint disclosed no crime known to the common law of Scotland. He said that either the High Court should deal with it by using declaratory powers or that Parliament should deal with it, and I think that we all agree that Parliament should deal with the matter. With that in mind, I tabled the second new clause, which specified that
  "it should be an offence to supply, whether or not as part of a commercial transaction, to any person under 18 years of age, solvents or similar substances which the supplier has reasonable cause to believe will be inhaled."
  It became clear that a large number of different forms of legislation had been introduced in North America along those lines, and when speaking to that new clause I stated nine of those different forms. They were: that it had been made illegal intentionally to inhale for purposes of intoxication; that it was an offence to possess for purposes of inhaling; that it was illegal elsewhere to induce another person to inhale; that it was illegal to possess for the purpose of inducing another person to inhale; that it was unlawful knowingly to sell to a person for purposes of inhalation; that it was illegal to sell to a minor for any purpose whatever; that it was unlawful to sell unless a chemical deterrent had been added; that it was illegal to sell certain substances to a minor without the consent of the parent; and that it was illegal openly to display for sale.
  There had been considerable problems with the application of those laws in the states of North America in which they were in force. The first was the problem of enforcing the law. Dr. Gellman, an expert on the matter, wrote in an authoritative article:
  "The main problem with this approach is that it is practically impossible to enforce. Determined sniffers will sniff despite the law and others will consider it a challenge to be defied."
  There is still widespread doubt about how effective that was in North America. However, certain measures were introduced; for example, the Federal Trade Commission gave instructions to manufacturers to place warnings on glass chiller aerosols saying:
  "Do not inhale. Use only as directed. Death may result from inhaling this product."
  In 1973, the United States Food and Drug Agency required on aerosols with a high percentage of liquefied gas a statement saying:
  "Use only as directed. Intentional misuse by deliberately concentrating and inhaling the contents can cause death."
  The trouble with both of those measures was that they gave rise to a great deal of publicity and, if anything, caused inhalation to become even more widespread, and thus did not have the intended result. Both the Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. MacKay), and the hon.

  543
  Member for Stiring, Falkirk and Grangemouth frankly admitted the dilemma which had been facing the Scottish Office under successive Governments in dealing with the matter. The Minister said:
  "If we give too much publicity, we may encourage the abuse. If we do not give enough, neither the parents nor the children will know how dangerous it is or the symptoms to look for. Therefore, there is and will always have to be some ambivalence in our approach."
  The hon. Member for Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth said:
  "Previous Ministers of both parties with responsibility for health have heeded advice that they should play down the problem and not say too much about it publicly as that would glamourise it and encourage more youngsters to take up the practice. We adopted that approach. We did not talk about it, publicise it or glamourise it, but still more people took it up."—[Official Report, Second Scottish Standing Committee, 23 February 1983, c. 14, 20.]
  I hope that the Minister will consider the suggestion by the hon. Member for Shettleston about advertising in certain circumstances. I hope that he will weigh up all the different factors.
  I am glad that a study is now being prepared by two researchers at Edinburgh university. I hope that the Minister will make the facts known fully to the House once the study is complete. The corporate approach adopted by Strathclyde regional council is extremely helpful. It knows at what level to pitch its approach.
  I do not believe that any of us can be in any doubt about the serious nature of the problem. The expert for the Department of Health and Social Security, Dr. Dorothy Black, gave an admirable description of the symptoms of inhalation. She said:
  "Mild intoxication is achieved within a few minutes and may last up to 30 minutes… Initial euphoria may continue into a confusional state with disinhibition, disorientation and alteration in perception. These may progress to hallucinatory and delusional experiences, which may give rise to risk-taking or aggressive behaviour… Ultimately, because of the cerebral depressant effect of the organic solvents, there is increasing drowsiness, sometimes leading on to fits or unconsciousness. Vomiting may occur at any stage with the risk of inhalation and asphyxia."
  In view of the disagreeable symptoms that follow inhalation of certain substances, there is a great deal to be said for retailers doing everything within their power to ensure that these substances are not sold irresponsibly. I hope that the Minister will take this matter up with the retailers' organisations.
  During the debate in the Scottish Grand Committee I asked the Minister whether he would consider establishing a voluntary code of conduct. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said that he would study the matter seriously. He also expressed gratitude to retailers who had assisted in this matter and had controlled the sale of such products to children.
  There has been a certain amount of voluntary restraint by retailers. Mr. William Low in Cumbernauld has decided to sell solvents at cigarette kiosks only and he limits their sale to those people over 16. The Strathkelvin crime prevention panel has followed that initiative by persuading other local traders to co-operate in measures to control sales.
  In Dundee, the Federation of Master Ironmongers in conjunction with the chamber of commerce has set out a code of practice for its members. I hope that the Minister will follow this matter up with vigour and ensure, if possible, that the idea of a voluntary code of conduct will
  544
  be pursued. Retailers can encourage restraint to help contain this evil and the Government should give them every possible encouragement.
  9.53 am
  Mr. Bruce Millan: I add my congratulations to those already expressed to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) on his Bill and the successful way in which he has brought it to this stage. I thank the Minister and all hon. Members who have facilitated its passage.
  There is general anxiety about the problems and a willingness by hon. Members to find solutions to them. The Bill deals with an important aspect of the matter, but it is only one aspect. By itself, as my hon. Friend has acknowledged, the Bill will not provide anything like a complete solution. Successive Governments have found this problem extremely difficult to deal with. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) demonstrated that. We must not become paralysed into complete inaction because it is a difficult problem and say that nothing can be done. The Bill is a useful step.
  I hope that the Government will try to eliminate abuses at the point of sale. A difficulty arises with the legitimate retailer selling substances that have a legitimate use when he cannot judge whether the substance is to be used legitimately or is to be abused. We know that there are cases of retailers who have behaved in an irresponsible and outrageous fashion. They have sold some of these substances in circumstances where it is plain that they will be abused and where the method of sale is designed to facilitate abuse.
  A prosecution is taking place at the moment and I plainly cannot refer to it because it is sub judice, but I am delighted that there is such a prosecution. If we find that existing law does not allow successful prosecutions in cases where the facts are not in dispute but the issue is whether an offence has been committed, I hope that the Government will put that right by legislation that will make it clear that sale in such irresponsible circumstances is an offence. It would be another small step forward which would deal with another aspect of the problem even if it left aside the wider problem of retail sales. There are severe practical problems in that and I have a great deal of sympathy for the Government's view that it is difficult to draft legislation that will deal with the problem generally. Further such legislation would help to reduce the problem, but if we cannot deal with the problem as a whole, Bills of this nature which reduce certain aspects of it are welcome. That is why I am glad to congratulate my hon. Friend and all those who have assisted him with this legislation. I hope that if a general election does not intervene it will be on the statute book shortly.
  9.58 am
  Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: This is an important Bill and I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) on its success. I believe that all hon. Members present know that when I was responsible for the passage of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) attempted properly to find a formula by which we could deal with the problem as a criminal offence.

  545
  As the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Milian) and others have said, it is difficult to legislate about a substance that is so universally used. However, I have now come to the conclusion that the problem is of such an extent that we can no longer permit the concept that if we ignore it or whisper about it it will not magnify. The problem is no longer auto-suggestive by publicity. It is now an ingrained habit, a virility symbol, a chicken challenge and a scourge. I have received some letters this week from constituents of the hon. Member for Shettleston urging us to take some action.
  A case in which I was involved only last week in Scotland showed that a large number of children between the ages of 10 and 15 regularly went to a known source which supplied them willingly and with alacrity. Had not that source suddenly closed, the parents might well have taken vengeance into their own hands.
  Of all the points to attack, the most important is the point of sale. It is more difficult to attack the source of supply. I do not know whether adding to the list of noxious substances or putting warnings on everything from Brasso to petrol would have much effect. Warnings must therefore take a different form. In the first instance, teachers should warn the children. Parents, too, must warn their children. Parents should also be encouraged to advise the police of the source of any solvent obtained by their children for the purpose of abuse.
  I see no reason why large retail outlets such as supermarkets in which goods are simply taken from the shelves and placed in baskets should not put up notices to the effect that certain substances will not be sold to anyone under the age of, say, 21. That procedure is followed by those who wish to remain within the law in relation to the sale of alcohol and cigarettes. It may be difficult to tell whether a 4ft 2in boy is under 18 or a youthful 23, so traders protect themselves by taking an age above which it is safe to sell.
  I appreciate that some adults may be willing to buy these substances to supply them to children, but I hope that they will be caught by the next proposal, which I hope will fall on receptive ears. If the Minister cannot act on this, I hope that he will pass the matter on to the Lord Advocate or the Solicitor-General for Scotland.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West mentioned the case of Malik in which Sheriff Ervine Smith held that the offence as charged was not a crime known to the law of Scotland. Scottish common law has been able to adapt itself to the intervention of many forms of assault. It is the great benefit of common law that the common law of assault can be adapted. The common law of breach of the peace, too, can be and has been constantly developed. I hope that the Lord Advocate will use his statutory power to invite the High Court of Justiciary to declare as a crime the supplying of solvent substances to young persons in circumstances in which it is likely that the substances will be misused by deliberate inhalation.
  It may be argued that that is a nebulous concept, but it is not in the least nebulous. Under the law of reset if a person has stolen goods in his possession the question for the court is whether the circumstances in which the goods were received — in this case, it would be the circumstances in which the person sold the goods—were such as to give rise to the inference that the person concerned knew that the goods were stolen—or, in this
  546
  case, intended for an improper purpose. For instance, if a chap comes into an ironmonger's shop and asks for six jemmies, eight screwdrivers and some gelignite, it is unlikely that he wants them to make a bonfire. It is not difficult to draw an inference in the case of seedy suppliers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West, has said, responsible suppliers are already taking action to protect children. We want to stop those who are deliberately profiting from this appalling scourge. To take another example, if children enjoyed drinking paraquat I am sure that speedy action could be taken under common law to prosecute people who sold that substance to children as an act of assault, a breach of the peace or some other manifestation of the common law that the courts could declare.
  I refer to the common law rather than to statutute law because statute law pins one to a definition and in a matter as nebulous as this we do not wish to be pinned to formulas and definitions. The court should decide whether the circumstances demonstrate the offence in echo of the concept of reset.
  I make those suggestions as a possible way forward to make this a criminal offence. This should be backed by strong and fierce advertising to make it clear that solvent abuse is not clever, grown-up, "with it" or anything like that, but sordid, painful, dangerous and self-destructive.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. Before calling the next hon. Member, I remind the House that we are debating Third Reading, so debate should be restricted to what is actually in the Bill. I am deliberately allowing a somewhat wider debate as there was no debate on Second Reading, but we are beginning to stray into a debate on the general subject, and it is my job to protect the other business for the day.
  10.6 am
  Mr. George Foulkes: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and not just for calling me. As I have a Bill on the Order Paper, I am entirely with you in your wish to protect later business.
  I am pleased to follow the helpful and intelligent contribution of the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn). I am pleased, too, to add my congratulations to those already showered upon my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall). I hope that this legislation will not be lost if a general election is called and that my hon. Friend and the Government will be able to facilitate its passage through the other House. When elections are called, emergency Finance Bills and the like can be passed extremely expeditiously. Given the unanimous and overwhelming support for my hon. Friend's Bill, I am sure that we all wish the same to apply in this case.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston is the first to admit that the Bill does not go far enough. In saying that, I do not underestimate its importance. As my hon. Friend said, the first step is the most difficult and in many ways the most important. Nevertheless, we must go further. As my hon. Friend and all who have spoken have stated, the statistics greatly underestimate the problem because they relate only to those cases brought to our attention or to the attention of the police. There are many more. I cite a startling instance. Last time we discussed

  547
  this in the Scottish Grand Committee, when I went to take the underground home from Westminster station the same day I saw within 100 yards of this Chamber two youngsters in a terrible state sniffing glue. That coincidence, so close to the House, brought the matter home to me. I was struck by the fact that no one seemed to be doing anything about it, although it took place in public and in the open so close to this place. I am sure that other people could cite many more cases.
  The latest edition of SCOLAG, the bulletin of the Scottish legal action group, which hon. Members will have had circulated to them, says in an editorial on the Bill:
  "Mr. David Marshall MP deserves credit for enlisting through his Solvent Abuse Bill the expertise of Children's Hearings in combating the pernicious habit of inhaling 'volatile substances'. The Government too did well to assist the passage of the Bill. That is only a start, however. Reporters will soon be faced with the question whether 'compulsory measures of care' are likely to improve the situation of the child, or whether a warning letter to the child and parents will suffice."
  That will be a difficult decision.
  "Social workers will have to work out a line of persuasion to change the habits of those who are placed on supervision. The outlook is not promising, for it seems that even when a child is in whole-time residential care those in charge either cannot or will not break the habit. A List D school headmaster recently admitted that 60 per cent. of his pupils were solvent abusers."
  That is a startling and amazing figure.
  "A survey reported in the press on 14 April showed that 10 per cent. of children in residential care in Strathclyde were solvent abusers, the highest proportion in List D schools."
  It is an enormous problem and it is to the credit of hon. Members here that we are beginning to realise it, perhaps a little belatedly.
  Outside this House, in spite of my hon. Friend's efforts — and in spite of the efforts of the Sunday Post and others — to publicise the problem, many parents, teachers and social warkers still do not realise the extent of it. I have seen people shrugging their shoulders and asking, "Why is Parliament wasting its time on something as irrelevant as glue sniffing?" People do not appreciate that death can result and has resulted from glue sniffing and the sniffing of other solvents.
  Without, I hope, straying from the substance of the Bill, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to say that I agree with what other hon. Members have said about the need for further education on the question. I hope that you will allow the Minister to say something, if he wishes to, about the way in which the Scottish health education group can mount some kind of intensive campaign to bring home to parents the true facts about glue sniffing. If it cannot be done directly to the children, as the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire suggested, it should be brought home to parents and teachers, so that they can pass on the message, together with youth club leaders, social workers and anyone in touch with young people, because there is still a lack of awareness of the extent of the problem.
  I agree that further legislation should be considered, and I accept the arguments from the Conservative Benches as to the need for control at the point of sale. I know that it is difficult because of the large variety of substances involved. They are not all used for improper purposes and ought to be available to those who will not misuse them. It is extremely difficult to know whether they are likely to be misused.
  I place a little more faith than the hon. and learned Member does in the use of the words "noxious
  548
  substances". One of the new clauses discussed during the proceedings on the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Bill covered that aspect and it still merits some consideration. I am sure that it is possible, with such a large amount of chemical and other research being done, to produce a substance that could be added to most of the inhalants so that they would either be impossible to inhale or so awful that people would be physicllly repelled by them.
  I hope that the measures in the Bill, and any further legislation, will be applied to the whole of the United Kingdom, because it is not merely a Scottish problem. We are dealing with it in a peculiarly Scottish way because we already have children's panels and hearings, but the problem should be dealt with in a parallel manner in the rest of the United Kingdom.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston was very generous to the Minister, and so was SCOLAG in its editorial. I agree that the Government have clone a good job in supporting my hon. Friend's Bill. However, I should like to break the consensus slightly for a moment and say that perhaps it is a guilty conscience that makes some Conservative Members so eager to support the Bill.
  The cause of glue sniffing should be examined. Why do people turn to glue sniffing? I accept that glue sniffing has an effect which people find pleasing initially, and that they are unaware of the long-term damage—not always so long term—of glue sniffing, but many young people are turning to glue sniffing and other kinds of distraction because of their despair and despondency. They are aware of the impossibility of finding a job, with the very high rate of youth unemployment. That is the truth; that is what is happening. When I talk to young people I see their despondency and despair about the future, and particularly about jobs. Those feelings are spreading like wildfire among young people.
  The imposition of public expenditure cuts means that alternative facilities such as sport and recreation are not being expanded and developed to provide much more healthy alternative attractions for young people. The editorial in SCOLAG says:
  "A graffiti artist in Dundee's Hilltown has inscribed the chilling message `Sniff glue and die happy'. To the writer there is nothing to linger for in Mrs. Thatcher's Britain. An express route out of it—destination unknown—is a more appealing prospect."
  That is what our young people are saying and writing. It is a terrible indictment of Britain in 1983 that young people are turning to glue, to lighter fuel and other kinds of inhalation for their kicks. It is a terrible indictment of our adult society. Above all, it is a terrible indictment of the Conservative Government—
  Mr. Fairbairn: To what Government and set of circumstances does the hon. Gentleman attribute the phrase, "See Venice and die"?
  Mr. Foulkes: I am sure that if I were to stray down that road, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you would rule me out of order. It would also put the Second Reading of the Age Discrimination Bill in great jeopardy. I have made my point. It is a very serious one, and nearly 4 million people outside will echo my assertion that despair and despondency exist.
  I should like to end on a generous note. The Government are to be congratulated on at least recognising that something should be done urgently, and on supporting my hon. Friend's Bill.
  10.18 am
  Sir Russell Fairgrieve: I am happy to follow the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) but I am sorry that he spoiled a good speech by introducing a totally spurious political point. He knows perfectly well that the subject is far too serious to be made a party political issue. On the question of care, he also knows that the Government, in every year since they have been in office, have spent more money in real terms than the Labour Government in the areas of health and social work, which are closely connected with the purposes of the Bill.
  I join those hon. Members who have complimented the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) on introducing a very necessary measure. We are grateful to him for the work that he has done individually and in Committee to get the measure on the statute book. I hope that it will get on the statute book, whatever the election timing may be. I also pay tribute to the late Jimmy Dempsey for the work that he did in this House year after year on this and allied subjects. It is a great pity that he is not here today.
  I am not too sure about the matter of warnings and notices and how that aspect of the problem can be dealt with. After all, there is almost nothing that one can buy that is not capable of causing harm. For example, will knives have warnings saying that if they are stuck into a neighbour he is liable to get hurt? The list of substances that one can abuse is almost limitless. One could publicise a great list of products that children might never think of. There is almost nothing that one cannot vaporise, from boot polish to other substances that I shall not mention, because there is so little that I could leave out of the list. So we must be careful about warnings and publicity.
  I agree with the hon. Member for South Ayrshire and others who have said that this is a far more serious business than we realise. May I add that there is a minor redeeming feature—although it, too, has a bad side—and it is that the evidence shows that it is non-addictive. It is not something that adults do. It seems to be confined entirely to youngsters, and they give it up. Nevertheless, one must remember that, although the solvent abuse may happen only with youngsters, it is clear that a certain number of people go on to far more serious drugs, having started on solvent abuse. I stress that aspect of the non-addictive nature of this problem.
  The Bill underlines the beauty of a system that we have in Scotland. The hon. Member for Shettleston said that he hoped that the lead we give here would spread to England and Wales. Unfortunately, it cannot do so. In fact, it cannot spread to western Europe, where the same problems exist, because no one else has Scotland's unique system of children's hearings.
  The system of children's hearings is 12 years old, and is unique to Scotland. I was Minister with responsibilities for health when the system was reviewed after its tenth anniversary. This unique system takes children away from the legal trappings and puts them into an environment of social work where something can be done to help. I have the privilege of being a member of the Council of Europe, and as a rapporteur I hope to introduce the subject of children's hearings, so that other countries in western Europe may know what we have done in Scotland. Although I agree that it would be a good idea for the thinking behind the Bill to spread, I regret that there is no
  550
  mechanism in England or Wales that is in any way similar to the children's hearings. That is why it is so important and unique and why we in Scotland can lead the whole of western Europe, as well as England, Wales and Ireland, in this method of dealing with the problem.
  I conclude by again paying tribute to the hon. Member for Shettleston. I am glad that the Government are supporting the Bill. Let us again give another lead from Scotland.
  10.22 am
  Mr. Albert McQuarrie: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall) on bringing the Bill to the House, and I am very pleased to be one of its sponsors.
  I was somewhat disappointed at the disgraceful exhibition by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) who, with his usual desire for sensationalism—
  Mr. Foulkes rose—
  Mr. McQuarrie: I shall not give way—made most disreputable comments. However, he did not say that the problem of solvent abuse existed under the Labour Government. In fact, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) tabled two amendments to a Bill that was going through the House during the period of that Labour Government.
  Mr. Foulkes rose—
  Mr. McQuarrie: No, I shall not give way. The fact that my hon. Friend's two amendments were not accepted at that time was unfortunate and the hon. Gentleman's remarks have soured the Third Reading of a commendable Bill, which the hon. Member for Shettleston brought forward as a private Member's Bill.
  Solvent abuse has become a major social ailment in Scotland. The public in general, and parents of young children in particular, are becoming increasingly concerned at its growth. In my constituency, I have received many representations from my constituents saying that the Government should do something urgently to halt the appalling situation. So far, not enough controls have been placed on the distribution and sales of the substances that have such disastrous effects on the people who take to what is called glue sniffing, although many other substances apart from glue are being used, which has resulted in the tragic deaths of the young people who have taken to this practice.
  The whole subject of solvent abuse requires much more investigation, to seek out not only those who indulge in its use but the methods by which these materials are so easily obtained. It would be impossible to ban everything that could be used as an inhalant, causing such damage to the users, but we must identify some method of control if we are to arrest the damage that these people do to themselves.
  I do not believe that the source of the problem is linked to social deprivation or unemployment. Horrific stories are told of elderly persons claiming that they are being terrorised by glue-sniffing children from all grades of schools. In one case, the situation is so bad that a fence is being erected beside the elderly persons' homes to protect them from intimidation. On many occasions the young people have been so high on glue sniffing that they have had to be taken away for their own safety.

  551
  Teenagers sniff glue for kicks. They do not seem to realise that the minute they put their noses to the bottle or canister they are in grave danger. Only last week, we had the example of two respectable schoolboys of 15 who died after sniffing fuel from a decorative lamp. They were lively boys from a good family, and their parents had no idea that they were involved in such a dangerous practice.
  Then there was the case in Glasgow last week of a 13-year-old girl who had a great future as a swimmer, but who died 23 minutes after she inhaled lighter fuel. Those are but three examples of the seriousness of the problem, and it is a problem that social investigators and sociologists will have to consider seriously.
  In addition, curbs on the sale of these substances must be found. All such substances should be clearly labelled as to the grave danger of misuse. If possible, the manufacturers should study ways and means of producing substances that will remove the danger when there is abuse by young persons. In Scotland we have started to tighten up the controls in the amendment to the Social Work (Scotland) Act. I am also pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister has commissioned a study of solvent abuse and the measures that will be necessary to deal with the problem. I hope that the study will be carried out with the utmost urgency, as more young people are dying every year in Scotland from the effects of inhaling these solvents.
  This is a short Bill, and it is one of the few private Member's Bills ever to reach this stage. The hon. Member for Shettleston has gone to great lengths to promote it in the House, and I know that he welcomes the all-party support that it has. Incidentally, I am disappointed that there are no representatives here today of the Liberal-Social Democratic alliance or the Scottish nationalists to give him additional support, especially from Scotland.
  When the Bill was in Committee, the hon. Member paid tribute to the late James Dempsey, the former Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie, who started this campaign during his period in the House. I add my tribute to the late Member, because we often discussed the matter at length in the Lobby, and he was anxious that legislation should he brought in to try to solve this tragic problem. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Sir R. Fairgrieve) said, it is a great tragedy that Jimmy is not with us today to see this Bill go through the House. However, the hon. Member for Shettleston has carried on Jimmy's dedicated work, and the whole House will give him the support that he deserves.
  This Bill is only the start of a process to find the answers to the problem. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on giving it Government acceptance and on providing money from Government funds for any expenses that may be incurred in ensuring that the Bill is properly operated by those concerned in local authorities, the children's panels and the police authorities.
  Solvent abuse is not a problem only in urban areas. It causes as many difficulties in rural areas, such as my constituency, as I have seen time and again. It is, therefore, a matter of concern for all people in Scotland and one which we cannot duck.
  The Government have given full backing to the Bill. I trust that it will have a safe passage through its remaining stages and that the media will highlight the fact that the Government. through the Bill, are taking the matter seriously. I warmly commend the Bill to the House.
  10.30 am
  The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): It gives me great pleasure to confirm the Government's support for the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Shettleston (Mr. Marshall). I also offer him my sincere congratulations on the action that he has taken, but I shall not labour that point, because he was so thoroughly commended by both sides in Committee that it might be embarrassing for him to get too many other credits from the Government side.
  In many ways, it is appropriate that a Glasgow Member should take such a Bill through the House. Although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) pointed out, solvent abuse is not solely an urban problem, it reaches its most horrific dimensions in some parts of Glasgow. I spent a morning at the Acorn street clinic close to the Shettleston constituency talking to children under 16 and young people aged between 17 and 19 who were hooked on glue and other substances and attended the clinic in an attempt to break the habit and to stop the downward spiral that could result in the sort of tragedy that we read about this week in the reports of a fatal accident inquiry in Glasgow.
  The problem of solvent abuse does not arise in great numbers in my constituency, but the subject was brought to my attention long before I was elected to the House. A campaign was conducted here and in Scotland by the late Jimmy Dempsey and I echo the tributes that have been paid to him for his work in bringing the problem in his constituency and in the west of Scotland to the attention of hon. Members and the public.
  I will not describe in detail the nature and scale of the problem of solvent abuse. It has been dealt with by hon. Members, and most people who are in the least interested are aware of the manifestations of the problem and the fact that it has a cyclical nature. For unexplained reasons, it blossoms in an area and, for equally unexplained reasons, it fades away, though that process is more prevalent in rural areas than in cities where the cycle is not so apparent. If children think that they have to be into the game because otherwise they will be out of the group, the problem takes off. If the young people find something else to do, the habit dies.
  There is no doubt that solvent abuse causes great alarm to others in the community. On my visit to Glasgow I heard of housing schemes where old people in particular were almost frightened to go out at night because of the way that children behave under the influence of solvents.
  I shall describe the action taken by the Government during the lifetime of this Parliament. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Sir R. Fairgrieve) took part in the debate, because if events occur as the press tell us that they may over the next week this may be the last occasion on which my hon. Friend addresses the House. It is appropriate that he should have spoken in a debate that is closely related to children's panels and the caring society. My hon. Friend held my job for two years and during all his time as an hon. Member he has been interested and involved in that aspect of the work of a Minister and Member.
  As my hon. Friend said, in April 1980, in fulfilment of a commitment in the Conservative manifesto, he issued a consultative memorandum on the powers and procedures

  553
  of children's hearings. It was a major exercise which resulted in many comments from a wide range of bodies and individuals.
  Among the numerous issues raised by the memorandum was whether solvent abuse, either on its own or as part of a wider ground of self-inflicted injury, should be made a ground on which a child might be referred to the reporter to a children's panel as being in need of compulsory measures of care. That suggestion, which reflected the level of public concern at that time, attracted a considerable response. A substantial majority of the 170 respondents to the memorandum favoured making solvent abuse, or self-inflicted injury generally, a ground of referral. However, because those views were, for the most part, expressed in broad general terms which did not take into account the practical difficulties which might arise — something which was given less attention than it should have been given—we decided that more detailed consultations should be carried out.
  In December 1981, therefore, a consultative document on solvent abuse was issued to directors of social work, health boards, the police associations and a range of other interests concerned with education, the law and social work. The paper spelt out the problems to be faced and the possible options for dealing with them in some detail so as to encourage the submission of considered views on what was generally recognised to be a particularly intractable problem, and one to which there are no easy answers.
  A total of 51 replies were received. They showed nearly unanimous opposition to the idea that solvent abuse should be made an offence, and very few of those who replied supported the creation of an offence of selling or supplying solvents to children—something to which I shall return later. There was, however, no unanimity on whether and how a child identified as being involved in solvent abuse might be referred to a children's hearing, although a clear majority agreed that the hearings could play a valuable role.
  The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan), who was Secretary of State for Scotland in the previous Government, recognised the difficulties that Ministers face in dealing with the problem. I tell the House frankly that I spent a considerable time in discussions with my officials before concluding that the best way forward lay in making solvent abuse a specific ground for referral to the reporter. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agreed with that view, and in his statement on 16 December last year in answer to a question tabled by the hon. Member for Shettleston he stated our intention to seek the legislative changes necessary for that purpose. That is why we have been happy to support the initiative taken by the hon. Member in introducing his Bill.
  I should mention in passing that our consultative memorandum looked at two alternative approaches to the problem. The first was that a child found abusing solvents might be referred to the reporter, after a series of police warnings, on the ground of being beyond parental control. That system was in operation in Strathclyde where the police authority used it as a method of taking habitual glue sniffers before the children's panel. The disadvantage was, of course, that the child might have been inhaling solvents for a considerable period before being detected on the two
  554
  or three occasions. It could also be argued that parents could not reasonably be expected to control the behaviour of a child some way from home.
  The decision that we made in December and the law that will be made by the Bill will get round those two problems and will ensure that a child can be referred sooner to the reporter to a panel.
  A second possibility was to amend existing legislation to enable a child to be referred to the reporter on the ground that he or she was engaging in conduct that could be injurious to health. We were, however, against creating a broad general ground of this kind, which would introduce a broad element of discretion and would be open to reinterpretation in the light of society's prevailing atitudes in the future, so that it might be used in circumstances that Parliament had never envisaged. We also thought that it would be a questionable approach to create so wide a ground when it is only solvent abuse that we are concerned with.
  The Government remain of the view that solvent abuse is, of its nature, a foolish and potentially dangerous practice, which we are concerned to discourage by whatever action is likely to prove effective. I need not stress the potential dangers. Hon. Members will be aware of the tragic case that came before a fatal accident inquiry in Glasgow last week. It concerned a young girl who died after inhaling propane and butane gas. I should like to express my sympathy and the sympathy of the House to her parents. Such a tragedy naturally brings with it public concern that action should be taken to prevent it from recurring—for example, that shops should be regulated or prevented from selling products which can be sniffed to persons under a certain age.
  We have been considering this issue carefully in particular in the light of remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Ancram) who asked me in Committee to consider the possibility of controlling by statute the sale or supply of solvents to children. I must tell my hon. Friend, who cannot be present today, and other hon. Members who have mentioned the matter this morning that we were by no means convinced that such legislation could effectively contribute to dealing with the problem. At first sight, of course, banning the sale of solvents to children appears an attractive proposition. There are, as hon. Members will know, statutory restrictions already on the sale of some substances to children — for example, tobacco and alcohol. But a number of difficulties arise when one considers the matter more carefully.
  First, which substances should be regulated? Almost any volatile substance can be abused, although the most common product employed for this purpose is toluene-based glue. The range of household products containing substances which might be abused is very large indeed. Some of those are more dangerous than the glues—for example, the substance used in the Glasgow case to which I referred. It would be difficult to draw up a list of all the chemical substances which might be misused in this way, and even more difficult to compile a list of the products on sale which might contain them. Any list of "restricted" products would almost certainly be incomplete, and would have to be constantly updated as new products and new chemical constituents became available. If the list were confined to the more commonly abused substances, there would be the worrying danger that abusers would be found substituting other, and perhaps potentially more harmful,

  555
  substances for the forbidden ones. Hon. Members will agree that it would be distressing to discover that legislation designed to safeguard children and young people from the effects of solvent abuse in fact caused them to employ other and more dangerous substances.
  There would also be the great practical difficulties for shopkeepers.
  Mr. Milian: I apologise for intervening, as I missed the earlier part of the Minister's speech. A bewildering variety of substances come under the food and drugs regulations. Powers exist to deal with a wide variety of substances.
  Mr. MacKay: I am aware of the complexity and welter of substances which are dealt with under the Food and Drugs Acts. We are dealing with products a little further away from foods and drugs. We are dealing with commonly used household products. Interestingly enough, in an article in today's Glasgow Herald, I noticed one of the problems that would arise. Mr. Geoffrey Isles of Strathclyde region said that his reservation about— in this case—marking some glue products as hazardous
  "might make them more identifiable to potential abusers."
  The problem is not as easy as I would wish. If it were an easy problem to resolve, I can assure the House that I would have been here long since with all the i's dotted and t's crossed. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Craigton would have beaten me to it.
  The number of shops affected would be large because of the number of products. Such a law would be difficult for the police to enforce. While it is true, as I have said, that there are already statutory restrictions on the sale of tobacco and alcohol, whose nature and uses are very much easier to define than those of solvents, the law is not exactly completely obeyed with regard to selling cigarettes to children under 16 or alcohol to youngsters under 18. We all recognise the worrying problem of under-age drinking. The law forbids the sale of alcohol to people under 18. While that may—and I hope does—keep the problem under control, it does not prevent it from being a real problem.
  There are obvious practical difficulties for shopkeepers in telling the age of their customers. For example it is difficult to tell whether some youngsters are 14, 15, 16 or, indeed 17, 18 or 19. Another problem I came across when visiting the Acorn street clinic was that many of the under-16s who were already being pushed out of the shops by the ironmongers' own code of practice were using over-16s to buy the materials. The cut for the over-16 was a share in the glue that he had gone into the shop to buy. So one would not even be closing the door in that regard.
  There would be considerable difficulty in formulating a criminal offence of sale or supply of solvent in terms that could be enforced and proved in court if necessary without making it bear unduly harshly on shopkeepers who might be accused of a crime. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) will appreciate from their practical legal experience how undesirable it is to seek to subject to a criminal sanction behaviour which may be perfectly innocent, or the entirely legitimate action of selling to an under-16-year-old a substance which, though capable of abuse, was to be used for a safe and straightforward purpose — perhaps the solvent for constructing a model kit or the gas for a camping stove. Thus, in fairness to the shopkeeper, it would appear
  556
  necessary at least to make the crime one of knowingly supplying an abusable substance to someone appearing to be under 16, and perhaps also requiring it to be demonstrated that the shopkeeper knew that the substance was to be abused.
  We have considered this closely and have found it extremely difficult to frame an offence which would be effective in regulating any abuse, sufficiently well defined to render proof of the offence possible and enforceable by the court, and at the same time not so oppressive that it would make many completely innocent actions the subject of criminal sanctions. During the proceedings on the Criminal Justice (Amendment) Bill I argued from the Back Benches that we might try to walk along that road. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire explained the difficulties of such a course. That highlights the problem. Even if one changes places, the difficulty remains.
  Mr. Fairbairn: The difficulty with a statutory offence is that it is locked into definitions. But in common law there is no difficulty with regard to buying something which is likely to be stolen or selling something which is likely to be abused. I think that the common law provides the best hope.
  Mr. MacKay: I listen to my hon. and learned Friend with interest. What I have said does not deny that the criminal law is not entirely irrelevant to solvent abuse. We have been discussing the possibility of a specific criminal offence. The common law, on the other hand, is a rather more flexible instrument, as my hon. and learned Friend mentioned both in his intervention and in his speech.
  I should like to draw the attention of the House to a case currently before the courts in Glasgow. Two Glasgow shopkeepers have been charged at common law with culpably, wilfully and recklessly supplying solvents to children for the purposes of abuse. I cannot comment on the circumstances of the case, because it is at the moment sub judice, but I am sure hon. Members will wish to take note of it and to learn in due course of the outcome of the prosecution. Leaving that case aside, I am sure we would all agree that the deliberate sale of solvents to children in the knowledge that they are for the purposes of abuse is an activity which would rightly arouse indignation in the House and in the community at large and I certainly join hon. Members in condemning the practice wherever it happens.
  I listened with interest to my hon. and learned Friend's view that might teach us something when it comes to considering this as a criminal activity. One of the encouraging things—hon. Members on both sides of the House mentioned this — is that the majority of shopkeepers have a thoroughly responsible attitude to this problem. In the Glasgow Herald this morning one big multiple store in Scotland announced that it will restrict the sale of solvent-based glues to customers under 18—or rather it will restrict their sale to over-l8-year-olds and will make it difficult for under-18-year-olds to buy the products. I know that many shops in the city and throughout Scotland have notices saying that they will not sell solvents to under 16 or 18-year-olds.
  I am not saying that referral of a child to the reporter, and possibly by him to the children's hearing, will solve the problem overnight. It would be unfair to impose on children's panel members the expectation that they can so

  557
  deal with children appearing before them that we can confidently look forward to the disappearance of solvent abuse. That would be to misunderstand the complex character of solvent abuse.
  The appearance of a child at a hearing, while it may assist and supplement, cannot replace work that has been developing for some years in counselling and education, involving the health professionals, the police, the schools and the social workers. It should rather be viewed as a unique opportunity to explore constructively in an informal setting the personal problems that a child may have, and may be seeking to escape from by persistent solvent abuse. There may be wider family problems. The children's panel—either the reporter or the members of the panel — will help to reinforce the parents by emphasising to them the need for them to discipline and look after their children. Parents must ensure that their children do not fall into the habit of solvent abuse by being out late at night.
  The hearing can bring an element of compulsion where that seems necessary, but there is no connotation of punishment. One of the advantages of the children's panel system, which only Scotland has, is that solvent abuse is not an offence ground but a care ground for referral to the panel.
  Some regional authorities have treated solvent abuse seriously and carefully. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. McQuarrie) mentioned the work being done in Grampian. The chief constable there reported two years ago his concern at the upsurge of solvent abuse in the region. The matter was debated by the regional committees responsible. As a result, a working group of officials, chaired by the chief executive, was established to consider the best way of dealing with the problem. Their conclusion was that to set up a specialist unit in any one part of the region would not be the best approach. Instead, they supported the development of expertise by strengthening the existing network of services so that parents whose children became involved would have access to a discreet private handling of their problems. The working party reported that a multidisciplinary team had already been set up by the council at official level, including representatives of education, social work, children's panel, reporter, police and health board, and that a leaflet had been produced for guidance to the police.
  In considering what further steps were required, the working party recommended that a specialist senior social worker should be appointed for a set period of time and that Voluntary Service Aberdeen should pursue that development.
  The aim was that the person appointed should first of all try to identify those who are abusing solvents; that he should examine the level of advice that needs to be given to police and children to assist the prevention of solvent abuse and its early detection; and that he should determine the service that might be offered to those children after they had been identified. At the end of the project, which is aimed essentially at developing a practical response to solvent abuse within the Grampian region, the senior social worker would provide a report to the region and to the Scottish Office. The Government agreed to fund that pilot project with a grant of £50,000 from the Scottish
  558
  Education Department, and a senior social worker was appointed to the post at the beginning of March 1983. We shall be keeping closely in touch with developments.
  Strathclyde has also carried out a great deal of work. It has produced literature on the subject for those most closely involved—parents, teachers, social workers and the police. It has selected some schools for pilot projects in education. It is desperately important that the teaching profession should realise the nature of the problem and recognise the tell-tale signs of children who abuse solvents. They must be prepared inside schools to help the children in danger.
  The publicity that Strathclyde has given to the problem brings me to the question of the Scottish health education group, and whether there should be Scottish publicity about the problem. My mind is not closed to that possibility. For some years the House has taken the view that if the matter is publicised too much that may encourage its spread. It has spread despite that. We may now be at the stage where we must be more positive. It is a matter not simply of educating the children, but of alerting parents to the problem and to their responsibilities.
  This reference to the opportunity for fully involving the parents in the problem leads me naturally to emphasise that, as my right hon. Friend stated on 16 December, parents have the primary responsibility and concern for their children. Professional help and advice is available for parents who discover that their child is a solvent abuser, and local agencies should encourage them to seek it and to ensure that it is readily available to them. But parents have a basic responsibility to know where their children are at any given time and what they are doing. They cannot abdicate that responsibility and then look to other agencies — statutory or voluntary—to deal with any resulting problems.
  I exempt from that criticism parents who have tried, often over long periods, to help their children who have been persistent solvent abusers. They have experienced much heartbreak and disruption of family life. Nevertheless, all of us who are parents may need to look carefully at the strength of our relationships with our children, especially as they enter the difficult period of adolescence.
  One of the most depressing things that I hear when I talk to parents of young children who have misbehaved—and I am referring to 8, 9, 10 and 11-year-olds—is, "I cannot control them." If parents cannot control children of that age, something is very wrong. I hope that the emphasis that we place on the problem today will help to get it through to parents that they have a responsibility for their children until they are 16, and indeed beyond that. My mother still thinks that she has responsibility for me. It is essential that we underline the fact that parents cannot simply say that Parliament, police and social workers should deal with the problem. We are there to help if parents fail in their efforts, but they must make those efforts.
  Parents must look after their children and be involved with them. They must share in their activities and not simply think that because the child is out of the house they can do whatever they want and forget about what the child is doing. Unfortunately, that attitude prevails and society has a duty to counter it. That attitude is wrong and misdirected. While I do not minimise the risk to life and health that is associated with solvent abuse, the saddest aspect is that many children have nothing else to do in the

  559
  evenings because no one, not even their parents, is interested in them. They sit in a cold, draughty corner and sniff glue.
  The Bill recognises the problem, as have the Government. As the hon. Member for Shettleston said, it shows society's disapproval of the habit. It is the first time that the House has done that through legislation. It gives youngsters and their parents the help and support of the reporter to the panel and, if necessary, the children's panel itself. It allows the House to underline the responsibility of every adult. Parents have a primary responsibility for the well-being of their children, but we all have responsibility for the well-being of all children.
  All of us, whether or not we are parents, must face the responsibility and not pass by on the other side. We must bring abuse to the attention of the authorities, the police or social workers. If we have the courage, we should intervene ourselves and try to stop it if we see it happening before our eyes.
  I welcome the Bill. I know that the House will give it a Third Reading. I hope that it is a sign to the public at large of the seriousness with which we view the matter. The hon. Member for Shettleston has achieved the rare distinction of having a ten-minute Bill passed into law. I hope that the Bill will help to counter the appalling problem of solvent abuse in our society.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Charities Bill
Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered. Order for Third Reading read.
10.59 am
Sir Angus Maude: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
From the packed Benches, the fact the Bill was not opposed on Second Reading, that no amendments were made in Committee and none are proposed today, one may hope that the Bill if regarded as uncontroversial. It is, nevertheless, important. It is simple in essence but the background is somewhat complex.
It is well known that the substantive Charities Act 1960 made considerable reforms in charity law and helped to deal with the problem of the multitude of small charities, which are mostly parochial and have either outlived their original purpose or, as a result of inflation or other factors, become short of the resources necessary to carry out their original task satisfactorily. It was hoped that a voluntary process would result in the amalgamation of local charities into larger bodies with larger resources, which might be able to perform charitable functions better. That was the hope of the Goodman committee on charity law and the old Select Committee on Expenditure, which considered the matter about 10 years ago.
There have been local and regional efforts to get voluntary agreement to the merging of parochial charities in neighbourhood trusts. The trouble has been that the cooperation of parochial authorities and trustees of charities has not been anything like as forthcoming as was hoped. One can see why. Local people feel that local charities that might have existed for hundreds of years should serve their small village or parish area and they do not want to be forced to merge into larger bodies of trustees, which would not have the interest of that small community so much at heart, and in which they would not be so closely represented.
Despite the efforts that have been made there has been little progress towards voluntary amalgamation. As a result, there is still an immense number of local charities that are too small to perform any useful function. Some may have incomes of £5 or £10 a year. That was a substantial sum three or four hundred years ago but it does not go far now. It is a complicated business for the trustees of those small charities to go to the courts to approve mergers of local charities and it means a great deal of work for the Charity Commissioners. It was thought that there should be some measure that would enable voluntary rationalisation to deal with those small charities. The only recommendation that was common to the Goodman committee's report and the Select Committee report was that charities of a certain age with small capital endowments should be permitted to spend capital sums at their disposal in pursuance of the charity's original aims and, if necessary, to wind themselves up having done so. Both committees recommended the small change in charities law contained in the Bill.
I am deeply grateful to hon. Members on both sides of the House who have supported me and for the help that the Government have given me. This is a special occasion for me. I have been a Member of Parliament for nearly 28 years and, except during the two years when I was a Minister, I put my name down for every private Members' Bill ballot. The first time that I ever drew a place was in

561
my 27th year and the Bill was talked out on Second Reading. The second time, and in my 28th year—which will no doubt be my last here—I was fortunate enough to draw eighth place and introduced this Bill. It will be a great pleasure if, in what may be my last Session as a Member of Parliament, I am able to see this Bill on to the statute book. Although it is a small measure, it is useful.
The important point that I have tried to emphasise is that the Bill contains no element of compulsion. It has been objected that the Bill will result in many charities disappearing, but there is no compulsion on trustees either to spend the money or to wind up the charity. The responsibility is left where it ought to be—with local people in the area for which the charity was originally founded. Within certain limits, the trustees can act on the best advice that they receive and according to intelligent management of the charity's affairs.
We thought it right to impose some limitations, such as that in respect of land or other property, which was dealt with in section 29 of the 1960 Act. It was thought that special problems arose with regard to land, especially as a result of the rise in the value of property and land in the past few decades. It is a complex issue on which the trustees of a small parochial charity need expert advice as it would be easy for them to sell at far too low a price, thus not getting as good a bargain as they might. We thought it right that they should apply to the Charity Commissioners or the courts for an order to enable them to sell landed property. Nevertheless, the restriction applies only to the sale of land or property. Once they have an order which entitles them to sell such land or property, the proceeds are at their disposal to spend according to the original purposes of the trust. There will be some trusts that cannot carry out the benefactors' wishes because those purposes no longer exist in modern life. In that case, the trustees, under the cy-près process, must get permission to divert the funds to a new purpose.
However, I doubt whether that will amount to a high proportion of existing charities. Many charities that provide money for prizes at local church schools on a comparatively small income carry out a useful job, and I hope that they will continue to do so. In those cases, the trustees are under no obligation to divest themselves of their assets and can continue happily. However, in some cases it would be impossible for trustees to spend the capital for the original purpose of the trust because that purpose no longer exists.
Some years ago I became vicar's churchwarden in a small parish just before the process of parish amalgamation got under way. The vicar was elderly and historically minded, and had done much research into the history of the parish and his church. One day he came to me and said that he would welcome my help with a problem. He said that many years previously a benefactor of the parish had left a small parcel of land to the church, the proceeds from which were to provide for the maintenance of the sanctuary lamp in the church. He told me that on old maps the land was referred to as the "Lamp Ground." He complained that the land had been alienated from the church, and hoped that I, as a Member of Parliament, could do something about it. I asked him when the alienation occurred. He thought for a little while and said, "I think that it was some time in the reign of Henry
562
VI." I explained to him that it was a little late for me to take action. That is an example of the way in which the assets, endowments and purposes of charities can change.
There is nothing complicated about the Bill. It does not apply to Scotland or Northern Ireland because the Charities Act 1960 applies to Scotland and Northern Ireland only in the most minute way in respect of the repeal of some ancient and moribund statutes. The main charity laws in England and Wales are different from those of Scotland and Northern Ireland, and since my only purpose with this Bill is to amend the 1960 Act it is impossible to extend it to Scotland and Northern Ireland, nor would I presume to meddle in the affairs of those countries.
Some questions have been raised by those interested in charity law, by members of the public and by my colleagues in the House. The first relates to the figure of £1,000 that we have chosen. The Bill applies to charities with assets to the value of not more than £1,000, and by "value" we mean market value. Any court would interpret it as meaning that. It may be argued that the figure should be larger or smaller, but we believed that 1,000 was about right. Most charities with that amount of money might hope, if the money were reasonably invested, to receive an income of about £100 a year, which for most small neighbourhood charities is a useful and reasonable income. The trustees of such charities would almost certainly not wish to alienate their assets or to wind up the trust.
The other question asked was whether we should have inserted in the Bill a maximum income limit. That presented considerable difficulties, and it was pointed out to me that a charity might have invested in undated Government stocks, such as 2·5 per cent. consols or war loan stocks, many decades ago. If the stock was bought at par, it is now worth only a fraction of that amount, but the income from that small capital might be £100 a year or more. That would be a valid objection if there were an element of compulsion on the trustees to sell, but there is no such element in the Bill. It is entirely for them to decide, and in a case where the assets, if realised, would produce a small capital sum but the income is substantial most trustees would wish to carry on using the income for the original purposes of the trust.
I need not say much about the 40-year period, which was mentioned in the 1960 Act. It seemed a reasonable time to choose, because 40 years ago we saw the beginning of the period of high inflation when capital assets began to lose their value and the income from them ceased to go as far as it had previously.
There is provision in the Bill for the Home Secretary, by laying an order before the House, to increase the sum of £1,000 if that ceases to be a realistic figure. However, such an increase would be subject to the approval of Parliament, so there is no question that Parliament will not be adequately consulted on the matter.
The Bill makes a small but desirable reform of the charities law. It follows the recommendation made by the Goodman committee and by the Select Committee, and it leaves the responsibility for taking decisions about local charities with the local trustees, which is where it should be. There is no element of compulsion, which would be wrong. The Bill will make life much easier for many worried and frustrated trustees of small charities.
11.18 am
Mr. Richard Page: A Back-Bench Member who puts down his name for the lottery of the private Members'Bill procedure does so more in hope than in anticipation. I have put down my name only five times, each time with hope but not expectation, and I have been amply justified in following that course of thought. We must congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Sir A. Maude) on his wisdom, foresight and skill, and on his good fortune in having his name picked in the ballot, not just once but twice.
All of us have a mental sheaf of Bills that we would like to introduce in the House. I thank my right hon. Friend for plucking this one out of my small mental sheaf of Bills. I have had an interest in this subject for some time. My right hon. Friend's Bill will go a long way towards satisfying the concerns and interest of many people. The only thing that disturbs me is that I may have to wait 27 or perhaps 28 years before I have the opportunity to introduce my Bill to the House. The thought of another 22 unsuccessful years does not fill me with joy.
Sir Angus Maude: One gets used to it.
Mr. Page: That is absolutely true. One gets used to frustrations and disappointments. I suppose that that is part of the process.
The interest in charities has occupied Parliament for many a year. In the short period since the Charities Act 1980, the Expenditure Committee in 1974–75 took an interest in them, which led to the Goodman inquiry in 1975–76. Even in the other place only last month there was a debate on the modernisation of charity legislation.
My right hon. Friend, with his long experience and skill, is to be congratulated on introducing a Bill that is easily understood. To be able to do so is an art in itself. He has been wise in dodging the reefs and shoals of argument that abound whenever the scope and operation of charities are under discussion. I am sure that my right hon. Friend's Bill will pass speedily through the House. There are no Opposition Members here, and I can only attribute their absence to their utter and wholehearted support of the measure. I think that my right hon. Friend will find that when this Bill becomes an Act it will receive many expressions of gratitude from trustees, and in some cases frustrated trustees, who will now find another avenue through which they can operate their trust.
I shall make a few comments in support of the Bill. It must operate within, and in accord with, the general principles of charity law. There are four points on which the Bill should touch and with which we should be satisfied. I am not saying that they are the definitive four principles. They are just four important points.
The first is that we must see whether the area and operation of a charity command the general support and agreement of the community. Secondly, a charity must operate via charity law, and it should be flexible to meet changing circumstances. Thirdly, the wishes of the donors to the charity should be given consideration and respect. Finally, the funds of the charity must be correctly administered and the role of the trustees has to be seen to be one of propriety and correctness.
My first point was that a charity should operate in accord with the general approval and understanding of, and to the benefit of, the community. A more casually
564
drafted Bill could lead to questions of what is not a charity and a veritable minefield of definitions. My right hon. Friend, with his skill, has not strayed into that area.
The Bill recognises that the community needs change. With the material advancement of society, we can all see that the improvements in state welfare have overtaken the original purpose of setting up many of our charities. I think that the House and the country will agree that many charities have now outlived their usefulness in satisfying peoples needs or, with the erosion of the value of money, have become impossibly expensive to administer, in terms not only of expenditure but of time, which is completely out of proportion with the benefit that is given. Inflation ruins many things. It ruins businesses and the operation of many charities.
Many charities are quaint, with their touches of a bygone age. I assure the House that they can become a veritable headache in their operation. It is right to examine the role of the charity and assess its usefulness and also to give authority to the trustees to be able to move, enlarge, or, if necessary, close down. This is where the Bill does a service.
My second point was the need to give flexibility to charities and the trustees. The Bill achieves that aim. It gives more flexibility to the present charity law. For that reason it will be much welcomed. I hope that my next observation will not be misunderstood because I do not want to imply that we are suffering from too much charity, but the House might like to know that in 1978 there were 129,212 registered charities, and that number was growing at the rate of 3,000 to 3,500 a year. Now I understand that there are approximately 139,000 charities. Such a growth rate will be envied by many commercial concerns. Possibly the point that concerns me most about the figures is that half the charities have an annual income of under £100. On examination, we find that many of the projects are outmoded and time has made them redundant.
If one spends a few hours reading the annual reports of the Charity Commissioners one finds an occasional fascinating historical insight into the needs of society in past years. The House will be glad to know that it has become unnecessary to provide accommodation for two female lepers in Cirencester. I shall not lead the House down those historical highways and byways because the examples are long, though interesting, nor do I suggest to my hon. Friends that they should cull through the annual reports by the Charity Commissioners, because I assure them that they are not fascinating reading, important as they are.
Such charities are extremely expensive to operate. Sometimes they search desperately for qualifying recipients. In smaller cases, the time and administration outweigh any benefit from the charity. My right hon. Friend's Bill must be an aid to simplification, but, as he emphasised and as I should like to emphasise, there is no compulsion on the trustees. It is their decision whether they take advantage of the provisions in the Bill.
My third point was about respecting the wishes of the donors. In choosing 40 years, my right hon. Friend has made a stab in the right direction. The period could be 30 years or 50 years. I do not think that many donors would be still around after 40 years. I accept that 40 years is a long period for inflation on the historical time scale, but it would be a sufficient time for that charity either to have proved its worth or to have outlived its usefulness.

565
It is important that the funds of a charity and its administration be safeguarded. To be a trustee is rather like being a director. To be a director of ICI involves certain responsibilities, and to be the director of a small company—for example, working with one's wife in a corner shop—involves other responsibilities. I suggest that the two areas of responsibility are vastly different. When trustees are dealing with a national concern they have recourse to advice, current legal opinions and day-to-day experience of large and weighty matters. The trustees of smaller charities do not have that experience and they are not able to call on the same quality of advice.
I know that the Charity Commissioners produce advisory leaflets which underline the role of charities and the trustee operation. When the Bill is transmuted into an Act I hope that the commissioners will produce an advisory leaflet to give trustees further guidance on how the Bill may be used to their advantage. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon has said, trustees can be involved in the tricky area of property disposal.
I think that my right hon. Friend has taken a wise step in choosing the figure of £1,000. It is one that will be readily identified by many trustees, and the House will have the ability, in the fullness of time, to amend that figure after due and proper consideration.
As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State said in Committee, the Bill falls four square within the principles of charities and my right hon. Friend is to be congratulated on bringing it forward. He has performed a valuable service for the trustees of charities. I sincerely hope that I do not have to wait another 22 years before I can introduce a Bill.
11.32 am
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): It would have been a pleasant task to welcome the Bill on behalf of the Government and to wish it a fair wind into law, whoever had introduced it. My benevolence would have extended even to the other side of the Chamber had an Opposition Member been prepared to introduce the Bill, such is the quality of the measure. On this occasion it is a particular pleasure to welcome the Bill. This is an occasion for going beyond the normal courtesies of the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) has already paid my right hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Sir A. Maude) a genuine tribute, and it is a real pleasure to welcome the Bill because my right hon. Friend has introduced it.
As I said in Committee—I think that my words bear repeating on the Floor of the House —my right hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon has had a most distinguished career in the House and in British politics in general. Apart from being a respected Member of this place, he is a well-loved Member. That feeling is not confined to the Government Benches. I feel that it extends across the Floor of the House. He has managed to be a most distinguished polemicist both within the House and outside and has greatly increased public understanding of a number of key issues through having the enviable facility which, alas, I do not have—even if I am in this place
566
for 28 years I probably never will have it—of being as lucid in writing as he so manifestly is, and as he demonstrated this morning, in speech.
My right hon. Friend drew attention to a rather unusual series of events after all his years in this place. He has been able to introduce the Bill only in his last few months in the House, the Bill having been given a fair wind. I remind my right hon. Friend that he was about half way through his parliamentary career when we first met, when I was a minor functionary in the Cambridge university Conservative association. My right hon. Friend came to speak to the association and it was then that I had the first opportunity of hearing my right hon. Friend's lucidity on a public platform and the rapier-like wit that he brings to public debate, which enlivens such occasions. In the ensuing years I have had the opportunity fully to appreciate those qualities.
It was even more of a pleasure, on the occasion when my right hon. Friend visited Cambridge, to discover at dinner after his address what an amusing companion he is. Little did I think as I sat at dinner as a callow young undergraduate that it would fall to me to welcome the last major act of my right hon. Friend after a long and distinguished career in the House. I hope that he appreciates that in making these comments about him and the contribution that he has made to parliamentary life I am fulfilling more than a mere duty.
I shall substantiate what my right hon. Friend has already said about the Bill, he having been ably supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West. It was through the courtesy of the House that the Bill was given an unopposed Second Reading without a debate some weeks ago. It was only that which allowed the measure to proceed to this stage. We are all grateful to the House for taking that course. It would have been open to any hon. Member to have blocked the Bill's progress. However, everyone thought so well of it that no one did.
The Bill went into Committee, where it is right to say that there was only a brief debate. That was because all those present agreed with it. There is a case for saying that legislation should not pass through the House without it being clearly set on the record exactly why the measure is necessary. I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend chose to explain with great clarity what motivated him to bring the Bill forward, what he thought it would do and why even the small ripples of controversy that it has engendered are not justified. I hope that the House will bear with me if I try to set the Bill in its context from the Government's standpoint, and explain why we genuinely believe that it will effect a useful reform of charity law, which will be none the less useful because it is uncontroversial.
Charity law as a whole is not uncontroversial. There is increasing public recognition that there is rather more to charities than the way in which they impinge on the lives of most of us as we go about our business. Few of us can walk down our local high street on a Saturday without seeing collecting boxes for one or other of the major charities. Charities come to be associated with the large and prestigious charities that most people connect with the term "charity". There are a few dozen charities that are household names, to which the public contribute in a large or small way according to their means and inclinations. There are many charities that rightly attach a great deal of importance to keeping their name before the public. There is a wide range of events in almost every locality,

567
including sponsored swims and sponsored walks. They are all organised with the aim of raising money for the large charities.
I do not suppose that anyone who has considered the controversy over the position of some religious sects on the charities' register any longer believes that charities are confined to the large and estimable charities. Anyone who thought that would be wrong to think that the large active charity was in any sense a typical charity in Britain. We had some insight into that in the helpful speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West. There are no fewer than 144,000 English charities currently registered with the Charity Commissioners. It has been reliably estimated that well over one half of those have an income of less than £100, so the typical charity is a very different beast indeed from the household name charities with which we are all familiar.
The reason for that is that small charitable giving is at the heart of the development of charities in this country, far more so than the very large charities, which are a quite recent development. Small charitable giving has been at the root of the development over the centuries of English charity law. Prior to the 16th century the Church was the prime source of philanthropy to the community. During the 16th century charitable giving was centred on the parishes. The famous preamble to the statute of charitable uses of 1601 lists charitable purposes as follows:
"Whereas lands, tenements, rents, annuities, profits, hereditaments, goods, chattels, money, and stock of money, have been heretofore given, limited, appointed, and assigned as well by the Queen's most excellent majesty, and her most noble progenitors, as by sundry other well disposed persons: some for relief of aged, impotent, and poor people, some for maintenance of sick and maimed soldiers and mariners schools of learning, free schools, and scholars in universities; some for repair of bridges, ports, havens, causeways, churches, seabanks and highways; some for education and preferment of orphans; some for or towards the relief, stock or maintenance for houses of correction; some for marriages of poor maids; some for supportation, aid, and help of young tradesmen, handicraftsmen, and persons decayed; and others for relief or redemption of prisoners or captives, and for aid or ease of any poor inhabitants concerning payment of fifteens, setting out of soldiers and other taxes; which lands, tenements, rents, annuities, profits, hereditaments, goods, chattels, money, and stocks of money, nevertheless, have not been employed according to the charitable intent of the givers and founders thereof, by reason of frauds, breaches of trust, and negligence in those that should pay, deliver and employ the same."
Charitable trusts are characterised in common law by two features. First, charitable trusts, unlike other trusts, do not fail if they offend against the doctrine known as the rule against perpetuities. Charitable trusts may expressly state that they are intended to last for ever—which not even parliamentary careers do in the real world — or, more usually, they are not given a finite duration. That poses problems that lie at the heart of the Bill. Secondly, and perhaps more relevant, charitable trusts, unlike other trusts, are not allowed to fail because of uncertainty about their objects or beneficiaries. As circumstances change over the decades, what would have been a valid and viable purpose for a charity at the time it was conceived becomes less so as the years roll on.
The law has been developed for a long time to try to meet that point and to respect the charitable intentions of the original donor. Charity property may be applied, as the lawyers say, cy-pres; the purposes of the trust can be altered in certain circumstances so long as the new purposes are as near as possible to the old ones. In that way
568
it has been possible to modernise the objects of many charities through schemes made by the Charity Commissioners.
It is also possible to bring together small groups of charities within a parish, or across several parishes, with similar objects and for the Charity Commissioners to make, at the request of the trustees, a scheme for their administration as one charity. The latest figures available from the Charity Commissioners show that in 1982 they made 852 such schemes, and 307 of those amalgamated or grouped 1,422 small charities. As my right hon. Friend indicated, small parochial charities are particularly liable to find difficulties in working effectively in isolation. Since the Charities Act 1960 came into effect, making provision for local authority reviews of local charities, many have been amalgamated or grouped as a result of those reviews.
We should all like our charities to retain, wherever possible, the forms in which they were endowed, but we must recognise that that is not always an appropriate or realistic course to adopt. There are in existence many parochial charities whose income is too small to be useful, however hard one tries to dispense or arrange matters. We must also consider the insidious effects of inflation, which has damaged charities as much as many other aspects of the community. The fall in the value of money has meant that many endowments, once sizeable, are now worth very little. Many charities are known to have an annual income of less than £1.
Such charities were perhaps inadequately endowed in the first place so that they have no chance today of reflecting modern day values. Rent charges arising out of land are a typical example because, when redeemed, they often give a total endowment of perhaps £20 to £40. Or problems can arise through bad investment policies so that the fund, which may have been adequate ab initio, has become irretrievably depleted in value. And even where it is possible to be grouped with similar charities in the same area, the cost of making schemes for those charities —the mechanism of the administration to try to make them viable — may be out of all proportion to their income, and trustees are often put off by the scheme-making procedures, which can be lengthy and laborious.
We must also bear in mind that we expect the Charity Commission to look after the small charity as much as we expect it to look after the large one and it is a relatively expensive task which falls on the public purse. The Official Custodian for Charities has calculated that in 1980 a dividend of £1 or less was paid out on at least 7,000 holdings, but the costs of administration are there even though one is dealing with small sums of money. Nor should we forget the time and effort demanded of the trustees in administering such very small sums.
After what I hope has not been too tiresome a preamble —this is not a frequently ventilated area of charity law — I hope that I have satisfactorily established, in common with my right hon. Friend, the circumstances that have arisen to make us think it right that the trustees of such charities should be allowed to expend their charity capital as income, thus effectively winding up their charity. Those who have troubled with these matters have been aware of the problem for some time, because the Charity Commissioners described the problem succinctly in their evidence to the Expenditure Committee in 1975, looking at the accountability of the Charity Commissioners.

569
They had been asked whether there were any reforms to charity law not mentioned in their evidence that they would like to see introduced to make more effective the administration of charities. In their memorandum on the expenditure of endowments of very small charities, published as appendix 15 to the report of the Expenditure Committee in 1975, they said:
"Our experience over many years during and prior to the holding of local reviews has been that it is frequently not practicable to combine small charities of this nature with those in an adjoining parish or parishes which might be more favourably endowed. Trustees are often reluctant to see the benefits of parochial charities extended to other parishes, particularly where a reasonably well-endowed parish is asked to combine its charities with a single very small charity in an adjoining parish. Nor do we feel that it is a satisfactory solution to combine a large number of small charities of this sort over an even wider area. In such a case even the combined income is still insignificant in relation to the catchment area and the administration of charities over a wide area is almost bound to become impersonal by comparison with a single-parish charity."
The memorandum went on to propose that the trustees of small parochial charities be empowered, within strict limits, to expend their capital funds. This suggestion found favour with the Expenditure Committee who suggested that legislation be introduced to enable the trustees of charities possessing only trivial funds to spend the capital of such funds for the purposes of the charity. It suggested that the donor should have been dead for a number of years. It envisaged such changes normally being made with the consent of the trustees, but felt that there should be reserve powers to act without their consent.
This recommendation was given weight by the publication in 1976 of another report on charities—the Goodman report. This was the report of a committee appointed by the National Council for Social Service—now the National Council for Voluntary Organisations—under the chairmanship of Lord Goodman to examine the effect of charity law and practice on voluntary organisations. After a thorough review of local charities, the modernisation of trusts and the progress of reviews, the Committee noted the Charity Commissioners' suggestion that small locally endowed charities might be permitted to spend their capital. The Goodman committee endorsed this view and recommended that power to expend capital should be given subject to appropriate consent by the local committee. It had in mind a permanent local committee to be established under the chairmanship of a representative of the Charity Commissioners to look after the continuing process of co-ordination between endowed charities and welfare services.
The Bill effectively carries this proposal into law—with an important difference which I welcome and to which I shall return in a moment.
It is necessary to make one or two other points central to the appreciation of the merits of the Bill which we hope to become law shortly. The Bill, as my right hon. Friend has said, would enable the trustees of charities with assets worth £1,000 or less to expend the property of their charity. The vital word here is "enable". I believe that this Bill will greatly assist the trustees of charities, the objects of which can often best be assisted by a once-off recourse to capital. A typical case would be the repair to a church roof, where the capital sum spent on one occasion may be more useful than the small amount of income it generates. I can think of similar examples, and I am sure that hon.
570
Members can, in the maintenance of other local amenities besides the church and its fabric—clock towers, town halls, museums, war memorials and the upkeep of roads and bridges. The list is long and encompasses all kinds of local charity. Small charities for the relief of handicapped or sick people may well wish to contribute towards the provision of special equipment or transport.
It is entirely at the discretion of the trustees whether they exercise the powers given to them under this Bill. This an important point to which I shall return later. The Government feel strongly that they would not support a Bill that would compel trustees to wind up their charities. We do not know how many trustees will avail themselves of the opportunity presented by the Bill. We believe that it is for the trustees to make up their minds about this. Compulsion would be an alien concept in the law on charities as it has developed over the centuries and, some might say, anathema to the principles of charitable giving.
Charity trustees are entrusted by law with the responsibility of administration in accordance with their trusts and in the manner laid down by their trust instrument. The Government have no wish to interfere with the independence of charity trustees. They value the contribution to the community made by thousands of people, who voluntarily administer these trusts in a caring and compassionate manner. They recognise how a locally based charity can be responsive to local needs at an individual and community level, in ways in which national organisations or statutory services cannot, nor can be expected to be.
I imagine that most hon. Members will be trustees. I serve as a special trustee of Westminster hospital. We all understand the important role of trustees. It is a vital way in which people within the community can add voluntarily to the benefits of the community by administering funds to the best of their judgment with the minimum of outside interference within the lines established by the original charitable donor.
The Government want those thriving local charities, which still have a viable contribution to make, to continue to flourish. They have no wish, however, to insist on the continuation of defunct charities whose financial and human assets could be put to better use elsewhere —financial assets, before the capital value dwindles still further and human assets in the energies of trustees which might be employed on purposes more beneficial to the community.
The trustees would have to spend the money on the purposes for which the charity was established, thus ensuring that as far as possible the benefactor's wishes will be respected until the last moment. Inevitably, under existing charity law, charities with outdated purposes would have to apply to the Charity Commissioners for a cy-pres scheme before they could spend their capital under the Bill. I am told, however, by the Charity Commissioners that this would only rarely be necessary as most have already had their purposes modernised.
There have been one or two queries about the Bill's provisions where the endowment consists wholly or partly of land, and it may be worth explaining this provision in detail. Clause 1(4) contains a saving for section 29(1) of the Charities Act 1960. It requires trustees to obtain an order of the court or the Charity Commissioners before carrying out certain transactions in respect of the permanent endowment of the charity. In particular, land forming part of the permanent endowment cannot be sold

571
without such an order. It ensures that transactions undertaken are proper, and, for example, not at an undervaluation. This section does not deal with the question how the proceeds of the charity's land should be dealt with. The Bill does this. The result of the Bill will be that if the charity is within the Bill's limits, the proceeds of sale can be spent instead of having to be reinvested. But the sale is still subject to the provisions of section 29(1); clause 1(4) accordingly provides that section 29(1) is to be unaffected.
The effect of this is that a charity with a permanent endowment of land worth less than £1,000 is, as regards the Bill, in no different a position from a charity whose endowment is not in the form of land. At present, a charity with a permanent endowment of land worth less than £1,000 is subject to two different rules: one is that it needs an order to sell the land, the other is that it cannot spend the proceeds of sale and must re-invest them. The Bill deals only with the second rule, and therefore leaves the first unaffected.
I am glad that in the form the Bill has been presented to this House my right hon. Friend has not thought it necessary to include the permission of the Charity Commissioners as a preliminary step in winding up small charities. As I said a moment ago, when this measure was first mooted, for example by the Expenditure Committee, it was thought that its permission should be obtained before the capital could be expended. I think it is right, as does my right hon. Friend, that this decision should rest with the trustees. To introduce another layer of decision-making, in the shape of the authority of the Charity Commissioner, would, I fear, be to introduce an unnecessary administrative complication. One of the purposes that lies behind this useful Bill is to minimise administrative complications.
The Charity Commissioners recognise that it is the trustees who have the most detailed knowledge of and interest in the charity and its future, and I know that they share the view that the trustees' wish for the disbursement will be sufficient.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West asked about the upper limit of £1,000. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon would be the first to recognise that any figure is bound by its very nature to be arbitrary to some extent. Nevertheless, in a world in which one has to make the best guess because some limit must be imposed, after much thought and his customary courtesy in consulting the Department, my hon. Friend's figure is, I beleve, appropriate to the purposes of the Bill. As my right hon. Friend said, it is important to remember that the Secretary of State will have power to alter that figure in the light of any change in the value of money. We all hope and pray that inflation is under control and that the banana republic inflation of the 1970s is now behind us. Nevertheless, it is right that that saving provision should be included to ensure that this measure does not become redundant because the upper limit becomes eroded to such an extent as to be as meaningless as the funds of some of the charities which, we hope, will achieve fresh point and purpose as a result of the Bill.
Mr. Richard Page: We all appreciate that £1,000 is a useful round figure and suitable for inclusion in the Bill at this stage. Quite apart from any erosion by inflation, however, would the Home Office consider raising the
572
figure to perhaps £1,500 or £2,000 if it turned out that that would enable a larger proportion of charities to take advantage of the Bill?
Mr. Mellor: I take my hon. Friend's point. Some people might have supported a higher limit at this stage. I cannot speak for my right hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon, but I am sure that he agrees that the arbitrary nature of any upper limit means that such a case can always be put. At present, however, we believe that £1,000 is a realistic limit. However, if the measure proved so useful over the years that pressure built up to bring in charities just above that limit, the Home Secretary of the day would probably command the respect and support of the House if he decided to build on this valuable change in charity law by allowing more charities to come within its scope.
Another important aspect is when the powers in the Bill shall be exercisable. My right hon. Friend's proposal is very much in line with the recommendation of the Expenditure Committee that the donor should have been dead for a number of years. My right hon. Friend has chosen a period of 40 years as appropriate. I do not know whether "Forty Years On" was ringing in his ears when he made that decision. Again, whatever the period selected, a case could always be made for a shorter or longer period. We must strike an appropriate balance between respecting the wishes of the person who set up the charity and preventing the charity's funds from lying unused and losing their value. I suggest that that balance has been achieved.
Only one matter might have caused my right hon. Friend and I some concern as the Bill proceeded. A number of people have worked hard on the problems of parochial charities. I pay special tribute to Lady Faithfull who has shown great interest in this and indeed a wide range of social causes. My hon. Friend the Member for Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) will be especially aware of her work with the all-party group. She introduced in another place the Parochial Charities (Neighbourhood Trusts) Bill. That Bill covered some of the same ground, but with crucial differences, covered by the proposals of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon.
I should also pay tribute to Sir Charles Kimber, not a member of either House but someone who has also thought deeply about these matters. He circulated a memorandum to the Committee considering the Bill in this House setting out certain criticisms. As there was some minor controversy on these points, I should explain to the House why the Government have not wavered in their enthusiasm for my right hon. Friend's Bill despite those criticisms.
Sir Charles was understandably concerned that the Bill might have the potential to destroy thousands of small charities. As I and my right hon. Friend have said, it is important to bear in mind that the Bill merely enables the trustees to wind up small funds that in their judgment can no longer serve a useful purpose. The Bill does no more than to give them that initiative. I should have thought that the concept employed by the word "destroy" would be utterly alien to what is merely an attempt to give trustees a better chance to deal fairly and effectively with the donor's bequests according to their own judgment.
Sir Charles also did not give full weight in his comments to the number of groups which had considered these matters over the years and sought this power. The Bill is no mere manifestation of legislative zeal on the part

573
of my right hon. Friend. He is responding to a need that has been identified by a number of different bodies in the past decade.
Sir Charles was concerned that the Bill offended the basic principle of charity law that a charitable trust cannot be allowed to fail. On the contrary, as the capital sum must be expended for the purposes of the charity the Bill will allow the trust to fulfil its purpose by allowing a larger sum to be expended. Indeed, it will probably permit trusts to fulfil their purposes more effectively than they could with small sums of interest in perpetuity.
We could not give Lady Faithfull's Bill the same warm welcome that we have given to my right hon. Friend's Bill because—I hope that this has been a consistent theme in the debate — we could not accept the element of compulsion. Lady Faithfull's Bill advocated a principle of compulsory amalgamation. I appreciate that there is a strong body of opinion to the effect that voluntary amalgamations have proved impossible to achieve. There is evidence that trustees of local charities are reluctant to see the funds of their charities diverted to neighbouring parishes in the way that I have described. It is also fair to state that the advisory powers of the Charity Commissioners have not always yielded the benefits that some outside observers would wish. Nevertheless, as I have said, we do not wish to contemplate such an element of compulsion at this stage.
We were also unable to be enthusiastic about Lady Faithfull's Bill because the resource implications for local authorities and for the Charity Commissioners would have been considerable and local authorities said that the obligations placed upon them would have made it difficult for them to implement that measure. The feeling was also expressed to my noble Friend that that Bill would have an indiscriminate effect, and that a parochial charity, working perfectly well at present, could be compulsorily swept up into an amalgamated charity, so that the benefit would be very mixed.
As I have said, my right hon. Friend's Bill covers much of the same ground but does so in a way that, in my respectful submission to this House, does not have any of the problems revealed by the other Bill, useful though a consideration of that other Bill has been in refining what seems to be the next step that we should take.
It has been most useful that the House should have had an opportunity of considering why my right hon. Friend's Bill is necessary. I end as I began, by thanking my right hon. Friend for allowing us the opportunity to have the debate. Charitable activity and enterprise are, we believe, very much a part of the core of English community life. Charitable spirit is flourishing as much today as it ever did, but there is a need to impose some practicable and realistic rules on the very small charities. That is what the Bill does, and we welcome it as a modest but very helpful reform in the administration and rationalisation of charities.
12.11 pm
Mr. Peter Bottomley: I apologise to my right hon. Friend the Member for Stratord-on-Avon (Sir A. Maude) for not being present while he was moving the Third Reading of the Bill. I was at a Commonwealth
574
Parliamentary Association meeting. I apologise to the House if I touch on areas which have already been fully covered.
I join in the tributes which have been paid to my right hon. Friend. The Bill and his actions demonstrate that the House of Commons usually works best when it works in small steps at sensible reforms. I had doubts, in the past, about the Expenditure Committee proposals and the Goodman report on the scale of sorting out and updating charity law. I approve of the objectives of those who spent many months in preparing recommendations. I have watched with interest successive reports of the Charity Commissioners on a wide range of issues. I have studied and occasionally indulged in the controversy over the difficulties that the Charity Commissioners and Ministers have had with certain charities.
However much one may feel frustrated and share the frustrations of a Minister over, for example, the Unification church—the Moonies—the independence of the Charity Commissioners needs to be protected as much as one would want to protect the independence of the judiciary. I welcome the ability to criticise them and engage in discussion with them. Rather than having Charity Commissioners who always do what the Government—or even the House of Commons, in a unanimous sense—want them to do, it is much better that the Charity Commissioners should have independence and be able to say, "No, the law does not require us to do that."
To try to update the general law of charities in one go would be counter-productive. I suspect that if the Labour party tried to do so over independent education it would run into difficulties. If it were to override those difficulties I suspect that the country would suffer enormously because of the many people involved in charity work and the many people who are recipients of charity.
To put my remarks in context, I should declare that I am involved with several charities, most of them substantial. I am chairman of the Church of England Children's Society and a trustee of Christian Aid, both multi-million pounds a year charities.
When we are talking of making it possible for trustees of small charities to modify rules of trust laid down by donors, we need also to emphasise how important it is that charities now, as before, should try to get direct donations, gifts and benefactions.
There is a great deal of publicity of indirect ways of raising money for charities. I do not criticise the charities for that. Often the indirect ways have done as much for publicity as for raising money. When considering charities in any way at all, we should always be willing to remind ourselves and others that direct giving is often the best giving. Even going a stage further and setting an example by sacrificial giving, it should be emphasised that the whole essence of charity is not that people give what they can afford but that often they given more than they can afford.
My experience of charitable work and the work of trustees of charities is that people are willing to give immense amounts of time, effort and concern. In many cases the value of the time that is given is greater than the funds being administered. There is nothing wrong in that.
My right hon. Friend's Bill allows trustees in different circumstances to make a decision for themselves that the purposes of their particular trust or charity would be best served and would be more likely to be in keeping with the

575
aims of the founder of the charity if the capital could be used as income. I do not think that my right hon. Friend would have proposed that, where it is merely a question of the bother of administering a small trust or charity, the trustees should then necessarily decide that they wish to treat capital as income.
In many areas it is a matter of pride — and also a good example — that people are willing to go on administering small endowments, with the intention that it should be done in perpetuity by their successors. Whether it is simply for symbolic reasons or for reasons of greater concern should not matter to us. The point is that where such trustees decide that they want to use the capital as though it were income, they should in those very resticted circumstances be empowered to go forward along those lines.
I acknowledge that the Minister did not take the opportunity to give the general Government view on the state of charities as a whole in Britain. I would not want to widen the debate too greatly by talking of a number of issues which charities themselves would like Parliament to discuss, but I hope I may be allowed to touch briefly on one of them. Before doing so, I suggest that it is perhaps a tribute to this House that on the day after some fairly exciting local elections, and perhaps in a time before a general election — when we shall be able to pay more tributes to my right hon. Friend and others who will be completing their service in this House—we are able to have a debate without party controversy. Perhaps I may say, in parenthesis, that there is no party controversy at the moment because the Labour party is apparently willing to leave to my right hon. Friend and two or three of his hon. Friends the responsibility for guiding the Bill through its Third Reading. The Labour party is right to trust us in that respect, as in other matters. It is right that the House of Commons should be able to change its mood from Prime Minister's Question Time on Thursday during local government elections to dealing with this sort of measure.
I should like to refer briefly to the effective income of charities. The Bill is concerned in the main with endowment income. If there were a continuing new flow of income from outside an endowment, there would stll be an intention for the trustees to keep the charity going or to rebuild an endowment that might have been hit by inflation or other things.
There has been a great campaign to relieve charities —certainly those above a certain size—of the impact of VAT. I suggest to the Minster—perhaps he will discuss my suggestion with the Treasury—that instead of simply looking at the relief of VAT he should consider whether the desire to boost the income of charities—which the Government have done fairly effectively in the past four years—or the desire to relieve them, in a way that is administratively simple, of taxes that should not be paid, could be met by following the method by which income tax is treated on life insurance premiums, and now on building society mortgage interest.
Perhaps I might put my suggestion in a sentence and then move on. Charitable income that is not from endowments, and is not for service charges from local authorities or others, should be regarded as coming from taxed income in all events. We should not require covenants to be made out all the time, because that writes off the widow's mite and other small donations. It is just as right to regard money that is put in a collecting tin for the Earl Haig fund as coming out of taxed income, and the
576
only time that it will not come out of taxed income is when it comes from people whose income is below the tax threshold. It would be right to impute the tax credit on that form of giving, just as it is for those who pay at the standard rate. However, I have diverted somewhat from the purpose of the Bill, and perhaps I should say no more on that matter.
My hon. Friend the Minister referred to the proposed legislation from our noble Friend Lady Faithfull. In general, when Lady Faithfull supports something and the Government do not, I would be on her side. Last week, when I supported something that the Government did not support, I was glad to have her on my side. She provided what I regard as legislative charitable help to a category of people whom I call elderly orphans. She and Baroness Seear managed to write into a Bill something that in my opinion would be of great advantage to and be thoroughly supported by the trustees of a number of charities concerned with the elderly, especially the National Council for Carers and their Elderly Dependants.
The point of view that has been put forward by the Minister about just making the Bill an enabling one is the right one, at least now in this Parliament. We should always try to take those assured and sensible steps with which my right hon. Friend will always be associated, and to have some scepticism in ourselves but perhaps going that extra stage that Lady Faithfull would like us to go, which has not been sufficiently established, and which might bring controversy into the matter. That would be of value to thousands of charities over the years, but only a few to begin with. People want to see that the enabling power can be used in a sensible manner, and then more people may have the confidence to re-examine their actions and trusts.
Perhaps I might illustrate the fact that the original intentions of benefactors may become out of date by an example from Oxford, with which I know my noble friend Lady Faithfull is associated. One of my wife's great-grandmothers was so upset that fellows' wives were not allowed to dine in college that she endowed a dinner to which wives were allowed to come. In fact, fellows could not go unless they brought their wives. This Poulton dinner was originally set up with an endowment of about £100. One could go along and have a ploughman's lunch, or something like that, although I am sure that it is grander than that. Now, of course, many colleges allow women to be fellows, and the original purpose is out of date. It is just a nice tradition. My wife's great-grandmother set up the whole thing as a charity for the purpose of the education of fellows so that they could meet the wives, or for the education of wives so that they could meet the fellows. Something along those lines could have been set up at any time during the past four or five hundred years and the trustees carrying the burden of administering the intentions of the benefactor might rightly say, "We shall move on from having Cheddar to Lymeswold, and we shall blow the lot, for the purposes of which the benefactor would thoroughly approve."
I come back to charities as a whole. I know that my right hon. Friend would not want any publicity about the Bill to prevent people from trying to establish more charities or new charities. However much he or I or anyone else might dispute the actions of certain charities, the idea of work for the public good without any prospect of profit,

577
for the avoidance of distress, disadvantage or handicap is a tradition to which we all give general support on almost all occasions, and specific support as well.
I pay tribute to the Charity Commissioners. In one or two of the charities in which I am involved we have had our differences with them on occasions, but that is a healthy process. In general, however, the support and advice that they give to charities, especially the small charities, is greatly to be welcomed. Whenever I hear of people having difficulty in getting a charity established—they cannot get the Charity Commissioners to accept their objectives, or whatever the case may be—I advise them to go and see the Charity Commissioners and have an open discussion with them. As long as the intention is right and the constitution or trust deed is right, there is normally a way round the occasional difficulties that arise because of the absence of much case law in charities and new legislation.
Part of the political process — speaking in a nonpartisan sense—is to try to make sure that people can match their actions with their ambitions within the framework of charity law. The Charity Commissioners have what I regard as an almost impossible job, in the same way as the Home Office has an almost impossible job in matters dealt with by the Bill that is to be considered next. Again, the common theme is the avoidance of distress, disadvantage and handicap. The legislative purpose is different, but the aims are the same.
The Charity Commissioners deserve a pat on the back. They must regard themselves as open to unwanted advice from this House on occasion, but I thoroughly support the independence of trustees and that of the Charity Commissioners, and progress in slow steps.
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his success, and I hope that many trustees will consider taking advantage of the expanded powers that they may have. I believe that charities will find themselves in a better position after the passage of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Pet Animals Act 1951 (Amendment) Bill [Lords]
Considered in Committee.
[MR. PAUL DEAN in the Chair]

Pet Animals Act 1951 (Amendment) Bill [Lords]
  Clause 1

    AMENDMENT OF I95I ACT
    Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
    12.30 pm
    Miss Janet Fookes: I am anxious to proceed to the Third Reading of the Bill, but it is worth dwelling on the wording of the clause, because it falls into that awkward category of clauses that seek to amend another Act. Unfortunately, it is usually difficult for the casual reader to follow what is meant and on some occasions the wording is incomprehensible without reference to the parent Act, in this case the Pet Animals Act 1951.
    Clause 1 seeks to amend the 1951 Act in two respects. First, it seeks to alter section 2, which says:
    "If any person carries on a business of selling animals as pets in any part of a street or public place, except at a stall or barrow in a market, he shall be guilty of an offence."
    The clause would alter that section to read:
    "If any person carries on a business of selling animals as pets in any part of a street or public place, or at a stall or barrow in a market, he shall be guilty of an offence."
    The dispensation that allowed animals to be sold at stalls or barrows in a market will be brought to an end—and not before time. It has been a crying scandal for many years that the loophole in the original Act has been allowed to stand.
    The second part of the clause deals with the interpretation of "premises" in the 1951 Act:
    "'premises' includes any stall or barrow in a market, but save as aforesaid does not include any stall or barrow or any part of a street or public place".
    Therefore, "premises" is extended to ridiculous lengths, to include a stall or barrow in a market. Clause 1 would delete that reference—again, not before time.
    It might be imagined that only a limited number of pets would be sold from a barrow or a stall. Sadly, that is not the case and over the years all manner of creatures have been sold off barrows and stalls. It might be useful for me to refer to a paper prepared by an RSPCA inspector for the society about 10 years ago. He listed the animals that had been sold under the 1951 Act. It is an astonishing list and I have never even heard of some of the exotic creatures on it.
    I shall quote some of the animals on the list to give the House an idea of what can happen under the loose wording of the 1951 Act. The inspector listed parrots, various types of cage birds, including canaries and budgerigars, pigeons, rabbits, guinea pigs, mice, gerbils, rats, snakes and other reptiles, tropical fish, cold water fish, small mammals, day-old chicks and ducklings, adult dogs and puppies — mongrel and pedigree — cats, ferrets and monkeys.
    The list goes on to mention a series of exotic birds and other animals:
    "marabou storks, jabiru storks, pelicans. greater flamingoes, toucans: coviers, sulpha breasted, toco, hill, emerald. Parrots:

    579
    amazons, african greys, slate-headed parakeets, black capped lorys, masked love birds, golden conuros, rainbow lorikeets, cocktails, leadbeater and sulpha crested cockatoos. Macaws: scarlet, gold and blue military, hyacinth. Apes, monkeys and many other species of animals. Game fowl, pheasants, all breeds of birds of prey. Finches, waxbills, manikins, flycatchers, mynahs, tanagas, cardinals, adauavats, humming birds, sugar birds, spice birds, honey eaters, cock of the rocks."
    I am not even sure that I have pronounced some of these exotic species correctly. It is a long strange list. All are sold at some stage from harrows and stalls in places such as the notorious Club row, the best known of these markets, where the Act fails to apply satisfactorily.
    Club row is not the only market. Research by the RSPCA has ascertained that over the years no less than 23 markets in all parts of the country have been operating and selling animals as pets. It therefore appears to me absolutely essential and long overdue to pass clause 1, which would bring this practice to an end. I commend it to the House.
    Mr. Robert Banks: I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes), who so eloquently put the case for approving the Bill. I am fascinated by the long list of exotic birds and other animals and creatures which she read out. It almost took us to the tropical forests of lands far from here. I should like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her work in animal welfare over the years. We could almost say that, in the House, she is a champion of champions of these causes and she brings particular knowledge to our debates.
    I support street markets. They are an international institution. One of the attractions of other countries is their street markets. Their colourfulness is marvellous and one can enjoy the smells of the exotic spices sold there. Street markets give an opportunity to individuals to start their own businesses. I am in favour of that.
    In Britain, far from a decline, there is a continuing interest in street markets. Saturdays and Sundays are busy times for many of the markets. Visiting a street market is an interesting thing to do in one's leisure time. At the same time, street markets are bargaining centres where trade is conducted in a colourful style. It is interesting to go into the markets to listen to the sellers and observe how they manage to attract people to their barrows or stalls to buy their goods. They always seem to offer the most remarkable bargains.
    There has been a growth of out-of-town markets. I know of a disused airfield that has been turned into a Sunday market. People can go there and park their cars without a problem and enjoy walking round the market, no doubt making their purchases.
    An essential element of street markets is impulse buying, which is why I strongly support the Bill. How easy it is for a parent with one or more children to pass by a stall selling puppies, kittens or goldfish and to say on impulse, "Let us have a dog", without thinking of the implications.
    Mr. George Foulkes: I was wondering about parents with one or more children.
    Mr. Banks: They are just as able to succumb to the impulse, but children can be particularly persuasive.
    There is something charming about a child and a puppy. The buying of a puppy or kitten must be thought out seriously. It becomes another member of the family. The animal will grow. Sometimes people buy a small puppy and find that it grows into a large dog. It needs to be fed, watered, exercised and given proper attention.
    580
    I find it a matter of great regret that there are dogs and cats in this country which are not given proper attention. They are sometimes cast out when a family goes on holiday. There are a number of stray dogs. I do not know whether they are, on the increase or decrease—I hope it is the decrease—but there are far too many of them. People succumb to the impulse of buying a pet without realising the full implications of having it in the household.
    For other animals such as rabbits or mice, there must be some preparation—for example, a cage. Food must be provided. Those are not always available at stores. A rabbit or mouse can be brought home and put into indifferent or improper housing.
    I am concerned because we are dealing with animals which, under the terms of the 1951 Act, are defined as vertebrates. I hope that I am right in assuming—perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will clarify this — that goldfish, song birds, snakes and other mammals and birds will come under this amending legislation.
    One of the intriguing situations with which we find ourselves confronted is the growth of the number of dogs. In 1973 it was estimated that there were 5·83 million dogs in this country. In 1976, a report of the working party on dogs estimated that there were some 6 million dogs. Yet in the financial year 1981–82 the Post Office issued only 2·5 million dog licences. That runs contrary to the view of the working party that there are some 6 million dogs. It estimated that 6 million to be in the United Kingdom, whereas the 2·5 million dog licences issued were issued in only England and Wales. I simply do not believe that there are 3·5 million dogs in Scotland and Northern Ireland alone.
    Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.
    Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman confirms my remark. The worrying factor about dog licences is that we are not actually paying our way. The deficit on what it costs to collect dog licences, offset by the income produced by those issued, is £2·2 million. That has risen alarmingly over the years. I cannot help but feel that more than £2 million could be well spent on animal welfare if we brought dog licences to a level that allowed for at least a small profit.
    It is estimated that a dog licence, adjusted for inflation over the many years at which it has been set at the present rate, should cost £10. That is a reasonable sum for a family who enter into a contract to own a dog. For the elderly, who have difficulties because they are on low pensions, there should be a reduced licence fee.
    I say earnestly to the Minister that it is time that we grappled with the problem and adjusted dog licences to take account of the enormous deficit that is accumulating year after year.
    We might dispose of dog licences altogether but that could open the door to greater increases in the clog population. I am anxious that that should not happen as it would entail problems such as the soiling of pavements. There is a marvellous area of grassland in the centre of Harrogate which is known as the Stray. People who walk there or whose children play on it have a problem with soiling. I am anxious, therefore, that there should be a reduction or at least a stabilisation of the size of the dog population.

    581
    12.45 pm
    One of the cardinal ponts which we should bear in mind when considering this Bill is that animals which are not successfully sold on a barrow or stall one day are taken back by their owners, who will presumably look after them until the next market day. That is a crucial factor in my support for the Bill. We have no control over how the cats, dogs, kittens, puppies and other animals are looked after while they are being offered for sale. That is a cause of anxiety.
    Many years ago, I lived in a mews next door to some garages which were used by people who ran barrows and stalls to store their vegetables. They were a great bunch of people and I have the highest regard for them but to judge from the conditions in which they kept their vegetables I dread to think of the conditions in which animals are kept between market days.
    As a child, I always found it a great joy to visit a pet shop. It was a pleasure to be taken out to visit one. However, it was deeply ingrained in me that one of the dangers of buying a pet from a stall or barrow was that the animal might be carrying a disease as it had not come directly from the kennel or cattery but had been moved around. Nothing is more distressing than an animal which has become a loved one in the household dying prematurely. Moreover, someone who buys an animal from a barrow or stall cannot take it back to the vendor because the pet has something wrong with one of its eyes or has some other illness and get his money back. If, however, one buys a pet from a pet stall, that shop's reputation relies on providing a good service and closely examining all the pets that it sells to ensure that they are in peak condition.
    I warmly support new clause 1. It is necessary and will help us to reduce the instances of cruelty when animals are bought on impulse and not looked after properly. New clause 1 will enable us to ensure that pets are properly looked after when they are offered for sale and when they are in what I might call the stock room.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): I welcome the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) in bringing forward this clause, and I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) said about her contribution to animal welfare, which we all applaud. That contribution is further manifested by her decision to take up this useful Bill. I confirm what she said about the impact of clause 1. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate need have no fears about goldfish, snakes and songbirds, all of which are protected by the Pet Animals Act 1951 and by the proposed new clause.
    Clause 1, which is the engine of the Bill, is a modest but important measure to prohibit the sale of pet animals in street markets. The proposal has a long history. During the passage of the Bill that became the 1951 Act an unsuccessful attempt was made to amend it along the lines of today's new clause. Similar Bills were introduced in 1969, 1970 and 1974 by the late Sir Ronald Russell, who will be remembered by senior Members of the House. He sponsored the original Pet Animals Bill in 1951.
    This Bill comes from the other place, where it was introduced by Lord Houghton, whose work on animal welfare I warmly applaud. He introduced the measure in three Sessions of this Parliament, but previously it made
    582
    little progress in the House. On those occasions the Government expressed sympathy with the objectives of the Bill but considered that its wider implications needed careful thought. It was beleived that the case for such a Bill was not as well established as it has been today by my hon. Friend the Member for Drake. However, since taking up responsibility for such matters at the Home Office, I have reconsidered the matter in the light of present evidence. The Government have a more favourable view of the need for such a Bill this time, and I hope that we have played some part in ensuring that it has proceeded with proper expedition, and that it will complete all its stages today.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for Drake made clear, much of the anxiety about this matter has been focused on one street market, Club row, of whose activities I have become well aware not only as a Minister at the Home Office but as a Member of Parliament for an inner London constituency. Many of my constituents have expressed concern about that market, and their remarks weighed heavily in my consideration of the matter. When the measure was before the House of Lords in the previous Session the Government spokesman said that to use national legislation to solve a local problem was like taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
    A legitimate case was deployed that pets were protected by an array of legislation and that the livelihoods of traders at other markets throughout the country would suffer, perhaps unfairly, when the same case was not being made against those other markets as against Club row. They were all being tarred with the same brush. Honourably enough, as I hope even those who disagreed with the Government on that occasion would think, my noble Friend thought that the case for the Bill had not been conclusively proved. However, we have been considering the evidence. I have had the opportunity to have a fresh look at it. Fresh aspects of the matter have come to light over the past year, which have proved decisive in deciding whether the measure should reach the statute book.
    I welcome this, and I am sure that my hon. Friend did. It is significant that the licensing authority concerned with the stalls in Club row, the Tower Hamlets borough council, was over the past 12 months converted to the firm belief that animals should not be sold in such stalls and has taken action within its own remit against that market.
    The Pet Animals Act 1951 is designed to ensure that animals sold should at all times be kept in suitable conditions without enduring suffering of any kind. Section 1 of the Act requires any person carrying on the business of selling animals as pets to obtain a licence from the local authority. Before issuing a licence the local authority is required to have regard amongst other things to the need for ensuring that the animals will at all times be kept in suitable accommodation, suitable as regards size, temperature, lighting, ventilation and cleanliness, and that the animals will be adequately supplied with food and drink.
    Section 2 of the Act, which is affected by clause 1, prohibits the carrying on of a business of selling animals as pets in any part of a street or public place, except a licensed stall or barrow in a market. It is this section of the Act that this Bill attempts to amend so that it shall not henceforth include this exemption for licensed stalls or barrows in a market. Responsible animal welfare groups such as the RSPCA, with which my hon. Friend had such a long and distinguished association, have been saying for some time that it is impossible for the spirit of the Act and

    583
    perhaps even the letter to be adhered to in street markets. By their very nature, they say, stalls in markets are subject to the whims of the elements—we are all aware of how whimsical they can be, especially during the cricket season. Animals are likely to be placed near or with others of different origin, perhaps dirty or diseased, and may become infected. That was the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate had in mind. There is also the market environment—the travel to and from the market, the noise and the constant handling of the animals, which is obviously far from ideal for the animals exposed to it.
    Those in favour of the Bill rightly argue that the sale of animals from stalls in markets can encourage the casual and irresponsible purchase of pets. That point was eloquently made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate. As he said, pets are attractive to look at. I have a small child and I know the impact that spontaneous meetings with animals can have on him when we walk around my home area. Even an adult who is unused to animals or unaware of the time and money that good care of a pet consumes can be carried away on the spur of the moment and enter into obligations by purchasing on impulse. That can lead to the pet being neglected or, at worst, abandoned, and possibly suffering on the way from acts of cruelty that none of us would want to contemplate.
    We have tried to keep our ears open to all points made by animal welfare groups. In previous years the Government listened carefully to those views, but were not then wholly convinced, although, I hope, not unsympathetic, that taking comprehensive powers on a national scale was necessary to protect a small number of animals.
    1 pm
    The conditions at Club row, the actions of the borough council and a more careful consideration of what market sales involve leads one to be aware that even though animals, like human beings, have a tolerance for conditions that are not ideal, there is a real problem associated with the sale of animals from street markets, which will exist however well run the markets are. That widens the dimension of the consideration of this issue beyond the problem of Club row to street markets in rather more pleasant environments. Even those better conditions might pose problems that would make it impossible to exercise that civilised care for animals that we would want to be shown. That is why I am happy to say that the balance of evidence and public opinion has tipped the scales against our previous stance.
    We do not accuse stallholders of deliberate cruelty or neglect. We do not accept that the majority of animals sold in markets are reduced to a state of abject misery. However, we believe—it is a personal belief that I hold strongly—that the general standards and conditions that even the best stallholders can provide are not up to the minimum standards that public opinion would like. The Bill reflects a growing consensus that the sale of animals from market stalls should be prohibited.
    This general trend in public opinion has also removed one of our previous main objections to the Bill. We were entitled to take the view that the Bill would deprive traders of their livelihoods. However, as action has already been taken by the local authority over Club row, and as most of those carrying on businesses in markets are pet shop owners who could continue their normal business and
    584
    whose livelihoods would not be put at risk by the loss of the proceeds from a weekend market stall, we wish no longer to uphold our previous objection.
    I remind the House that Britain has a great tradition of caring for its animals. It is one of which we can justly be proud. We have a substantial body of legislation that is designed specifically to protect animals, which in its breadth and comprehensiveness has few, if any, equals in any other part of the world. It is right that attention is focused on the inadequacy of our laws in certain respects, but we should not forget that over the years we have had considerable success in establishing a framework of protection that many other countries would be proud to emulate.
    The Bill is another small piece in the jigsaw that I hope will soon, as a result of our deliberations, become a useful part of the main body of la w. It is no criticism of the Bill to say that it will not make a huge difference overall. It reflects a continuing interest that we all have in the welfare of animals. I believe that it will make a genuine contribution to the well-being of pets. I welcome the clause and I hope later today to be able to welcome the Bill on to the statute book.
    Mr. Richard Page: I support the clause and the Bill. The Bill is a typical example of how changing conditions require regular updating of the law, but it is of a type that will be under increasing attack in future. Our society is becoming more and more complex and there is growing pressure from other sources of legislation. Membership of the EC has brought much more work before the House. There is now the need to consider and debate the reports of the various Select Committees. There is also the rather individual role of hon. Members within the House.
    Not for us the ability to read into the record, as happens in other Parliaments. If we were to return to our constituents at the end of a Session and say that we had not spoken, they would look at us askance, whereas there are other Parliaments in which Members are actively discouraged from speaking; they lose Brownie points if they speak.
    With a general election not far distant, we shall find that there are even more Conservative Members, and thus increased pressure on the lime available for us to speak. I shall be recommending some public expenditure to be passed rapidly through the House to extend the Benches on this side so that we shall be able to accommodate the additional colleagues who will be joining us.
    Mr. Foulkes: The hon. Gentleman is making a mistake. Labour Members will be on the Benches opposite after the election.
    The Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Order. That has nothing to do with clause 1 of this Bill.
    Mr. Page: You are of course right, Mr. Weatherill, and I must not be led astray, even though we try to treat Labour Members with as much affection as possible. As I said, I see a need, with the increased demand on official parliamentary time, jealously to preserve our private parliamentary time. If we do not do that, we shall lose the sort of opportunities that we have on Fridays to make small but significant improvements to our legislation. In our previous debate my hon. Friend the Member for

    585
    Woolwich, West (Mr. Bottomley) said that some of the best improvements that we make are secured by small, rather than blockbusting, alterations to our legislation.
    I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes), who is a real champion of defenceless animals. She has worked immensely hard for many years to achieve better conditions for them and it is not surprising to find her here today supporting this sensible measure.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) made possibly the most important point about the operations of street markets when he referred to impulse buying. While it is all right to buy on impulse a new brand of cornflakes, too many people acquire animals with no more thought. I am appalled by how casually some people undertake the commitment to look after animals. I reinforce the appeal made by the RSPCA each Christmas telling people, in effect, "If you intend to undertake to look after an animal, remember that that undertaking is for the lifetime of the animal. It is not something to be played with and petted during the Christmas holiday, later to be destroyed, turned out into the street or otherwise disposed of."
    I hope that people will be more responsible when they purchase pets, which brings me to another important point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate, the licensing of dogs. I agree with what he said about the way in which pavements are soiled, the difficulties of control and the embarrassment and hardships that such problems often cause.
    I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) about the uneconomic operation of the present licence system. I doubt whether increasing the fee to £10 will solve the problem. We want owners to recognise their responsibilities towards their pets of whatever species — they do not have to be dogs. I wonder whether increasing the fee from the old 7s. 6d. to £10 will achieve that. It will achieve only an increase in bureaucracy and a need for a department to catch those people who have not paid their £10. I should prefer more enforcement of the law and penalties greater than £10. That would bring about a change of attitude in the owners of dogs and other animals. They would start to take better care of their pets. I believe that an increase in the licence fee would produce the opposite of what we want to achieve. It will bring more hardship to dogs. If dogs can be badly treated and thrown out on the streets when the licence fee is the equivalent of only 7s. 6d., what will happen if it is raised to £10? I see more people being prepared to walk away lightly from their responsibilities.
    Mr. Neil Thorne: Does my hon. Friend agree that if the licence fee were required to be paid at the time of purchase, impulse buying would be less likely? If the licensed trader were obliged to incorporate the collection of the initial fee as part of the sale the problem for the first year would be overcome and at the end of the first year other factors would be more likely to come into play.
    Mr. Page: I accept that what my hon. Friend has suggested would be an improvement. I am worried that the amount of legislation and bureaucracy necessary to collect a relatively small sum would be disproportionate to the advantages. At the end of the first year there would need
    586
    to be a follow-up and people would need to check. It would be too easy to take the collar off the dog and say that it no longer belonged to one and kick it out on to the street miles away from home. That is why I am worried about the hardship that the increase in the licence fee could bring to animals as well as the disproportionate cost of collecting the money. We should put the responsibility for the behaviour and control of animals where it belongs—on the owner. That is why I should like to see the penalties enforced more vigorously.
    Mr. Banks: I should like to make it clear that the £10 to which I referred is the sum which should be applied to a dog licence if account is taken of inflation since the present sum for a dog licence was established. I am not advocating necessarily that £10 should be the figure that we should work on now for dog licences. I feel that the dog licence fee should break even with the cost of collection and that it is wrong for the Government to go on subsidising dog licences by over £2 million a year. That is the crucial point that needs to be borne in mind.
    I refer my hon. Friend to the other part of my speech, in which I pointed out that only 2·5 million dog licences per year are issued, whereas the estimated dog population may well be more than 6 million. Therefore, a great many people have dogs but do not have licences.
    1.15 pm
    Mr. Page: I fully understand those points, but if there is so much evasion of the present meagre fee I believe that the number of evaders would increase enormously if the fee were increased. It would be a bureaucratic nightmare to control such a system. That is why I oppose any increase in the fee. Indeed, I see no good reason for licence fees at all. I fully understand that my hon. Friend has simply taken an increase in line with inflation on the original 7s 6d. No doubt we could spend many happy hours arguing whether that was a correct base figure in the first place. Perhaps we may agree to disagree on the subject of licence fees.
    The Bill plugs a loophole created by the changing laws of this country. I hope that it will prevent suffering for animals and stop casual and impulse purchases of defenceless creatures. I warmly welcome the Bill and I sincerely hope that it will complete all its stages in this House today.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause I ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Bill reported, without amendment.
    1.18 pm
    Miss Fookes: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
    It is an honour to move the Third Reading of this Bill, which is modest in size but valuable in its effects.
    The Bill is the culmination of many years of endeavour and is an object lesson in the value of tenacity in politics. I realise more and more that it is not so much the original idea of genius that counts so much as the carrying through of a good idea to conclusion, despite opposition and despite the apathy that can be almost worse than outright opposition.
    The parent Act was introduced by a former Conservative colleague, the late Sir Ronald Russell. I am sure that when he introduced that most useful measure he

    587
    had no idea that a loophole which later became obvious would cause so much distress and suffering to animals sold from barrows and stalls in street markets. He certainly became aware of it as we had indications of how the Act of 1951 was working out in practice. As has already been said, he tried on at least three occasions to introduce an amendment very much on the lines of the Bill that we have before us today. That was in 1969 and in 1970.
    In a speech to this House in 1973, Sir Ronald made it perfectly clear how he felt about the matter. On that occasion I had introduced a debate on animal welfare generally, and he chose, as his contribution, to show his deep concern about loopholes in his own Act. He expressed the wish then to introduce yet another attempt to close that loophole, and it is constructive to see precisely what he said:
    "I intend to try introducing such a Bill again this Session, to see what happens. Even if it fails, it will at least bring the subject to the notice of the House, and in that way we shall, perhaps, gradually get something done. It should now be made unlawful to sell animals in conditions such as I have described from stalls and harrows in market places." — [Official Report, 14 December 1973; Vol. 866, c. 869.]
    I doubt whether Sir Ronald could have realised just how gradual the process would be, because it is nearly 10 years since he made those remarks. Sadly, his third attempt was doomed to failure, and he died in 1974 without ever seeing the amendment put on the statute book.
    Further attempts were made subsequently by Lord Houghton in 1981 and 1982, and now we have this Bill. I, too, should like to pay a warm tribute to Lord Houghton's tenacity of purpose. I doubt whether such a measure could ever have come from this House because of the pressures of time, and we are indebted to Lord Houghton and to the other place for bringing forward the Bill.
    There has, of course, been activity outside the House which has to some extent alleviated the position, which at its worst was very bad indeed, and about which I should like to say a little more later in my speech. Over the years the RSPCA inspectors have performed sterling service in going to the market at regular intervals and trying to improve conditions there. Largely through their efforts, no fewer than 56 convictions were obtained between 1973 and 1980 in regard to animals originating in Club row. Their time is, perforce, limited. They have to stretch themselves and try very hard to be in several places at once.
    I pay tribute also to those who have formed unofficial vigilante committees and have gone to the market Sunday after Sunday to try to ensure that as good conditions as possible are observed. On occasions the demonstrations have been noisy, and I recognise that on occasions it has taken police time, but it can be safely said that those demonstrations, on the whole absolutely peaceful, have served to bring publicity to Club row — no doubt unwelcome from the traders' point of view but in my opinion most valuable — and have deterred the traders from trading to anything like the previous extent.
    If we were to visit Club row we would now find far fewer species of animals and birds for sale than the long list that I read out during the Committee stage of the Bill. At that time, all those animals and birds could be found on sale in the market. The pressure of public opinion has undoubtedly been a valuable instrument in reducing the activities of Club row. However, it ties up people's time, especially that of the RSPCA inspectors. Clearly
    588
    prevention is better than cure. It is far better that no animals should be sold in such circumstances that people have to watch over them in an attempt to mitigate the ill-effects of selling them in poor conditions.
    Mr. Neil Thorne: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the penalties available are adequate if pressure is not applied? In other words, is conviction being considered because of the pressure that is being brought to bear by the general public? If that pressure were not there, would the number of convictions rapidly fall away because the number of those involved taking action against people contravening the law would decrease, in that they believed that the penalties available were totally inadequate bearing in mind the time that they spent?
    Miss Fookes: I take my hon. Friend's point. The total banning of the sale of pet animals from stalls and barrows should make life easier both for the police and the RSPCA inspectorate, since on the whole it is they who take action in this country to deal with the matter.
    The penalties under our general law relating to animal welfare are probably sufficient at present. A problem arose in that there was no way to force the local authority to use its own powers under the 1951 Act. I took up this point a year or two ago with Ministers at the Home Office, but there was no way that the penalties under the 1951 Act could be brought into force except by the action of the local authority. If the local authority did not choose to act, and at the time it did not, nothing could be done except under general animal welfare law. Now, with the banning, as we shall have it, all should be well, and we need have no anxiety on that score.
    We have dwelt on the activities of Club row because it is the most well known market. However, it is important to realise that there are markets throughout the country, from Braintree to Doncaster. There are three in London, and others at Chelmsford, Newcastle, Cardiff and Selby. In all, there are 23. It is a nation-wide problem, not a local one. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary recognises that, because it was one of the stumbling blocks in attempts to get legislation through in previous years, when the Home Office insisted on believing that it was a small local difficulty when, in fact, it is a nation-wide problem.
    Mr. Banks: As we are members of the European Community, would my hon. Friend care to speculate about whether this measure will be noted in the EC so that we can in some way influence animal protection in the other countries of the Community?
    Miss Fookes: I certainly hope that it will serve as a model for other EC countries. One of the welcome spinoffs from membership of the EC is the ability to take legislative action in a number of countries, not simply our own. The only possible snag is that they tend to go to the lowest common denominator, which might be less than we would wish. However, at least there are opportunities there to work on a much wider scale, and that is valuable. I hope that we shall be in a position to influence our Common Market partners to ensure that pet animals are not sold in unsuitable places.
    It is usually fun to visit markets, but I recall being made most unhappy on a visit abroad by going to a market and seeing wild birds in tiny cages. That totally spoilt my pleasure. I have only to see animals in foreign markets and

    589
    I turn and run. One knows that one can do little about it but it is a heart-breaking sight. I hope that we shall set a good example to other countries.
    My hon. Friends have rightly drawn attention to the conditions in street markets. A market, by its nature, is a busy, bustling place. That is part of the excitement and glamour of a market, but it makes it the most unsuitable place imaginable for selling animals, many of which may be young—chicks, puppies and kittens—and likely to suffer stress, fear and anxiety because of the hustle and bustle and the fact that prospective buyers will pick them up. Many animals greatly fear and resent casual handling by strangers, who may not have the least idea of how to handle animals properly.
    It is also important to remember the weather conditions that we experience in this country. They range from bitter cold, wind and rain to burning sunshine and heat. Under the 1951 Act, such matters are meant to be dealt with in the conditions attached to licences, but it was idiotic to imagine that notice would be taken by those running barrows or stalls of the requirement to ensure that the correct temperature is maintained.
    I have heard some terrible stories from RSPCA inspectors about the plight of small animals, birds and fish in unsuitable climatic conditions. Fish needing shade have been left in glaring sunshine, and puppies have been found shivering in the wind and the rain. At other times, blistering heat has made animals pant and become visibly distressed and may even have led to their early death.
    Infection can spread from the casual handling of animals in markets. A number of animals were bought at Club row some years ago by a lady who felt sorry for them. A veterinary surgeon who examined them found that the vast majority had diseases, were in distress and were likely to live only a short while. Members of the public fondly imagine that they are buying a healthy pet and discover too late that the animal is far from healthy and is likely to die quite quickly.
    It is ludicrous that animals should be sold in places where disease can spread so easily. Even in the best run animal homes, kennels and catteries, disease can spread rapidly. That is one of the nightmares of those who run such homes and they have to take the most stringent precautions to ensure that disease does not spread. If it is difficult for animal homes to manage, it is clearly impossible to check the spread of disease when animals are sold on stalls and handled by prospective purchasers whose own pets may be sniffing round the market.
    I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) mentioned another evil which comes from keeping pets in street markets — the encouragement given to what is usually described as impulse buying; buying thoughtlessly without understanding that the care of a living creature is a heavy responsibility, not to be undertaken lightly. I wonder how many people who buy an animal in this way calculate in advance the cost of feeding it, the cost of the proper vaccinations and inoculations, the cost of veterinary services and the cost of having the animal properly looked after when they go away on holiday. The cost of a licence for a dog at 37½ pence or whatever is a mere bagatelle, but that is another story. It is probably the least amount of
    590
    money required properly to look after a pet. Markets enable people to make these impulsive and thoughtless purchases with the most harmful effects to the animals.
    Sadly, many of our major animal welfare societies spend a great deal of time picking up the pieces of irresponsible pet ownership. Purchasing in markets simply adds to that flow of unwanted cats, dogs and other animals. Only this week the latest report of the RSPCA came into my hands. It lists near the front facts and figures for 1982. Under the heading "New homes found", it states that new homes had to be found for nearly 51,500 dogs, nearly 42,000 cats and for nearly 9,000 animals described as "miscellaneous". About 102,000 animals were found homes by the RSPCA nationally—an enormous number. Sadly, many had to be humanely destroyed and of those more than 60,000 were dogs or cats too sick or injured to be allowed to live. Others had to go because suitable homes could not be found. That is the figure for one welfare society, admittedly the largest and in my biased view the best, because I am closely associated with it.
    What about the work of other societies — for example, the National Canine Defence League which does sterling work; the Battersea dogs home or, nearer to my own locality, the Plymouth cats and dogs home? That list could be multiplied many times over. An enormous amount of effort goes into caring for animals which would not be there but for human irresponsibility. There are few genuine strays in the sense that they have run off. The majority are abandoned and neglected. It makes me burn with anger to see this needless suffering in a nation which calls itself animal-loving. If one works with an animal welfare society long enough that becomes a rather sick joke. I hope that when the Bill becomes an Act it will at least improve the lot of some animals and make it easier for them.
    I am aware that many hon. Members who are not present today would warmly support the Bill if they could be here. Perhaps this is an appropriate moment to pay tribute to the work over the years of my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Sir. F. Burden), who is not seeking re-election this time but who has over the years done his utmost to ensure that the lot of animals is improved. I refer also to my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Irving) who has a soft spot for animals and who at all times seeks to support Bills that are intended to improve their position.
    I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Minister has disappeared. I wanted to make a point to him. He said that the Bill was short, although he made no criticism of that. In a sense, I share his disappointment. My ambitions soar far beyond the confines of the Bill. I am sure that that applies to Lord Houghton as well. We want comprehensive animal legislation covering all areas. There is ample scope for one main Act of Parliament to deal thoroughly and comprehensively with the whole question of pet animals. It is ludicrous that we have a series of small Acts that deal with the matter piecemeal. That has arisen because Governments of different political colours have failed to bring forward legislation. It has been left to the initiative of private Members who work under extraordinarily difficult conditions.
    It is essential that in a new Parliament the whole of animal welfare legislation should be examined and codified. At one count, several years ago, there were about

    591
    70 Acts dealing with various facets of animal welfare. The list is probably longer now. We need a wholly different attitude by Government towards animal legislation.
    I feel that I am repeating myself because I made precisely the same point in the debate to which I referred earlier 10 years ago, when the late Sir Ronald Russell made his plea for a Bill amending the Pet Animals Act. But when a thing is worth doing, it is worth repeating. I always take note of the way in which the advertisers repeatedly make the same point in the hope that, sooner or later, it will sink into even the thickest of skulls.
    It would be churlish not to thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his support. I am well aware that, without it, the Bill will not go through. I shall not make further criticisms. I thank my hon. Friends who have supported me today.
    I hope that the Bill, now in its final stages, gets a good passage on its Third Reading, and that it will forthwith go to Her Majesty for that final Assent that will make the Bill, so long in coming, at last an Act of Parliament.
    1.43 pm
    Mr. Neil Thorne: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) whose personal record of service to the welfare of animals is second to none in the House. She mentioned the need for tenacity in seeing through legislation, and certainly animal welfare owes much to her tenacity. Her point about its being a short Bill was wise. I have seen so many private Member's Bills hit the dust on their way to the statute book because the sponsors have been too ambitious.
    My hon. Friend mentioned the need for a codifying Act. It is difficult in spheres such as animal welfare to find such a wide measure of support and agreement that makes it possible to provide an Act to satisfy everyone. Even within animal welfare organisations, there is considerable disagreement about what aspects of animal welfare are appropriate. Being too ambitious and introducing a codifying Bill could meet major resistance because of disagreement about how it should be implemented.
    Cattle markets have a long history, and many have royal charters. I imagine that that is why it was found acceptable for pets to he sold in street markets. The welfare of animals in street markets has come under increasing scrutiny recently and has given rise to anxiety. Therefore, Parliament has tended to lay down stringent rules and regulations about where they are held. It is right that we should carefully consider pets, as the people who sell them are not necessarily interested in their welfare. Many take only a transitory interest in animals with a view to selling them, much as they might collect a few gross of tubes of toothpaste to sell. Many such people look out for pets on the offchance of picking up a bargain which will appeal to young people, who then apply pressure on their parents to purchase.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Drake also mentioned the tenacity of Sir Ronald Russell in 1951 in getting the first Act on to the statute book. Like subsequent hon. Members, he was disappointed that the spirit of that Act was not carried through to its conclusion. We should be angry about and appreciative of the London borough of Tower Hamlets because, if it had done its duty under the spirit of that Act, Club row would not have been the centre of controversy that it has turned out to be. If that had not happened, public attention would not have been focused on this issue to the same extent. My hon. Friend mentioned
    592
    23 other street markets which also sell pets. It is possible, of course, that animals sold in such markets in areas that are related to the farming community are not subjected to the same abuses as those that are sold in the urban environment of Club row.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate (Mr. Banks) mentioned breeding facilities and the conditions which unsold animals are likely to suffer. That is important. I hope that fines in relation to animal welfare will be part of the updating procedure that we discussed last Friday with regard to copyright in the video industry. I hope that similar penalties will be included. Like penalties, licence fees are also important. My hon. Friend discussed whether the introduction of an updated dog licence fee would give people food for thought before embarking on an impulse purchase which could result in animals suffering.
    I am an active supporter of the Fund for the Replacement of Animals m Medical Experiments. If we can stop the sale of animals in street markets, that will do much to assist the removal of such creatures from the hands of those who wish to carry out animal experiments. Many animals are purchased for that purpose from people who steal domestic pets and then sell them in markets. The comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Mr. Page) about licence fees for animals need careful consideration because they are relevant to the maintaining of pets, and every pet lover must appreciate that. We undersand that the elderly especially need pets, so there must be some exceptions to the rule. The welfare of animals is a burning issue that is close to the hearts of the majority of all hon. Members.
    I welcome the Bill, and I am pleased that it should receive its Third Reading today and pass rapidly into law.
    1.51 pm
    Mr. Banks: Britain is a nation of animal lovers, and I firmly believe that the Bill will be applauded by the vast majority of pet owners. Many pet owners look after their animals with great care and affection. We have an international reputation for our care of defenceless animals, and this Bill will enhance it. I hope that we shall be in a stronger position to influence other countries in the European Community and beyond so that proper attention is paid to the care and protection of animals, who rely on the human race for their survival.
    1.52 pm
    Mr. Mellor: This Bill will be an extremely useful measure. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Drake (Miss Fookes) on her initiative in taking up this matter, and I congratulate Lord Houghton on persevering in introducing the Bill three times during this Parliament. I am glad that the Government have played a part in assisting its progress.
    The co-operation between Lord Houghton, who had a distinguished Front Bench career in this House for the Labour party for many years, and my hon. Friend the Member for Drake in promoting the Bill, shows that animal welfare does not have a monopoly of concern in any one party.
    Mr. Foulkes: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Mellor: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me, because animal welfare has concerned many hon. Members. I spoke in the House on the matter before I took up my present responsibilities. Electoral bidding games

    593
    between parties on the subject of animal welfare are not helpful. When we discuss what is likely to be the next major animal reform measure during the next Parliament —the reform of the Cruelty to Animals Act 1876—we must strike the correct balance between the rights of animals and the development of medical science. That matter cannot profitably be part of party politics. I hope that in the forthoming election we shall not see a great deal of that, but we shall see.
    I have already made it clear why the Government feel that they can now support the Bill. The ease with which it has gone through Parliament this Session shows the general support that it has commanded and demonstrates the deep-seated passion and concern towards animals which are traditionally shown in this country, and which we in the Government share. As in all these emotive areas, while caring, we need to keep a sense of reason and proportion. However, where the Government are satisfied that a measure can be taken that will alleviate animal suffering, or more generally improve the quality of animal life, I assure my hon. Friend that the Government will support it.
    It is fair to say that the Government's record in this respect is good. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has taken considerable strides forward in farm animal welfare through the work of the Farm Animal Welfare Council and other means. The Secretary of State for the Environment, through the Wildlife and Countryside Act, through work to prohibit the importation of whale products and through proposals on seals that are now under consideration, has taken animal welfare a good way forward.
    We in the Home Office have used the last few years profitably to work for the Council of Europe convention on animal experiments, the work on which I was glad to be able to tell the House at Question Time yesterday was concluded last week, clearing the way not only for legislation in Britain that will go far beyond establishing minimum standards, but for high common standards throughout Europe. We realise that we are not an island in these matters. It is important that international standards should be raised as well. Our advisory committee on
    594
    animal experiments produced a useful report on the British experience. I am confident that it will lead to a major reform of the 1876 Act that will come about before long. I hope that that will be welcomed by those like my hon. Friend, who work so long and hard on animal welfare.
    Miss Fookes: How much longer are we to wait for the new arrangements on animal experiments? I recall that it was a distinct pledge in the election manifesto, and we have now been in office for four years.
    Mr. Mellor: As I said, this matter has been proceeding through the Council of Europe and the convention was concluded only last week. However, the White Paper is in an advanced state of preparation. As I told the House yesterday, it is near to being published. I hope that when it is my hon. Friend will see how much hard work has gone into providing a measure which broadens, widens and strengthens protection for animals, for instance to embrace the establishments that sell animals for vivisection purposes, which my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) mentioned, and which also recognises the need for continuing medical advance and research—which I would have thought most people involved in this argument would recognise is a vital dimension to the problem. I hope that when my hon. Friend the Member for Drake sees the document in due course she will appreciate the amount of hard work that has gone into it.
    The Government have reached the conclusion that however hard local authorities try to uphold the 1951 Act properly with regard to street markets selling pets, they face an impossible task by the nature of street markets. It is no criticism of many of the stall holders to say that we have reached the point where it is difficult for any such sale to go forward according to standards that we all now accept must be maintained.
    It is for that reason that we believe that the time is right for this measure. If, as I hope, it receives its Third Reading today, it will be a most useful addition to the considerable body of animal welfare law that is already on the statute book.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

Age Discrimination Bill
Order for Second Reading read.
2 pm
Mr. George Foulkes: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the Bill although I am naturally disappointed and concerned that time is unlikely to permit a Second Reading to take place. I do not want to belittle the Pet Animals Act 1951 (Amendment) Bill—indeed, I supported it and sat in my place and agreed with it —but I sometimes have the feeling that this animal-loving country is more concerned sometimes about the plight of animals than about the plight of some of our fellow human beings. This Bill is concerned with the plight of some of our fellows.
The motivation behind the Bill is a feeling that I have had for some time, in common with organisations that are concerned with the elderly, especially Age Concern. There is a general awareness of the existence of sex discrimination and of racial discrimination. That was not always so. There is now such an awareness because of the campaign of some of my colleagues and of many people outside the House to bring these matters to public attention. However, there is not a great awareness of the amount of discrimination that exists against people because of their age.
The purpose of the Bill is, first, to bring that discrimination to the attention of the House and the wider public and, secondly, to try to do something about it. Why is there not much awareness of the problem? Why has no legislation been introduced to deal with it as there has been for other forms of discrimination? I think that it is because the discrimination lies principally in employment. It has been exacerbated by the enormous increase in the level of unemployment over the past four years. With high levels of unemployment, more and more examples of age discrimination come to our attention.
It is understandable that the media have concentrated on youth unemployment and the dreadful plight of young people leaving school without a hope of getting a job, but there are some tragic cases of unemployed people in their 50s and, as I have found from the many letters that I have received, in their 40s.
There are many myths about aging and we tend to stereotype old people. If I needed any proof, corroboration or justification for bringing the Bill before the House, it was amply provided when the Bill was published. Its publication was given relatively small publicity in some newspapers. Since then I have received a flood of correspondence about the measure. You are familiar, Mr. Deputy Speaker, with some of the causes that I speak about in the House—you have the unfortunate task of listening to many of my interventions and speeches on various matters—but you will be surprised to hear that all the letters that I received on this subject were in support of the Bill. That is not always the case with the issues that I raise. However, that provides corroboration that there is a need for legislation. With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall quote from some of the letters that I have received. I do not expect the Government to accept the Bill, but I hope that they will give some consideration to the general problem that lies behind it.
The Bill would give power to the Equal Opportunities Commission to deal with age discrimination just as it deals
596
with sex discrimination. The commission would draw up a list — a prescribed list, which is not a particularly popular phrase in my party these days — of practices which are discriminatory. That would happen after consultation with the various interests involved. It would go from the commission to the Minister — or the Secretaries of State, as the case may be, because the provisions would also apply to Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales—for consideration and then to this House for approval. There would, therefore, be scrutiny of those matters which were accepted generally as discrimination against people because of their age.
Once the list had been agreed, the commission would have power to investigate complaints from individuals or groups of any unfair discrimination against them on the ground of their age, and, if possible, conciliate or otherwise adjudicate on those complaints. The Bill says that the areas that should be covered—obviously others could be added; I am referring to those that must be covered if the Bill became an Act — would, first, be employment, which is the main source of discrimination; secondly, appointments to public bodies; and thirdly, the portrayal of people or groups of people in the media according to their age.
Perhaps I should deal, before giving examples, with the question of practicability; the Minister and his advisers may believe that what I propose would not be a practical proposition. I argue that it would, for two reasons. The first is that we have an excellent precedent in sex discrimination. I understand that the provisions there are working well and that there is a general understanding of what is meant by sex discrimination; that there is an understanding of the kind of complaints that can be raised and an acceptance that they are being dealt with fairly. The second is that there are international precedents. It has been done for some time in the United States—certainly since 1967 in the sphere of work — and somewhat similar provisions exist in Sweden and Norway. I hope therefore that the Minister will not advance the case that it is not a practical proposition.
Let us consider some of the tragedies that are arising because of the high level of unemployment and the way in which people are being discriminated against, particularly in work. A Glasgow lady wrote saying:
"My husband, who is unemployed, applied for a job. We were told that a company directive had been issued banning the recruitment of staff aged over 35."
I see your brow beetling, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My brow beetles at that, too, because it would exclude me from consideration. It is amazing that companies should be saying that people are too old at 35.
A man wrote to me from Glasgow saying:
"Since I was made redundant at 51 years of age due to company liquidation"—
which was not his fault, he being a skilled and able person of whom one could not say that he was of no use and was not being employed for that reason—
"I have compiled a massive dossier of information which clearly illustrates that career development opportunity is slashed progressively from age 45 until even simple job opportunity virtually ceases at age 60."
A man from Herefordshire wrote:
"I read that industry is short of skilled and experienced workers. Young people are considered to be lacking in skill and experience, and those who have it are considered too old. No wonder industry is suffering."
A man in Esher said:

597
"It seems a waste, when there is so much to be done, that I should remain idle for what amounts to 25 per cent. of my working life."
It is a waste of skills and talent that this country should and could be using.
A man from Trowbridge wrote:
"I have colleagues who are deemed 'unemployable' at 48. Whilst it is right and proper for people to show concern over youth unemployment, I feel that the over 45s deserve more publicity."
The Minister who will be replying to the debate comes from the Department of Health and Social Security. He may be interested in a point that was raised by a man from Buckinghamshire. He said:
"I wonder whether you could also give some thought to the fact that since 1978"—
this is not a party political point—
"the DHSS notifies an employer if he has an employee still working over the age of 65. In many cases the employer is under the impression that the employee is younger—and the result is either extreme embarassment or dismissal."
Yet that person has been doing, and could continue to do, a good job.
I received a letter from a chartered engineer who states:
"I have campaigned unremittingly over the past eleven years through all relevant agencies".
He has been trying. He contacted the Manpower Services Commission, the CBI, the Professional and Executive Register and the Equal Opportunities Commission, which is the body that I say should have some power to deal with this. He also contacted local and central Government asking for legislation against what he described as
"this growing cancer which is creating a class of industrial untouchables."
A number of people have contrasted their circumstances with those of Mr. Ian MacGregor, who does not seem to have found age a problem. I am not too happy about Mr. MacGregor's appointments to the Coal Board or the British Steel Corporation, not because of his age, but because of the task that he has been asked to carry out. He has been brought in to carry out an offensive task. It is interesting, however, that the Government considered that his age was not a barrier and that at the age of 70 he is able to carry out the task.
I wonder why he has been able to obtain a public appointment while there are many people who have retired at the usual age, or perhaps earlier, but who would like to continue in public service as justices of the peace, on health boards and all types of public bodies. That is my second area of discrimination. They find not just that they are too old to work, but that they are too old to be appointed to such bodies. For the rest of their lives—it could be one third of their lives—these opportunities are not open to them. It is seen as the fag end of their lives.
I do not wish to give too many examples because it would not be appropriate, but I assure the House that I have received many more. However, I wish to raise one somewhat different example. It comes from a 23-year-old college graduate. That seems amazing. I am sure that hon. Members will ask, "How on earth can he be discriminated against on grounds of age?" He wrote:
"You may think, at first glance, that this has little to do with age discrimination until I tell you that all too many employers of graduates to which I have been applying now set the ridiculously low age limit of 23 for entry to their graduate training schemes. Yes, you can be too old at 23, let alone 55! I assume that this deplorably low age limit is calculated to exclude the long-term unemployed graduate (two years without
598
a permanent job is now very far from uncommon among perfectly able graduates generally), on the presumption that if a graduate leaves university at 21 … and has not found a permanent job by the age of 23, he cannot possibly be worth much to any employer."
That is amazing. Someone may go to college or university later in life, graduate, and then find that he cannot gain entry to some of the graduate courses that exist. It is an unusual example and, although there may be many more such cases, it seemed strange to me. That is another example of age discrimination about which something should be done.
A further illustration is provided by a letter that I received from Teddington. It says:
"Even in my own circle, two first class workers … have been going through this nightmare for over a year. In fact one friend, a top secretary with first class c.v. and references, whose company folded up"—
so it was no fault of hers that she was unemployed—
"was recently told by a young girl of about 22 working in one of the employment bureaux, 'we consider anyone over 40 is over the hill, you really are wasting your time coming in'."
That is a frightening thought. The letter continues:
"She is attractive, healthy, competent and 48 (hardly one foot in the grave)"
and
"if you are male, and over 50, forget it and go dig your grave."
That would include a great many people here. The letter also states:
"Those fortunate enough to be in full employment and in safe jobs, have no conception what it is like to be the victim of this disgraceful discrimination. I personally know that certain people in my … area … have become utterly demoralised and are convinced … that they are, and will remain, on the scrapheap forever."
That demoralisation now extends to many people.
It is entirely wrong that arbitrary age limits should be given for appointments. Time and again, advertisements prescribe age limits for applicants. That should not be allowed. People should compete on equal terms and have the oppportunity to prove themselves in interviews or assessments irrespective of their age.
In addition to discimination in employment and appointments to public bodies, there is the problem of stereotyping by the media. Often false assumptions are made about age. People are stereotyped as senile because they are old and quaint or less diverse in their personalities, aptitudes and interests just because they are retired. If there is persistent stereotyping of any group, especially the old, an individual or a group representing such individuals should be able to take the matter to the Equal Opportunities Commission.
I could give many more examples. I must confess that I am not happy at having to seek legislation in this area. I should greatly prefer the problem to be solved without that. With the current high unemployment, however, many older people and some not so old are being blackmailed into early retirement, which may mean poverty for many, because of the lack of jobs and the moral pressure on them to make way for young people.
Jobs should be provided for all who wish to work. There is plenty of work to be done in caring for the sick, the elderly and the handicapped, in public works projects to get rid of dampness in houses, to build new homes, schools and hospitals and to improve other facilities. There is work to be done in improving our public transport service, in electrifying the railways, and in many other areas. There is no reason why people should be out of work.

599
If there is to be more leisure time, our employment policy should be to spread that time evenly throughout people's working lives by means of a shorter working week or a shorter working year, not by forcing people unnecessarily on to the scrapheap, as the dole queue is so eloquently described by many people. While that situation exists I argue that there is a need for some legislation. That is why I have brought the Bill before the House today, and I hope that the House will consider giving it a Second Reading.
2.20 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg): I noted with particular interest that the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Foulkes) said that the provisions of his Bill apply to all of us here, and then went on to speak about safe jobs. Some of his colleagues who have not been reselected might take a different view.
Mr. Foulkes: Quite.
Mr. Finsberg: Irrespective of the fate of the Bill, it would be a pity if the hon. Gentleman were to go on basing his campaign on one or two of the things he said.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of there being something wrong when people who reach retiring age may be regarded as being too old to do such things as serving as justices of the peace. He will know that Parliament took a decision on the age of judges, magistrates and justices of the peace, and I imagine that he would not wish to question it at this stage.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the case of a person who wrote to him because he was out of a job after the liquidation of a firm. I am sure that he is a perfectly good person, with good experience and qualifications, but we know of companies which have been forced into liquidation by the actions of their employees, so we must be careful not to generalise or to build up an entire case on what may not be the right foundation.
The Bill proposes to make unlawful discrimination on grounds of age against a person or groups of persons. It seeks to give the Equal Opportunities Commission power to investigate complaints about discrimination on grounds of age, to conciliate where appropriate, and to make recommendations on the activities to which the measure should apply.
At present, there are, as far as I can find, only three areas of activity specified in the Bill, but there are powers to extend its provisions — subject ultimately to Parliament's approval. Therefore, the Bill is potentially of very wide application, and the area of activity already specified would involve the Home Office and the Department of Employment, and almost certainly nearly every other Government Department would have an interest.
I shall not go through the detailed clauses at this stage but I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the Bill as at present drafted would be ineffective. Some of the terms that the hon. Gentleman uses are not defined — for example, "unjustifiable". That term would be a key element in any litigation. Further, and perhaps even more important, since the proposed legislation gives the Equal Opportunities Commission no power to impose penalties for breaches of the law, it is very uncertain how it could be enforced.
600
The Equal Opportunities Commission is relevant because it is the cornerstone of the hon. Gentleman's case. The commission was established, under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, to help to enforce that legislation and to promote equality of opportunity between the sexes generally. The Act applies to discrimination against women and men and it defines two kinds of sex discrimination, known as direct and indirect discrimination.
Direct sex discrimination arises where a person treats a woman, on the grounds of her sex, less favourably than he treats or would treat a man. Indirect sex discrimination consists of treatment which may be described as equal in the formal sense as between the sexes but which is discriminatory in its effect on one sex, in that the proportion of women who can comply with a condition or requirement is considerably smaller than the proportion of men who can do so.
For example, if an employer were to impose a requirement that all clerks—not Clerks of this House—must be 6ft tall, a woman refused a job because of her height would be able to make out a case of indirect sex discrimination. I shall not go into the matter of whether clerks should have beards. That, again, might be a source of indirect discrimination. To prove a case of sex discrimination, it has to be shown that the requirement is unjustifiable.
The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 makes discrimination on grounds of sex unlawful in certain prescribed areas—employment, education and the provision of goods, facilities and services. It does not, for example, extend to discriminatory treatment in the allocation of social security benefits, retirement ages, taxation, or those concessionary travel schemes which are based on age.
I suggest that it is unrealistic to assume that the commission, which is concerned solely with discrimination on grounds of sex, could readily adapt itself to identify and provide remedies for other forms of discrimination. The main purpose of the Sex Discrimination Act, and of the commission, was to remove obstacles that prevent women from having equal opportunities. Discrimination on grounds of age, which is certainly another highly sensitive area, as the hon. Gentleman said, is quite different in character, and could not easily be combined with the commission's existing functions.
The commission operates with a maximum staff of 166. Its approved budget for 1982–83 totals some £3·07 million, of which approximately half is spent on staff costs and half on overheads expenditure, legal expenses, research and publicity. Any extension of the commission's powers would require extra resources, in terms of finance and staff, and there is no prospect that those could be made available.
We need to examine where, under the Sex Discrimination Act, the EOC may undertake formal investigations for any purpose connected with the carrying out of its statutory dates. Where unlawful sex discrimination is found, the commission may issue a nondiscrimination notice requiring such practices to cease. Under the hon. Gentleman's Bill, however, the most the commission could do would be to make recommendations. There is no suggestion that more formal sanctions would be available to the commission if discrimination on grounds of age were found to exist. The extent of discrimination on grounds of age is impossible to quantify, although I note with concern and interest the cases that the

601
hon. Gentleman retailed to us. It therefore follows that no assessment can be made of the extra resources required by the commission to pursue those general investigations.
In the Bill there is no suggestion that complainants should have the right to bring a case of discrimination before the courts, and it must be assumed that if the commission failed to resolve a complaint by conciliation discrimination would continue. Under the Sex Discrimination Act, those who believe that they have been the victims of sex discrimination have the right to take a complaint to an industrial tribunal in employment cases, or to a county court in all other cases.
The commission may assist a complainant, or prospective complainant, and the assistance that the commission may afford includes giving advice, seeking a settlement, and arranging for legal advice, assistance or representation. It is not the task of the commission to investigate all complaints of sex discrimination. Nor does the commission have any special standing before a court or tribunal in relation to any proceedings in which it is assisting an individual. Where an application to an industrial tribunal has been made, ACAS has a duty to consider whether it can help the parties to reach a settlement without the need for a tribunal hearing.
In 1981, the commission received about 3,100 inquiries about the Sex Discrimination Act, 245 of which led to requests for assistance to bring a case of unlawful discrimination. The commission gave advice or legal assistance in 143 of those cases.
Again, it is not possible to assess the number of complaints of discrimination on grounds of age which might be directed to the commission under the Bill, nor the number of additional staff required to investigate the complaints and to achieve conciliation.
The commission is required to make an annual report on its activities under the Sex Discrimination Act, and the Home Secretary is required to lay a copy of the report before each House of Parliament and to cause it to be published. The Bill does not provide for that procedure.
602
If the EOC failed to resolve a complaint by conciliation, discrimination would continue unless the complainant sought redress in the civil courts. Complainants—
It being half-past Two o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed upon Friday 13 May.

PROHIBITION OF FEMALE CIRCUMCISION (No. 2) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bernard Weatherill): Not moved.

DOMESTIC CONTENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Hon. Members: Object.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Second Reading what day? No day named.

RATING (CARAVAN SITES) (SCOTLAND) (AMENDMENT) BILL
Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Second Reading [29 April].
Hon. Members: Object.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Debate to be resumed what day? No day named.

TELEVISING OF SELECT COMMITTEES BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Not moved.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Ordered,
That Sir Anthony Grant be discharged from the Foreign Affairs Committee and Mr. Ivan Lawrence be added to the Committee. — [Mr. Philip Holland, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Trunk Road (Aire Valley)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooke.]
2.31 pm
Mr. Bob Cryer: I am grateful for the opportunity to initiate this debate. I shall briefly sketch in the background to the proposed Aire valley trunk road. The original proposal, put forward in 1968, was to build a motorway. There followed 14 years of indecision, argument and, for the areas directly affected by the motorway proposal, blight.
In 1978, following a tumultuous public inquiry, the motorway proposal was withdrawn and the trunk road proposal substituted for it. The trunk road was designed to relieve local congestion on the A629 Keighley to Skipton trunk road. I was critical of and opposed to the motorway proposal, but I supported the less intrusive trunk road, which I think will have more beneficial local effects.
Representations by me and local people persuaded the then Minister of Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley), to produce the less intrusive trunk road proposal and he met residents of Stockbridge—in marked contrast to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker), who is to reply to the debate.
Following the public inquiry on the trunk road proposal, the Minister announced the go-ahead in May 1982 and said in a press release in June 1983:
"I am anxious to maintain good progress on the Airedale scheme."
I am sure that is right, but in a parliamentary reply last month to me the Government announced that the road
"should be open to traffic in April 1987."—[Official Report, 28 April 1983; Vol. 41. c. 392.]
That is far too long a delay. I recognise that statutory procedures have to be followed, but I urge the Minister to proceed with the construction of the road as rapidly as possible to ensure, as was promised in an Adjournment debate in the previous Parliament, that the Keighley to Kildwick section will be consructed and opened first to relieve local traffic.
Those living alongside the existing trunk road have to put up with enormous difficulties. There is noise and vibration and dangers in crossing the road, because of the considerable volume of traffic, particularly at Utley, Steeton and Eastburn in my constituency, but also at other places alongside the existing trunk road.
The opening of the Keighley to Kildwick section of the new road will bring relief to those residents and better access for materials for the rest of the project. I suspect that most materials will be coming from the Dales quarries to the north. The opening of the top section of the road as was assured previously would also provide easier access to Airedale general hospital because, as the Minister is no doubt aware, the hospital serves Keighley, Eastburn, Steeton, and indeed a much wider area. I am sure that the volume of traffic on the existing trunk road must cause delays in obtaining access to the hospital. That could prove dangerous if not fatal. It is important that an assurance about the construction of the Keighley — Kildwick section and its opening to traffic as early as possible should be given now, rather than waiting for the whole BingleyKeighley-Kildwick section to be completed to allow access to traffic.
604
At a time when unemployment in the Keighley constituency since May 1979 has increased from 4·5 per cent. to more than 14 per cent. the construction of the road should provide many much needed jobs in the area to reduce unemployment. Will the Minister also consider using the Aire valley railway for the movement of construction materials, as the goods yard at Keighley is under-utilised? While the road is in the initial stages of construction the use of the Aire valley railway might help to reduce the congestion that construction might create. While I realise that statutory procedures must be followed, I urge the Minister to make the most rapid progress possible in the construction of the road because of the difficulties created for those people living alongside the existing trunk routes.
One area seriously affected by blight was the Stockbridge area of Keighley. I was sorry that the Minister felt unable to meet residents on a recent visit to north Yorkshire, as she must have passed within a few miles of the Stockbridge area. It is important that Ministers should listen to representations directly from people who have experienced the difficulties. I know that hon. Members try their best to represent their constituents' views but there is no substitute for direct representation.
About 100 houses were blighted in 1968 and continued to be blighted until the decision was finally made in 1982. I have been concerned with those houses that were sold off to the road construction unit, which were in some instances controlled by the local authority, and with the fact that the Government did not provide sufficient help to the tenants of those houses when they were moved or were requested to move from the area to other local authority houses, once the decision had been made to put them on the market.
I am particularly concerned in this debate with those houses that have been continuously owner-occupied ever since the plan for the motorway was first announced in 1968. The road proposals have been the focus of continuous attention and have been spotlighted nationally. Now that the decision has been made to provide the line for the trunk road, those who have been living there in their own houses since 1968 feel that they have been forgotten and ignored. The Government have offered £10,000 to the west Yorkshire metropolitan county council to assist with private street works. That followed an initiative by the Labour Government, following my representations, which will be of considerable help in revitalising the Stockbridge area. I welcome the Government's offer to the metropolitan county council.
However, there is still a serious deficiency regarding the houses that have been owner-occupied throughout the period of blight, which were built in the 1930s and, therefore, do not qualify for repair grants. Repair grants apply only to pre-1919 houses. The blight has been created by successive Governments, not by those living in the houses. It is outrageous that the Government appear to be washing their hands of the matter by refusing to consider the houses for repair grants.
I wish to quote a letter from Mrs. Greenwood, one of the residents. She says:
"I am writing to ask how it is we cannot have a grant for our house. At the start of enquiries I wrote to the Construction Unit at Harrogate and the reply was, not to spend any unnecessary money, so we did as they said. We have had a third of our roof done as it was raining into the front room. We are now on Social Benefit, so we have no hope.

605
My husband had a major operation eleven years ago and has not worked since. We are now seventy two so I suppose that's it."
There is a clear sign that the road construction unit told the owner-occupiers that they should not spend too much on repairs. That made sense because they were in no position to argue the case and were not to know that the next visitor—as one writer said to me—would be the bulldozer.
Last night I visited a constituent who is another fairly typical person caught up in that situation. She decided to stay in her house because it was her home. Mrs. Manx is aged 70. The roof leaked and she had half of it repaired. It needs finishing. She applied to the local authority for a grant. When the local authority representative visited the house she was told that she needed new windows, a new bath, a new toilet, new drainpipes and rewiring. She expected to receive a grant. However, she has recently had a letter from the local authority giving the correct position. It says:
"Unfortunately the age of the house also excludes it from a Repairs Grant i.e. it must be built before 1919. Unless there are special concessions given to these properties they are outside the scope of the present House Renovation Grant system."
I ask the Minister, although it is not her direct responsibility, to make strong representations to the Department of the Environment to make a concession for those properties. The local authority apologised for the error in suggesting that a grant was available.
Mrs. Manx has lived in her home for 32 years. Her husband, who has since died, felt that it was their home and that they should not sell it to the road construction unit. He wanted to stay in an area that he liked. As it was the Government who created the blight in the first place, that was a reasonable point of view to take. The lady is now penalised by the Government refusing to consider the possibility of applying repair grants to those houses.
I wrote to the Minister at the Department of the Environment, and on 23 March he said that to meet a delegation of representatives of the people affected by the blight would not be "fruitful". I have written to him again asking for a meeting, and I am still waiting for a reply.
I wish to conclude with extracts from letters from residents that illustrate the position. I want to emphasise the importance of repair grants for those who have, quite legitimately, delayed repairs because of the blight, and who now seek a concession from the Government for repair grants. Mr. and Mrs. Rozga wrote:
"After reading the questions you kindly asked on our behalf, we feel that government departments seem to think they have every right to ruin people's lives, then walk away and forget … now 15 years later repairs to properties that are essential i.e., roofs, windows, guttering, etc. can no longer be afforded at today's high prices. Unfortunately for us, Mr. Cryer, we do not fall into the category of average wage (£100 a week). Two years ago, I was rendered unfit for work owing to a stroke due to unnecessary anxiety caused by the evil administration of government departments. I am now the proud owner of what we laughingly call invalidity pension (£32·49), so we cannot be blamed for feeling there is no justice in this government. I would now like to tell you, my husband has two weeks ago been struck down with a heart attack and at this very moment is being fitted with a pacemaker. I would also like to add, my husband is a chronic diabetic and has just received his redundancy notice from work."
Mrs. Boulby of 4 Hallows road wrote:
"I think it is unfair that the people of Stockbridge are not going to be allowed Grants, to get their houses back into condition, that they were in, 14 years ago, before the Department
606
of the Environment decided to put a motorway through our homes. I personally started to build an extension on to my home, but because of the blight it was left. Now I am a one-parent family and have no finance to finish my house off and to bring it up to standard. As I am one of the people who stayed in my own home while all these proposals of motorway planning were going ahead, I feel I should be compensated and should qualify for a house grant."
Mr. David Burridge wrote:
"During the period of blight no one would spend money on major maintenance to their homes when the next visitor might be a bulldozer.
Now after the lifting of blight, we find that major works are now becoming essential but that costs have escalated enormously during the restricted period … My own house badly needs a new roof and other major outside works to bring it back to a standard which would have existed had this blight not occurred."
Those requests to remedy the consequences of 14 years of blight seem reasonable. It was logical for house owners to delay repairs or do the minimum. If there had been no blight, repairs would have been undertaken in the ordinary course of events. The Government created the blight and they should remove the poison that they have spread in areas such as Stockbridge. It is obvious that other areas will be affected and the Government should consider them.
The Government constantly express anxiety about owner-occupiers. They should prove that anxiety by giving concessions for repair grants for post-1919 houses where owner-occupiers have lived throughout the blight. Moreover, that would help by creating jobs, which must be a good thing when we face a dole queue of some 3 million people. In my constituency, the dole queues have increased from 4·5 per cent. to more than 14 per cent. and now 4,000 people chase about 80 vacancies each month. The case that I have made is reasonable and I hope that the Minister can answer it sympathetically.
2.48 pm
The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Cryer) for this opportunity to discuss once again the Aire valley trunk road. As he rightly acknowledged, many of his questions are for my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Construction, not me, but I shall do my best to answer them.
I confirm the Government's commitment to building the road. It is an important part of our road building programme in Yorkshire and Humberside. The only reason why I could not find time to meet the hon. Gentleman's constituents on the day that he mentioned was that I had a long meeting with the West Yorkshire metropolitan council and Bradford metropolitan district council about that route. Moreover, I had to be back in the House on 24 February. It was crucial to have that meeting about this section, which will be necessary to make the Aire valley trunk route work. The hon. Gentleman knows that. He also knows that I have offered to meet him and his constituents and am waiting for a date for such a meeting. There is, therefore, no lack of concern on my part for the hon. Gentleman's constituents in Stockbridge.
The Government regard the improvement of the local environment for those who live alongside the A650 and A629 trunk roads in the Aire valley as a major priority. We look to the new trunk road not only to provide relief for those who live there but to improve access to industry and communications between towns and villages that at present suffer from traffic congestion. We have long

607
recognised it as an area of great environmental sensitivity. The provision of the new road is an important factor that many industrialists take into account when considering relocation, so its completion has high priority.
We have made real progress towards the provision of a new route. The motorway proposal died a long time ago. It has taken some time to confirm the line for a substantial length of the road because of the necessary and important statutory procedures and the consultations that precede them. The 1975 public inquiry had to be abandoned following disruption but, since then, with modified highway procedures we have made good progress. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman was anxious that we should make good progress and that there were no problems of disruption at the 1980 public inquiry. It is crucial to ensure that everyone gets a fair hearing so that proper account is taken of all views before decisions are made. That means that opponents of schemes must listen to proponents of schemes and to those who put forward alternative proposals.
The decisions made following the inspector's report mean that a line order has been made from Kildwick to Keighley and from Keighley to Bingley. A small section of the existing road will be used to bridge the gap. I shall deal with those two sections, but not the third because I shall not have enough time. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Kildwick to Keighley section will be the first to be built. We recognise the need to remove through traffic from the communities of Utley, Steeton, and Eastburn. They lie alongside the existing trunk road and suffer from severe traffic congestion, with the unfortunate consequences of noise and pollution. The new road will contribute markedly to a reduction in accidents along the existing road and in the valley generally.
I hope that the side road orders for that section of the road will be published next month. They will show how we propose to deal with the highways and private accesses that cross the trunk road. At about the same time we shall hold local exhibitions at Steeton and Cross Hills, with staff from my regional office present to answer questions. The draft compulsory purchase order will be published in a few months. The hon. Gentleman knows that I cannot say now whether we shall need a public inquiry, but our present estimate is that work will begin in the spring of 1985. That seems a long way off, but if we do not have a public inquiry work may start sooner. However, the precise date depends upon the completion of statutory procedures. The construction period is estimated to be two years.
We shall carry out advance works on the Keighley to Crossflatts section. We hope to begin construction of the section in the summer of 1986, but before construction can begin to the east of Crossflatts we must carry out advance works at Bingley. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have already published draft proposals to enable us to divert the canal and to rebuild Park road bridge to ensure that construction traffic for the main contract will pass beneath it and be kept out of the town centre. If we can use the railway economically to transport materials for the building of the road, we shall do so. We always examine that possibility, but we must get on as quickly as possible. There was great interest in an exhibition at Bingley arts centre, where it seemed that the local people wish the road to be built. The draft compulsory purchase order for the advance works will be published next month. If a public inquiry is needed — I hope not — it can be arranged before the end of the year.
608
At present, we are aiming to begin the advance works before the end of 1984, but that date and the construction of the section to the east of Crossflatts depend upon a decision on the route to the east of Bingley, but we do not intend to terminate the route at a roundabout in the town centre.
The further section is the one on which we have come to no firm conclusions because the original proposals between Bingley and Baildon would have damaged the environment unacceptably. That was the inspector's view, and our decision recognised it. We have made a decision on the line order, but we are looking into proposals to take the new road to Cottingley Bar. However, there are many wider issues. That was the subject of my meeting on the day in which, regrettably, there were not enough hours so that I could go to Stockbridge as well.
Speaking of Stockbridge and the help that we have had from West Yorkshire county council and the Bradford metropolitan district, they are working hard with officials from my Department at the moment on the connection between the length of the Airedale route so far approved and the proposed Shipley eastern bypass. We have done much useful work. I am impressed by the considerable thought that the local people, both councillors and officials, have given to the problems and how we might resolve them.
It is clear that there will be no easy solutions. The problems are complex and there are many areas of environmental sensitivity. I am conscious of the need for a decision as quickly as possible, as the hon. Gentleman said. I hope to make a statement later this year at the conclusion of the discussions between the West Yorkshire county council, the Bradford metropolitan district council and my officials. The effect of the road around Keighley has concerned me ever since I came to the Department. There is no doubt that the hon. Gentleman has pursued, as have other colleagues in the House who have links with that part of the world, the interests of the people in the Aire valley route. We know that properties in the Stockbridge area of Keighley were acquired under the blight provisions. The owners of those houses asked the Department if it could purchase them. They were affected by the earlier proposals, but they will not now be affected by the orders for the Aire valley trunk road.
The hon. Gentleman concentrated not on those houses but on the ones that the Department was not asked to buy at the time. I understand that people who were thinking that their house was going to go thought that it was not worth doing very much. That is the onus of the hon. Gentleman's case. However, there is no doubt that if a building is not purchased under blight provisions by a Government Department, there has to be a modicum of general repair to it. I have no wish to be harsh. I shall look into the cases of all the people whom the hon. Gentleman mentioned, provided that he gives me their full addresses. Some of them may be in Aireworth rather than Stockbridge. According to where they are, I do not know whether it will be possible to help, but I shall look into the matter.
Once we have removed blight from an area — that was done when the motorway proposal was dropped—there is no basis for compensation. We dealt with the blight by buying houses that the owners requested us to buy. Some of the houses of which the hon. Gentleman

609
spoke may not be in the area from which the blight was lifted. I must have further details before I can help him, but I shall seek to help.
Mr. Cryer: I shall be happy to provide the addresses. All the houses are in the Stockbridge area and were affected by blight. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for considering the matter. Will she assure me that she will bring to the full attention of the Department of the Environment the question of repairs grants, because this is not compensation but simply an extension of existing eligibility?
Mrs. Chalker: I had better not stray on to territory that I do not know as well as I know transport territory. I know from my constituency experience that there is a problem with repairs grants for houses that were built after 1919. I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I do not know whether anything can be done. If those houses were in the Stockbridge area, once the decision to drop the motorway was taken in 1978, it was the responsibility of those people to keep them in good repair if they could. I realise that that may sound harsh. I do not intend it to sound like that. I intend to make the House well aware that there are individual responsibilities attached to owning houses, whatever one's age, and that the charge cannot always be put on the public purse.
As I have said, I shall consider whether there is anything that we can do. Now that we are going ahead with the Aire valley route, it is important that we resolve the outstanding difficulties.
610
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman welcomed the increase that has been made to the special payment for the cost of street works. We recently informed the West Yorkshire county council that the payment will be increased to £10,000. That sum will be in addition to any frontage payments that may be made in the area. I understand from the county council that it recently included these works in its capital programme for the current year, 1983–84. I am sure that many of the residents will be pleased when the works are carried out.
I am well aware of the need to get on with the job of building the road but I know that there are ancillary problems. Although not all the problems are for me, I shall seek to intercede to ascertain whether anything can be done. I hope that the further statutory procedures can go through quickly, but that obviously depends on whether we need public inquiries at all stages. Whatever happens, it is important that we get relief for those who live along the routes in question. There is a continuing need to produce an effective engineering solution, not for the short term but for the long term, which we must reconcile with the local environment, and I shall give all speed to doing that.
The Question having been proposed after half-past Two o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at one minute past Three o'clock.

EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Her Majesty's Inspectorate
  Her Majesty's Inspectorate
  Student Grants
  Student Grants
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Costs
  Costs
WALES
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Assisted Places Scheme
  Housing
  Housing
  Free School Meals
  Free School Meals
  Education
  Education
  Bursaries and Student Awards
  Bursaries and Student Awards
DEFENCE
  Monsignor Bruce Kent
  Monsignor Bruce Kent
  Jet Provosts (Replacement)
  Jet Provosts (Replacement)
  Drugs (Controls)
  Drugs (Controls)
  Ascension Island
  Ascension Island
  Grenada
  Grenada
  Helicopters (Elections)
  Helicopters (Elections)
  Missile Deployment
  Missile Deployment
  Nuclear Military Equipment
  Nuclear Military Equipment
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Gross Domestic Product
  Gross Domestic Product
  Revenue
  Revenue
  Nationalised Industries (Financing Limits)
  Nationalised Industries (Financing Limits)
  Take-home Pay
  Take-home Pay
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Seat Belts
  Seat Belts
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Bingo Clubs
  Bingo Clubs
  Deportation
  Deportation
  Boards of Visitors (Compensation)
  Boards of Visitors (Compensation)
  Citizenship (Language Requirement)
  Citizenship (Language Requirement)
  Elections (Staff Costs)
  Elections (Staff Costs)
SCOTLAND
  Housing (Expenditure)
  Housing (Expenditure)
  School Meals
  School Meals
  Student Awards
  Student Awards
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Local Authority Expenditure
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Black Report (Expenditure)
  Black Report (Expenditure)
  Hospitals (Rent)
  Hospitals (Rent)
  Dogs
  Dogs
  Census
  Census
ENVIRONMENT
  Community Television Transmitters
  Community Television Transmitters
  Housing Expenditure
  Housing Expenditure
  Houses of Parliament (Terrace)
  Houses of Parliament (Terrace)
  Ascension Island
  Ascension Island
  Bradford (Community Programme)
  Bradford (Community Programme)
TRANSPORT
  Kings Cross to Newcastle (Electrification)
  Kings Cross to Newcastle (Electrification)
  Motor Cycles (Daytime Running Lamps)
  Motor Cycles (Daytime Running Lamps)
PRIME MINISTER
  Civil Servants (Private Interests)
  Civil Servants (Private Interests)
TRADE
  Bulk Trades (Cargo Sharing)
  Bulk Trades (Cargo Sharing)
  Cars
  Cars
INDUSTRY
  Value Added
  Value Added
  European Coal and Steel Community
  European Coal and Steel Community
  Foreign Companies
  Foreign Companies
  Defence Contracts
  Defence Contracts
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  National Health Service Resources
  National Health Service Resources
  Doctors
  Doctors
  Pensions and Allowances
  Pensions and Allowances
  Social Security Programme
  Social Security Programme
  Retirement Age
  Retirement Age
  NHS Pensioners (Pay)
  NHS Pensioners (Pay)
  Children of God (Inquiry)
  Children of God (Inquiry)
  Rent Allowances
  Rent Allowances
EMPLOYMENT
  Race Relations and Sex Discrimination
  Race Relations and Sex Discrimination
  Unemployment Statistics (International Comparisons)
  Unemployment Statistics (International Comparisons)
  Asbestos
  Asbestos
  Health and Safety Executive
  Health and Safety Executive
  Pneumoconiosis
  Pneumoconiosis
  Job Losses
  Job Losses
  Maintenance Payments and Allowances
  Maintenance Payments and Allowances
  Youth Training (North-West)
  Youth Training (North-West)
  Wages Councils
  Wages Councils

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

Telecommunications: Privatisation
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Beswick, I should like to ask the Question standing in his name on the Order Paper. Unfortunately my noble friend is unwell today.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have received a copy of the case against privatisation from the Society of Telecom Executives, and what comments they have made in reply.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the Government received a copy of the Society of Telecom Executives' publication, The Case against Privatisation of British Telecom, on 26th April. A reply will be sent shortly.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, I wonder whether the Government have discussed the report with the members of the Society of Telecom Executives. The noble Lord will know that this is an authoritative report which soberly sets out the case against privatisation.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I have said, the document has only just been received, and it has not yet been possible for me to reach a considered conclusion on it.

Psychiatric Secure Units: Places
11.7 a.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many places are now available in permanent psychiatric secure units.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, one permanent regional secure unit, providing 30 beds, of which 20 are currently in use, opened in November 1980 at St. Luke's Hospital, Middlesbrough. In addition, facilities at the Towers Hospital, Leicester; Langdon Hospital, Devon; Rainhill Hospital, Mersey; and Prestwich Hospital, Manchester, offering among them 160 beds, should begin to admit patients shortly.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord the Minister for the information which I requested, disappointing though it is coming nine years after the Butler Committee submitted an urgent interim report recommending these units. I should also like to thank the noble Lord for the information he gave for which I had not asked, which looks distinctly more impressive. May I ask him two supplementary questions—and I know that he has been giving a great deal of thought to these matters. First, are the Government still committed to an overall programme of 1,000 places in the first instance; and, if so, when does he think the programme will be achieved? Secondly, do his plans envisage that when the units are available on a more substantial scale some worthwhile relief will be given to the special hospitals and to prisons?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's first supplementary question is: Yes, we are still committed in principle to achieving 1,000 places in regional secure units, and I hope that by the end of 1985 about 600 places will be available in such units. As the noble Lord is aware, these units are designed as a medium-secure facility between the special hospitals, on the one hand, and the psychiatric hospitals in the National Health Service, on the other. Certainly when they are fully in use they will provide some measure of relief to both.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether the reason why some beds at St. Luke's Hospital are not in use is because there is not an adequate number of trained staff? Before the other units open, will the Government train more staff for this specialty?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the noble Baroness is right when she says that the reason why some beds are not in use at St. Luke's is that there is not yet a sufficient number of staff available. This is a new venture within the National Health Service, and therefore it is not surprising that we have not yet been able to obtain all the staff which we want for the programme; but recruitment is proceeding, and so is some training.
Baroness Faithful: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister what has held up the opening of the regional secure unit in the Oxford region, since plans for it were being discussed nine years ago?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think that staffing problems were the principal difficulty with regard to the unit to which my noble friend refers. I have it in mind to visit that particular facility shortly to see the problems for myself.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that according to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and figures which were given just the other day, at the last count on 30th March the number of mentally disordered offenders in our prison system had increased for the first time since 1977, and that this is a matter for great dismay considering that the noble Lord took pride in appearing before the all-party Parliamentary Penal Affairs Committee last year and

273
stating that considerable reductions had been effected as a result of facilities being opened in the National Health Service? Has not the money which was earmarked for this purpose in the National Health Service been spent by regional health authorities for other purposes, and is that not one of the reasons why we are not making greater progress in reducing the numbers of mentally disordered prisoners?
Lord Trefgarne: No, My Lords, the noble Lord is not quite right in that. The money which was allocated to the National Health Service specifically for this purpose has, by and large, though not exclusively, been spent on interim secure units, rather than on the permament facilities which the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, was asking about. As for the position within prisons, a great many of the mentally disordered prisoners to whom the noble Lord refers are probably not sufficiently ill for detention under the Mental Health Acts to be justified, and therefore they have to be detained in prisons.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, if I may use the expression of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, may I ask how many mentally disordered persons there are now for whom, if other things were equal, permanent psychiatric secure units ought to be available?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not know the precise answer to that question because it would depend on which of the patients could be certified under the mental health legislation. Naturally, I do not have that figure in front of me, but I could try to find out and write to the noble and learned Lord.

Cruise Missiles: Arms Control Policy
11.13 a.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the deployment of the cruise missile would invalidate existing arms control agreements and render it difficult if not impossible to reach any future agreements with the Soviet Union.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, no. The deployment of cruise missiles in Western Europe would invalidate no existing arms control agreement. NATO proposals at the INF talks in Geneva have been for an agreement which would eliminate this class of missile altogether. But it is NATO's determination to deploy cruise missiles if necessary which has brought the Soviet Union to negotiate.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that while all this is going on, the risks of unintentional nuclear war, referred to in a United Nations report, are with us all the time? Is he aware that the deployment of cruise missiles at the end of this year would sharply increase the probability of nuclear
274
war in 1984? Finally, is he aware that, in these circumstances, the Prime Minister's dismissal of Mr. Andropov's latest proposal is suicidally irresponsible?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the fact of the matter is that we are in a situation now when it is up to the Russians. The allies have made clear all along that what we want to do is to remove these terrible weapons from the whole European theatre altogether. That is the zero option which remains our ultimate objective. Since then, the Americans have put forward an interim proposal to limit the number of warheads on these INF missiles. The Russians are therefore now being asked what level of these terrible weapons they would accept in Europe. We now await a reply from them.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, will the Minister look at cruise in relation to general defence policy? Did he see in the Church Times or maybe elsewhere, last week that a meeting of Church leaders from over 60 countries expressed serious views about nuclear policy, as did the clergy and the bishops of the United States? Will the noble Lord suggest to his right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence that he may be surrounded by "cannons" to the left of him, as he often suspects, and by "cannons" to the right of him, and that it is about time he reviewed his policies in the light of the views of the Church leaders? Will he also suggest to his right honourable friend that he should not do what he often does and discard almost anything that does not agree with his preconceived ideas?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord mentions the Church Times. The noble Lord knows better than I that the Synod voted for multilateral disarmament to try to reach security and peace for the future through that channel. That is the way. The Government are trying to secure it.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, will the Government insist on their view that British and French nuclear forces are not in practice intermediate weapons in exactly the same sense as the SS20s in Russia?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, if one tries to go down that track, there are two immediate difficulties. The first is that the talks between the Russians and the Americans in the INF negotiations in Geneva have always been accepted as bilateral negotiations. That was the wish of both sides. It would mean changing the rules in the middle of the negotiations to breach that. Secondly, if those independent deterrents were brought into the negotiations, the effect would be to grant the Soviet Union, one of the two negotiators, superiority over the United States. That is not a very good start to that particular démarche.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend say whether the CND—or the voice of CND in this House as represented by Lord Jenkins of Putney—has made any representations to the Soviet Union about the deployment of its 320 SS20s? Is there any evidence that the Russians have radically cut down their S4s and S5s in addition to the SS20s deployed over the last three years?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, that, if I may say so, is a good question. May I give a general answer? People often talk at the moment about a moratorium or a freeze. If that happened, we would be freezing the number of intermediate land-based nuclear missiles in Europe targeted upon each of our countries in the free world at about 4 to 1 in favour of the Soviet Union. In fact, so far as land-based missiles are concerned, none is held by the West at all. Meanwhile, as my noble friend's question brings out, the Russians have been continuing to deploy SS20s and are not applying any idea or a moratorium to the Asian regions of the USSR.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, may I ask the Minister why President Reagan and the Americans have not got the jitters, as we have, about the Russians having more missiles than we have? Is that really proven? I do not believe it.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Baroness's question brings us hack to the original Question. It is because the West is concerned about the enormous build-up both in intermediate range weapons in the East and also strategic weapons in the East that the allies have put forward proposals that there shall he no intermediate range weapons at all in Europe and that there shall be very deep cuts in the interballistic monsters that both sides hold. I repeat that it is now up to the Russians. We want to know if they will agree to no intermediate range nuclear missiles in Europe. If they will not agree to that, what number will they agree to?
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, unless we can trust them a bit, where are we going to get to? There is this constant mistrust with Russia. After all, there was a time when we were allies in the First World War. So it is a possibility. It must be.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the concern of the noble Baroness about mistrust is, of course, well placed. All that the allies can do is to negotiate in good faith while remaining strong and vigilant.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that each side believes itself to be outnumbered by the other and that each side is perfectly capable of putting up a good case, provided that it is sufficiently selective about the particular type of weapons which it is matching with those of the other side? But international comparison suggests that overall, taking into account all the weapons, there is a rough equality. As regards the question raised by the noble Lord, the Minister might well have replied that he was not in a position to answer for the CND. But the answer to the question is that I—
Several noble Lords: Question!
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the answer to the question is that I myself have raised the question of the SS20 in the Kremlin with Mr. Yuri Zhukov and I received a very courteous and lengthy reply from Mr. Zhukov to the effect that as far as the Soviet Union is concerned—
Several noble Lords: Order!
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does not the noble Lord want the answer to the question? Perhaps I can put it in an interrogative form. I am bringing my sentence to a close. Is the Minister aware, therefore, that in these circumstances, since the answer of the Soviet Union to this question is that all weapons should be counted, the Government must take into consideration all the weapons which are likely to fall on Soviet soil?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the answer to all that the noble Lord has just been saying is very simple indeed. Let both sides agree that there shall be no intermediate range missiles, land-based, targeted on any of the countries in Europe—namely, the zero option—and then the people of both Western Europe and the East can live in peace.

Greenham Common: Blacklisting of Contractors
11.22 a.m.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the decision by the Council of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament to intensify the campaign against Tarmac Ltd., and other Government contractors at Greenham Common, they will indicate what legal and other measures they propose to take to prevent local authorities from following the example of the London borough of Southwark, in blacklisting the contractors concerned.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, local authorities should be very careful as to their attitude to this campaign. It is quite wrong that political considerations of this kind should affect decisions on contracts. Authorities taking such a course would lay themselves open to action in the courts for acting unreasonably by taking into account irrelevant or improper considerations. The Government will keep in view the question whether the remedies available to firms that are discriminated against are adequate.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Would he not agree that what is represented in the action of Southwark and other local authorities, is an abuse of power on a truly deplorable level? First, in the debate that we had on this matter in January, the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, indicated that there was going to be a reference to the Office of Fair Trading. Has that taken place and, if so, with what result? Secondly, would the noble Lord not agree that the Government have a duty to protect their own contractors and, what is even more important, the employees of those contractors, from arbitrary action by local authorities on the lines advocated now by the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament? Finally, does he not agree that there is a need to protect the

277
interests of the ratepayers in local authority areas where local councils behave in this intolerable fashion? Is it not wholly wrong that, even if a tender is the lowest, it should be rejected by a local authority simply on the ground that the councillors who form the majority party in that local authority dislike the fact that the company concerned has won a contract at Greenham Common?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, that was rather a mouthful of supplementary questions. Perhaps I can best answer three of them by saying that in my view it is clearly wrong that local authorities should spend money on propaganda exercises which have nothing to do with the proper functions of local government. Local councillors should remember that they are elected to serve all the residents and ratepayers in their area, and they have a responsibility to them for the proper stewardship of ratepayers' money.
As regards the reference to the Director General of Fair Trading, I understand that the Director General does not propose to make the Southwark resolution the subject of formal investigation. My own feeling is that action by the Monopolies and Mergers Corn mission does not seem entirely appropriate to deal with the manipulation of selective tendering arrangements by local authorities to support political attitudes.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, would my noble friend the Minister not agree that the existing common law if invoked would be adequate to deal with this situation? Would he not agree that it is open to a blacklisted contractor to apply to the High Court for a declaration that that resolution is invalid, is an unreasonable restraint of trade and is contrary to public policy? Would he also not agree that that contractor could also claim damages against the council and its members in conspiracy to injure him in his way of business without lawful justification or excuse or even perhaps—
Noble Lords: Order! Reading!
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, with the greatest respect to my noble friend, I am not myself a court of law. However, I can confirm that court action could be taken by a firm affected by the decision or by a ratepayer or a councillor for the area, if that were deemed to be appropriate.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, could not the contractor, if he submitted the lowest tender and it was rejected for whatever reason, be it political or otherwise, complain to the district auditor and could not then the councillors who rejected that lowest tender and preferred the higher one, be surcharged with the difference?
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, but that goes very much wider than the general terms of the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, the noble Lord has indicated this morning the anxieties of the Government as regards this matter. First, is he going to
278
draw the attention of the local authority associations to the answers that have been given today? Secondly, do the Government not recognise that they have a direct responsibility to their own contractors and those who work for them? Is it not necessary for the Government to demonstrate that they are going to protect the interests of employees of companies of this kind who are going to be treated in this wholly unreasonable fashion by local authorities as a result of pressure from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I most readily undertake to inform the associations of local authorities as to the exchanges in your Lordships' House this morning, but I must make the point that it would be quite inappropriate for the Government to legislate because of a particular case. It would be wrong also to rush into new legislation without evidence that the existing remedies failed to work.

Licensing (Occasional Permissions) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Parochial Charities (Neighbourhood Trusts) Bill [H.L.]
11.28 a.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In moving the Second Reading of this Bill, I am aware that in its present form, or perhaps in any form, it is not acceptable to Her Majesty's Government which, in effect, means the Charity Commission, whose advice the Government take. Nevertheless, I dare to think that the present unsatisfactory position in England and Wales of parochial charities for the poor should be brought to the notice of your Lordships' House. I am heartened that my noble friend the Minister may, if your Lordships agree that this Bill be read a second time, accept the recommendation that a Select Committee of the House of Lords should be set up to look into parochial charities in this country.
This is a complicated legal and social problem and I am grateful for the help that I have received from the Oxfordshire Rural Community Council and in particular Sir Charles Kimber; from the Humberside County Council through the good offices of Mr. Frank Courtney; and from those interested in parochial charities in Wales. Indeed, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, will speak on the Welsh parochial charities. I am grateful to the West Yorkshire Charities Information Bureau, the Community Council of Humberside, and the South Yorkshire Information Service, the many individuals up and down the country who have written to me, from Cornwall to Cambridge. There are in this country 140,000 registered charities. Of course, parish charities for the poor comprise approximately between a quarter and a third. Their endowments bring in millions, yet at present with a few notable exceptions they are largely a wasted asset.
This Bill recommends the formation of neighbourhood trusts whereby a number of trusts in a specific area, grouped together, use their joint

279
resources to be allocated according to the wishes of the original donor. It is strange that this was first recommended in the Nathan Report of 1952 and agreed by the Charity Commission. Then again the same recommendation was made in a Select Committee Report into the accountability of the Charity Commission in 1975, and yet again in the Goodman Report of 1976. Yet still no effective action has been taken to deal with the chaotic position with regard to parochial charities in England and Wales.
Far be it from me to outline a social history of this country, but account must be taken of certain events long ago. After Henry VIII dissolved the monasteries where, in the main, the poor were assisted, the first Queen Elizabeth instigated the Poor Law Act 1601 whereby parishes were made responsible, through overseers, to assist the poor. Alongside this civil administration the religious and humane practice grew up for donors wanting to leave money to the poor to do so using parish personnel as trustees. In those far-off days the vicar and the lord of the manor were likely to be the only ones who could write. Historically I contend that the donors left money to the poor using the parish for purposes of administration as was the practice in those days. Except in a few instances the money was not left to the parish.
With the passing of the centuries came the development of the poor law Acts, social security Acts, national insurance and pension Acts, national health and education Acts, so that in this present age the relief of the poor falls mainly to central and local government. At the same time gradually donors tended to leave money for the poor to national and international organisations. Only a few continue to use the parish to administer their bequests.
The Charities Act 1960, based on the recommendations of the Nathan Report, was intended to render outdated charities effective in the new situation created by welfare provisions of the modern state, while ensuring that the money continued to go to the same general purpose which the donor intended? To this end the Charities Act 1960 provided for reviews of parochial charities to be carried out in every county and for review organisers, where possible, to persuade trustees to amalgamate their charities on a voluntary basis, thus rendering them more effective.
In May 1982, in answer to a Written Question, it was stated in Hansard that reviews of parochial charities had been carried out in part, or the whole, of every county in England and Wales. These reviews were usually carried out by rural community councils, charity information bureaux, and a few local authorities. Research has been carried out on eight of these reviews. Now what did this research reveal? The research revealed a generally chaotic position. First, the demographic changes in parishes. In the last two centuries there have been great shills of population. There is, for instance, a new estate with a population of 13,000 which was built only since the last war, served by four parochial charities which together bring in £8 a year. In the adjoining parish there are 800 people only, few of whom are in need, with an income from parochial charities of £3,000 or £4,000 a year, unable to spend it in accordance the donors' wishes. Then in Dunwich in Suffolk, once a borough with a
280
charter and now with a population of 155 and an income from a parochial charity of £1,600 a year, there is a balance sitting in the bank of £11,000.
Then the research pointed out the number of outdated purposes. There is, for instance, one charity where a man centuries ago suffered grievously from a wart on his nose. He left money to anyone suffering from a similar disfigurement. This money has rarely been spent. In these days the National Health Service would take care of such a case. This money could profitably be used for allied medical problems. In the North there is a parish where bread was left to the poor. The vicar distributes to his parishioners a loaf of bread once a month, be they poor or not. I ask, is this what the donor wanted? Some trustees use money to give small Christmas presents, which does not meet the needs of those suffering real hardship. Then in another parish the vicar can claim £2 for preaching a sermon, and the churchwarden 50 pence for listening to it.
The reviews also showed a lamentable neglect of accounts. Of the eight reviews in which research was done, one-third of the parochial charities had no accounts, and another quarter had kept no accounts for 10 years. The money of a proportion of the parochial charities had not been properly husbanded. Money had not been properly invested. Also some trustees of land owning charities had not revised the rents in accordance with modern standards. In some charities only £12 per week rent was being obtained when the average rent per week should have been £30. Thus, in some instances farmers who rent charity land are the largest beneficiaries of parish charities for the poor. Again, surely not in accordance with the donors' wishes.
Then there are large unused balances. Total balances shown amount to over 18 months' income. Thus, roughly, if £20 million is the income of all charities in the country, it suggests that possibly there may be £35 million lying unused in banks. Again we come to inflation. Money left in past centuries was substantial but now the income, due to inflation, is so small as to be useless. Approximately as many as 20,000 charities may have an income of less than £10 per annum.
As this stage I cannot forbear to mention a Private Member's Bill on charities now before another place. I cannot agree with the Bill, which destroys trusts which individually may have become too small to be useful. I respectfully suggest that it offends the known principle of charity law on which donors have relied—namely, that a charity trust cannot be allowed to fail. I believe that these many small charities should be incorporated into neighbourhood trusts, as recommended in the Bill before your Lordships' House today, and not be dispersed as recommended in the Charities Bill.
I have taken long to set the scene. To meet the welfare conditions of our modern state, to concur with the wishes of the donors who left the money for the poor, this Bill recommends that the Charity Commissioners should study the reviews of parochial charities, should ask local authorities who in turn may, as they have done in the past, allocate to voluntary organisations such as community councils the task of grouping parochial charities into neighbourhood trusts

281
with trustees some of whom will be from the original trusts. The neighbourhood trusts will still be administered by voluntary trustees and will continue to give and be a voluntary service as hitherto. This will be of inestimable value to those needing to apply. The task of offering advice, help and supervision to the neighbourhood trusts by the Charities Commission will then be a practical proposition.
I am fully aware that there are parishes which resent having to share their parochial charity resources with others, even if they cannot use them in accordance with the donor's wishes. The right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of London, may have something to say on this. When it was necessary because of changing social conditions for the Church to unite three or four parishes under one vicar, the position was accepted. Why, I wonder, do trustees feel unable to amalgamate into neighbourhood trusts?
Another contention is that the county councils will need extra money to spend to allocate to voluntary organisations or, indeed, to carry out themselves this small piece of reorganisation. The cost will be infinitesimal compared with the return. It has been costed at £2,000 a year for two years per local authority.
I am grateful to the Home Office for writing to me to let me know its objections to the Bill. I understand that the objections are:
"The reluctance of Trustees to co-operate with local reviews in modernising their Trusts; that Trustees should retain the right to decide what happens to the Trusts they administer and that such Trusts should be allowed to retain their identities".
I do not accept that argument when it means that the money left by donors is not being used as was intended, has been badly husbanded or is not being used at all.
I hope that I have shown how unsatisfactory is the overall position in England and Wales. I am bound to ask: for whom are the trusts run? If they are run for the poor, which was the intention of the donors, why cannot this be made possible? I am the first to admit that there are sound, well-administered parochial charities, but they are in the minority. Thus, the Bill makes the reorganisation in neighbourhood trusts mandatory simply because there has been and is under the Charity Act 1960 the possibility of trustees voluntarily organising into neighbourhood trusts. But I must point out that, except in a few instances (and those not very satisfactory) this has not been done.
I must say a word about the Charity Commission. In 1960, the then commission agreed with the concept of neighbourhood trusts. Since then, not only has the commission failed to deal with the many trusts which are failing both the original donors and those who should benefit, but now in 1982 the commission has changed its view on neighbourhood trusts. I am grateful to the new Charity Commissioner, Mr. Peach, and his staff for discussing the Bill with me. However, despite our good relations, I am still of the opinion that this quasi- independent judicial body, which is answerable to no one, should be reorganised as recommended in the Nathan Report.
In conclusion, the central argument is that money left by donors for a specific use should be used for that use; that is the relief of poverty. If it is not possible
282
because of the circumstances of the bequest then the money should be used as nearly as possible in the spirit of the bequest.
Lord Renton: The cy-près principle, my Lords.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, as my noble friend says, the cy-près principle. I do not believe that originally the money was left to the parishes, but I believe it was left to the poor to be administered by the parishes. Should the Bill be accepted by your Lordships' House, many in need would be helped and assisted in a way that they cannot be at the present time. I beg to move.
Moved, that the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Faithfull.)
11.47 a.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, not for the first time will your Lordships be grateful, from whatever portion of the House the tribute comes, to the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, for raising a matter of which she has such great knowledge in the fields of welfare and the relief of distress. On a Friday morning on which the sun seems to percolate somewhat feebly, nevertheless apparently, through your Lordships' House, it is perhaps not an original remark to make that the noble Baroness is possibly the most aptly named in your Lordships' House because she has indeed been so loyal and faithful to the causes to which she has devoted so much of her life.
I hope that that introduction will enable the noble Baroness to realise that from these Benches, on behalf of my noble friends, we do not wish to be unhelpful to any approach to this difficult subject. It is a difficult subject and unfortunately one cannot leave it purely and simply on the basis that there is a problem to be solved in relation to the great waste that exists in parochial trusts; the relief of poverty; the many cases in which some of these trusts have become so small that they are almost useless; to the lack of administration by trustees, and many other cases of inefficient administration. All these are problems.
I was glad that the noble Baroness mentioned the helpful possibility of a Select Committee of your Lordships' House. One wonders whether a Bill of this nature should not have further investigation, data and thought of that type about the interference with trusts which have been set up by people who have donated their own money for certain purposes.
I wish I could say that the law on charity in this land is clear. It has a hoary antiquity which gives it grounds for our reverence; but it also lacks certainty at times, which makes all of us who are concerned with this matter a little unhappy.
Your Lordships will know, I am sure, that we still rely for our interpretation of the law of charity upon an edict of the first Queen Elizabeth and that the rules that are quoted in regard to those charities go back to the last century when a very great lawyer, Lord Macnaghten, laid down four heads of charity: the relief of poverty; the advance of education, the advance of religion and the general good of the community.

283
Much case law has been built up and, within the case law that we have, and the rules of Macnaghten and the statute of Queen Elizabeth, many conundrums still beset the lawyer who tries to administer the law of charity. I believe that I am right in saying that the right honourable and learned gentleman the Attorney-General has had a little difficulty when trying to present common sense, as many of us see it, to the interpretation of what is charity when looking at organisations like the Moonies, and finds himself as a lawyer up against some rigidity of the law when he receives a reply from the Charity Commissioners to certain questions that he poses to them.
It is a fact that this law is in a state of some uncertainty, but when one comes to look, as the noble Baroness asks us to look, at parochial charities, one finds that there are intense loyalties still within the parishes. If I may put it in one short sentence, the parish pump has not yet dried up in our tradition.
I noticed, as your Lordships will have noticed, that the Bill deals not just with charities that are limited to the relief of poverty; the Bill deals with those which have as their primary object ( as well as those which have it as their sole object) the relief of poverty. There are many parochial charities where local loyalties, local loves, local devotion, have meant that there are subsidiary objects which have very definite relationships with the parish concerned.
As the noble Baroness was fair enough and reasonable enough to admit, there are many parochial charities solely for the purpose of relief of poverty which are being very well administered. They may be small. The trustees are devoted people. Suddenly to confront them with a mandatory set of provisions, which means that very likely they are to be relieved of their trusteeship, in spite of the fact that they have been duly appointed in accordance with the wishes of the original set law, and that they are to be merged into neighbourhood trusts going beyond even the bounds of the parish, makes one think a little before saying that mandatory provisions should apply so that they are merged in neighbourhood trusts.
My Lords, it is a Friday morning and one must not be too long in addressing your Lordships otherwise one loses one's popularity, if it exists at all, very quickly. The noble Baroness mentioned the Nathan Committee and that was a very important committee. Indeed, out of its recommendations came the 1960 Charities Act. After dealing briefly, as I have tried to do, with some of the principles behind this Bill and a question mark—and I say merely "a question mark"—which hangs over them, there is no doubt that something has to be done about the waste that does exist. I have no doubt about that; I am sure your Lordships have no doubt; it is just a question of the way to do it. From the point of view of practicalities, away from the principles, the first thing that one has to say—and again the noble Baroness has said it in so many words; and I do not know whether she said it quite deliberately—is that there are not the data procured by the Charity Commissioners which many of us would want to see before even one could say very definitely that the instruction be given to the local authorities: "Please get on with a consideration of the parochial charities within your area! Here is a full list
284
of them, here are all the trustees and here are all the details".
I believe that to impose a duty upon local authorities at this time of all times takes me back to a couple of sentences that I read at page 146 of the Nathan Report where the Committee said:
"We have considered whether it would be practicable to place an obligation on county and county borough councils to review the parochial charities in their areas and to submit proposals to the Commissioners who would then, if they thought proper, make schemes".
If I may pause for a moment, that is exactly what this Bill tries to carry out.
The Nathan Committee was in doubt, and goes on to give the reason:
"The formidable number of these charities makes us hesitate to suggest this. It is, we think, too difficult at the present moment to estimate what would be the extent of the task, what other and perhaps more urgent tasks may be imposed on local authorities or whether it would be found practicable to give the Commissioners the staff necessary to deal with the work at the centre."
The Nathan Committee was saying something prior to 1960 which your Lordships might think, unfortunately, is very true of 1983. I say that to impose this burden on the local authorities and upon the Charity Commissioners at this moment may be very difficult. On a matter of this kind one hesitates to introduce even a hint of politics; but one has to observe that the right honourable lady the Prime Minister said with some pride at a public meeting only within the past 48 hours that the Civil Service staff was now at its lowest in numbers for the past 17 years and that in one year's time it would be the lowest since the war. As fellow practitioners with me will know, the Charity Commissioners take a very considerable time to deal with urgent correspondence on the formation of charities and on queries arising even now. The reason given for this is shortage of staff.
The fact of the matter also is that local authorities, too, have had to cut down their staff. If the noble Lord the Minister will forgive my saying so, there are those of us who suffer now, even with his own department, when questions arise about immigration matters and naturalisation matters—and I know that it is a different department from the one which we are now discussing. The noble Lord the Minister will know with pain and anxiety of the terrible delays that exist in dealing with correspondence. This is sometimes urgent correspondence of immigrants who do not know where they stand and of people who are applying for naturalisation, and so on, who want to try to get some security in their life. The reason given, if one asks anybody at the Home Office Immigration Department, is this. As a rule it is a very courteous reply which says: "We are trying to get on with things but we have got so many applications that we are afraid that we cannot promise to give you an answer within weeks or months".
It is very easy to pass Bills of this type which throw upon the Charity Commissioners and local authorities very considerable burdens; but at the same time one has to look at the practicalities. You cannot take a pride in the economy in respect of numbers and at the same time take a pride in passing legislation, however good, which is going to be administered only with difficulty. By this Bill a duty is cast upon the Charity Commissioners—a very proper duty—to do something within 12 months, and the local authorities will

285
have to produce schemes all over their area within five years.
The intention of this Bill to deal with a very real problem is very good and for that the noble Baroness deserves all our thanks. There is no reason why this Bill should not be given a Second Reading. The noble Baroness said—she will correct me if I am wrong—that a Second Reading should be given to the Bill because of her proposal, which she understands to be acceptable, for a Select Committee of your Lordships to be set up in order to consider this whole problem, to find out the facts and to make practical recommendations. At that stage I hope I am right in believing that the noble Baroness would say: "We have given the Bill a Second Reading; there have been consultations, and we have these recommendations. No doubt my Bill will have to be amended, but let us get on with it." I see that the noble Baroness is nodding her charming head, so I know I am right.
I feel that the House should give the Bill a Second Reading on this understanding. There are problems, and they ought to be solved. There is a waste. Let us see what the Select Committee of your Lordships' House has to say, and then, by all means, let us have a proper measure which is administratively possible so that it can be carried into legislation.
12.3 p.m.
Lord Foot: My Lords, a few days ago, when I was out of London, I was asked whether I would say a few words from these Benches about this Bill today. I was then in some doubt as to whether I could undertake the task, and at that stage I had not seen the Bill. But I was greatly reassured when I learned that the Bill was being promoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull. We have all learned over the years that if some case is being advocated, promoted or defended by the noble Baroness, it is almost certain to be all right. The only thing that causes me some surprise from time to time is that the noble Baroness apparently finds herself at ease on those reactionary Benches in spite of the wisdom of her speeches in this House and her devotion to all good causes.
Having now read some literature on the matter, and having had the advantage of hearing the noble Baroness, I would have thought that some of the basic propositions on which this Bill is based would be a matter for almost general agreement. In this, I depart a little from what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, was saying just now; but I will come back to that in a moment. I should have thought there was general agreement on the proposition of the noble Baroness that the present state of these charities, with their multiplicity of sizes, and so on, is wholly unsatisfactory. Something ought to be done about it in any event.
I should have thought, secondly, that there was a general consensus that this problem has extended back over something like 30 years, and nothing has been achieved during those years by way of resolving it. The third matter on which I should have thought there was general agreement is that the 1960 Act was intended by its authors to provide a machinery which might cure this situation on a voluntary basis, but that in the event all those expectations and hopes were not
286
realised. The fourth proposition which I suggest will be generally agreed is that if a solution is to be found it is to be found in the general concept of the neighbourhood trust, as this Bill provides.
If it be right that there would be fairly general agreement upon all those four propositions, it is on the question of whether the Bill should be mandatory that disagreement is likely to arise. I listened with care to what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said about that, and particularly about the staffing burdens that would be imposed upon the Charity Commissioners and local authorities. I appreciate the difficulty, but I suggest it is not one which ought to kill this Bill, because one finds that the duty of the Charity Commissioners to furnish the local authorities with a list of charities in their areas is one for which they are given a period of 12 months. After that, the process of consultation by the councils with the trustees of the charities concerned may be spread over a period of five years.
Whichever side of the House one sits on, I do not think anybody will say that our economic situation will be as serious as it is now over the whole of those five years, because if the Labour Party get back they have already promised that they will expand bureaucracy at a great rate and no doubt will give the Charity Commissioners all the assistance they require. If, on the other hand, Mrs. Thatcher is successful after the election, whenever it may occur, surely we are being led to believe by the Members opposite that within those five years she will have accomplished her economic revolution and all will be well. So whichever party wins—and I do not, of course, discount the possibility of the Alliance winning—it seems to me that is not a serious objection.
But is this not the serious point?—and, it is, I suggest, the point which might very well be examined by the Select Committee, as the noble Baroness proposes. If there is a general consensus about those propositions to which I have referred, is it not really rather deplorable that we cannot devise voluntary machinery which will accomplish the purposes of this Bill? If one looks at the record over the last 25 years, as the noble Baroness pointed out, and if one looks at the lack of progress that has been made in spite of the general wish that there should be progress, is there any reason whatever to suppose that 25 years hence we shall not be in the same position as we are now?
In human affairs a time comes when you have to make decisions. I realise that one does not want to impose further obligations upon, for example, the local authorities. But if one is to take this matter seriously and is to have a radical reorganisation of the present unsatisfactory situation, I have come to the conclusion that it is necessary that there should be these mandatory instructions; and I hope that that is a matter which the Select Committee, in their time, will be able to resolve. Therefore, on that account, at this stage, I am strongly in favour of the noble Baroness's Bill, and I wish it every fair wind.
12.11 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lords, before I express my support for this Bill, I must ask for the forbearance of your Lordships, if it proves necessary for me to leave before the end of the debate. I have a pastoral engagement which I have delayed but which

287
I cannot properly cancel nor delegate, and which I must go to fulfil if need be.
I wish to echo what has already been said in your Lordships' House about the qualities possessed by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, and to express our gratitude to her for introducing this Bill. She has made very clear the reasons which make some reform of local charities urgently necessary—necessary, not merely as a matter of administrative tidiness, or for a better use of available resources, but as a matter of justice to the poor and the needy to whom belong the charities which are dealt with by this Bill. It is often forgotten, as the noble Baroness has pointed out, that they belong not to the parishes but to the poor and needy, and, in my judgment, the Bill enables their assets to be used for the benefit of those to whom they were given.
I believe that the Bill has the general support of those who sit on these Benches. I might add that the representatives of the main denominations who sit on the Churches Main Committee, of which I am chairman, have considered the Bill and expressed support in principle for the general objective. They would, I am sure, as I would myself, welcome the setting up of a Select Committee of your Lordships' House which could consider the best methods of achieving it and to which they might be allowed to give evidence.
There are, I believe, many excellent reasons for supporting this Bill, but I shall confine myself to mentioning two of them. The first is that it is based on the fine English tradition of adaptation to meet new circumstances. I must confess that I was a little surprised to hear the conservative advocacy of the status quo by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I look more to that flexibility which has given strength to our nation, and which has enabled progress to be made by evolution rather than by revolution or destruction.
The Bill which is being considered in another place, and to which the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, has referred, does not follow this tradition. It is based on a policy not of adaptation, but of destruction—and of destruction not merely of parochial charities which, as it were, are allowed to wither away, but also of the voluntary element which has played such an important part in meeting social needs in this country. I believe that a policy which is based on co-operation between voluntary effort and state provision is sound and is the best for our nation. It is this policy, I believe, upon which the Bill is based.
The present situation in regard to parochial charities does not encourage voluntary care at the local level and it is not surprising that people are now more disposed to contribute to national appeals and so on. But I believe that parochial concern should be encouraged. In that respect, I echo much of what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said about the importance of the parish pump, and I believe that by the formation of neighbourhood trusts much could be done to encourage local support.
My second point is that the Bill is based on partnership and sharing, which is something I wish to encourage. We who sit on these Benches are sometimes accused of preaching what we do not practise. There are, no doubt, occasions when this
288
charge is fully justified. We are as Christians aware that, for us, these Benches are penitent Benches, but in this matter I believe that our penitence can rightly be muted, for the Church of England, through the Church Commissioners—as the noble Baroness has already briefly indicated—has, with the full approval of Parliament, sought to pursue a policy by which parochial endowments have been shared in such a way that all parishes benefit to the greatest possible extent.
There is an interesting parallel between the Charity Commissioners and the Church Commissioners, which have been operating for very much the same length of time. The basis is not very dissimilar, but the difference in the method of operation is remarkable. The Charity Commissioners have tended to look at each trust in isolation and primarily, as regards their legal commitments, have treated trusts as if they existed for the parish and not for the poor, which has led in large measure to our situation today. The Church Commissioners, on the other hand—formerly, before 1948, the Ecclesiastical Commissioners—have, with the approval of Parliament, consistently sought to see how the parochial endowments could be so used as to enable the purpose for which they were given to be fulfilled in the best way.
So it was that in 1975, when presenting the Endowment and Glebe Measure to the General Synod for final approval, the then First Estates Church Commissioner, Sir Ronald Harris, could say that any suggestion that by passing this Measure the Synod would somehow be doing something novel and out of keeping with the history and ethos of our Church would be to ignore history. He went on to say that for some 150 years action has been in train under the authority of Parliament to redistribute endowments. Of the establishment of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners in 1836, it has been said that it represented the establishment, or rather the re-establishment, by Parliament of a principle; namely, that the benefits of a trust should be applied to those who needed them and were not to be attached to a place or a person irrespective of need.
I make this comparison between the working of the two bodies—the Charity Commissioners and the Church Commissioners—because I have heard it argued that it would be something quite new for us to agree to the trusts of one parish being shared with those of another. I cannot see that there is any justification for saying that a new principle would be established, because of the principle which has operated throughout with the Ecclesiastical Commissioners and now with the Church Commissioners. I cannot see, when Parliament initiated and has continued to approve a policy of sharing parochial trusts by the Church Commissioners, there is any reason why the similar principle should not be applied to parochial trusts for the poor.
I am, of course, well aware that the amalgamation of parishes and of endowments has not taken, and does not take, place without sadness and regret, and perhaps at times even pain. But it cannot be denied that, without such amalgamation and sharing, the present pastoral provision for the parishes of this country which is now made would have been impossible.

289
But I would make two points. First, provision has been made in the legislation under which the Church and the Church Commissioners operate for the views of interested parties to be made known and taken into account, with the right of appeal. I find it difficult to see why some similar provisions could not be made available for those who would be affected by this Bill. In view of what has been said about the administrative arrangements, particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, I would say that what has been achieved by the Church Commissioners in a relatively short time, and with great administrative despatch, is very remarkable. That is a tribute to the way in which the matter has been handled and organised. I do not believe that it is so difficult as is sometimes made out. I would also point out that the actual number of appeals in cases which come to the Church Commissioners is relatively small. I do not think that the number would be significantly greater in the case of proposals for the sharing of parochial trusts.
The second point I want to make is that, much as we may regret, in some ways, the need to share and amalgamate parishes, and so on, the fact is that we are now spared the unedifying and scandalous spectacle of underemployed clergymen in tiny villages enjoying large incomes while their brother priests work their hearts out on a pittance in neighbouring large, industrial parishes. It was scandals and injustices of this kind which led Parliament to establish the Ecclesiastical Commission.
In the sphere of parochial charities for the poor, scandals and injustice exist today. Your Lordships may feel that those words are too strong. I do not believe that they are. I do not believe that it does the concept of a charity or trust any good to allow the present situation to continue as it is. We have the scandal of the situation in which trustees have more money at their disposal than they can possibly spend on the benefits of the trust as it stands. We have the scandal of resources remaining unused because the purpose of the trust cannot be fulfilled. I know from personal experience as a parish priest that we have the injustice of those who cannot receive the help which they sorely need because they live on the wrong side of the street which forms the parish boundary.
The Charities Act 1960 defined the functions of the Charity Commissioners as being to promote the effective use of charitable resources. I do not believe, with all the charity I can muster, that they can be said to have fulfilled this function. I believe that a Bill of this kind is necessary if the Charity Commissioners are to do so and if action is to be stimulated. As has already been pointed out in your Lordships' House, nothing has happened since that Act was passed and some action is needed to stimulate reform. I believe, particularly after hearing what the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, said about the prospects of a Select Committee being set up, that the Bill will give stimulus for this matter to be dealt with. It is, I believe, a matter of injustice, of wrong use of resources, to allow the assets of our charities to remain as they are. It is a Christian duty to use resources in the best way for the relief of those in need and to encourage care for one another's needs by sharing one's goods. It is because I seek to respond to that duty that I urge your Lordships to vote today for the Bill.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I wonder whether the right reverend Prelate will allow me to correct a misunderstanding he is apparently under about one part of my speech. I tried to make it perfectly clear that I thought the status quo should not continue, that there must be reform, that I welcomed the idea of a Select Committee in order that the House may be guided as to the way in which reform should be carried out.
The Lord Bishop of London: My Lord, I thank the noble Lord for what he has said. If I referred incorrectly to what he said, I apologise and withdraw. However, the noble Lord laid great stress on the importance of the parish and on the dangers of trying to extend benefits from one parish into neighbouring parishes. It was that point about the status quo which I had in mind.
12.25 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, in rising to support the Bill and in particular to express deep regret at the Government's unwillingness to sponsor it themselves, I do so not merely out of a sense of physical loyalty to the only other Peer who derives her territorial title from the same parish as I do nor, indeed, because of a sudden upwelling of charitable impulse, but for a specific reason: that the inquiries which preceded the Bill and the researches of Sir Charles Kimber and others to which the noble Baroness referred appear to me to reveal a quite surprising weakness in one of the organs of central Government; namely, the Charity Commission. This seems to me to be a matter of some concern to your Lordships' House and of general concern to those who feel not only that policy must be right but that we need to have the machinery by which policy can be made effective.
If we were to begin by creating a body to supervise charitable endowments in this country, I believe we should expect it to perform four functions. We should expect it to perform the function of registration, which means seeing that charities conform to the law and are properly, therefore, to be treated as charities by taxing and other authorities. That, no doubt, the present Charity Commission has, with some bizarre exceptions, fulfilled to the best of its ability, and on that score there is little at which to cavil.
Secondly, we should expect that body to supervise the activities of trustees in order to make sure that they keep their accounts in a proper fashion and that they treat their endowments so as to produce the maximum benefit for those for whom those endowments were intended. The researches to which I have referred seem to reveal grave lacunae: trustees who hardly ever present proper accounts and trustees who, as the noble Baroness has pointed out, let the land which is the basis of the endowment for much less rent than could reasonably be obtained for the benefit of the poor to whom the money should go.
Thirdly, we should expect such a body to have complete knowledge, complete statistics, of charities all over the country. They should know where they exist and what are their resources and purposes. I do not disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who said that we need to give this matter a great deal more

291
thought and that we also need better statistics, more data, more information. But, after the 30 years which have elapsed since this matter was first considered and the period of over 20 years since the Act which we are talking about was passed, one would have thought that the Charity Commission would have at its fingertips the knowledge which local authorities require and that it should be a matter of telephoning and sending down a Xerox copy of an existing set of documents. If the Charity Commission have not done this, surely they have behaved in a way which would not be expected of the Church Commissioners in relation to their own endowments—nor, indeed, of other bodies which supervise the expenditure of money.
The fourth point—perhaps the most important point of all which relates most closely to the object of the Bill—is that the commission should have some degree of initiative. Just as, as the right reverend Prelate has told us, the Church has looked closely at the way in which its resources can best be spent for the purposes for which they were originally given, so one would expect the Charity Commission to realise that, even if the law dates from the first Elizabeth, we live in the reign of the second, that the basic function of private charity now must be to supplement the work of the welfare state, and that this clearly means looking at whether this is a genuine supplement or whether, as in the case of the vicar distributing loaves of bread, it would appear to be superflous. This initiative appears to be wholly lacking, otherwise the voluntary principle which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, pins his faith to or asks that we should pin our faith to would surely have had a better run over the past 20 years than emerges from these reports.
If, therefore, we have a Select Committee on this most important Bill, I hope that it will feel itself free to look at the machinery through which these neighbourhood trusts, if they come into being—as I hope they will—are supervised, because they in turn may be found wanting in some respects as social conditions and need change.
If one asks why the Charity Commissioners have not done these things and why they now require to be done, one can give two answers—one specific, and one more general. The specific answer (and this was referred to by the right reverend Prelate) is the business of treating each trust as a separate entity without regard to its possible relationship to other trusts. This is regarding the commission as a form of law court; a body separate from the machinery of Government and mainly concerned with adjudicating questions, such as whether or not a particular charity has the right to registration.
There is a more general answer, which is that it is no longer proper, whatever may have been the case in the past, for a body which does affect the expenditure of what are still, by any standards, quite considerable sums of money to be so removed and remote from our general machinery of Government—whether parliamentary or administrative. The Select Committee might therefore look at two possibilities. First, that the Charity Commissioners should be made responsible, as the Parliamentary Commission of Administration is, to a parliamentary committee. In this case, clearly, and particularly in view of your Lordships' experience
292
in these matters, it ought to be a Joint Select Committee of both Houses.
Alternatively, that its present rather remote relationship with the Home Office—which is exemplified by the fact that we are to hear the arguments it has against the Bill from the mouth of the Minister representing that department in your Lordships' House—should be substituted with a relationship of a more intimate kind with the department which spends hundreds and thousands of times as much money on assistance to the needy—namely, the Department of Health and Social Security. It seems quite absurd that there should be this gap between private charity and—using the word in no derogatory sense—public charity. The fact that a Minister from the Department of Health and Social Security has not participated in this debate highlights the weakness in our governmental arrangements, which I should like to draw to your Lordships' attention.
12.32 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I should like to give positive support to the Bill which has been introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithful, because I am satisfied that the status quo is not the answer. The House must be indebted to the noble Baroness for introducing this Bill and for the considerable volume of research which she and her small team of volunteers have collected over a short period of time. All that is relevant when one comes to consider the inactivity of the past 20 years on the part of other people.
The passing of the Charities Act 1960—and there has been a great deal of reference to that Act this morning—was a monumental achievement. Parliament in its wisdom made it possible for trustees to modify the objects in accordance with the spirit of the gift where such objects had become outmoded. That was made possible by the famous Section 13, which allowed charities to merge, to widen their area of benefit, or to take other steps to enable a charity to make the most effective use of its property—again, within the spirit of the gift. This morning we have not heard of Section 18 of the 1960 Act: but under that section the Act placed trustees under a duty to apply for a scheme to alter the objects in certain circumstances. I will return to that point in a minute or two.
The 1960 Act therefore had considerable potential. It provided the mechanism to promote better investment (and we have heard this morning of the scandalous state of investment in many of the trusts) and more effective administration and application of charitable property, to enable the ancient charities to play a positive role in the modern welfare state. However we have heard time and again this morning that the evidence shows that Section 13 has not been activated as one would wish. There may have been a misplaced sense of loyalties, but there has also been a great deal of sheer apathy.
In general, trustees have not grasped the initiative which was theirs to take. Since the period 1960 to 1965, the Charity Commissioners appear to have been content to exercise a passive role. One often hears of the Charity Commissioners' preference for saying "No". Since 1960–65, the Charity Commissioners do not appear to have seen it to be their role to facilitate

293
and encourage charities to take advantage of the provisions of the 1960 Act to attain their aims. I believe that this negative response is tantamount to denying the existence of the problem; a problem that was recognised by Parliament a quarter of a century ago. We should not underestimate the significance of this non-activity.
It will be interesting to learn from the noble Lord the Minister—either today or later—how often the commissioners have exercised the power available to them under Section 18 to request the Home Secretary to refer a case to them where they are satisfied that the interests of the charity require a scheme but that the trustees have unreasonably refused or neglected to do so. The critical question posed by the noble Baroness is: How do we move forward so as to give effect to the principles of the 1960 Act and to the spirit of the donor's intentions?
We have heard that the Bill proposes a merger of parochial charities for the relief of poverty to form neighbourhood trusts to serve a group of parishes; and that a duty will be placed on the county councils (to be exercised over a period of five years—not 12 months) to prepare the necessary recommendations to the commissioners. We have seen already in the 1960 Act the principles of merger and of widening the area of beneficial benefit. So the new principle (and I am not so sure that it is new, given Section 18 of the 1960 Act) is the mandatory requirement. I agree with my noble friend Lord Foot: is that requirement to kill the Bill?
I support this Bill because something has to be done and I believe that this Bill takes the right approach. I wish to refer briefly to three matters in the light of our experience in Wales, where there is considerable concern about the inactivity of the ancient charities and where a steering committee has already been established to review the position and to make recommendations. The first point is a very minor one. The Bill throughout refers to parishes, which no longer exist in the Principality. It therefore requires a minor amendment so that the word "parish" is construed to mean a community.
Secondly, one would wish to know why the Bill is confined to those parochial charities whose aim is the relief of poverty. It has been put to me that in Wales there are probably more educational trusts than trusts for the relief of poverty. The state of the statistics is poor, and I am unable to verify that that is so, but I would wish to know why it is not extended to cover educational trusts. It may be that one cannot at this stage place an additional burden on the various authorities, and that I would accept, but in due course the educational trusts will also require proper consideration in legislation.
The third point is that in any scheme of reorganisation of the Charity Commissioners—this is not dealt with in the Bill, but reference has been made more than once to the role of the Charity Commissioners in the modern state—there is a need for the Charity Commissioners to establish a separate Welsh Office in Wales to which responsibility for oversight of Welsh charities could be transferred. The geographical area would not be extensive. Such an office would be close, or closer, to the eight county councils and to
294
most Welsh charities. I believe that in co-operation with the county councils it could build up a bank of up-to-date standardised statistics about Welsh charities, and it would also relieve the burden on the Liverpool office of the commission and make it possible to bring a greater concentration to bear on the needs of the Welsh charities.
So, my Lords, initiative to integrate the ancient parochial trusts, and where necessary to reformulate their objects in order to achieve the donor's aim, is long overdue. Once again one says that the status quo is not an option. I believe that this Bill offers a new, practical and relevant approach to the problem, and it has many merits, which I trust will commend themselves to your Lordships' House.
12.43 p.m.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I, too, should like to congratulate my noble friend Lady Faithfull very much on bringing this Bill before us. I also very much support the idea of it being committed to a Select Committee; and I am delighted to hear that the Government agree with that approach. I will touch on only one or two small points, because the Bill has been very well dealt with by other speakers.
Before tackling the problem of supporting the Bill I consulted, as I do in these cases, the Isle of Wight County Council. It is, I think, of some interest that they indeed tried to make a list of the charities and to investigate them in 1977. They persuaded the junior branch of Rotary to do it. But in the event it was not found a suitable task for a group of young persons, so the work was not done, and nothing has been done since. I think that, perhaps—and here I would pick up a point made by my noble friend Lord Beloff—had the matter been one for the Department of the Environment there might have been just that little more pressure, and acceptance of pressure by the counties, for this to be got on with; but because it was the Home Office, to which they do not directly report and which does not give them money in the ordinary sense, they perhaps did not. I know my noble friend has said that it should be the DHSS, but I do not think that would improve the position. I think there is a problem of the work in the counties, and I think this is something that will need to be examined by the Select Committee.
If, as my noble friend Lady Faithfull says, it is only a cost of £2,000 a year for two years, that is fine; but that needs to be properly established. Also, I think the counties should be encouraged to use voluntary groups to do it. It might even be almost an understood thing that that is the way in which it should be done. At the time I am speaking of, in 1977, the counties were not short of staff in the sense that they perhaps now are, to which the noble Lord, Lord Mischon, called our attention. It could be that it would be more difficult now. I think this is a point we have to study: how it is done and who by, not unnecessarily burdening the counties with the task.
The other point I took from the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, with which I agreed is the difficulty of persuading people to join in such a scheme as this. It is a shame that the right reverend Prelate has had to leave, because I have experience of church parishes being amalgamated and of the rivalries and difficulties

295
that that can cause. I think it could well be that there are some charities which should be allowed, at any rate initially, to opt out of the neighbourhood trusts scheme. Of course, if they could show the Charity Commissioners, presumably, that they were a well-established charity and were being properly run, that there were suitable people existing to benefit from the charity, and a few obvious points like that—there could be some sort of guidelines—and if they satisfied all those criteria, they could be left alone for the time being.
One would hope that the neighbourhood trusts would grow in such a way that these other charities might be attracted to them in due course. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that one needs to go very carefully to ensure that one is not treading unnecessarily on the toes of those operating something which is working in this particular area. I think the Bill is perhaps a little too compulsory. I can see why it is. Perhaps one should have some sort of let-out on the lines I have described, and the Select Committee might look into that.
My final point is in relation to the Charity Commissioners. I must say they seem to have come out of this extraordinarily badly. I entirely agree with the general theme of what my noble friend Lord Beloff had to say. I should like my noble friend the Minister to tell me, if he can, when he comes to make his contribution to the debate, who the commissioners are. What sort of people are they? Are they civil servants, or are they lawyers? Are they of this generation, or is it necessary to be over 90 before you are a charity commissioner? There must be some explanation for it. Who selects them, and what sort of criteria do they have in selecting them? Something desperately needs to be done to bring them into the 20th century, and to do it before the 21st century is upon us.
I really think this is something that needs to be dealt with, quite separately from this Bill and from the need for it to be progressed through its Select Committee. I think the Church Commissioners—I mean, of course, the Charity Commissioners; I hesitate to say the Church Commissioners, and if my noble friend Lord Sandford were here he would be very upset—need a long hard look taken at them, and perhaps we should sack the lot and start again. But I hope very much that we will encourage this Bill to go forward, and that it will in some form or other eventually reach the statute book.
12.49 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I would wish to pay my own tribute to my noble friend Lady Faithfull, without whose initiative we should not, in all probability, be discussing this very important subject which bears upon the humanities. It is at her request that I speak in this debate, but I have no expertise whatever in charity law. It is not my purpose to criticise any Government department, or any division of work between Government departments, or the Charity Commissioners, but to support the board case for committal to a Select Committee which was advanced by noble Lords who have spoken before me in this debate, including of course the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London.
296
As the noble Lord, Lord Foot, said, there is general consensus on the need for investigation. I support the Second Reading in order to support the Motion for committal. But in this context it is relevant, in submission, to consider the Bill which, I understand, is about to passs in another place this afternoon; not at length, but very briefly. That Bill, which is to enable the property of small charities to be extended without regard to restrictions distinguishing between capital and income, will, it is understood, be opposed by certain of your Lordships, including my noble friend Lady Faithfull, not only on the issue of what is meant by value but on the fundamental issue of whether the Bill would not operate to destroy those ancient legacies to the detriment of the poor.
To this Bill now before your Lordships' House, which seeks amalgamation of parochial charities into neighbourhood trusts in order to preserve these legacies, it surely is relevant to consider that this will destroy nothing but will unlock dead funds and put them to some useful charitable purpose. These provisions include resort to the mandatory provisions of Clause 4. For some this would be too draconian. If I may borrow the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon (and it is not for the first time I find myself in total agreement with him) one must approach this with a considerable measure of care. That is one of the reasons why I am supporting the Second Reading—so that there should be this investigation.
With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Foot, who thought otherwise, I adopt here the concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. I do not know if this was the thought of my noble friend Lord Mottistone—and I agree with him in the principle of his concept—but perhaps there should be a form of appellate procedure which could be invoked by any interested party so that the recommendation of the local council, which, subject to modification under Clause 4 by the commissiners becomes the scheme for the amalgamation of the charities, may be subject to general review by some revisory tribunal or court, even perhaps the Privy Council. It is a very important matter concerning the rights of donors, where the future of the willingness of people to give is concerned and where the more prestigious the tribunal perhaps the more appropriate it would be.
Is it not evident that on any showing there must be a measure of reorganisation of these parochial charities, quite outside the question of charities generally? The question is: what should be done about it? On that question there is, as has been observed, again by the noble Lord, Lord Mischcon, no substantial unanimity. It is common ground that we should do something but we are not agreed on what we should do. Is not this the classic situation where we should refer the matter, by committal, to a Select Committe? Indeed, is it not unneccessary, and indeed unwise, to allow two Bills which lie in conflict and which purport to deal with the same subject to entertain the time of your Lordships' House? Would it not be fare more preferable that we should have the benefit of those who are really skilled in this esoteric subject of charity law to assist us with our deliberations before we debate either of these Bills?
I have no intention of detaining your Lordships by seeking to canvass the merits of either Bill. That would

297
be quite contrary to the main tenor of my submissions to your Lordships that the merits or demerits are relatively immaterial in the form of drafting and the form of purpose of these Bills. What matters is that we should receive expert assistance from the Select Committee in order to know how we should deal with them.
In conclussion, I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, that it is no use saying that the voluntary reorganisation is a runner at all. Nothing will happen. I take, with gratitude, the point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, who observed that adaptation by statute is the only way forward and that we should free ourselves from the legalistic approach of the Charity Commissioners. By using the words "legalistic approach" in relation to a body set up to apply the law I am not seeking to criticise them. At this stage criticism, in submission, is totally idle. What we need is information and advice.
12.58 p.m.
Lord Allen of Abbeydale: My Lords, I rise to express my appreciation of the initiative taken by the noble Baroness, Lady Faithfull, my general sympathy with the objectives of the Bill and, in particular, my support for the proposed reference to a Select Committee.
Some of us have from time to time urged a review of the general law relating to charities and I, too, derive some comfort from seeing that the Attorney-General, to judge from remarks in another place, is now coming round to that view. But, although the debate today—inevitably, I suppose—has tended to go a little wide, what we are, or at any rate ought to be, concentrating on is just one aspect that, happily, does not raise any great political or philosophical question—subject to the one point about staff to which I shall come in a moment. Certainly what has been said in the debate demonstrates that all we are talking about is something of much greater significance than one might be tempted to think at first sight.
Some rather unkind things have been said about the Charity Commissioners. I do not propose to lengthen my speech by answering all the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, tempting though that is. However, I do believe that they have been handicapped by a lack of resources, for which historically I suppose I must accept some responsibility, and also by the somewhat confusing development of the law over the years both in Parliament and in the courts. Perhaps we need a new Charities Act, but certainly the Act of 1960, which reconstituted the commission and redefined its responsibilities, has turned out in some respects to have been lacking in precision, and it has indeed failed to meet some of the high hopes that were placed in it.
I took the trouble to re-read some of the debates on that Bill, and have been reminded of the importance which the Government of the day attached to the section authorising the review of local charities by local authorities and the contribution which they hoped these reviews would make towards promoting the more effective use of charitable resources. Unfortunately, though, this section did not attempt to define the purposes of these local reviews, and the picture which was conjured up of the Charity
298
Commissioners, the local authorities and the charity trustees working together in harmonious co-operation to bring the local charities up to date and to avoid overlap with the statutory services does strike one as being—how shall I put it?—idealistic.
Nor has the register of charities set up under the Act proved to be the mine of information one had rather hoped for. Previous speakers have referred to the lack of precise information. One must say that we are today discussing the future of parochial charities for the poor without any precise knowledge of how many charities there are, what assets they have, what they spend their money on, what their income is—still less what their income ought to be, given the point the noble Baroness made about the tenant farmers using charitable land for which they pay what is now a ridiculously low rent.
On 27th May last (col. 1358 of Hansard), I asked the Government how many local and parochial charities having a permanent endowment were registered in three of the four groups as laid down in the Macnaghten judgment—that is for the relief of poverty, for the advancement of education and for other purposes beneficial to the community. I did not ask about those for the advancement of religion. I was told in reply that no distinction was made in the register between charities having a permanent endowment and others, and that this information—which was not actually what I had asked for—could be obtained only by examining the individual deeds, the cost of which would be disproportionate. My Lords, I can only say, Alas!
But I agree with what I understood to be the point that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, was making: that the absence of detailed information is not of itself a reason for sweeping the whole issue under the carpet and that if we do nothing there seems to be no likelihood of anything better emerging on its own initiative. We do know quite a bit, as the noble Baroness has said, from the county reviews. We know that there are a great many parochial charities which do not have very much money, but we know that there are quite a number which have a great deal. In spite of the picture which the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, painted for us in such moving terms about the application and loyalty of the local trustees, I am afraid we do know that a great deal of the income is not being usefully and imaginatively applied. We know, too, that there is very little sign of the consultation between trustees and the statutory bodies that had been hoped for. What is perhaps even more important, there is very little sign either of anything being done voluntarily to make things better.
The crux of the problem dealt with by the Bill seems to me to be this. These charities were endowed for the relief of the poor and not for the amenities of the parish. It was quite natural at the time for the parish to be taken as the unit, since in the days of the Poor Laws each parish was responsible for its own poor. But, leaving aside the very tiny charities, in many areas it is now possible to ensure that the money is sensibly used for the relief of the poor in ways not covered by the welfare state only by enlarging the area of operation. The argument for the Bill is that it is much more in keeping with the intentions of the donors to do this, rather than to go on dribbling the income away in pretty useless doles; or, alternatively, departing from

299
the wishes of the donors and ceasing to use the money for the relief of poverty, diverting it instead to amenities within the parish. This is the main purpose of the Bill, as I understand it, and I go along with it.
There are one or two aspects of the Bill itself about which I am not altogether happy, but this is not the time at which to go into detail about them. But I may perhaps just mention that I am a little uneasy about the definition of the objects of neighbourhood trusts, as set out in Clause 5. I am not sure what the sanction is if the local authority fails to put in its proposals within the five years specified in, I think, Clause 4. But points of this kind—and there are quite a few—can be threshed out later.
But before I sit down I should like to comment very briefly on two of the other objections to the Bill which have been voiced by Home Office Ministers—contrary though it is to my whole upbringing to voice the slightest doubt about their views. The first one is the point about staff. I understand the fears, but I think that it is possible to exaggerate them. Some of the preliminary work must have been done in the county reviews; and, so far as the counties are concerned, the further demands should be quite modest and voluntary bodies of a suitable kind could be called upon to help. So far as the Charity Commission is concerned, they already manage to put through each year a substantial number of amalgamation schemes of a rather different type—174 of them in 1981—and the end result of setting up neighbourhood schemes would mean such considerable economies for them in future in having to deal with fewer boards of trustees that some additional effort should be well worth while.
A second objection was that to compel the trustees of these old schemes to combine would deter potential donors now. I am sorry, but I simply do not understand this objection. No one is coming forward now to set up new parochial schemes for the poor, and I really should be surprised if anyone were put off making a charitable contribution simply because better effect was being given to the desires of people who endowed charities a long time ago. But if there is anything in the point, it must apply with rather greater force to this other Bill about small charities which appears on the agenda in another place this very day, and which, for some unaccountable reason, seems to have received some sympathy from Her Majesty's Government.
But I will leave it there, apart from striking just a note of warning about the extent of the remit of any Select Committee which is appointed, given some of the comments which have been made in the debate. I shall sit down, again saying that I support the proposals of the noble Baroness.
1.10 p.m.
Baroness Lane-Fox: My Lords, I have just two small reasons for wishing to give the Bill my wholehearted support. First, like so many of your Lordships, at one time I lived in a village. The village had a small parochial trust, which was quite out of step with the current situation. This was the cause of very much thought and concern to dutiful inhabitants and parish councillors, who almost wished that it would go away.
300
It seemed like fantasy. There was good money, and it was a puzzle to know how to spend it.
Secondly, a few years ago I was sent to work for several days on researching at the headquarters of the Charity Commissioners, to discover suitable charities to approach for a project with which I was connected. I was amazed by the lack of cross-referencing and up-to-date details afforded by the files. It was a question of wading through stacks of amazingly dusty files. Although I was very grateful to have permission to do this, I was much less grateful for the billows of dust from the files—dust which enveloped me and triggered off my asthma.
This exercise certainly aroused my interest in the Charity Commissioners. I was very ignorant about them. Who were they, and what made them tick? The nearest answer at which I arrived was that they are a quasi-quango, a quasi-judicial body, apparently accountable to nobody, but with the Home Office as their spokesman. From what I saw for myself it seems extremely unlikely that they have any necessarily detailed grass-root information on the numerous parochial charities on the scale that is needed today. Without this they can be in no position to administer the charities, as presumably was intended.
I congratulate my noble friend Lady Faithfull on her customary skill and her adroit handling of a very delicate matter, and I am delighted to support the Bill's provisions. I hope that with the help of my noble friend the Minister the Bill will lead eventually to the funds in question being made available for the many needy rural and other causes that surely exist today.
1.12 p. m.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, I shall not delay the House by more than a minute. I should just like to congratulate my noble friend Lady Faithfull on introducing the Bill, and on the way in which she did so. I wish to support my noble friend Lord Mottistone in some of his rather forceful questions about the Charity Commissioners. This has nothing to do with the parochial charity for the poor. I had a difficult experience with the Charity Commissioners, and I believe that as a result of the Select Committee's activities, the more we can hear about their work, their method of operation, their structure and accountability, the better we shall all be pleased.
1.13 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, I am grateful to all those noble Lords who have made such valuable contributions to the debate; and I am particularly grateful to my noble friend Lady Faithfull for giving the House an opportunity today to discuss the work of parochial charities. She has given us an admirable survey of the long history of the charities with which her Bill is concerned. She has also illustrated their great diversity, not always with examples designed exclusively for the benefit of the poor. I was particularly taken with the foundation which offered £2 to a preacher to preach, and 50 pence to the church wardens to listen. That is an interesting principle. If it were applied to this Dispatch Box and these Benches, I dare say that it would be necessary to reverse the proportions in order to secure an attendance.

301
As we have heard, a similar Bill was introduced as a Private Member's Bill into another place, where there was no opportunity for it to be debated. Therefore I am glad now to have a chance to set out the Government's position on the Bill before us.
My noble friend has made the suggestion that the Bill should be handled by a Select Committee. I believe that that is a constructive suggestion, and it is one which the Government would not wish to obstruct. As my noble friend said, this is a complex field, fraught with a lot of difficulty, and not a little emotion. My noble friend's desire is to see the large, but fragmented, amounts of money in local charities brought to bear with greater effectiveness on real and pressing problems. While we sympathise with that, we have grave doubts as to whether what she proposes in the Bill sits well either with the spirit in which many of these monies were given, or indeed with the doctrine of cy-près, which lies properly at the heart of existing requirements for the change of the purposes of charitable trusts.
This difficult ground seems to me appropriate to be worked by a diligent Select Committee. This is in itself a large and potentially fruitful field. It could only suffer if it were to be dealt with in haste, and the pressures of the parliamentary timetable would almost certainly introduce an element of haste into any treatment accorded it by a Committee of the Whole House. But to widen the terms of reference as my noble friend Lord Beloff suggests, to cover the whole field of charities and their administration, would I think be to overload the consideration, and here I echo the wise, cautionary words of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale.
It is not in any case what my noble friend is proposing, and I would not feel free to support it if it was; nor do I feel that my noble friend Lord Trefgarne is at fault, if that was my noble friend Lord Beloff's suggestion. I do not think that my noble friend Lord Trefgarne is at fault in his absence from this debate. My noble friend Lord Beloff should not suppose that Ministers are so little pressed in their work that they can afford to attend personally every debate in which they may have an interest when responsibility rests properly in the hands of another.
We are talking of a Select Committee, and a Select Committee stands out of the pattern of the main traffic of committees, and I am perfectly content that my noble friend's Bill should be handled as she proposes.
However in the absence of such a proposal, I should have found it difficult not to pour a great deal of cold water onto the Bill, despite the fact that all of us share my noble friend's desire to see the resources of charities, both large and small, used to their greatest effect. We are well aware of the nature of the problem. Of the 144,000 charities registered with the Charity Commissioners, well over half have an annual income of less than £100. It is right that we should be concerned with the proper and relevant use of funds donated, sometimes hundreds of years ago, when some of the needs of the poor were very different from their needs today.
I think I heard my noble friend say that the value of the charities is £35 million. If the value is really as high as that—and I say this in ignorance of her grounds for
302
stating it; I take leave to doubt it—it would arouse avarice. If, as I think, it is less, it still arouses a considerable and legitimate interest.
The Charities Act 1960 specifically entrusts the Charity Commissioners with the responsibility,
"of promoting the effective use of charitable resources by encouraging the development of better methods of administration, by giving charity trustees information or advice on any matter affecting the charity".
Moreover, they must so act,
"in the case of any charity (unless it is a matter of altering its purposes) as best to promote and make effective the work of the charity in meeting the needs designated by its trusts".
Your Lordships will not need reminding that under the cy-près doctrine the purpose of a charitable trust can be altered by the Charity Commissioners in certain circumstances, so long as the new purposes are as near as possible to the old ones. Certain procedures have to be followed, including the advertising of the proposals and the consideration of objections. I need not elaborate upon this now, except to emphasise the point that the commissioners' scheme-making power can be exercised only on a voluntary basis, on application by the trustees. The commissioners may, however, proceed on application by certain parties other than the trustees where the charity's income is not more than £50.
There is also power to proceed by compulsion where the commissioners are satisfied that the trustees ought to have applied for a scheme but have unreasonably refused or neglected to do so, and the Secretary of State endorses the commissioners' view. That power which resides in Section 18 of the Act has never yet been exercised. That answers the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies.
My noble friend Lord Mottistone asked me who and, indeed, what the Charity Commissioners are. The Charity Commission is a Government department, but its functions on individual charities are quasi-judicial, and in these it is entirely independent of all Government Ministers. There are, as the Charities Act 1960 requires, three commissioners, of whom at least two must be lawyers. They are appointed by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The present chief commissioner was appointed in March last year, after selection through open competition. I must again emphasise that in their quasi-judicial functions the commissioners are not subject to direction by the Government, and also that with one exception, which I have already mentioned, they have no power to act independently, on their own initiative. They cannot therefore have had the opportunity to avoid the criticism of my noble friend that they have shown no initiative.
The 1960 Act also makes provision for local authority reviews of local charities in England and Wales. Section 11 empowers local authorities to initiate reviews of their local charities. They,
"may make to the Commissioners such report on the review and such recommendations arising from it as the council after consultation with the trustees think fit".
The charity trustees must consent to the review.
The question of the charity trustees' consent to these reviews was considered very carefully at the Committee stage of that Bill in this House. The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, expressing fears that a local authority

303
might exert undue pressure on local charities to agree to a review, moved an amendment to Clause 11 that reviews of local charities should be initiated by the Charity Commissioners at the request of the local authority. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, thought that local authorities should be able to carry out a review without the consent of the trustees, and moved an amendment to that effect. Neither amendment was accepted after the then Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Kilmuir, had explained that the main purpose of the clause was a partnership in which both sides worked together voluntarily so that the best use might be made of their respective resources.
I can only echo those words. I think that it would be an unjustifiable infringement of partnership and cooperation on an equal basis—saving the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, who, not for the first time, I believe, has ventured out of the safe ground delineated by his long experience to criticise the department—if the local authority could carry out reviews without the consent of the trustees. I must apologise to your Lordships for having dwelt at such lengths on the provisions of the Charities Act. I hope your Lordships will agree that it already provides a legislative framework for the review and modernisation of parochial charities.
I must nevertheless accept the arguments put forward by my noble friend Lady Faithfull and supporters of her Bill that progress in carrying out the reviews and amalgamations envisaged in the 1960 Act has been slow, especially in recent years. I should, however, remind the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, that reviews have been instituted in every county of England and Wales, and that in the 16 years until the end of 1980 1,242 schemes had been made by the Charity Commissioners as a direct result of local reviews.
To those who believe that it is in the best interests of charity that small and out-dated charities should merge to be more effective in achieving their purposes and in relation to the area in which they can be applied, the results of this part of the 1960 Act must be disappointing. While it is the case that the majority of small charities have already had their purposes modernised by the commissioners where this was necessary, the number of grouping schemes has not been as great as expected.
I think we have to examine the possible causes for this apparent lack of progress before we can give the Bill before us today proper consideration. As I said a moment ago, your Lordships' House itself originally considered the need for the consent of the trustees to a review to be essential. The experience of some local review organisers has shown that trustees of parochial charities guard their independence jealously, and they are often unwilling to see their benefits distributed over a wider area. Although this attitude is sometimes considered as intransigent and old-fashioned, it surely can also be seen as the proper respect for the donor's wishes, or the proper interpretation of those wishes with which the trustees have been entrusted. The reluctance of many trustees to participate in reviews only illustrates the point that most concerns the Government: that the imposition of a compulsory
304
element onto reviews of local charities is objectionable in principle.
A further consideration was that expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, who echoed a point made in the annual report of the Charity Commissioners in 1980 and placed on it a very polite and subtle but nevertheless political gloss. The commissioners said:
"With local authorities under increasing pressure to reduce their expenditure, it is not surprising that few of them are willing to embark on reviews of charities operating within their area. This is in continuation of a trend which has been apparent for some years".
In consequence, the report continues, the two local review sections were disbanded and the work absorbed into the mainstream of the commissioners' work.
While I understand and respect the reasons behind my noble friend's promotion of the Bill, I have to say that the Government see serious objections to it. It is fundamental to the law relating to charitable trusts that the property held on such trusts must be used for the purpose for which it was placed on trust. Any trust is protected in law, but charitable, trusts occupy a privileged position in that they are not subject to the rule against perpetual trusts, nor do they fail because their objects are uncertain or become impracticable. It seems right that we should take particular care to safeguard their original purposes as far as practicable. When the purpose of a charity is altered according to the cy-près doctrine, the new object must remain within the spirit of the original donation and be varied to the minimum degree necessary to enable the charity to serve a useful purpose. This is a very different principle from that of the Bill before us, which overrides the wishes of the donors in a way which we believe is out of keeping with the principles and spirit of charity law.
Charitable giving is, after all, essentially a personal and a voluntary activity. The Bill before us seems to have little sympathy with this. The thousands of local charities which would be affected by the Bill were established to help the poor in a wide variety of ways, reflecting personal interests and areas of concern. Much thought must have been given to the precise ways in which the donors wanted to benefit their localities, and it is worth remarking in passing that these charities are a fascinating record of how people in the past tried to help those in need. Certainly it is haphazard as a system, and it may not be the most rational way of using these resources.
The right reverend Prelate has suggested that this may be at the bottom of a perceived drift of charitable giving away from the very local and therefore very personal and welcome level. That is a point well taken, but there is another that we have to bear in mind. It is that charitable giving is already showing signs of decline. If people were not free to give as they pleased in the confidence that their wishes would be carrried out, it might well decline further still.
I do not regard this (as the noble Lord, Lord Allen of Abbeydale, shakes his head) as a fanciful consideration. I think of the benefits left in the wills of people for local concerns. I would have thought that in drawing up their wills they would very much feel threatened by a sweeping and compulsory power operating on the field into which they wished to make a small and personal intervention, feeling that it might

305
be absorbed into other purposes. Charity is voluntary giving, and charity law is based on the importance—
Lord Allen of A bbeydale: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. Will the Government express the same sentiments in dealing with the Bill that is currently in another place?
Lord Elton: My Lords, when we come to see that Bill I shall address myself to that question.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I am afraid that the noble Lord the Minister cannot get away with that very short, sharp sentence. Are we to understand that, in spite of what he says, this other Bill which is in the other place is in fact favoured by the Government? If it is, there are many of us who will feel very angry, especially at that short reply.
Lord Elton: My Lords, what I am doing at present is addressing myself properly to discussing a Bill on the Order Paper of this House. The noble Lord wishes me to start to discuss a Bill on the Order Paper in another House. I very much doubt if I can properly at this stage introduce the discussion of another Bill. If I can do so, I shall return to the subject. In the meantime, I spare the noble Lord the pain of interrupting me further.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, the noble Lord accepts the pain and is prepared to suffer it for the sake of justice and for the sake of clarity in this House. The noble Lord the Minister has just expressed the principle—a very clear principle—that it would deter people who might be wishing to make charitable gifts or, indeed, legacies in their wills, by the fact that their purpose may be frustrated. There is another Bill in another place which does frustrate that object by making it a fact that such trusts come to an end. Would the noble Lord the Minister say whether in his discursion into this matter he feels that that is consistent with what he has just said? If he feels that that object is inconsistent, may we take it for granted that the Government are consistent in their view and will oppose the other Bill?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the other Bill to which the noble Lord refers does not have an element of compulsion and we are in favour of the voluntary principle. The noble Lord will not expect me to announce the Government's proposed Second Reading speech on the other Bill before it reaches this House, which is what I thought he wished me to do. But if the noble Lord, asks me whether we are consistent in being opposed to compulsion, the answer is, Yes.
Central and local government may have a variety of ideas about how resources can best be deployed and they have access to resources with which to give effect to such policies and priorities in rational and efficient ways. It is to be hoped that similar principles will apply to resources contributed voluntarily, but it is fundamental to existing charity law that no Government compulsion of any kind should be admissible to achieve that.
We have received letters from a number of trustees of charities who would be affected by the Bill; most
306
have raised objections to it. They accept that some charities are not effective but many of the letters point out that their charities are performing useful tasks efficiently, and on one occasion they even produced accounts to prove it. The trustees are understandably anxious to preserve their independence and express resentment that they might be forced into amalgamations regardless of how much of a success had been made of each charity. Trustees of local charities have considerable duties to perform and many of them take great pride in performing them well—a pride which is not directly related to how much money is at their disposal.
Although the Bill aims for the effective use of charitable resources it could well have an opposite effect both in the loss of active, thriving local charities which would be caught by the Bill, and in the possible loss of many interested and experienced trustees.
Nor is it the charity trustees alone who are to be subjected to the compulsory elements of the Bill: the local authorities also must carry out their reviews of the charities in their areas within one year of the Bill's passage and the Charity Commissioners must issue schemes giving effect to the recommendations arising from the review reports. We believe that most counties would not welcome the Bill on cost grounds, as they would simply be unable to carry out the provisions within their existing resources. I am as chary of my noble friend's optimistic assessment of the cost of those as I am of her estimate of the capital sums in question. We have already seen signs of a decline in charitable giving and we have already seen signs of unwillingness under the voluntary reviews so far carried out. The same is true of the Charity Commission: there is no way in which it could take on this work without extra staff and increased expense to the taxpayer. As my noble friend Lady Faithfull said, the commissioners have a difficult task and we are fortunate that they carry it out with such dedication and judgment.
Even were the principles not objectionable there could be no question, at the moment, of the Government allowing additional resources for either local authorities or Charity Commissioners to carry out the tasks which would be imposed on them by the Bill. But this does not mean that we are not prepared to look at ways in which the resources available to local charities may be appropriately put to more effective use, where this is thought desirable.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, we believe that we should know more about the difficulties which local charity reviews encounter, their possible benefits in persuading charity trustees to release resources for wider use, their cost-effectiveness, and the scope for establishing a neighbourhood trust or improving the use of local charitable funds by making information about their objects more widely available. As my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway has said, information is something which we still do not have enough of. To this end the Home Office Voluntary Services Unit is funding a local charity review in Lancashire. It has taken some time to get going but it has started work this month with the appointment of a review organiser. Progress in reviews like this is never as quick as one would like, but those concerned are very enthusiastic and I believe that it will give us a

307
good opportunity to see how effective a review, which does not rely in any way on compulsion, can be in practice.
I have explained at too great length why the Government consider that this Bill is out of step with charity law, and how those most closely affected by it could not welcome it, warts and all. For these reasons, the Government are unable to advise the House to support this measure, although I would not be so churlish as to advise it to reject it.
Support for the idea of the Select Committee has been pretty general this afternoon, and I heard with particular interest the support given to it by the right reverend Prelate and, indeed, by the Churches' main committee. A Select Committee might be able to acquire a great deal of valuable knowledge and a welcome depth of wisdom on this subject. It might even enable the Bill to qualify to benefit from that charity to which my noble friend earlier referred whose founder suffered from warts on his nose, and get some of them off the Bill.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I should like to ask a point of clarification. I must have misunderstood. What is the point of sending this Bill to a Select Committee if Her Majesty's Government are committed to the other Bill? Perhaps I have misunderstood the position?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I think that I have said very nearly as much as I can on this subject. I have told your Lordships of a principle which we find objectionable in this Bill; your Lordships have asked whether it is in the other Bill, and I have said, No. But I think my noble friend should consult through the usual channels if he wants to take the matter further, because I cannot take it further.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I wonder whether I might extend this point. I am sure that the House does not wish to waste its time or that of a Select Committee of your Lordships' House. The noble Lord the Minister expressed a point of view of principle and then said that he was now on another principle—that of compulsion or voluntary act. I am assuming, as I believe others of your Lordships are assuming, that the origional settler or testator is now dead and therefore cannot be consulted, and therefore cannot be said to be doing something voluntarily. He has a succession of trustees and they of course could, under the other Bill, cause his charitable trust to cease and be frustrated. That is not, from the point of view of the original settler or testator, a voluntary act because he is in another place—whether higher or lower—where his consent cannot be given.
Therefore, I am afraid that the question of compulsion or voluntariness does not apply to the principle that the noble Lord the Minister is trying to enunciate. I believe that this House would be extremely angry—and I have used that word before—if it were led to believe that the whole matter was being considered by a Select Committee when in fact another Bill was going to be given Government assistance in another place.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am not sure how long the conventions of this House allow us to play ping pong across the Table at Second Reading. On the question of compulsion not being exercisable upon a testator who had departed these realms to another place, the wishes of the testator nevertheless survive him in the hands of the trustees. It is the voluntariness of the actions of the trustees which we think should not be impinged upon. As I do not know the outcome of what is happening in another place at this stage, I still am not in a position to predict what will happen in this case.
1.41 p.m.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I think I should rise quickly because otherwise we might be here until tomorrow morning. What is perfectly clear is that,
"The time has come, the walrus said,
For something to be done".
All those who have spoken today agree that something has to be done, though many of us have been divided as to exactly what it should be. I shall not detain the House very long because there is further business. First of all, I thank every noble Lord who has spoken in the debate today. I know that the subject is a complicated one, and I am most grateful to all those who have spoken and contributed.
Perhaps I may briefly make a few points. First, we—and in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon—have talked about the question of resources. The noble Lord, Lord Foot, very well answered the question. If any other Government department—and we have learnt from my noble friend the Minister that this is regarded as a Government department—was running on such short resources that it had to be inefficient, because that is what it means, I wonder whether that would be allowed. I suspect not.
On the question of the mandatory and voluntary principle, it has been pointed out by many noble Lords that the voluntary principle for the formation of neighbourhood trusts has existed since 1960. This has been pointed out by many noble Lords, and it has not been effective. Another point is the question of data. I understand that there are data, because the reviews have been carried out throughout the country. This is in the hands of the Charity Commissioners. What I would suggest is that those data have not yet been properly analysed, but they are there.
With regard to the Bill before the other place, I am going to be careful over this, because otherwise we could continue. I would support other noble Lords who have said that this is an extraordinary situation. I have on other Bills found myself in disagreement with my noble friend the Minister. I have the greatest admiration for his ability and, usually, for his logical approach to everything. In this, I have to say that it is not a logical approach to support the Bill before the other place and not to support the principles of the Bill before your Lordships' House today.
Many noble Lords have talked about the composition of the Charity Commission and the way it works. Many noble Lords have said that it is an independent, quasi-legal body. I wonder whether my noble friend the Minister will forgive me if I say that

309
his speech today bears that out. I would suggest that he is speaking to a brief, and obviously, with all that he has to do, he cannot possibly have the time really to know how the Charity Commission operates. This point was well brought out by the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, and the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone.
I am grateful for what has been said. I must make my position clear over the Charities Bill before the other House. Should it come to this House I could not possibly support it. If your Lordships are going to grant a Second Reading, followed by the agreement to a Select Committee, I would suggest that the Bill before the other House should be considered by the Select Committee rather than us having yet another debate, though that is not for me to say. I thank your Lordships for your support, and I thank the noble Minister for what he has had to say, although I cannot fully agree with him.
On Question, Bill read a second time.
Baroness Faithfull: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee.—(Baroness Faithfull.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: Bill committed to a Select Committee accordingly.

Copyright (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill [H.L.]
1.46 p.m.
Lord Willis: My Lords, it is just over a year ago since I last addressed your Lordships on the subject of copyright. On that occasion, I said, if your Lordships will allow me to quote:
"What is needed is the political will to bring the copyright laws into line with the present conditions. The present law has been out-distanced and out-dated by modern technology. It needs to be changed as a matter of urgency … It is in the interests of all that our arts, and the industries which support them, should flourish … they earn millions of pounds for the economy and do a great deal for the prestige of Britain abroad. But they would not have been able to do any of this without the copyright protection which at present exists—and they will not be able to do so in the future unless that protection is brought up to date".—[Official Report, 31/3/82; col. 1439.]
In that year, my Lords, all the evidence goes to show that the situation has become worse—far worse—and that the introduction of still newer technology and the great increase in piracy has made the need for action even more urgent. The present Bill before your Lordships is a modest measure designed to plug one or two of the more obvious holes. It is essentially a minor first-aid job, which will, so to speak, help to staunch the flow of blood until more substantial remedies are available.
The background to the Bill is the growing practice of private copying of records and films, what is known as home taping, and the question, yet again, of piracy. When I spoke a year ago, I regret to say that Hansard, usually the most reliable of chroniclers, got one word of my speech wrong. I do not blame them for that because it was a difficult word, but it was also a vital word. Hansard reported me as saying:
"You can now record, if one can make a new phrase, music from records or films and programmes from television in the privacy of your own home.—[col. 1437]
310
What I actually said was that you could do all these things in the "piracy" of your own home. A subtle but vital difference.
What was true then is doubly true today. The latest estimate from the music industry is that it is losing something like £300 million a year as a result of illegal copying. It cannot be too strongly stressed that when I speak of the music or the record industry I am speaking of a host of people who depend, directly or indirectly, on music, records and films for their livelihoods—writers, composers, musicians, shopkeepers, printers, engineers and so forth. It is these people who are being robbed. For that is exactly what it is, my Lords; it is robbery.
I must admit that I have my doubts about the use of the words "piracy" and "pirates". It has connotations of romance and glamour enshrined in Holywood films starring bold buccaneers like Erroll Flynn. Believe me, my Lords, the present pirates are nothing like that. I believe that we should call a spade a spade, and a thief a thief. But I very much regret that I think we are stuck with the word "pirates", and, if we are, then, my Lords, I tell you that Britain today is a great market for the thieves and pirates. Britain has today become Treasure Island for those who steal the copyright of other people.
One new feature of the situation that is causing alarm to the record industry is the development of retail outlets which are devoted to the rental of gramophone records and cassette tapes. The retail cost of a record or a pre-recorded cassette can be between £4 and £5. The rental shops offer these out for a nightly hire charge of about 40p or 50p. There can be no doubt that the vast majority of people, quite innocently, hire these records and cassettes for 40p or 50p to record them in their own homes. They may record two or three copies for their friends. From their point of view it is good value for money. A blank tape costs £1 or less, and the hire charge added to that means that for about £1.50, about one-third of the retail price, the borrower can have the latest recording. It does not concern him or the rental shop that in doing this he is actually cheating, that he is as guilty of the theft of other people's property as if he were a shoplifter or a pickpocket.
Let us think of it in this way, there are some 20 to 25 million sound cassette recorders in private hands in Britain. If, at a conservative estimate, only 50 per cent. of these are used illegally to record borrowed records, and if at an even more conservative estimate, this 50 per cent. copy only one record each year, that means a potential loss to the record industry of about 20 million sales a year. It might be argued that not all these people would go out to buy the record. I think it is very conservative to say that they would record only one a year, but, even so, if we were to slash the figure by half or three-quarters the loss is still absolutely staggering. I defy your Lordships to think of any other industry in this country which is subject to such undeserved losses. No other industry is being plundered and pillaged on a regular, recurring basis. I must stress again that when I am talking of "the industry" I mean writers, composers, musicians, artistes and everyone.
I am not suggesting that we should appoint an army of investigators who would have the power to enter

311
people's homes and check on what they get up to with their recorders. Heaven forbid! It is my belief that the only long-term answer to illegal home-taping is to recognise that it exists and that it cannot be policed, and to impose a royalty on all blank tapes and recording machines. That would be a simple and effective method of licensing, and I hope that the Government will look at this possibility. But that is for the future; it has nothing to do with the present Bill. What we can do in the meantime is to make it just a little more difficult for the home-taper, particularly for those who use record rental shops for the purpose of copying.
As yet, rental shops have not developed in Britain to the same extent as in other countries. But there are ominous signs. The record industry is alarmed about them. The threat is there, and it is my hope that in this instance the Government will act before the horse has bolted.
Let me give your Lordships one example—the experience of Japan. It will give your Lordships some idea of the immensity of the threat. In June 1980 the first rental store for records and pre-recorded cassettes opened in Japan. It was such a runaway success that in the space of nine months the number of rental shops in Japan had risen to 800. That was in nine months. One of the enterprising newspapers in Japan took a poll of the people using rental shops, and 98 per cent. of the people who hired records and the pre-recorded cassettes admitted that they did so to copy them at home. All this had a disastrous effect on the legitimate business in Japan. The sale of official records and prerecorded cassettes dropped, on average, 30 per cent., and in some cases in Tokyo it dropped 60 per cent. Imagine the outcry if any of our high street shops were subject to such losses as a result of illegal trading.
The threat is there, and the first purpose of the Bill which I now present to your Lordships is to widen the scope of the law so that it covers record rental operations. It is necessary because the present law, the Copyright Act 1956, was framed before these new problems arose. The present Act gives the record industry little or no protection from unauthorised rental of its products. I do not want to burden the House with the legal technicalities. Suffice it to say that the industry brought a test case against an unauthorised record business in 1981, and it was found that the Act of 1956 could not give it the protection it needed. The present Bill, although it would not automatically condemn a record rental business, would give the record industry a fairer crack of the whip and enhance its ability to defend its products against theft.
For example, in Clause 1, the new subsection (2A) would impose on the courts the obligation to apply an objective test to the circumstances of a rental business so that it could decide whether as a question of fact those circumstances were likely to lead to copyright infringement. If the answer is "Yes", then the proprietor is deemed to have authorised a copyright infringement and may be dealt with on that basis. This subsection removes once and for all the need to argue abstruse points of law on the subject of authorisation—a problem that has dogged the record industry in its attempts to bring offenders to book. It makes the law more even-handed. It does not in any way attack the legitimate record business.
312
The new subsection (2B) in Clause 1 is designed to get round an obvious ploy by the proprietors of rental businesses. For example, in the test case I have already mentioned the proprietor in fact displayed a notice in his shop pointing out that home-copying was an infringement of copyright. It seemed from the results that this notice had about as much effect on the public as the health warnings on cigarette packets. The home-copying went on. Nevertheless, this little ploy seemed to find some favour with the judge in the test case.
The insertion of the new subsection (2B) would simply mean that the display of such a notice, cynically meant, could not be a defence in itself. It would be only one of the factors that the court would have to take into account. It could not ignore it, but it would not necessarily be justification for copyright infringement.
I now come to the new subsection (2A)(b) in Clause 1, which deals with a different but equally serious aspect of the problem. This provision is aimed at those people who copy tapes and records for the purpose of re-selling them to the public—a form of dubious enterprise which is widespread and growing. I have here, for example, a cassette that one could buy in a market, street or sometimes in a pub for about £2—half the normal retail price of the genuine article. It is a piratical copy. It is a theft, a robbery; but thousands of these tapes have been sold. The fact is that they are not as good as the original because the pirates do not take that amount of care, but to the uneducated eye it looks a reasonable tape which is cheap. It may feature a favourite group, and the person thinks: "Fine; I will buy that because it is cheap". Hundreds, but hundreds of thousands, of these tapes are being sold this weekend in the marketplaces, in streets and in pubs. Each lost sale costs the record industry between £3 and £4—and, again we are talking about composers, musicians, salesmen, shopkeepers and so on. All these people are being robbed.
The record industry has been fighting these thieves for years with some success, but they are handicapped by the weakness of the law on copyright. Its fight is not helped when manufacturers bring on to the market machines which can only help the thieves and counterfeiters. For example, a Japanese company called AIWA intoduced a new machine last year and they issued with it a press statement. The press statement says and I quote:
"Tapes can now be copied at four times the speed of conventional tape decks"—
I am talking about sound tapes—
"with the introduction of AIWA's latest model … this means that the entire contents of a 60-minute cassette can now be copied in an incredible 15 minutes".
My Lords. I have quoted only two sentences in that paragraph and in each one there is a reference to copying. Copying what, for Heaven's sake? What they are talking about is copying records and pre-recorded tape cassettes which have been made at some cost by the recognised music industry.
This machine costs less than £200 and it is being offered for sale to the public. Your Lordships will know as well as I that the general public have no use for such a machine. Who wants a machine that can record a cassette in their home in 15 minutes? Who is going to pay £200 for that? It has a limited use,

313
perhaps, in education and in commerce; but, basically, the only people who are going to buy that machine are the pirates, the counterfeiters. And it may well be that because of its low price, it will attract yet more thieves into the business of robbing the record industry.
The machine can copy four cassettes an hour. Used for only 12 hours a day, it could produce 400 tapes—forged tapes—in a week. Those counterfeit tapes will yield a profit of some £300 to £400 to the counterfeiter. It means that the small man can now enter the pirate industry as well as the mafia, the heavy-money boys who really are in the pirate video tape and cassette recording business in a very big way. There is heavy money in this. In one week therefore with one of these machines that you buy for £200, you produce 400 tapes and sell them on street corners or in pubs, you make a profit of£300, you pay for your tape-copying machine and you are already in pocket. That is a measure of the seriousness of the problem. So far, this machine is confined to sound copying; but there can be little doubt that, before very long, a machine capable of doing the same thing for films and video will appear. If this happens, there will be a new explosion of piracy and, as I said earlier, the expression "Treasure Island" will have a new meaning to this country.
Section 2A(b) is designed to discourage manufacturers and distributors from offering machines with this capacity for sale to the public. I do not want to put a limit to new technology. I am not a Luddite. But where a machine appears to have no other function than to copy other people's products, some halt must be called. I am not seeking even to ban those machines. I am not seeking in the Bill to penalise the owner of an ordinary cassette recorder, no matter how sophisticated. This section simply puts the courts in a position to look objectively at any particular machine and to decide whether, by its nature, it is likely to be used to infringe copyright. The manufacturers and distributors will not be unfairly penalised. They will have full opportunity to defend their products in the courts.
That in essence is the scope and purpose of this Bill. It is brief but, like everything else connected with copyright, it is a little complicated. I have done my best to explain the background of the Bill but, of necessity, there are points and arguments which I have been unable to deal with for reasons of time. I am delighted that Sir John Eden's Bill (which deals with some other aspects of the problem) has made progress in another place and will be here soon. I am even more delighted that it has received Government blessing. May I hope, because the industry is bleeding savagely from these wounds, that your Lordships and the Government will give my small Bill a similar fair wind. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Willis.)
2.5 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, the House is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, for the way he brings this matter to our attention. We are all the richer for having noble Lords like him who specialise in particular matters and bring amending legislation before your Lordships' House at varying intervals. In
314
this particular case, there is no doubt whatsoever that the problem that he has brought before us is a very real one, that it causes distress, it causes financial loss and that it is something which, as a whole, the legislature should look at and should make up its mind on how it is going to cope with the whole problem of piracy.
Having said that, I must now say that in my view and that of my colleagues on these Benches, this Bill just will not do and does not begin to be acceptable. There is a balance always between the protection of artistes and the good of the community; and the protection of artistes should be very high on our list of priorities. But it seems to us that this Bill would start with laying burdens on the courts with which they would be totally unable to cope and which, even if they did cope with them, would lead to injustices.
Moreover, it seems to go further than that. I was about to use the word "Luddites" which the noble Lord, Lord Willis, himself disowned; but I hesitate to do so because I am not totally against Luddism on the right occasions. I suspect that the approach to modern technology and, in this case, the approach to the machines in this kind of way, are rather like the courtiers who would have King Canute attempt to stem the tide. King Canute, of course, was far too wily an old bird to fall for that one. He knew perfectly well that he could not. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, said that these machines now being used for sound tapes are merely the precursors of those to be used for video tapes. I have no doubt that that is so. I think we could probably say that the machines which now record accurately and well at four times the speed of the original tapes will probably be overtaken in time by ones which can do so at 10 times the speed—or even better.
It does not seem to me that the way to deal with this is effectively to ban the sale of these machines or to ban the businesses which deal with them. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, said it was not his intention to ban the machines; but I really cannot see how else the Bill would work. The courts would have the difficult job of deciding whether the businesses which were up before them were bona fide rental businesses or supplied bona fide machines for bona fide use in other cases. It is very difficult to see on what evidence they could come to conclusions. Of course, some cases would be clear and others would be very unclear. I would have thought there was, frankly, the possibility of self-respecting judges and self-respecting courts going on strike. The difficulties for the law would be too great.
It is for these basic reasons that we from these Benches cannot support this Bill. However, there are methods of dealing with the problem and my Party has adopted a policy which goes along with the taxation of blank tapes and also with recorded tapes—because a point that has been made by one of the bodies which have approached Members of your Lordships' House on this matter is that if the blank tape is taxed the recorded tape should also be taxed since a recording could be taken off and the tape re-used. A basic tax seems to be the right approach to this.
This afternoon is not the time to argue the rights and wrongs of that, except to say that as a basic principle it is probably right, as often as one can, to bridge the gap that exists in many cases between, on the one hand, complete licence and, on the other hand,

315
complete banning, which is what I believe this Bill would lead to, by some form of progressive taxation. That is the approach that we take, for instance, in the matter of cigarettes, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Willis. I think it is the way to approach a number of other subjects. I merely mention the alternatives because it is right that those who object to this Bill should say how they would deal with the evil. There are methods of dealing with it, I think; but this Bill is unacceptable.
I hope that there is not going to be a vote on it. I think that the growing habit of voting against Second Readings of Private Bills is a great pity. It may be that this Bill is capable of amendment, although at the moment I think there is some doubt. But I am afraid we cannot accept this Bill as it is and certainly we would not be in favour of its further progress through your Lordships' House in its present state. However, we admire and are grateful for the thought and the motives behind it which have prompted the noble Lord, Lord Willis, to bring it before your Lordships.
2.13 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, in his congratulations to my noble friend for introducing this Bill. I rather suspect that my congratulations are somewhat more wholehearted than his were because, having congratulated my friend on introducing the Bill, he then went on to say that he could not support it.
It is sometimes worthwhile to introduce a Bill for the sake of discussion, but I very much hope that my noble friend has done no such thing here this afternoon because, although I go along to a certain extent with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, in thinking that the Bill at present is far from perfect—I think that my noble friend may agree with me on that point and I have myself reservations over some parts of it—nevertheless it does attempt seriously to tackle for the first time a problem, attention to which is long overdue.
My interest in this matter stems from the fact that for many years I worked full-time for Equity, the actors' trade union, and I still have a great interest in the welfare of performers. This is one case which ought to commend itself to both sides of the House, and I say that for this reason. In this matter there is no division whatsoever between the employers and the employees. The trade unions concerned fully recognise that, in the present situation, they may be inhibited from getting a square deal from the makers of the records.
Let me try to translate this situation and consider it in relation to the motor-car industry. If a manufacturer of motor-cars made a few of them and then somebody copied them without charge and sold more than the original manufacturer, how then could a trade union negotiate a reasonable remuneration with the manufacturer of the original motor-cars if it was not retaining the profits on all the cars which were made? This is the position that has arisen. The original manufacturer of the article is not only losing his own profit but is unable to give a proper remuneration to the people who make the records. There is not the slightest difference here.
316
What is happening, without putting too fine a point on it, is that the community is exploiting the producer. This must be stopped, because it is possible—although the National Consumer Council does not appear to think so—for the consumer to be against the community as a whole. It is in the interests of the community that the person who makes an object shall receive a fair reward. If that proposition is accepted, and if the consumer is getting round that by getting a product without paying for it, then it is the consumer who is at fault. It is the duty of Government not only to protect the interests of the consumer, but, from time to time, to protect the interests of the producer, both employer or employee. As I said, the interests of the employer and the employee go together.
This is not a case where, in their nightmares, noble Lords sometimes see employer and employee getting together to exploit the rest of the community. On the contrary, as I have said, this is a case of the community exploiting the producer. We are surely all agreed that we need to protect the producer and to give him a reasonable reward for his endeavours, whether that reward comes in terms of profits or in terms of salary, wages or other remuneration.
I said that I am not entirely happy with the Bill as it stands, but I am entirely happy with Clause 1(2A)(a). It seems to me that this goes to the heart of the matter, because it states that an offence occurs at the point at which the product is sold. That is quite easy to define. What this means—and this needs to be done—is that, if I make a film or a record for my own use, that is no longer a technical offence as it is at the moment. It becomes possible to do that without breaking the law. Under this Bill an offence will occur when I take that record to a market place and try to sell it—or not merely one, but dozens or hundreds. That is definable and is no problem in law.
With paragraph (b) we run into problems. It will not be so easy for a court of law to define an offence there. So I hope that my noble friend will say that, in return for getting a Second Reading this afternoon, he will be very ready to accept improvements at the Committee stage; or the Bill might conceivably go to a Select Committee, as the previous one did. But certainly the Bill ought not to be withdrawn. We ought to be making some progress on this matter, and one way of doing that would be to give this Bill a Second Reading, in the hope that some improvements can be made to it so that the main purposes of the Bill, which are long overdue, would come into effect.
Your Lordships will have received an advocacy of the Bill from the British phonographic industry. That advocacy seems to me to be convincing, with the qualification that I have made. We have also received objections to the Bill from the tape manufacturers group. They object to subsection (2A)(b) rather than to subsection (2A)(a). I understand their objection to that paragraph. I believe there is much to be said for placing a levy on the machine itself and for that levy going back to the manufacturer. Even if the product is made only for home use it is an additional use of the product, and the manufacturer is entitled to some remuneration for it. The levy on the machine would be collected and would go to the manufacturer. I hope that it would go not only to the manufacturer of the film or record but also eventually—by way of royalty

317
or something of that kind—to the performer on the record: the singer, or the musician, or the writer. My noble friend will not mind, I am sure, if I include writers. Have we no consideration for the creative and the interpretive artist? They are the people who make such recordings possible; without them, nothing would happen and they must be protected.
I believe I have said enough to indicate that the observations of the National Consumer Council are not in this case correct. I agree with some of their remarks, but a great deal of what they say is irrelevant to this small Bill. It may, however, have some relevance to further changes which the Government intend to introduce.
I hope I have said enough to make it clear that I trust the House will give a Second Reading to my noble friend's Bill and that it will proceed. Like so many other things, it may conceivably fall because of electoral events which overtake us. But many other things, including those which might be even more important than this, will fall if there should be a general election. However, that would be no excuse at all for not giving the Bill a Second Reading this afternoon.
2.23 p.m.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, in the battle against thieves, robbers, pirates and the mafia—phrases which have been rightly used by my noble friend—this House will be united. I cannot imagine any noble Lord deciding to take the part of anyone who deserved that description. There is no doubt that not only is there a threat but that thieving, robbing, pirating and mafia activities are going on in an industry which is vital to this country, and which your Lordships would wish to encourage: that of the creation and practice of art, whatever form it might take. Therefore I join those noble Lords who have already spoken in expressing gratitude to my noble friend Lord Willis for bringing this very important matter to your Lordships' attention.
Having said that, I wonder whether your Lordships would permit me to say that it is a great pity that in our legislature we cannot keep up with the times. The fact of the matter is that by virtue of all the technological changes which have taken place, especially in the industry which we are discussing this afternoon, the Copyright Act 1956 is grossly out of date. As a result, many quite innocent people in this country in the privacy of their homes, without any ulterior or commercial motive, are likely to be infringing at this very moment the copyright law. I shall give a brief example. The mere copying, on an ordinary, a slow-moving machine of a record at home, without any desire to sell it at all, constitutes a breach of copyright. This means that with the technological advances we have had, it is vital that the whole law of copyright be given a very definite examination, in order to bring it up to date.
My noble friend Lord Willis has said that this is a very urgent matter. There is no doubt that he is right. Therefore I cannot, on behalf of my noble friends, be content to say that we should look at the whole question of the law on copyright and wait for that consideration before we do anything about it. I
318
immediately concur with those who say that this Bill should undoubtedly be given a Second Reading.
Having said that—and I promise to be very brief—may I tell the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, that there are certain categories of people in this country who do not go on strike, and that judges are one of them. The noble Lord can therefore rest assured that whatever legal problem we may set them, the one reaction we shall have may be a criticism of Parliament but will certainly not be a walkout or a work-to-rule.
There is no doubt at all that there are legal problems connected with the matter we are now considering. They are undoubtedly problems which can be considered at later stages of this Bill, and I am sure that my noble friend, with his usual reasonableness, will give consideration to any point that is raised on the various clauses of this short Bill.
Perhaps your Lordships will bear with me if I spend a few moments telling the House of the case to which my noble friend briefly referred and which has given rise to the difficulties and problems which caused this Bill to come before us. It is not a very complicated case. It was the case of CBS Inc. and Another v. Ames Records and Tapes Limited, which was reported in the 1981 All England Law Reports at page 812. The noble Lord the Minister, with his usual attention to detail, waves before us a copy of that actual law report; but I trust that when he comes to address us after half past two this afternoon, it will not be his intention to read that report in extenso.
This case concerned a man who owned a record shop in the North of England. He started a rental scheme for records and also sold blank tapes. As my noble friend intimated, a rental charge is usually a very small amount, and people were encouraged—or so it was thought—to acquire both sets of this trader's wares—to rent the records and buy the blank tapes. The result, obviously, was a nice recording on tape at home, achieved as a result of the rental transaction.
Mr. Ames also had—and I use my words discreetly—a notice which brought to the attention of those who did business with him the fact that it constituted a beach of copyright if one copied material at home. That case was brought to court. The court was in some difficulty because there was no direct connection between the transactions I have just described and the actual infringement of the copyright, in the sense that the gentleman who rented out these records and sold blank tapes did not directly know—because he was not a visitor to the homes in question—that this was being done. Therefore, although it was very likely that the result of this transaction was the piracy to which my noble friend has referred, nevertheless he could not be proved to have knowledge of the breach of copyright. So my friend's Bill aims to put this right.
Your Lordships will see the relevance of the facts of this case to one clause, for example, in this Bill, and that is subsection (2B) of Clause 1:
"Use of a disclaimer notice shall not of itself prevent conduct from falling within subsection (2A) of this section."
That is a very interesting section to read in view of the facts of this case.

319
Your Lordships, and I hope my noble friend, will think very deeply before we, in saving one industry or trying to protect it, harm another industry. There is no doubt about it, there is a perfectly innocent industry which we would want to encourage: that of making and selling recording machines. If one looks at what happens under the provisions of this Bill to somebody who dares to sell this type of machine in a retail shop, one would come to the conclusion that he would be a reckless man even to start stocking it, because if you look at subsection (2C) it says:
"Conduct may fall within subsections (2A)(b) of this section notwithstanding that the person supplying the machine had no knowledge of the use to which the machine was to be put and no control, whether direct or otherwise, over the first or subsequent purchasers of the machine."
Again, from the facts I ventured to outline to your Lordships one can see why this clause was put in; it was because of the previous judgment in the 1981 case. But, if I may say so, I think my noble friend will find that lawyers will tremble somewhat at the absolute nature of these clauses, to which my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney also referred. These matters can be dealt with without any doubt in Committee and at Report stage, and I have no doubt my noble friend will be able to agree to some of the amendments that lawyers may put forward without in any way spoiling the principle of the Bill.
My Lords, it is in those circumstances that I hope that this Bill will certainly have a Second Reading in your Lordships' House.
2.34 p.m.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, we have listened with fascination to the points that have been raised this afternoon, and I am sure your Lordships will join with me in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Willis, for introducing his Bill in such cogent terms, so briefly and in very amusing terms; indeed, it gave us the opportunity to listen to the wit of the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, about whom I shall have a little to say later in the course of my remarks. I promise I shall be brief. I hope I shall be forgiven if I address myself first to the Bill.
The House will agree that the Copyright (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill raises some very interesting and important questions, but at the same time your Lordships will not be surprised to know that the Government have some serious reservations about the provisions contained in it. The Bill is essentially concerned with the issue of unauthorised home-taping, of both sound recordings and films, and this includes video films. This is one of the most important and difficult areas of copyright that the Government are currently examining as part of our general review which follows the publication in 1981 of a Green Paper. We hope that before too long we shall be able to bring forward a comprehensive set of proposals for the reform and modernisation of all aspects of copyright law.
Lord Mishcon: Hear, hear!
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the noble Lord gives sound approbation and encouragement, but I assure you and
320
the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that this is a particularly complicated subject. Indeed, the subject we have been discussing this afternoon is equally difficult.
Your Lordships will have noted that the Bill has two distinct limbs. The first is in Clause 1 under the proposed new Section 1(2A)(a) of the Copyright Act 1956. This concerns rental and similar transactions involving copyright records and films. Under this provision anyone who, without the consent of the copyright owner, engaged for profit in the business of rental, lease, exchange or the like of copyright sound recordings or films—here we come to some difficult points—in circumstances likely to lead to their unauthorised copying would be deemed to have authorised an infringement of copyright, and hence to have himself committed an infringement.
I am sure that all of your Lordships will agree that one of the most striking features of the sudden and surprising growth of the video market in this country has been the predominance of rental. This was raised very forcibly by the noble Lord, Lord Willis. It has been estimated (although I cannot vouch for the precise figures) that about 1¼ million video cassettes are rented each week in the United Kingdom. This rental is such a recent phenomenon that it has not yet been possible to assess its full implication for those whose interests are at stake. We have heard that there are many more interests than just the mere simple transaction between the renter and the first customer.
In particular, at the time when the copyright Green Paper was published in 1981 video rental had not been raised as an issue and consequently it did not receive any mention in that document. The publicity that this Bill will receive may be the first intimation to many of us, or to the public at large, that video rental has any implications for anyone other than those directly involved in a particular rental transaction—the video shopkeeper and his customer. For this reason the Government are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, for bringing this issue to the attention of your Lordships and to the wider public at this stage. However, having said that I must go on to express the reservations that we have about the rental side of the Bill. Indeed, these are serious reservations.
There are three main reservations. The first is the Bill's provisions that the copyright owner would only be given a right in relation to rental,
"In circumstances likely to lead to the unauthorised making of any record embodying the recording or any copy of the film".
That appears to be reasonable but it also seems to be a recipe for confusion and misunderstanding. It would put an impossible burden on the rental operator if he had to decide in each case whether the circumstances were such that illegal copying was likely to result. The second reservation is about the phrase,
"rental, lease, exchange or the like".
This would be a fertile source of uncertainty. In particular, we are not clear what sort of behaviour would be caught by the words "or the like".
The third main criticism of the Bill's rental provisions is on the question of timing. I did touch on this. The Government welcome the opportunity that the Bill presents for an examination of the issues involved in video, and indeed record, rental. We recognise that this is an idea that merits the closest

321
scrutiny, especially in view of the way that video rental has developed. But, at the same time, we consider that it would be premature to prejudge these issues by introducing legislation in this way and just now. The real need for a rental right has not yet been demonstrated—not for video and still less for records, since there seems to be very little commercial record rental activity in this country. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, mentioned Japan, but we stand by what we believe to be the case in this country. It has yet to be established, for example, that videogram producers cannot adequately protect their interests in relation to rental or exchange by contractual means.
Instead, I hope that bodies representing all groups affected—film and record producers and distributors, retail, rental and exchange operators, as well as their customers—will take this opportunity of the matter being raised this afternoon to let the Department of Trade know their views on the subject. We would hope that they will get in touch with the Industrial Property and Copyright Department. I give the full commercial address, which is 25 Southampton Buildings, London, WC2A 1 AY. In case your Lordships did not gather that, I am sure that it will be in the Official Report. That may also help members of the public who might be interested. We assure your Lordships that the department will then be able to give the fullest and most balanced consideration to all the issues that are raised in the Bill, and will be able to decide whether to bring forward proposals for a rental or exchange right, at the same time as the general reform of copyright is announced.
I turn now to the second main limb of the Bill, which is dealt with in Clause 1 under the proposed new Section 1(2A)(b) of the Copyright Act 1956. That is on the first page of the Bill, in line 18. Anyone who for the purposes of trade sold, distributed or otherwise made available any machine capable of reproducing a record or film, where the nature of the machine was such that the primary or a substantial use of it was likely to result in unauthorised copying of a copyright record or film, would, under this provision, he deemed to have authorised infringement of that copyright and so to have infringed it himself.
Proposed new Section 1(2C) (over the page in the Bill at line 6 on page 2) states that this would be so even though the person supplying the machine had no knowledge of the use to which it was to be put and, above all, no control whatsoever over the first or subsequent purchasers of it. Just here I would mention that under the proposed new Section 1(2B) at the top of the page, the tape rental or equipment retail operator would not be saved from proceedings for his, so to speak, "contributory infringement" by the display of a disclaimer notice, as we popularly call it, warning his customers against unauthorised copying.
This provision is full of problems both of interpretation and of principle. The equipment it covers is by no means clear. With the increase in technological advance and these new wonder implements that were mentioned—I hardly dare say advertised—by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, it becomes even less clear. The provision apparently covers not only the recently emerged high speed, tape-to-tape audio recorders, but also all domestic music centres, as they are popularly known, and combined
322
radio/cassette recorders. Indeed, it may even extend to simple tape recorders, both audio and video.
Whether an item is covered depends, as always in legal matters, on the circumstances. I have mentioned a number of items of equipment, and I hasten to add that we are not in the Tottenham Court Road, or in an audio and video equipment bazaar. All these items which have been brought to my notice, even the high speed recorders, have legitimate uses which simply do not involve the infringement of copyright. Many such items are purchased by people who have no intention of ever using them for infringing purposes. That is undoubtedly true of very many music centres and combined cassette/radios. It would be quite wrong to put every distributor and retailer of all such equipment at risk of finding himself to be an infringer of copyright.
However, the Bill would make such a person an infringer of a particular copyright only in circumstances in which the owner of copyright in a particular record or film could show that the sale or otherwise of the equipment was likely to result in unauthorised copying of that particular record or film. This provision would be very difficult for a copyright owner to apply, and it is very hard to conceive of circumstances that would with any certainty enable him to seek redress.
We must ask ourselves whether the sale of equipment alone would in practice ever entitle him to relief. It is difficult to see how it could, given that a particular copyright must be threatened, and yet new subsection (2C) states that the equipment vendor may not be saved by his own ignorance of the use to which the machine is to be put. If not irreconcilable, these two concepts taken together could be difficult to apply—and that is putting it fairly mildly. We should also consider whether the supplier is to be required to make inquiries about the proposed use of the equipment by his customer, or, for that matter, by anyone else.
Perhaps the circumstances to which this part of the Bill may apply are very unlikely to arise. Let us suppose that a video shop that rents out videograms to its customers at the same time both sells blank video tapes and makes available in the shop video recording machines on which customers are encouraged to make copies of their newly-rented tapes. Perhaps the proprietor makes a charge for the use of the machine in this way. Such behaviour on the part of the proprietor would, I suppose, be within the Bill, and would, furthermore, be objectionable, since clearly he would be encouraging the infringement of copyright. However, one might expect the court to regard such provocative behaviour as amounting to the authorisation of infringement, and it would be caught even under present law. So the Bill seems to fill no existing loophole even on this extremely narrow interpretation.
I wish briefly to turn to the very interesting comments that have been made by your Lordships in the course of the debate on the Bill this afternoon. During his very amusing remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Willis, raised the question of pirates, and this was alluded to even more succinctly by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. The noble Lord raised the matter in a very romantic way, but we accept that there is here a very serious problem, and that is why we hope that he

323
and anyone who has a commercial or other interest in the matter will get in touch with us at the department.
I was very interested in the noble Lords's "commercial" (if I may so describe it) for the high-speed recorder. He probably got the name right. I am not a great speaker of Japanese, though there are Members of your Lordships' House who have great facility in that language, and no doubt they could help the noble Lord. He also pointed out the advance of technology; and these new high-speed tape recorders will probably be obsolete by next year.
There was much mention of art from technology. I wonder how far technology can be extended to taping and to what degree it can be taken into the privacy of our own homes. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, mentioned that there would be many of us who might be taping at normal speed—not at four times normal speed—from a record onto a tape. I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, that he, and no doubt other Members of your Lordships' House, have technological knowledge which is certainly not possessed by some of us and certainly not by me, for a start. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Willis, would consider that buying blank tapes and a video recording machine covers home taping of even his beloved football team. When it comes to art and artists, would it cover the said Mr. Hoddle who distinguishes himself in the noble Lord's beloved team? Is that covered under a copyright? Or is it an infringement? I promise that the comments made by the noble Lord and the points raised during discussion on the Bill will be taken into account.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, made some typically trenchant comments. However, as this is not a Government Bill I shall allow the noble Lord, Lord Willis, to field those trenchant comments from the Liberal benches. The noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, had some interesting thoughts on the copying of cars. Many non-technical Members of your Lordships' House may feel that one already needs a technical eye to understand overhead camshafts, twin valves or what seem to many of us to be heaps of metal with various accoutrements that seem to convey us from our homes to your Lordships' House and back. It seems to many of us that the copying of cars already goes on. We note the trenchant comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, about artists and how they could do with protection.
When we come to legal matters and, above all, the matters we are discussing, the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, brings the art of wit and no little amusement to our debate. The noble Lord mentioned that technology had overtaken the Copyright Act 1956. This is also the view of the department. All judges at all levels will be glad of the noble Lord's support that they never work to rule or delay their judgments especially in home taping cases. The noble Lord mentioned a case. He should know that, like all good Scouts, Members of your Lordships' House and, above all, Government spokesmen, try to be well prepared.
I did, with no little difficulty, find the interesting case that was mentioned both by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, and by the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon. The noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, referred to it as a simple case. I should like, with your Lordships' forbearance,
324
to mention that in Reports of Patent, Design and Trade Mark Cases No. 25 in 1981, we start at page 407. The case of CBS Inc. and Another versus Ames Records and Tapes Limited, dated 8th October 1981, took place in the Chancery Division before Mr. Justice Whitford. Your Lordships will be interested to know that the judgment of Mr. Justice Whitford carried on to page 428. These are pages of 45 lines or more. We therefore take the noble Lord's comment that this is a simple case with a pinch of salt.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, will the noble Lord not agree that some judges, like some noble Ministers, have very long briefs and very long judgments, and that sometimes it is usual, especially at this hour, to abbreviate them.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I take closely to heart the judgment of the noble Lord. Lord Mishcon. I would however draw to his attention and to that of your Lordships that this case covers fascinating observations on the making of trap orders. Furthermore Mr. Justice Whitford took a close look at a publication known as Music Week. Apart from working hard, judges seem to do all kinds of things. Later on that page Mr. Justice Whitford took a close look and quoted extensively from Billboard magazine, which goes to show that clearly such matters of technology and art penetrate even into the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice. But we took a great deal of encouragement from the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, when he said that this was a simple case. We take his word for it, and, indeed. I am sure that my noble and learned friend will be grateful for his support for the legal profession in this and, indeed, in many other areas.
I would conclude our discussion and comments on the Second Reading of the Bill before us this afternoon by making the general observation that the Government do not see the piecemeal approach to copyright reform embodied in this Bill as the correct way to modernise our law. We believe that it can lead to distortions and anomalies by dealing with different but inter related sections of the subject in different ways. As your Lordships will be aware, copyright is a complex subject with many facets, but those facets are closely interlinked and need to be considered together if unforeseen inconsistencies are to be avoided.
The Government are in general opposed to the piecemeal approach to copyright reform, but it is a mark both of our constructive attitude and, indeed, of the extreme urgency that has recently arisen in the field of video piracy that we have been prepared to support two immediate measures to counteract it—one which became law last Session and one which will shortly be considered by your Lordships' House having completed its passage in another place. While we do not deny that the home-taping question is pressing, it simply cannot be solved in the ways proposed in the Bill before us this afternoon. We hope that your Lordships will agree that it must await the completion of the Government's review. I have stressed—and I stress it again—that the outcome of this review will emerge as soon as possible.
I may have expressed some strong criticisms of the Bill, but at the same time I welcome the opportunity that it presents for a consideration of the question of

325
rental. We really do not want to hinder debate in your Lordships' House on this important subject, and, therefore, we would certainly give the Bill a fair wind this afternoon.
2.57 p.m.
Lord Willis: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken today. I must say that this afternoon I felt that I had one of my greatest triumphs when the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said that there were certain clauses in this Bill that would make lawyers tremble. It has long been my ambition to make lawyers tremble, and if this Bill goes a small way towards achieving that lifetime's ambition then I shall be delighted.
I should like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. There is one phrase that I have learned to dread over many years and that is, "Having said that …". I remember that when I took my first script into the producer he said how fantastic and brilliant it was, and then of course, he went on to say, "Having said that …". I had the same feeling when listening to the debate this afternoon.
I do not think it would have been necessary for me to bring this Bill forward at all—and I do not want to be unkind to the noble Lord the Minister—if the Government had hurried a little more with what they have called their thorough overall review of copyright. Your Lordships will recall that last year I said that it had been seven years since the report had been issued and the Government had said that they would let us have a public debate on it. It is now eight years that that public debate has been raging, and that is why this piecemeal legislation is coming forward.
There are one or two other points which I shall not bother to go into with your Lordships, but as regards the question of video rental we are rather running on one leg because at the moment people do not rent videos to copy; they rent them to view. To hire a television film on a video tape and then take it home and copy it on to another tape is a very expensive process. At the moment you cannot buy the machines for that readily in the market. So that is not really an issue at present, and neither are one or two of the other points that were raised. I am very cognisant of the fact
326
that I have kept your Lordships away from your country retreats quite long enough. Therefore, I beg to move.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

National Heritage Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments.
House adjourned at three o'clock.

  CORONARY ARTERY BYPASS SURGERY
  CORONARY ARTERY BYPASS SURGERY