Lords Sitting of 7 April 1970

Preamble
Reassembling after the Easter Recess, the House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Truro.

WASTE MATERIAL: SALVAGE BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES
LORD MOYLE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will urge upon local authorities the need to salvage waste material for commercial purposes; and whether they will consider making an investment grant to small local authorities for the provision of equipment necessary for salvaging waste material.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, MINISTRY OF TECHNOLOGY (LORD DELACOURT-SMITH): My Lords, in the debate in your Lordships' House on March 11 it was made clear that the Government are fully aware of the importance to the national economy of the reclamation of waste materials. Local authorities can usefully contribute to this, particularly in relation to waste paper, but only, as was indicated in the
2
debate, on a selective basis in response to demand. Local authorities are not eligible for investment grants under the Industrial Development Act 1966, and the Government see no good reason for introducing legislation that would entitle them to grants.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the whole of the refuse from Heathrow Air-port is collected by the Greater London Council? As a great deal of this refuse must be worth reclaiming, which perhaps the Airport itself might do in the first instance, rather than the G.L.C., does not the noble Lord think it advisable that inquiries should be made into this matter?
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I will certainly look into the point that the noble Baroness has raised.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, can my noble friend indicate whether any progress has been made into the re-use of industrial waste for the purposes of both road-filling and civil engineering?
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, that was one of the questions which was discussed in the debate which the noble Baroness initiated and, as indicated in the course of that debate, the matter is still under examination.
LORD MOYLE: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a number of charity organisations and the Scout

3
movement play a big part in the reclamation of waste material, particularly of waste paper? I wonder whether, in view of what the Minister has said, the Government will do their utmost to encourage the charity organisations and the Scout movement to make a special effort this year to increase the collection of waste paper.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I recognise the valuable work that is done by voluntary organisations in this connection. However, I want strongly to emphasise that all voluntary organisations who are contemplating engaging in such activity should ensure beforehand that they have a reliable outlet for the waste paper or other waste materials which they collect.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, is the Minister aware that local authorities are finding it more and more difficult to find tipping space for waste material, and that it would be much more economic in the long run if the Government would en-courage them to invest in processing plants to avoid this tipping problem?
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, any encouragement of investment by way of grant would, of course, raise issues for local authorities which go be-yond the subject covered by the Question. The Government are not convinced that any payment of grants of this kind would be justified, or indeed is widely demanded.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, can my noble friend say what happens to waste paper in this House?

MENTAL HEALTH: BUILDING PROJECTS
2.40 p.m.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they consider that the mentally ill and the subnormal receive their fair proportion of major building projects initiated by the Department of Health and Social Security.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (BARONESS SEROTA): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has discussed the matter with the Regional Hospital Boards whose duty it is to keep under review the priority of particular building schemes and concluded that more needs to be done in the short term before it can be said that these services can be regarded as receiving their fair share. Accordingly, in giving Boards their allocations of capital for 1970–71 he asked them to devote £2 million more to schemes for long-stay services—that is, geriatric and psychiatric —than they had indicated in their provisional programmes, of which at least £1 million was to be devoted to schemes for the mentally handicapped.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, may I thank the noble Baroness more than formally for that reply, and beg leave to ask the second Question standing in my name on the Order Paper?
LORD PLATT: My Lords, before the noble Lord goes on to the second Question, I should like to ask the Government whether they are aware of the enormously good effect on morale, and therefore on recruiting, derived from having modern buildings for the services which have been mentioned?
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I am only too conscious of the point the noble Lord has made. We hope that by this additional allocation of money we shall continue to raise morale in the services.

MENTAL HEALTH RESEARCH
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why the percentage of the budget of the Medical Research Council devoted to mental health is so much smaller than the percentage of National Health Ser-vice beds occupied by those whose men-tal health puts them there.]
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, there is no reason why these percentages should be related. Nineteen of the Council's 79 research establishments have programmes

5
directly relevant to mental disorders, and a further four are concerned with psycho-logical studies. Research in this field often does not require so much expensive equipment and materials as many other kinds of research; the expenditure figures by no means reflect the effort devoted to the problem.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, may I ask a supplementary question to this Question also? I accept that figures do not prove everything in this field. Nevertheless this can be a vicious circle, and I wonder whether Her Majesty's Government are fully aware of the fact that the less money that is put into mental health research, the less will able people go in for it. I wonder whether Her Majesty's Government have further considered the fact that this question, in view of all its social implications—delinquency, crime, drug addiction and so on—is now of such importance that it may be time for Her Majesty's Government to take action quite outside the Medical Research Council, by increasing the budgets of university departments and establishing new chairs in psychiatry.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, if I may lake the second part of the noble Lord's question first, Her Majesty's Government are well aware of the new trends that have come to the surface in this particular field of medicine and are looking at this problem all the time. I would not presume to question the actions of the profession of which the noble Lord is a very distinguished member, but surely one is not always attracted to research by virtue of the high salaries that are offered.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, are not highly relevant factors here the enormous reduction in the average stay in hospital of mentally sick patients, the far greater turnover in the number of beds available, and also the far greater extension which has recently taken place in out-patient facilities?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: Yes, my Lords. I should like to thank the noble Lord for making the point which we all know to be the case. It plays a very important part in replying to a question of this kind.

M.40 MOTORWAY: CHILTERNS EXTENSION
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government:

(1) What is the estimated additional cost of extending the M.40 Motorway over the Chilterns to the North of the existing A.40 roadway, and

(2) Which organisations are known so far to have expressed disapproval of the decision to extend the M.40 Motorway over the Chilterns South of the existing A.40 roadway.]

THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE, R.A.F. (LORD WINTER-BOTTOM): My Lords, the additional cost of constructing the motorway over the Chilterns to the North of the A.40, on an alignment proposed by objectors at the public inquiry, is estimated to be at least £500,000. Disapproval of the decision of my right honourable friend, the Minister of Transport, has been expressed by the organisations which took the lead in opposing his proposals at the public inquiry, notably the Chiltern Society, the Oxford Branch of the Council for the Protection of Rural England, the Berks, Bucks and Oxford Naturalists' Trust and the Ramblers' Association.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend for that reply. Is my noble friend aware that the opposition has increased, rather than diminished, since the Minister of Transport explained the reasons for his decision, and that this opposition was due as much to the procedure by which the decision was arrived at as by the decision itself? Could not the Government have announced their decision tentatively, rather on the lines of the Green Paper for the National Health Service, and then held the official inquiry subsequently, so that public discussion could have been focused far more effectively on all the points at issue?
LORD W1NTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am not aware that resistance to the proposals of my right honourable friend has

7
increased since the Statement was made. I think the resistance was pretty strong at the time of the inquiry, but, as with all these cases, the decision was supported by some and opposed by others. A great deal of expert opinion was in support of my right honourable friend, including the local planning authority, which is the Oxfordshire County Council, the Chiltern Standing Conference and the Countryside Commission. In addition, the Minister's Landscape Advisory Committee, which includes a number of eminent amenity experts, recommended the route. I should have thought—and I hope my noble friend will agree—that a large measure of consultation took place before the decision was reached.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, since the decision was arrived at, have the Government been able to give fuller consideration to the Arup-Jellicoe proposals? Has not the long correspondence in The Times brought forward further material which still requires a great deal of consideration?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the Arup-Jellicoe line was carefully considered. I am afraid, however, that, important though The Times newspaper is, correspondence in it is not perhaps as important as a public inquiry, where the decision was reached.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the negotiations in regard to this road have been going on for over ten years; and is it not about time that they stopped talking and did some work?
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend how many trees would have to be felled if the motorway went to the North of the A.40, as advocated by many of the amenity societies?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, my noble friend has put his finger on the key objection to the Arup-Jellicoe line. Twenty-six acres of beechwood would have to be felled. I do not know how many trees that represents, but it is a lot, and it would leave a great notch in the crest of the hill which would be visible from all over the Oxford plain.

NATIONAL LIBRARIES
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, at a convenient moment after half-past three my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a Statement on the Report of the National Libraries Committee.
SALOP COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
SOUTHEND-ON-SEA CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
HUNTINGDON AND PETERBOROUGH COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Com-mittee on Unopposed Bills.
SOMERSET COUNTY COUNCIL BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Com-mittee on Unopposed Bills.

MINES MANAGEMENT BILL [H.L.]
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law as to the management and control of mines by making pro-vision with respect to the appointment of persons to assist the manager of a mine in the discharge of his statutory responsibilities, and with respect to under-managers, and for purposes connected therewith. I beg to move that this Bill be read a first time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read la.— (Lord Delacourt-Smith.)
EARL ST. ALDWYN:My Lords, be-fore the Question is put, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord the Leader of the House, and the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, on the amount of legislation they have succeeded in getting started in this House. This has always, as long as I have known this House, been a continual battle; and, if I may say so,

9
I think that they really have done remark-ably well in this particular Session.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, continuing this slightly disorderly process, I should like to thank the noble Earl. It is a continuous battle, as well he knows, and I like to think that we have been a little more successful this year. But I will not guarantee that we shall not be in trouble at the end of the summer.
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (GOODS AND SERVICES) BILL
2.52 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRE-TARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KEN-NET): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a. —(Lord Kennel.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Clause 1 [Supply of goods and services by local authorities]:
LORD DENHAM LORD DENHAM moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 3, leave out ("or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when I moved a similar Amendment at Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Ken-net, persuaded me to withdraw the Amendment so that further consideration could be given to it. I spoke at great length on the Amendment at Committee stage. It was a rather wider one and covered a little more ground than the Amendment we are discussing this after-noon. I do not think it is necessary to repeat all the arguments I deployed then, but if I speak more shortly I hope the noble Lord will not assume that I am less resolute over this Amendment than I was over the previous one.
The general principle of the Bill, which we agreed at Second Reading, is that a local authority should be able to supply goods and services to a public body, but with a specific exception made in the Bill, under Clause 1(2)(a), that no local authority may construct new buildings or works for a public body, although
10
they may carry out works of maintenance for that body. In moving the first two Amendments I would suggest to your Lordships that there is an equally good case for excepting from the general enabling powers of this Bill the purchasing and storing of building materials for supply to a public body for the construction of new buildings and works, although under my Amendment this would not prohibit their supply for works of maintenance.
At the Committee stage I explained the enormous range of goods dealt in by builders' merchants—between 30,000 and 50,000 different items, any of which might be called for in a construction work undertaken by a public body. While I am asking your Lordships to make a particular exception in this particular trade, I would say that I cannot think of any other trade that has comparable complexity in the matter of numbers of items, storage and different types of materials. Some of these goods are in constant demand and have a quick turnover; some are very specialised items which are called for only rarely but when they are needed they are essential; and of course there are many grades between the two extremes. But in any list of a builders' merchant's stock placed in order of the extent of demand of each item, one could draw a line at some place on the list above which the items show a profit and below which they do not show a profit but are kept as a service. The builders' merchant is not a user of his own goods, so if he concentrates too much on the profitable end he loses customers by not giving the service; if he concentrates too much on the rarer items he risks making a loss. He must use his skill and experience to balance his business.
When we consider whether local authorities should be enabled to act as builders' merchants, two questions arise. First, can they do it properly? And, secondly, will they do it fairly? When I cast doubt on the first question at Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, ridiculed the suggestion. He said that I had not put down an Amendment to deprive councils of the right to share a computer, and if I thought that maintaining a stock of building materials was a more specialised skill than running a large computer, I would think anything. He was even more lyrical when dealing

11
with an Amendment of mine about the meat trade. But surely the noble Lord must realise that this argument just does not hold water. A computer is infinitely more complicated than, for instance, an internal combustion engine. Yet I know of men who are skilled in programming a computer who have no idea what to do when their cars come to a juddering halt. Some of them do not know even how to open the bonnet. The fact that one has one highly specialised skill does not mean that one automatically possesses all lesser skills, particularly when the skill in question is acquired only with years of experience. While I cast doubt then, and still do, on a local authority's being able profitably to set up as a builders' merchant, I have no doubt that they would be able to show a profit to their rate-payers by dealing in a few of the more profitable items.
That brings me to the second question: Will they do it fairly? If local authorities supply the bulk of the profitable materials for a large proportion of the new buildings and works, and rely on builders' merchants to supply the un-profitable ones, some builders' merchants may go out of business; more will have to cut down on the service they offer. This will be to the detriment of the building trade, the general public, and eventually local authorities themselves and their ratepayers. The noble Lord said at Committee stage: "Give these powers to local authorities, and if they think it is to the advantage of their ratepayers it is right that they should be able to use them." But this is the crux of the matter. Local authorities have only their ratepayers to consider; and it may well be to their short-term advantage that they should have and use these powers so far as building materials are concerned. But your Lordships have to consider not only the short term but also the long term, not only the ratepayers of individual councils but the public as a whole. This is the responsibility that I believe it would be inappropriate to pass on and leave to the local authorities. My Lords, I beg to move.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, with the permission of the House I will follow the noble Lord in discussing, as I think he was discussing, the first two Amendments together. The first is purely a
12
paving Amendment for the second. I promised at an earlier stage to think again about this matter, and this I have done. I find that the four main arguments that have been advanced at different stages for excluding building materials from the powers that the Bill will give are, first, the interests of the builders' and plumbers' merchants; second, that the merchants will face unfair competition from local authorities who can subsidise their activities from the rates, a point that the noble Lord made explicitly last time but which I think he has omitted to-day; and third, that local authorities are unlikely to be able to do the job efficiently because of the specialised skills entailed. The fourth argument, although the noble Lord did not mention it again to-day, was that Parliament has already decided, during the passage of Private Bills, that supply should be left to the private merchants. I think the noble Lord did not lean on the fourth argument, so with his agreement I will omit that one and address myself to the first three.
I would remind the House that the Bill does not empower local authorities to sell to the general public and our experience suggests that, even if authorities combine their purchasing arrangements, they will continue to buy the majority of the goods and materials they need for their building operations through builders' merchants. Our inquiries show that the authorities who already have local Act powers to supply building materials buy the majority of those materials from merchants. The discounts obtainable by direct purchase from the manufacturers are usually insufficient to offset the cost of storage, including administrative costs, breakages, thefts and losses, and so on. Moreover, the merchants offer advantages in the way of quick deliveries and service.
The Bill may indeed benefit the merchants to some extent by enabling local authorities to combine their purchasing and thus place large standing contracts with them, which at the moment they may not be able to do. A standing con-tract enables the merchant concerned to negotiate larger discounts from the manufacturers. It stabilises his trade and reduces the variety of items that he has to carry in stock. The West Riding of Yorkshire has already provided examples of such arrangements. On the other

13
hand, there are some goods used in construction and maintenance work on which large savings can be made by purchasing directly from the manufacturers. The outstanding example is paint, where savings of up to 25 per cent. can be made in this way.
I turn now to the question of rate-supported competition. I do not really understand the fears that have been ex-pressed on this point. An authority which makes a practice of running its purchasing activities at a loss would soon be in trouble with the district auditor. But what authority is going to subsidise a trading activity from its own rate fund for the sake of keeping down the rates of another? That is what we are dealing with in this part of the Bill. In any case, the provision in Clause 2 of the Bill which requires a separate account to be kept of transactions under the Bill and to be made available for inspection was introduced by the Government in Commons Committee precisely to meet fears of this sort, and I think that should take care of the point.
Thirdly, there is the question of the efficiency of local government purchasing. If the Bill were proposing that local authorities should set up as retail builders' merchants trading with the public, the argument that they could not do the job efficiently might be valid. But the Bill does nothing of the sort. It simply enables one local authority to enter into an agreement with another local authority to supply goods and materials.
The reason why the trade of a retail builders' merchant is complex is that he has to keep up with changing fashions and stock vast quantities of different pat-terns of so many items simply because so many customers demand something different. His expertise lies in part in anticipating changes in the market and buying accordingly. But under this Bill the local authority will "enter into an agreement to supply" another authority. That is the phraseology of the Bill. In practice, as has already happened in counties which have local Act powers, the county supply organisation can be expected to use its expertise to buy for the district councils those supplies which it had agreed in advance to provide them with, and all the indications available to me are that this can be done efficiently and economically.
14
Lastly, with regard to the noble Lord's jeu d'esprit about the computer and the motor car which stopped, it is of course true that the computer technician or scientist may not know how to mend the motor car. But I was not suggesting that it was the same genius who ran the computer who would be able to run the store of building materials, but rather that the same authority that could attract, pay, keep and manage men skilled in running computers could probably pay, keep and attract men skilled in running yards of building materials.
All that being so, my Lords, I hope that at least I have convinced the noble Lord, Lord Denham, and noble Lords opposite that I have been into this matter again thoroughly. I hope I may even have convinced them—and I hope the noble Lord may agree with me in this—that the Bill will not be any danger to any-body if it is left unamended.
3.6 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I have enjoyed the noble Lord's speech very much, but I regret to say he has not convinced me in the slightest. Indeed, I felt that many of the things he said about the complexity of the builders' merchants' trade, and particularly the fact that even with these powers the local authorities would still have to use them—and most who have these powers already do—are a very good argument for putting my Amendment into the Bill. What I am worried about is not the local authority that continues to use the builders' merchant, who will make good use of these powers, but the local authority that will try to skim the cream off the supply of building materials, and to my mind this will be a severe detriment to the country.
The noble Lord said that I did not use my argument about the Private Bills, which I put to your Lordships at great length at Committee stage. In fact, I tried to cut down my speech to-day because I felt I had been over-long on the previous occasion, but I do not depart in the slightest from that argument. These powers have been denied to local authorities, in many cases after a great deal of evidence about the sort of complexities that exist in this trade have been heard and after the arguments have been deployed by learned counsel.

15
My Lords, the noble Lord said that a local authority that is running a particular scheme under this Bill at a loss will soon be in trouble with its ratepayers. Of course this is true—when it is found out. But it will not stop, say, a local authority which feels that it will be able to run it at a profit from embarking on a scheme, and doing a certain amount of harm before discovering that the scheme is not profitable. Equally—and this is the more important point—it will not stop the local authority from making a profit for its ratepayers by dealing in only those goods which are the most profitable. I do not want to say anything more to the noble Lord, because I could talk for a long time without winning him over on this point; but I do not feel that I can with-draw the Amendment.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, since the noble Lord has leaned also upon his fourth point at this stage, perhaps I may give him and the House some answer on this point which will no doubt influence your Lordships in the way you intend to vote on this Amendment. The claim that Parliament had already decided in favour of the merchants during the progress of Private Bills does not hold water. Between 1936 and 1954 seven county councils, including London, were given power to supply goods and materials, without restriction, to their district councils. When, in 1956, the Monmouth-shire County Council sought similar powers there was vigorous opposition from the building interests, but the proposal for a saving clause for building materials came from the Promoters themselves, and the issue was not decided by the Committee of either House of Parliament. Subsequent local Acts have all carried similar provisos excluding
building materials, but on each occasion it has been inserted by the Promoters and not by a Parliamentary Committee. This is a common practice where the Promoters are anxious to accommodate the opposition rather than to fight an issue which they do not consider important.
The aim of the London County Council (General Powers) Bill 1957, to which the noble Lord, Lord Denham, referred at an earlier stage, was to extend the list of bodies included in the L.C.C.'s 1936 Act to whom they could supply goods and materials of all kinds. A number of industries, including building, petitioned against the extension and they were successful in preventing the extension of the power to supply goods and materials to bodies outside the L.C.C. area; but there was no provision to exclude building materials from the scope of that Bill, and it was never suggested that there should be. So although that is an interesting precedent, it is not an interesting precedent for the Amendment at present before the House. This was reaffirmed in 1963 when the London Government Act gave similar powers to the Greater London Council. So your Lordships will see that, at least on this point, the claim that Parliament had already decided that building materials should be exempted from provisions analogous to those in the Bill as unamended will not stand up. And I verily believe that the other three points on which Lord Denham has based his case on behalf of the Opposition will not stand up either.
3.11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 73; Not-Contents, 58.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Effingham, E.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Albemarle, E.

Burton, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Byers, L.

Falkland, V.

Alport, L.

Conesford, L.

Ferrier, L.

Amherst, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Fortescue, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Cowley, E.

Fraser of Lonsdale, L.

Auckland, L.

Craigavon, V.

Gladwyn, L.

Balerno, L.

Cromartie, E.

Goschen, V.[Teller.]

Barnby, L.

Daventry, V.

Grenfell. L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Denham, L.

Gridley, L.

Bessborough, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Blackford, L.

Dundee, E.

Hawke, L.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Ebbisham, L.

Henley, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Eccles, V.

Ilford, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Ogmore, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Jessel, L.

Poltimore, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Kilmany, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Stratheden and Campbell, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Rathcavan, L.

Swinton, E.

Lauderdale, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Teynham, L.

Liverpool, E.

Salter, L.

Thurlow, L.

Merrivale, L.

Sanderson of Ayot, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Milverton, L.

Sandford, L. [Teller.]

Vivian, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Wade, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Raglan, L.

Ardwick, L.

Hanworth, V.

Rhodes, L.

Arwyn, L.

Henderson, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Aylestone, L.

Heycock, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Beswick, L.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Royle, L.

Blackett, L.

Hughes, L.

Rusholme, L.

Blyton, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Segal, L.

Bourne, L.

Kennet, L.

Serota, Bs.

Brockway, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Shackleton, L.(L. Privy Seal.)

Buckinghamshire, E.

Leatherland, L.

Shannon, E.

Burden, L.

Lindgren, L.

Sorensen, L.

Champion, L.

Loudoun, C.

Stocks, Bs.

Clwyd, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Stonham, L.

Collison, L.

McLeavy, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Crook, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Moyle, L.

Taylor, L.

Fiske, L.

Peddie, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Fulton, L.

Phillips, Bs.[Teller.]

Willis, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Platt, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
LORD DENHAM LORD DENHAM moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 6, at end insert—
("or
(c) to purchase or store building materials for supply to any public body for the construction of any new buildings or works.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment, too, is slightly different from the equivalent one that I moved at Committee stage. At that lime the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, said that he had the greatest possible sympathy with my Amendment and undertook to give the matter further consideration. I hope that he will now feel able to accept this Amendment with what I hope is slightly improved drafting. It has actually been drafted the same as a similar provision in the Water Bill. The object of the Amendment is to enable those who want to keep themselves informed on orders made under this Bill to do so without the expense and time consumption involved in searching through every Order printed—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is speaking to Amendment No. 3. I called Amendment No. 2.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords. I apologise. I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
3.22 p.m.
LORD DENHAM LORD DENHAM moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 3, at end insert—
(" (7) The said Ministers or the Secretary of State shall publish in the London Gazette and (if the order is to relate to Scotland) in the Edinburgh Gazette a notice—

(a) stating that at the expiration of a period of twenty-eight days an order made by virtue of subsection (5) of this section will be laid before Parliament;

(b) stating the general effect of the proposals contained in the order to be laid before Parliament; and

(c) stating a place in London and (if the order is to relate to Scotland) in Edinburgh where a copy of the order may be inspected free of charge at all reasonable hours and copies may be obtained on payment of a reasonable sum for each copy.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must again apologise. As I said on the previous Amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, undertook to look at this point again. The object of the Amendment is to enable those who want to keep themselves informed of Orders made under this Bill to do so without the expense and time consumption involved in going

19
through every Order that is printed by the Stationery Office; and I quoted precedents for this procedure in previous Bills. The reservations expressed on Commit-tee stage by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, were that the precedents I quoted referred to Orders about which objections could be made to the Minister responsible, who then had the duty to look into the matter. But, he said, even if you objected to the Minister about an Order made under this Bill,
"He cannot send an inspector clown to hear your complaint, because although they may be local matters, they may also be national ones."
The noble Lord added:
"It seems to me that the right course, if you object to the making of an Order, is to get hold of a Member of either House of Parlia-ment and get him to raise a debate on the matter when the Order is laid before the House, as it must be under the Bill."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 12/3/70; col. 920.]
Of course, what the noble Lord said is perfectly right in this case. But whether you are making an objection to the Minister, as under the Town and Country Planning Act and the Water Act, or whether you are trying to persuade a Member of either House of Parliament to raise the matter, as under this Bill, you still must first have the means of finding out that the Order has been, or is being, laid. In either case the procedure suggested in my Amendment gives more chance to interested parties. In view of that I hope that the noble Lord will accept my Amendment.
LORD KENNET: Well, my Lords, I cannot, and it is not for lack of sympathy with the purpose behind the Amendment, which I think is an extremely good one. There is no dispute about the principle, which is that of public participation in administrative decision. In that I think both Front Benches are at one. But advance notice in the Press or in the London Gazette is not the right way in which to do it; it is not necessary, and would lead to certain confusions and complications which I shall try to outline to the House. The purpose of a statutory notice in the Press, as we know it under planning law. under water law and so on, is to publicise a fact or a decision because it is in the general interest that it should be given a measure of publicity, or to publicise proposals which are still subject
20
to confirmation so that citizens who may be affected can express their views and the relevant Minister can take account of those views before coming to his decision whether or not to confirm the proposal. The first type of case—for example, the publicising of a fact or a decision— might arise in regard to receiving orders under the Bankruptcy Act. The second, and more common, type of case usually arises where there is a statutory procedure for hearing objections or appeals.
Here I come to the point of the diffi-culty—this is the Water Act 1945 and the Town and Country Planning Act 1962. This Bill does not provide any procedure for objections, or any procedure for the hearing of appeals against what it is proposed to do. If the noble Lord had thought it should, he could have put down an Amendment providing that it did; but he did not put down such an Amendment, and we have not been able to discuss that larger possibility. What he did was simply to put down an Amendment saying "Let us have announcements in the Press as if we were going to have appeals and objections procedure". But announcements in the Press without an appeals and objections procedure seem to me to be hanging out on a limb, because what is the poor Minister to do? There is nothing special he can do about it. He has still to go right ahead with his Order. Let us imagine that he puts a statutory notice in the Press; somebody objects and writes him a long letter giving reasons for the objection, and the Minister thinks that those are not good reasons. He has already taken them into account. He cannot send down an inspector to find out, because it is not in the Bill. So all he can do is exactly what he would have done if he had not put a notice in the Press in the first place; namely, lay the thing before Parliament and wait to see what Parliament says. This, in my submission, is still the correct way to go about it.
I do not think that in practice there is any problem here, because the trade associations and other groups who will be interested in this type of draft Order can find out what is being proposed just as easily from a Parliamentary Order Paper as they can from the London Gazette. Neither of them is precisely

21
everyday reading in the train. In general, you do not see citizens reading either the Parliamentary Order Paper or the London Gazette. These are the reading typically of interested groups or associations representing certain people. They will pick it up just as quickly; and then during the 40 sitting days in which the Order has to lie unconfirmed before Parliament, they have plenty of time to make their views known to Members of both Houses, and those Members will have plenty of time to raise the matter. These arrangements by which Orders are subject to annulment follow long and well-established Parliamentary practice and will provide ample time. I hope that the noble Lord will think that what has been good enough for a great many other classes of Order will be good enough to provide for this class of Order as well.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, from what the noble Lord has said I do not quite see how the method of approach that the man has to take if he objects to the Order affects the ease with which he can find out about the Order. I cannot quite see, from what the noble Lord has said, why, if somebody who objects under the Water Act has the advantage of read-ing about the Order in the London Gazette, the man who objects under this Bill has not got the same advantage. Admittedly what he does, if he does object is different (the one appeals to the Minister, the other gets hold of his M.P.), but to my mind the action he takes has no relevance to the ease with which he can learn about the Order.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I accept there is a genuine point of information here. Under the Water Act the objector does read about it in the London Gazette but he cannot read about it on the Order Paper because the Order does not lie before Parliament.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point about that, and I do not wish to press this Amendment. I am not sure that I am entirely convinced by the noble Lord's argument, but, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.— (Lord Kennet.)
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

WHITE FISH AUTHORITY (MINIMUM PRICES) (SCOTLAND AND NORTHERN IRELAND) SCHEME CONFIRMATORY ORDER 1970
3.32 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOT-TISH OFFICE (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, I beg to move that the White Fish Authority (Minimum Prices) (Scotland and Northern Ireland) Scheme Confirmatory Order 1970, a copy of which was laid before this House on March 5 1970, be approved. The Order before the House to-day is an enabling measure. If it comes into operation, the White Fish Authority will be able to publish proposals for minimum prices for white fish for such species as the Authority may decide in such areas of Scotland and Northern Ireland as they may deter-mine. The proposed prices will be subject to the approval of Ministers, who will consider any objections raised against them and not withdrawn.
The Authority have for some time been of the opinion that a scheme of statutory minimum prices would help the fishing industry to create a stronger and more stable market. There has been a similar scheme for herring since 1951. The Authority's efforts in this direction have met objections in the past, but about a year ago, encouraged by the growing desire for such arrangements in Scotland and Northern Ireland, they decided to publish a scheme applicable to those two countries. The scheme was published in accordance with the statutory procedures set out in the 1951 Sea Fish Indus-try Act, and met with support from the catchers' associations in Scotland and Northern Ireland and with objections from Scottish merchanting organisations. The Authority subsequently decided to submit the scheme to Ministers for confirmation, and Ministers, after giving careful consideration to the objections received by the Authority, decided to confirm it, with certain modifications.

23
The proposed modifications are set out in Article 2 of the Order now before your Lordships. The scheme as modified is set out in the Schedule.
Your Lordships will wish me to give a brief account of the scheme and the effect of the modifications. Once a scheme of minimum prices comes into effect, it will be an offence to purchase or sell white fish at first hand for human consumption below the appropriate minimum price. Provision has, however, been made to exempt retail purchases at first hand from this. Licences to operate, for which fees will be charged, will be required by producers, salesmen and buyers in areas where minimum prices apply. As a possible way of circumventing minimum price arrangements is to give away extra fish as a bonus, the scheme has also been modified to make it an offence for licensed per-sons to dispose of, or to acquire, white fish other than by way of sale or purchase.
The most significant modification is the removal from the scheme of the powers sought by the Authority to revoke, withdraw or refuse to renew a licence where there has been a contravention of the scheme. Any person contravening the scheme provisions will in any case be guilty of an offence under Part I of the Sea Fish Industry Act 1951. While appreciating the Authority's reasons for including the licence control powers in the Scheme, my right honourable friends decided that the penalties provided in the 1951 Act should be sufficient to en-able the Authority to administer the scheme effectively, and accordingly they have removed the proposed provisions. In deciding to confirm the scheme with these modifications, my honourable friends concluded that the industry would, in general, gain material benefit from it. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft White Fish Authority (Minimum Prices) (Scotland and Northern Ireland) Scheme Confirmatory Order 1970, laid before the House on 5th March 1970, be approved.—(Lord Hughes.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his explanation of this scheme, with which I think we ought to agree.

BUILDING (SCOTLAND) BILL
3.36 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is to make the system of building control in Scotland more flexible and more responsive to modern building needs. The present sys-tem of control followed from the recommendations of the Guest Committee on Building Legislation in Scotland (Cmnd.269). This Report was welcomed, not only in this country but also abroad, as being a significant step forward in the field of building control legislation. The recommendations of the Report were accepted by the Government of the day and embodied in the Building (Scotland) Act 1959—which the Bill calls the principal Act—and the system of building standards regulations and procedures set up under it. This system came into operation in June, 1964.
Very briefly, the Secretary of State's function is to prescribe a code of building standards regulations in the interests of health, safety and convenience with which, by and large, all new building work have to comply. The duty, day by day, of ensuring compliance rests with the buildings authority for each county and burghal area through the familiar process of applications for building warrant. The Secretary of State's sole function in relation to such day to day matters is to grant relaxations from individual building regulations on individual applications being made to him by intending developers.
It is our experience of the past five years of the operation of this system that there is a need to simplify procedures and introduce a greater degree of flexibility. This should not be regarded as a criticism of the recommendations of the Guest Report: it is rather that both the Central Government and buildings authorities have now had five years' experience of handling a modern sophisticated building code of a very comprehensive nature based on that Report, and improvements and changes are, we think, now needed.
The Bill has four main purposes: to reduce the time taken to put into effect amendments to the building standards regulations; to enable general relaxations

25
to be given by the Secretary of Slate; to permit buildings authorities themselves to grant relaxations in respect of certain regulations, and to enable the Secretary of State to call in for his own determination applications for warrant to build.
Clause 1 of the Bill is designed to streamline the procedure for making and amending the building standards regulations so that necessary amendments can be introduced more quickly. The present steps to be taken in making and amending the regulations are set out in Section 3(6) of the principal Act. Under this procedure a first comprehensive building code was provided in the Building Standards Regulations (S.I. 1963, No. 1897) and major amending regulations were made in 1967. A further set has been through the required procedure and is being printed for laying. Under the present procedure it takes over two years to make amendments to the regulations. This is far too long if the regulations are to keep pace with changing building techniques.
Clause 1 replaces subsection (6) of Section 3 by a new subsection (6), which provides that the Secretary of State, before laying new or amending regulations, must
"consult the Building Standards Advisory Committee"
appointed under Section 12 of the principal Act
"and such other bodies as appear to him to be representative of the interests concerned".
Where he is consolidating the regulations he is not required to carry out these consultations. This amended procedure will substantially reduce the amount of time taken to amend the regulations, and will also provide a quick and easy means of giving those engaged in the day-to-day business of building an up-to-date consolidated version of the current regulations, which, as your Lordships will appreciate, is an urgent necessity now and a recurring need as further amendments are made.
There will be no lack of consultation or opportunity to comment under this new procedure when the regulations are being changed. A list is maintained of all those bodies who have at some time or another expressed an interest in building standards regulations—there are, in fact,
26
some 200 such bodies—and they will all be given an opportunity to comment on proposed amendments since these will be circulated to them officially. Publicity will also be given in the Press and it will be open to anyone who feels he has an interest to write asking for a copy of the proposed amendments.
In any event, the making and amending of regulations is a co-operative effort between the Government and all those concerned, including public authorities with building programmes, the construction industry, buildings authorities, architects, builders, firemasters, masters of works and others with responsibilities in the building field. Noble Lords will, I think, not be surprised to know that the bulk of suggestions for amendments of the regulations originate from bodies like these. This new procedure therefore, still ensures that there will be full opportunity for all interested parties to comment on proposed amendments.
Clause 2 deals with relaxations of building standards regulations. Under present procedure, as set out in Section 4 of the principal Act, the Secretary of State alone has power to give directions granting relaxations of the regulations. He can do this only in individual cases and on individual application. Clause 2 of the Bill substitutes for the existing Section 4 two new Sections, 4 and 4A, which extend the Secretary of State's powers. Subsection 1(a) of the new Section 4 re-enacts the Secretary of State's power to relax in individual cases. Sub-section 1(b)—and this is new—gives the Secretary of State power to grant a " block " relaxation.
This facility should give greater flexibility in relaxing the regulations where a structural feature requiring relaxation can be identified which will be repetitively used in building and where the case for relaxation is in each case identical. For example, a general relaxation might be given for the universal use in dwellinghouses of prefabricated metal chimneys which do not comply strictly with the letter of the current regulations (based on traditional brick chimneys) but are otherwise wholly statisfactory. Again, such a waiver might be granted to enable local housing authorities to adopt new space standards pending the amendment of the building regulations. This facility will avoid the necessity for individual

27
applications for relaxation having to be made where identical circumstances arise in identical buildings, and will greatly help in the rapid adoption of new building components into day-to-day building practice.
Subsection (2) of the new Section 4 enables the Secretary of State to delegate to buildings authorities power to deal with relaxations in individual cases. The regulations which we initially propose to delegate to buildings authorities are those dealing with improvements and conversions to existing dwellinghouses. In this sphere, rigid consistency imposed by Central Government is not essential. The new Section 4A provides for the right of appeal to the Secretary of State against a decision by a buildings authority. Noble Lords will be pleased to note that what we are now providing accords with a recommendation in the Cullingworth Report that procedures associated with house improvements should be stream-lined.
The last major provision is Clause 4. This introduces a new Section, Section 6A, under which the Secretary of State is enabled to call in for his own determination applications for warrant to build. Noble Lords will be familiar with the now well established process of "call in" in the planning sphere. This is an easily appreciated parallel. It will be understood perforce that the building regulations must reflect requirements for the standard run of building projects and practice. One can, and one does, meet what is now often called the "one-off" job of very considerable complexity and major scale where the regulations do not fit at all points. The clause is solely designed to cater for such cases.
May I illustrate this by referring to the multi-level, large-scale building complex, which is now becoming a regular part of our city and town centre developments. There is no doubt that these projects—which, with their internal streets, car parking and multi-level shopping facilities have the effect of concentrating large numbers of persons into comparatively congested buildings of abnormal depth—may require special fire, ventilation and means of escape provisions. It is to deal with such special provisions that this clause has been designed. Although such cases will be
28
comparatively rare, probably no more than one or two a year, it is essential that the Secretary of State should have power to dispose of them comprehensively.
There is no question here of the Secretary of State encroaching on local buildings authorities day-to-day responsibilities. The proposed power is being provided simply to cope expeditiously with exceptional cases such as I have mentioned. In such cases, the Secretary of State will consult the buildings authority and developer at as early a stage as possible. If the Secretary of State considers, on the preliminary evidence, that his special powers may be required, he will then—through the buildings autho-rity—call in the application for his detailed scrutiny.
Subsections (4) and (5) of new Section 6A carefully identify the questions the Secretary of State may then examine. These are related strictly to the achievement of, or compliance with, appropriate building standards. The Secretary of State may decide that his special powers are not required, in which case the application will be returned to the buildings authority to be dealt with in the normal manner; he may decide to determine the application only in part or additionally or, alternatively, that more onerous conditions are required than the regulations contain; again, he may decide that relaxations are needed. Where more onerous conditions are required, sub-section (7) provides that the Building Standards Advisory Committee must be specially consulted. After the Secretary of State has carried out his action on the case it will be returned to the buildings authority, who must give a decision on the building warrant application which accords with any determination or relaxation made or granted by the Secretary of State.
The remaining clauses of the Bill deal with, in comparison, less important matters. Clause 3 is designed to clarify the original intention of Section 6(8)(b) of the principal Act which, as presently worded, admits an onerous and disadvantageous interpretation where improvements are proposed to existing buildings which fall below full conformity with the building standards regulations.
If I may give an illustration, the kind of case which has cropped up is where

29
an application has been made for an extension to a building with a window or windows of the type required by the building regulations, which the authority have felt obliged to refuse because the existing windows in the building did not conform; or, alternatively, where they have felt obliged to refuse an application because the height of the ceilings in the existing house did not conform to modern standards. It was never intended that improvements should fall in that particular way, and this amendment will make the law in the form that Parliament originally expected it to be applied.
Clause 5 modernises and makes uniform in burghs and landward areas the penalties for the unauthorised dumping in streets of builders' materials, and also requires that where a buildings authority proposes to give permission for the depositing of building materials in streets it must first consult the highway authority. Clauses 6, 7 and 8 and the Schedules deal with consequential or common-form provisions.
My Lords, this Bill is useful and necessary in order that building standards in Scotland keep abreast of modern building practice and that our system of control deals realistically and flexibly with the progressing of all types of construction in the interests of the health, safety and convenience of our people. It is on that basis that I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hughes.)

NATIONAL LIBRARIES: THE DAINTON REPORT
3.51 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, with permission I should like to repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State for Education and Science, on the action the Government have decided to take on the Report of the National Libraries Committee, the Dainton Report. The Statement is as follows:
"The Government have decided to accept in principle the main recommendation of the Committee; namely, that a national libraries authority
30
should be established, to take over in due course the administration of the present British Museum Library and National Reference Library of Science and Invention and other institutions. Further consideration is being given to the title, structure, scope and responsibilities of this organisation and to a number of other issues raised in the Committee's Report. These will form the subject matter of a White Paper to be issued after further consultation as a preliminary to legislation.
"Meanwhile, in the light of the Committee's recommendations on the siting of the British Museum Library and the National Reference Library of Science and Invention, and taking account of the latest technical developments in the storage of books, a new preliminary assessment has been made of the possibility of meeting the needs of both libraries on a smaller area of the Bloomsbury site than was previously envisaged for the British Museum Library alone. This gives grounds for hope that it might prove possible to meet the needs of both libraries, while providing considerably more housing on the site than was included in the earlier plan, preserving all the main listed buildings including the whole of the West side of Blooms-bury Square, and removing the need for a further site elsewhere in Central London for the National Reference Library of Science and Invention.
"In view of the results of this preliminary assessment the Government have decided to explore further the feasibility of a solution on these lines, in consultation with the planning authorities concerned. They will regard the provision of a new building for the National Reference Library of Science and Invention as having first priority in these fuller studies. In reaching their final conclusion they will of course pay full regard to the requirements of the users of both libraries. The Government appreciate the importance of having the Patent Office within easy walking distance of the combined libraries and are considering possible sites for the purpose."
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for repeating this important Statement, and I note what he has had

31
to say about the establishment of a national libraries authority. I should merely like to ask, in that context, whether he can tell us approximately when we may expect to receive the promised White Paper. Meanwhile, I am sure many Members of your Lordships' House will recall the long debate which we had in this House before Christmas over two years ago, in 1967, and the disquiet which was expressed at the decision of the Secretary of State—indeed, it was the almost unanimous feeling of your Lordships' House that it would be a disaster if our great national collections and this great library were to be severed one from another. I am delighted that this is not now likely to prove the case, and I congratulate the Government on now seeing the light of day.
May I just add this? I think it is fair to say that the history of the replanning and the recreation of London in the de-cades since the war has been in many ways a rather sad one. We have missed many golden opportunities to enhance and embellish our capital city, and I think that posterity will not lightly acquit us, not only of a certain poverty of means but also of a marked poverty of imagination. May I express the hope that this opportunity will not be missed, and that those concerned will in fact be enabled to provide a really worthy frame for what is, after all, the greatest collection of its kind in the world?
LORD BYERS: My Lords, may I, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, say that we are delighted that this decision has been taken, even though it has taken a long time to get back to "Bloomsbury Square One". May I put just two questions to the noble Lord? Can he give us any idea as to how long it is likely to be before some sort of activity takes place on the site which has been selected? Secondly, what increase is there likely to be in the working space for users as a result of the new developments in the last two and a half years?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, may I, on behalf of the Trustees of the British Museum and all the scholars who come to the Museum from all over the world, express our great relief and warm thanks to the Government for this decision to build the new library on the Great Rus-
32
sell Street site. After more than 22 years of fruitless argument, work can now begin on a complex of museum buildings which, as my noble friend Lord Jellicoe has just said, will be the envy of all nations, and without equal in either Europe or America.
May I ask two specific questions? The noble Lord referred to the structure of the new organisation. He will know that many professional librarians, and indeed the Trustees of the Museum themselves, see grave objections to the recommendations of the Dainton Report on this very vital matter. Now we are to have these discussions. Can we be assured that the Government have an open mind on the form of the management and control of the new libraries authority? Secondly, I was very glad to hear the reference to the National Reference Library for Science and Invention. The fragmentation of this library is indeed a scandal. May I take it that the Government wholeheartedly agree with the Trustees that this part of the British Museum Library should be reunited with the other books on the same site, and also that there is a very strong case for ensuring that the first block of buildings to be erected on the new site is devoted to the collection of material covering science and technology?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, perhaps I may reply to those noble Lords who have so far spoken. First of all, on the question of the date of the publication of the White Paper, I hope that it will be before the summer. I cannot guarantee this, because it is clearly important that there should be very thorough discussions with a number of bodies on this matter. Turning next, if I may, to the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, I am particularly grateful for them, and I am grateful that this brief discussion is taking place in a rather happier atmosphere than marked the debate on the last occasion, when I am bound to say that I felt that some of the language used was extravagant be-yond belief.
I must make it clear to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, that I am certainly not standing here in an apologetic way. I remember trying to persuade the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, ten years ago, when he was speaking on the British Museum

33
Bill, that it was high time the Government of the day did something about the libraries, and in particular the National Reference Library for Science and Invention. In fact, what the Government have done is to carry out a proper inquiry, which revealed a number of facts (which I hope the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, and the noble Lord, Lord Byers, have studied in the Dainton Report) as to the use of these particular libraries and the particular relevance of their location. None the less, I find myself very much in agreement with the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. Both he and Sir John Wolfenden, and before him Sir Frank Francis, were deeply interested in the library services of this country. I certainly should not blame them for the failure of past Governments to do some-thing about the National Reference Library for Science and Invention. Now, at last, after very thorough discussions we have the acceptance by the Government of the setting up of a national libraries authority and a decision to give priority to the N.R.L.S.I.
My Lords, I was asked certain questions by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, on the subject of the management which is proposed in the Dainton Report. Clearly, it is not possible for me to bind the Government, one way or the other, but I assure him that it is intended to have meaningful discussions. This is a vitally important body, probably one of the most important institutions for the future of this country that we are setting up in the whole field of information and scholarship, and clearly it is important that it should have the right managerial structure. I am sure that this is a matter on which the views of the Trustees will be taken into account, especially now that relations seems to be somewhat ameliorated.
LORD IRONSIDE: My Lords, as a member of the Advisory Committee for the National Reference Library for Science and Invention, may I say that I think that this is a very satisfactory Statement indeed, and one that will be welcomed by the Committee, by the professional bodies, by industry and by the learned societies. It represents an important step forward in creating national science and technology library facilities in the country. I hope that the full potential of the N.R.L.S.I. can now
34
be realised. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether the Government will ensure that adequate staff and funds will be available for developing this library to its full potential.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I know of the interest that the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, as a member of the Parliamentary Scientific Committee, has in this matter. I hope that I am going to meet him to-morrow with a delegation of that body because of their interest in the application of automatic data processing to the field of information. He may be interested to know that a major study is going on at the moment into the application of A.D.P. to the national libraries' operations and services. This study has already been launched.
On the staffing side, we come back to the managerial structure. I know that the British Museum and others some-times feel that the Government are squeezing them a little unduly in attempting to keep down the size of the non-industrial Civil Service—which actually falls to me under a different responsibility. I should be rash to undertake any unlimited promises with regard to a size of staff; but clearly the library's importance is such that it must be properly staffed and must have its proper place in the community.
My Lords, I think there was one other question. I am not sure whether it was the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe who asked it, but I fear that it has escaped me.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I asked whether there was any likelihood of the provision of increased space for those who want to use the library.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, clearly it is not for me to comment on the recent difficulties (which, no doubt, concern the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles) over the British Museum Library Reading Room, this very historic and import-ant place. Obviously, one of the objects is that the user facilities should match the needs. Here again, one will need to think of this in terms of a complex of libraries. So far as the science libraries are concerned, there are proposals on the regional side also of great importance.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I should like to congratulate the Government on making this decision, which I am sure will have the support of a great

35
many librarians all over the world. I should like to ask my noble friend one question. It is whether some effort will be made to bring the newspaper library at Colindale into central London— although I realise that this had no place in the Trustees' original plan.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, one of the troubles, as the British Museum knows only too well, is the degree of scattering that already exists. Part of the N.R.L.S.I. is actually in Bayswater. I do not think I can hold out any promise over Colindale. No doubt this is a matter on which the national libraries authority will have views. I do not doubt that the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, will be able, a little later, to answer my noble friend Lord Strabolgi with forceful knowledge.

BUILDING (SCOTLAND) BILL
4.6 p.m.
Debate on Second Reading resumed.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I do not rise for the purpose of continuing with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, the 10-year-old debate on the British Museum Bill, in which I remember so well that he and his friends moved a number of rather precious Amendments demanding that esoteric experts in every conceivable scientific subject with which the authorities of the Museum or the Library might be concerned should be given some part in the management— although they would probably have made extremely bad managers.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I hope the noble Earl will forgive my interruption. He said that he was not going to continue that debate. I am bound to say that I shall ask for a right of reply if he goes on. I only hope that we succeeded in educating the noble Earl in certain of these esoteric subjects.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, to be frank, I do not believe that the noble Lord and those who supported him on his side of the House knew what those subjects were about; but they nevertheless pressed that those experts should be included among those who governed the Museum. That, I dare say, was a very reasonable thing to do; but I do not
36
think they would have made very good governors.
My Lords, I rise for the pu0rpose of trying to bring to a conclusion our debate on the Building (Scotland) Bill which was explained to us a short time ago by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes. The subject covered by the Bill is an important one because it may concern the safety of house occupiers and their families. I think that it is a Bill with which your Lordships will probably want to agree. Certain doubts have been ex-pressed on various questions, such as how much uniformity we ought to aim at, by what method relaxations should be permitted and why certain recommendations of the Guest Committee, which was appointed to advise us on these matters, have not been entirely implemented. But all those questions and other kindred matters have been thoroughly and exhaustively discussed in another place, where a number of Amendments were put into the Bill. As I am at present advised, I do not think that there are any further Amendments which I should wish to propose to your Lordships, although I am sure that the noble Lord will give the careful consideration that he always does to the views of any of your Lordships who wish further to amend the Bill.
We know that this is a very difficult subject: avoiding too much rigidity on the one hand and insisting on safety on the other hand. I remember so well that, 35 years ago, the housing authority in Renfrewshire proposed to demolish a lovely old 17th century weaver's house in the village of Kilbarchan which was inhabited and was far more commodious and comfortable than most modern houses. But it happened to have windows, very beautiful windows, in the living room which when their areas were added up did not quite come to the regulation measurements in proportion to the floor space of the room. Fortunately, representations were effectively made in time and the house was saved from demolition. I think it is still there.
My Lords, there is only one small point on which I should like to ask a question of the noble Lord. I am sorry that I could not give him notice of it, but my aeroplane from Scotland arrived not long before the House met. My question concerns Clause 5 of the Bill and the amendment to Section 8 of the Building

37
(Scotland) Act 1959 concerning roads. In the Report stage in another place the Government moved as an Amendment what now appears as paragraph (a) of Clause 5 which provides that:
"Before granting any permission under this section, the building authority shall consult the highway authority within the meaning of section 49(1) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1970."
In moving this Amendment the Minister said that it did not entirely carry out the undertakings which the Government had given in Committee, but that the Government were discussing the matter with the National Federation of Builders' and Plumbers' Merchants and that they would seek to make some further points in your Lordships' House. The Minister went on to say that certain matters which had been raised in Committee would, he hoped, be considered in your Lordships' House. I should like to ask the noble Lord, if he would be kind enough to tell me, whether the Government have finished discussing this point with the National Federation of Builders' and Plumbers' Merchants and whether they propose to move any further Amendments to this Bill or introduce any new clause in accordance with this statement of the Minister in another place.
4.12 p.m.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I desire to extend a hearty welcome to this Bill, and to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hughes—and through him Her Majesty's Government—on having introduced it. Such a Bill has long been required. To-day, when we have to keep all the accommodation we can get, and when we wish to maintain old buildings and keep them in occupation, it is absolutely essential that a great measure of flexibility should be allowed to building authorities. As I understand it, hitherto the only way in which such relaxation could be obtained was by application to St. Andrew's House. In view of the tremendous pressure on the Secretary of State's officials at St. Andrew's House it is not surprising that it often takes a considerable time for an application to be approved or rejected. In some cases, particularly in the country districts when dealing with farm labour, you may have a man coming from some distance. He may have a large family to accommodate, which would call for an alteration in an
38
existing house, so it is absolutely essential that a speedy settlement of an application should be possible. Often that was not so. Now we have these applications going to the local building authority and I hope that the noble Lord may be able to put something in the regulations calling attention to the need for speedy decisions being given when applications are made for relaxation of standards.
My Lords, there is one other thing that worries me about applications with regard to buildings, and particularly farm buildings. Recently I have come across cases where a byre was being converted and, instead of its being of the normal type, slats were inserted. Sometimes that was done simply for convenience, but some-times it was due to the necessity to avoid pollution to neighbouring streams and rivers. As I understand it, though there was no alteration to the building from the outside, first, planning permission had to be obtained, and then building permission. Having achieved that, it was necessary to get the sanitary authority to approve. It seems to me a rather long-drawn-out and somewhat unnecessary procedure that all these different authorities should have to be consulted, and I wonder whether it would be possible for the application to cover all of them; and as I said previously that they might be told to get on with the job and let a decision come as early as possible. May I reiterate my welcome to this Bill. I think it is first-class that we can now have an opportunity to get these decisions made more rapidly than hitherto.
4.15 p.m.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, as chair-man of a building authority I welcome this Bill but should like to mention two points. There may be some danger in having too much uniformity. I am thinking particularly of a relaxation given a year or two ago by the Secretary of State in respect of a standard type of school hostel. That might have been quite all right in Edinburgh, where there are adequate fire appliances, but it was not at all suitable for the Islands; and our authority was completely overruled by the Secretary of State, contrary to the advice of the local firemaster. I think that was a case where uniformity was dangerous.

39
I am also concerned that there appears to be an omission from the Bill. Applicants for building warrants may have to come long distances to meetings of authorities just in case an objector appears. As things stand at present, someone may put in an objection. It may be a quite frivolous objection but the applicant is then inconvenienced, possibly to the extent of having to travel a long distance and to stay away from home overnight. Then no objector appears before the authority. On a number of occasions I have had to apologise to applicants in these circumstances, and it seems to me that the system should not prove too difficult to rectify. I believe that our county council has made representations in this matter to St. Andrew's House. I am not sure what may be the answer; possibly an objector who causes unnecessary inconvenience should be made liable for the expenses of the applicant. I am certain that, in his usual punctilious manner, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will look at the problem, and I hope that at the next stage in the progress of the Bill the Government will bring forward some Amendment to put this right.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend on the last point he raised. Where I come from, which is even further North, where the area includes the Isle of Lewis in the Outer Hebrides, a person coming to the mainland not only may have to stay overnight but is obliged to do so. That is very hard on a man if, as sometimes happens, an objection is extremely frivolous. I also serve on a building authority, so I know something about this matter. It is not only very inconvenient, but also very expensive.
4.19 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am grateful for the generous welcome which has been given to this Bill. I should like first to refer to the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, about what was said in another place on Clause 5. It is my intention at the next stage to put forward two Amendments to the Bill. One is a purely technical Amendment, the other is in fulfilment of the point to which the noble Earl referred. The National Federation of Builders' and
40
Plumbers' Merchants have represented that builders' merchants who deposit materials on a street in ignorance of a permission granted to a developer should have a statutory defence. We accept that in principle the clause needs amendment in this sense, and I hope to table an Amendment in suitable terms.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, raised a point about the multiplicity of applications which have to be submitted. He talked about the case in connection with barns and referred to the planning authority, the buildings authority and the sanitary inspector. The common-sense way would be to make provision for an application to be made to a local authority who would then pass it on to their appropriate departments for attention. Unfortunately, for some reason that I have never yet been able to discover, what is common sense is not always legally possible. I suspect it is because of this legal difficulty that this has happened, and not because local authorities do this out of sheer spite. If it is possible in any way to simplify the procedure, I should like to do so. It is not a matter for inserting words in the Bill, but I will look at the matter to see whether there is any simple way of meeting the point.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Burton, that of course there is danger in too much standardisation. In a country with such extremes as are found in Scotland, between, say, the central belt and remote areas in the Highlands, we may fall into the error of assuming that what is right in one place is necessarily right in another. In so far as these things may eventually appear on my desk, I will bear in mind the point that the noble Lord has made. He will not, of course, expect this to mean that I shall automatically agree with the Inverness County Council: that would be a very dangerous commitment for me to enter into.
I think that the question of the frivolous objection, or of the applicant who comes a long way and finds that there is no objection at all and that he has made an expensive journey for no purpose, can be dealt with in the procedure regulations. I am not absolutely certain, however, and I should like to look at it in the context of the review of procedure. If it is possible to simplify

41
it, so that people are not put to need-less trouble and expense, then I will do so. Frankly, I do not know whether it will be possible to do anything of this kind, but obviously it is something worth looking at. I hope that when we finish the next stage of the Bill such Amendments as I have tabled will be as much to the satisfaction of your Lordships as the Bill has been initially.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FILMS BILL
4.23 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Phillips.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Extended functions of National Film Finance Corporation]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DRUMALBYN: While the hosts of Midian are gathering, perhaps I could raise a point on the first clause with regard to copyright. Subsection (4) gives the National Film Finance Corpora-tion power to
"… acquire the copyright in any film and the right to reproduce any work in the form of a film, and may dispose of any right acquired under this subsection."
To judge by what one reads in the Press, there is no absence of pursuit of copy-rights whenever anything likely comes along. I have seen cases of this in the last week or so. I am not certain how far or in what way it is proposed to use this power. Of course, it would be possible to acquire copyrights fairly widely and have a kind of copyright bank available, and I should like to know to what extent this power is likely to be used. So far as the disposing of copyrights is concerned, perhaps the noble Baroness will be able to explain to us
42
what "dispose" means. Does it mean to sell, and does it include lending? I assume that if copyright is acquired in this way, then the assets so resulting will be shown separately in the balance sheet at the end of the year.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: As the noble Lord has pointed out, this power to acquire and dispose of copyrights is a new power. It is part of the intention to make the National Film Finance Corporation more viable as a commercial concern. As the noble Lord will know from his own experience in this department, the acquisition of copyright is an essential ingredient in the making of films. The Corporation might be able to spot a winner, acquire the copyright before the price goes up and then approach a suitable producer. The ownership of the copyright would obviously strengthen the Corporation's bargaining position and enhance their power to make a profitable deal. I assure the noble Lord that the Corporation will continue to devote nearly all their money to lending money to film makers and that very little of their resources will be used for buying copyrights.
On the question of the word "dispose", this in fact does mean to sell at a profit wherever possible. Therefore, copyrights will be shown in the Corporation's balance sheet under a general heading, but for commercial reasons they will not be itemised. I hope that I have answered all the noble Lord's points.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Baroness has answered all my questions and I am much obliged to her.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Extension of objects of British Film Fund Agency].
BARONESS PHILLIPS BARONESS PHILLIPS moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 40, leave out from beginning to ("with") in line 41.
The noble Baroness said: With per-mission, I will deal with Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 4 together. All these Government Amendments relate to payments from the British Film Fund to the British Film Institute towards the cost of making films and to the National Film

43
School. None of them involves more than a drafting change. I will deal initially with the first and last Amendments, which are directly related to each other and which give effect to an undertaking given during debates in another place when my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade made it clear that it was the intention that the Board of Trade, before approving grants from the levy to the British Film Institute Production Fund or towards the running costs of a National Film School, to consult the Cinematograph Films Council.
An amendment was put down with the object of making such consultation a statutory obligation on the Board of Trade, and my honourable friend said that an appropriate Amendment would be moved. The Amendment now before us fulfils that undertaking. Clause 6 as it stands at present does not achieve the objective as regards consultation with the Cinematograph Films Council, on which objective there is now, I think, general agreement. In fact, it places the obligation to consult on the British Film Fund Agency itself, and that was never the intention. The Amendment puts things right. The phrase "after consulting with the Cinematograph Films Council" is omitted from paragraphs (c) and (d) of Section 1(1) of the Cinematograph Films Act 1957 and a new subsection, sub-section (5), is added, which places on the Board of Trade the obligation to consult the Cinematograph Films Council before approving payments to either the Children's Film Foundation or to the British Film Institute Production Fund or towards the running costs of a National Film School. I think that this will meet with general approval.
As regards the second Amendment, let me say at the outset that it is not put down because of any change in intention. It has been done solely to remove doubts which arose under the clause as it stood. The doubts are twofold, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Hampstead for drawing attention to them during the Second Reading, and for his help in this matter. I am sorry that he is not able to be present to-day. First, the words "any school" which appear in the clause seem to have given rise to speculation whether other persons or
44
bodies who run schools for the training of people in film-making (there are a number of them) might become eligible for a grant from the British Film Fund. That is not so, and was never intended to be so. The intention is to help only the National Film School, which is now in course of being set up under the guidance of a planning committee of which my noble friend Lord Lloyd is Chairman. The school is to be concerned with film-making in all its aspects, including television techniques. The school has not yet reached a stage in its development where it has become a legal entity in its own right, and we therefore have to refer to it in more general terms. The Amendment provides that the school to receive the benefit of this grant shall be the one, the only one, specially nominated for this purpose by the Secretary of State.
Secondly, the clause as drafted speaks of "persons carrying on any school", and it was suggested that this could be interpreted as meaning that the school must have become fully established, premises obtained, staff recruited, students actually in attendance and so on before any grant could be paid. When the Cinematograph Films Council considered this matter and made their recommendation, with which the Government later agreed, they recommended that the running costs of the National Film School should be met only partly from the levy. Running costs, of course, will begin to be incurred before students arrive. Rent of premises and the salaries of staff who must be recruited in advance are examples of this. The Amendment will allow a contribution towards those running costs to be made. But, again, I should like to make clear that the grant will be limited to running costs. Capital costs will be met from other sources. Those who are making the arrangements for setting up the school are aware of this, and accept it.
I should like to mention also a third point, one to which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, referred during the Second Reading debate. In making their recommendation about financial support for the National Film School the Cinematograph Films Council said that they considered that it would be wrong for the annual cost of a National Film School to be met entirely out of the British Film Fund. They took the view that the British

45
Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Television companies, who would employ graduates from the school, should also contribute to its annual cost. That seems to me to be a reasonable view. I ask your Lordships to accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I rather expected that we should have a little more comment on this particular Amendment than we have had, and that the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, would move his Amendments before we disposed of these Amendments.
LORD STRABOLGI: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I speak on my Amendment now, when the noble Baroness calls it.
LORD DRUMALBYN: We are dealing with Amendment No. 2 at the moment, and I thought that perhaps it would be convenient for the noble Lord to do this. I think that the arrangements that the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, has suggested are ample, and I want to make only two comments. The first is—and I am in the difficulty here that it covers a comment that is implicit in Lord Strabolgi's second Amendment—
BARONESS PHILLIPS: It may be convenient to the Committee if we agree Amendment No. 1, and I then move Amendment No. 2. This will simplify the matter.
4.40 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 1, leave out paragraph (d) and insert—
(" (d) with the approval of the Board of Trade, payments to not more than one body incorporated after the passing of the Films Act 1970 and for the time being approved for the purposes of this paragraph by the Secretary of State, being a body having among its objects the carrying on of a school in Great Britain for the training of persons employed or to be employed in the making of films.")—(Baroness Phillips.)
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved Amendment No. 3, as an Amendment to No. 2:
Line 2, leave out ("to") and insert ("to-wards the costs to be incurred by")
The noble Lord said: The procedure now is, I think, that the mover of the Amendment to amend the Government Amendment is called to speak. I suggest that it is for the convenience of the Committee that we take my Amendments Nos. 3 and 5 together. I am rather heartened by what my noble friend Lady Phillips said about these consultations, and I am therefore encouraged to hope that she will include my wording in the Bill. The first purpose of these Amendments is to ensure that the National Film School is not financed entirely out of the Eady levy. The wording of my noble friend's Amendment refers to "payments to not more than one body", and in my Amendment I suggest "payments to-wards the costs to be incurred by not more than one body".
The second purpose of the Amendments, which is dealt with by my Amendment No. 5, is to bring in the television authorities, both the B.B.C. and the I.T.V., as I think it is clear—and indeed it has been recognised by my noble friend this afternoon—that television will derive considerable benefit, to an increasing degree, from a film school of this kind. Another beneficiary will be the advertising industry, but I have not included this because I think that television commercials will already be contributing in-directly through the very high television levy (I am glad to see that it has recently been reduced, but in my opinion it is still far too high) if the Government can find some way of siphoning off part of this levy towards helping to finance a Film School.
"The Lloyd Report when dealing with the question of the capital and the financing of the School said quite clearly that the capital costs should rest firmly on the State; and I am sure that everybody will agree with this. It is when we come to the question of the running costs that there is controversy. Not all the members of the Lloyd Committee agreed that all the running costs should come from the Eady levy. Some believed that only part should come from this fund, the balance being provided from public funds. We have not so far had an answer from the Government as to why this School is to be treated differently from other schools which are largely financed from public funds.
The main trade associations do not support the use of the Eady Levy to be the sole financers of this School. Initially, the Film Production Association sup-ported it, provided that the payment was a fixed sum. But last year the Association withdrew their support after hearing representations from the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association and the Kine-matograph Renters' Society. The money collected under the British Film Fund arrangements is industry money contributed under a voluntary agreement. The British Film Fund agency really fulfills the role of a trustee, and I submit that they should not be empowered by an Act of Parliament to go against their own obligations and to make payments for purposes not originally approved. I think that there is an important matter of principle involved here.
A further objection is that the Eady money is based on the box office receipts, and therefore the more successful a film is, the more it will pay towards the School, while the less successful a film is, the less it will pay; and some films will pay nothing at all. This is quite different from levies made under the Industrial Training Act, which are based on the number of employees in the particular company. The Cinematograph Films Council, as my noble friend has aid, considered that it would be quite wrong for the annual cost to be met entirely out of the British Film Fund. They went further and said that they thought that the B.B.C. and Independent Television, who would employ graduates of the School, should also contribute to its annual cost. They went on to say that they recommended the running costs should be met only partly from the levy.
I should further like to emphasise that the Lloyd Committee (and I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Hamp-stead cannot be here to-day) were strongly in favour of teaching films at the School, teaching films for television, as part of the schools curriculum. The Committee were supported in this by the B.B.C. The Report says that the B.B.C., in its evidence, indicated that in its view the Corporation would benefit if there were in existence a National Film School which could provide training of the kind suitable for its programme needs. I am
48
sure that that view is shared by the I.T.A.
I am further encouraged in the hope that these Amendments will be accepted because in the other place the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, during the second sitting of the Committee, said that it might well be that the matter of using part of the television levy should be looked at. She pointed out that this was the responsibility of the Ministry of Posts and Telecommunications and not of the Board of Trade. She implied that this was one aspect of the National Film School which could well be considered by a number of Ministries. Therefore I think the Government themselves have made out a very good case for financing this School only partly from the Eady levy, which is drawn from the cinema exhibitor, and for financing it in other parts from such bodies as the television authorities who are equal beneficiaries of a School of this kind. I beg to move the Amendment to the Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble Lord for having expressed the views that he has done. It seems that the first question to be settled here is, who is to finance the School. If part of the money is to come from the British Film Fund, who else should contribute? How is this to be secured? If it is to be the B.B.C. and the I.T.A., are the arrangements, which the noble Baroness has suggested, sufficient to ensure that they will contribute? If the I.T.A. are to contribute, is it reasonable that they should contribute out of the revenue after the levy has been taken from them, or should the contribution come from the levy? Finally, should the State also con-tribute, whether or not the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. do?
So far as the contribution from the British Film Fund is concerned, I considered putting down an Amendment to secure that the contribution should not exceed a specified proportion of the levy, taken together with the contribution that is to be made to the British Film Institute, under paragraph (c), towards the cost of making films. I had a talk with the noble Baroness about this matter and she convinced me that it was better to retain flexibility, as is done without any difficulty in the case of the contribution towards children's films. Perhaps the

49
noble Baroness will be able to give us further information about the general running cost that is expected to be incurred. I understood from what the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, said in the course of his remarks that it was some-thing of the order of £150,000 a year. That sum, if it were borne entirely by the levy, would represent a considerable proportion of the total levy, which may be expected to run, I suppose, up to £4 million. It is running at about that sum at the present time.
If contributions are to be made to the British Film Institute as well as to the Children's Film Foundation (which is also a substantial proportion of the levy: about 5 per cent. or something of that order), the levy begins to look a bit wan. There is therefore a good deal to be said for specifying a maximum proportion of the levy as the amount of the contribution that may be required. I would deprecate setting out in the Bill a fixed sum, because that would be altogether too restrictive. It would be very much better to make provision for changes in costs, and possibly a rise in the levy, too, as time goes on. One has also to contemplate the possibility that the amount of the levy will fall, through a decline in cinema attendances, yet it may still be desirable to envisage an expansion of the School because the films could be used in other ways in the future.
There are a great many variables to be considered here. I am in favour of having a flexible solution, but we should like the noble Baroness to spell out a little more than she has done how she envisages the kind of proportions as between the various possible contributors, and how she is going to ensure that those will be made.
4.46 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I must say at once to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that I am afraid I am not able to give him the proportions that he has asked for. The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, rightly said that the Cinematographic Films Council have stated that they consider that the B.B.C. and independent television companies should also contribute. This recommendation will be borne in mind when the Board of Trade consider any grants from the Fund for the benefit of the National Film School.
50
There is an obligation on the Department to consult in respect of any giants that are made. I was not quite sure of the intention of Lord Strabolgi's Amendment. Now I see what he has in mind, and I wonder whether he will allow me to look at this point again, although I cannot hold out any promise that the Government can go very much further than we indicated on Second Reading. One merely hopes that by reiterating this point, and stating it very forcibly for the record, the interests concerned will recognise their obligations in this connection.
So far as public monies are concerned, the Department of Education and Science will be making a very heavy contribution towards the capital costs of the Film School. It seems only fair that the industry which will ultimately benefit should also make some contribution. I take the point of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that the percentages will be very important because of the total cost of the levy. I am sorry that I am not able to give him the precise figures. We can return to this point again on Report stage if the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, is willing. On the noble Lord's second Amendment, in which he asks for consultation with the B.B.C. and the In-dependent Television Authority, I assume that he is hoping that the consultation will involve them more.
I must explain that the Government Amendment imposes on the Board of Trade the duty to consult the Cinematograph Films Council, but only in relation to the School. It is a statutory body, one of whose functions is to advise the Board of Trade on any matter on which the advice of the Council is sought by the Board. It is entirely appropriate that the Board should consult the Council and, indeed, it is required to consult the Council before approving a grant. There is no parallel situation as regards the British Broadcasting Corporation or the Independent Television Authority. Any consultation with these two bodies would fall within the province of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science.
In another place my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade referred to the view expressed by the Cinematograph Films Council that the B.B.C. and independent

51
television companies should also contribute to the annual costs, and I have repeated this. I think this is a reasonable view to take, but because, as I have explained, the Council is a body set up expressly to advise the Board of Trade on film matters (whereas the others are in quite different positions) I am afraid that I am unable to accept this Amendment, and I shall have to ask the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, whether he is willing to withdraw it.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for his support; and also to my noble friend for her reply. In view of her under-taking to have another look at my Amendment No. 3 on Report stage, I will of course withdraw it. I am most grateful to her for undertaking to go into this matter further, and I look for-ward to hearing what she has to say between now and the next stage of the Bill. With regard to the other Amendment, No. 5, I intend not to move that. I may say that I put it down mainly for discussion. I realise that for the Board of Trade to put into a statutory measure that they shall consult with bodies which come under another Department would create difficulties, but I wanted merely to establish a principle. I do not think that just because the Eady levy is there and is convenient, it is a reason for taking it. The Government must go a little further than this and find how to finance this school properly, and then do it. But I am most grateful to my noble friend, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment to the Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I beg to move Amendment No. 4.
Amendment moved—
Page 4. line 6, at end insert—
(" () The following shall be added at the end of section 1 of the Cinematograph Films Act 1957—
"(5) Before giving their approval to a payment under paragraph (b), (c) or (d) of subsection (1) of this section the Board of Trade shall consult with the Cinematograph Films Council ".")—(Baroness Phillips.)
LORD DRUMALBYN: There is a small, almost finicking, point here, but
52
I should like to satisfy myself that what is proposed is right. As the Amendment is drafted, taken quite literally it would require the Government—the Board of Trade—to consult with the Cinematograph Films Council before giving their approval to a payment, but it would not require them to consult before withholding their approval to a payment. I do not know whether this was intended and deliberate, but it seems, all the same, that it is something that ought to be looked into if the Government are not quite sure that they have said what they meant.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. He is an expert at combing Bills and I assure him that we will look at this point, because obviously there seems to be some anomaly here. I should certainly think, subject to correction, that the Government would consult on either occasion. May I look at the point further?
LORD ARCHIBALD: I object in principle to this further raiding of the levy for the purposes of helping to finance the running costs of the Film School, but I am not going to pursue that point to-day. I would point out, however, that, so far as payment from the levy towards children's films is concerned, it was done with the unanimous approval of the main trade associations, and not just after consultation with the Cinematograph Films Council. I would ask my noble friend whether she would consider between now and Report stage adding to Amendment No. 4 the words: "and with the main trade associations". I think that the Board of Trade should not only consult the Cinematograph Films Council but also consult the main trade associations. That is nothing in the way of new procedure. It is common practice for the Board of Trade to consult main trade associations, as they did, for example, before this Bill was even drafted. It would only be fair to the industry, which is providing the money, that the industry itself should be consulted before the decisions are made.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: The noble Lord will appreciate that I can give him no undertaking. While I know his great expertise in this industry, I would merely say, with all humility, that it seems to

53
me that the Cinematograph Films Council is surely the representative body of the industry. But I will look at this point for him and return to it at Report stage.
4.54 p.m.
LORD WILLIS LORD WILLIS moved Amendment No. 5A:
Page 4, line 6, at end insert—
("() after the payments provided for in (b), (c) and (d) above, a total of one-sixth of the income from the levy shall be set aside for distribution to the producers of those British films which, while adjudged to be of outstanding quality, have not earned their production costs back at the box office. Such payments shall be made on the advice of a panel composed of members of the Film Producers' Association, the trade unions, and the distribution and exhibition associations, meeting under an independent chairman, and with the approval of the Board of Trade.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment, since it has to do with the distribution of the levy, the Film Fund, may seem at first sight to be rather an idealistic kind of Amendment, one that goes against hard-grained commercial principle, but I hope your Lordships may be convinced that it attempts to get the Fund back on to the proper rails, back to its original intention, and that in fact the suggestion which is contained in this Amendment is a highly worthwhile commercial one. I would remind your Lord-ships that the original intention of the British Film Fund, known as the levy, was to assist British production; to put money back into British films. It is a strange thing that in the situation of the film industry we had to have a law —it was voluntary at first; it was then made statutory—to enforce the redistribution of the film industry's income. So money had to be taken out of one pocket and made available to another section— put back into production. Personally, I think it is a pity that the industry should be so organised that that is necessary. But it is necessary; and it is clearly necessary that it should be continued, as this Bill makes it continue at least until 1980.
But, given that, what experience have we of the operation and working of the levy since it was introduced on a voluntary basis and later operated on a statutory basis? We have absolutely over-whelming evidence that it is a distribution
54
which is heavily biased in favour of the big commercial successes; that it puts hot chocolate sauce on the already existing ice cream. Films that make the big profits get the lion's share of the Fund— films that may not need it so much get the vast majority of the money—while films which are equally entertaining, and may be even more worth while in terms of real worth, can end up with little or nothing. One practical example is the James Bond films, which I think are highly entertaining and very good films, good for the industry. All those make huge profits. The film Goldfinger, I believe, made a profit well over the £1 million mark. But, in addition, it was given a bonus of well over half a million pounds from the levy, on the ground that it had attracted vast audiences up and down the country. So success had further success, as it were, piled upon it; whereas a film such as Oh, What a Lovely War!, which has received universal acclaim everywhere and tremendous notices from the critics, which has done an enormous amount for the prestige of this country and the film-makers of this country, and which to a certain extent broke new ground, has not had the same success in commercial terms and will end up with very little from the Fund.
This is not equal treatment. It is rather like giving a millionaire extra family allowances on the ground that he has been tremendously successful, much more successful than (shall we say?) a layman. The objection to the suggestion contained in this Amendment is: Will this not be a way of subsidising failures? We have to say, frankly, "To a certain extent, yes". But what do you call a failure? Do you call Oh, What a Lovely War! a failure in relation to the James Bond films or the "Carry On" films? I admit that we are here entering an area in which we have to make value judgments, and we are dealing with some-thing which is not only an industry but also an art form, and which has important connotations so far as art is concerned.
Therefore, in my view, it is right that in certain instances some films; should be helped, for some of to-day's failures are quite clearly the pathfinders; for to-morrow's successes. Film is not only entertainment, and there can be no certainty of success. We already follow this principle in theatre, opera and ballet.

55
I doubt whether there is anybody who could afford to buy seats at Covent Garden at normal commercial prices. The Opera House is subsidised heavily, and if it had to operate commercially it would be a failure; but there would be a great outcry in this country if somebody said, "The ballet is a failure, and therefore we should not subsidise it." I am not suggesting a subsidy in this instance; I am suggesting that what was originally intended as a redistribution of a portion of the income from the film industry should be slightly altered so that it has a fairer spread, and so that one does not add profit to profit, and that those films which are highly successful, and therefore do not need the assistance of the levy, can afford to give up a little of the levy to those films which are not quite so successful.
It is a modest proposal, as I shall show, that I am putting forward. Let us assume, as has already been indicated in this debate, that the levy runs at £4 million a year: it may be less this year, it may be more next. Under this scheme we should reserve a sum of about £633,000 for distribution to other British films. It would still leave well over £3 million for the Goldfingers and the "Carry Ons"—and that is not bad "gravy" in anybody's language. How would one judge? No-one is infallible, and I do not suggest that the advisory panel that I have proposed in the Amendment is necessarily the right way to do it. I have suggested a Ministry Committee under an independent chairman. Its terms of reference could be worked out so that the money would go only to genuinely creative film-makers and not to fly-by-nights.
This system works well in some of the countries on the Continent. In West Germany, for example, there is a similar fund which gives bonuses, as it were, to successful short films. It is possible for the creator of a successful short film in West Germany to apply to a committee, and he may receive a bonus equivalent to £2,000 for his film if it is considered to be worth while, because it is seen quite clearly in West Germany that short films have a value to the industry but may not necessarily be completely commercially viable, and there is a stipulation that the money must go back into production.
56
It may be that we could work out some-thing similar in this country.
I hope that this Amendment will com-mend itself to the Committee. It has support from some distinguished film-makers in this country—people who, in a sense, stand to lose, because they are people who make the big commercial films. But I have talked to some of them, and there is a feeling that there is something in this sort of Amendment. It would give much-needed encouragement, it would be devised in such a way that it kept out the "pirates"—the people who come in to make the cheap "quickies". It could be devised on the basis of value judgment by a properly constituted body, and it is a way in which this industry can invest in the future. We ought to be prepared to support the worthwhile work in the cinema which perhaps does not enjoy the enormous commercial success of some other subjects.
I know, too, that there is an argument that this money is a levy on the film industry's money and that it is being carved up quite enough as it is. This is not a suggestion for carving it up: this is a suggestion that it should follow its original principle and should be distributed to producers, but on a slightly different basis from that used in the past. I object to the feeling that sometimes exists that, because this money is collected at cinemas, on the basis of a small levy from exhibitors, it is the exhibitors' money. In my view it is not; it is the industry's money, and this is something to help the industry to develop. I beg to move.
LORD HAWKE: Before the noble Lord sits down could he enlighten us as to how the present "carve-up" is con-ducted? It would help us to follow his argument.
LORD WILLIS: The present levy is collected on the basis of a small levy on each seat sold in the cinema. The box office returns for each particular film are analysed and on the basis of the number of seats sold and the receipts at the box office the producer of the film gets a share of the levy in proportion to the takings at the box office. Therefore, if one takes £1 million at the box office one will get £100,000 out of the levy fund;

57
if one takes £2 million at the box office one will get £200,000 from the levy fund.
5.6 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: I hope that the Committee will not accept this Amendment. I have listened with great interest to the way in which my noble friend has moved it, and I think he has moved it most ably. I think that probably there is a case for subsidising films of minority interest, and artistic films. I absolutely agree with my noble friend that there is a case, but I do not think they should be subsidised by the cinema industry. Films of this kind should be subsidised by public funds—Government funds or local authority funds—but not by the cinema exhibitors because, as my noble friend said, the Eady levy is based on the number of seats sold for a particular film. The more successful a film is, the more of this levy goes back to the company who made it, to encourage them to make other films and to employ more people in the industry and to give pleasure to audiences throughout the world.
If we are going to say that some of this levy should be taken and given to the weaker brethren we are immediately putting a penalty on success and starting to subsidise failure. I think we would be encouraging people to make films without having an eye as to whether they will be viable economically; and I know of no precedent in any other art, in book publishing, in art galleries or anything else, where the stronger sections are made to subsidise the weaker. A further complication with the film industry, as al-ways, is that a film is a very expensive product indeed.
Therefore, while I think there is much to be said for subsidising specialised films, it would be wholly wrong and quite un-fair to ask the cinema exhibitors to do so. Furthermore, I do not know what foreign investors who come to this country to make films on the co-production basis would say about this. I do not know what our American friends and colleagues would say if they came to make films on the co-production basis and the more successful the film was the more money they would have to pay towards the "duds". I am afraid this is good in theory but that it will not work out in practice.
58
Also, as I thought my noble friend was prepared to concede, it is going to be difficult to judge what is "outstanding quality". I do not know. I think the main yardstick is really the product that appeals to the greatest number of people over the longest possible time. I sup-pose the supreme example of that is Shakespeare. I know of no other yard-stick: it cannot be done by a committee —in my view that would be absolutely impossible. This is a subjective matter, and for all those reasons I hope that the Amendment will not be accepted.
LORD LEATHERLAND: May I bring a note of independence into this debate? My two noble friends are both involved in the film industry in one way or an-other. I am not. I am not a film writer, and never have been; I am not a starlet or a "sex kitten" or anything of that kind. I am completely independent, and my only interest in the film industry is that occasionally I go to the cinema. I feel that a matter of great importance to the industry, and therefore to the people who view the films that we make in this country, is that we should cultivate very carefully the next generation of film makers and film artists, and unless we give some encouragement to the younger generation—and I speak of the young in heart, not merely those young in years— to experiment with new types of art form, then we might find that when the James Bonds and the nudist films have played themselves out we shall have nothing at all to take their place. I feel that if new film artists and directors are to experiment with new art forms they must be insured in some way, not against reckless-ness but against failure which attends upon the genuine efforts which they make. Therefore, I sincerely hope that this Amendment will be carried.
Having said that, I should like to find fault with one particular passage in the Amendment; that is the one which sets up as the judges—to determine who shall get grants and who shall not—the representatives from the Film Producers' Association and the trade unions in the industry, with an independent chairman. I feel this is too narrow a basis of representation. I have a feeling that if those two vested interests were to be the sole judges we might have a plethora of nudist films, films dealing with what we

59
in our gentlemanly way would call un-desirable topics, something of the avant garde type, not really in the interests of the general bulk of cinema attenders in this country. I should like the genuine art and not the phoney art which is some-times thrust down our throats and before our eyes. I should like to see in addition to those vested interests, which have a smack of syndicalism about them, representatives of the general public, the film-going public, sitting on this judgment board. If my noble friend Lord Willis could find it possible to expand the membership of the Board in this way, I should be very pleased to vote in favour of the Amendment, something I shall do in any case in the hope that he will meet me on this point.
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I take up where the noble Lord has left off? The last report of the Cinematograph Film Council said this:
"It appears to us that the British Film Fund is an important inducement to film production."
That is the point of the British Film Fund; it is designed to encourage the making of British films, the use of British talent and British resources, and it does not mind very much where the money comes from to make the films. The point is to make films in Britain with British resources and British talent. There is, I would say, no a priori reason why the levy should not be divided both in the way that the box office determines and also on merit. The noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, said that he would support this Amendment because it envisages that some attention should be paid to merit apart from the box office, if I understood him correctly. Then, of course, he quarrels with the noble Lord's suggestion as to who should decide that merit. This is the hub of the whole question. It would, I am sure, be a good idea to give merit awards, although I would say in passing to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, that the mere fact that they are given in Germany would not necessarily mean that they should be made out of the levy for the British Film Fund. One could envisage a separate way of giving the awards, but when you are considering how to distribute the British Film Fund you have to take into account different considerations.
If you had a separate fund with various interests subscribing and them-
60
selves electing the panel, that would be one thing. But if you merely say, as the noble Lord has said, that there should be merit awards made on the advice of a panel composed of members of the Film Producers' Association, the trade unions and the distribution and exhibition associations, I do not see how this would necessarily commend itself to the public; nor would it commend itself necessarily to the industry in the broader sense. If one could solve this question as to merit awards on purely technical merit, apart altogether from the box office considerations, on merit from the point of view of imagination and production, then perhaps there would be something to be said for doing this, although I still do not think it should come out of the British Film Fund. First of all, we have to consider what the fund is for; and secondly how we decide on merit and by what criteria. There may be a germ of an idea in the noble Lord's Amendment, but as it is at the moment I am bound to say that I could not support it.
5.17 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, we have had a very interesting debate on this Amendment, and there is little that I would add from the Government's point of view. I think I must reiterate what the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn has just said: that in this piece of legislation, we are of course concerned with the commercial aspect of the industry. The encouragement of films as an art form is part of the Government's policy of assistance to the arts generally, and I think this Government have every reason to be proud of the contribution they have made to the arts. It is very important to keep these two forms of assistance distinct, but they do not conflict; and they can and do complement each other. It seemed to me that the noble Lord, Lord Willis, suggested that there is always a conflict between commercial success and high quality. But perhaps he would agree that sometimes they do go together. Indeed, I think—and I am a great cinema-goer—that more and more this is the case.
We have to bear in mind that the adoption of the principle underlying this Amendment would mean (this point has been made, I think, even by Lord Willis

61
himself) that the successful would be sub-sidising the less successful. The Government recognise that there is a case for subsidy of the arts, but in this Bill we are concerned with film-making as a commercial enterprise, and it seems very clear to me, as it has done to several other noble Lords, that any scheme of quality awards would from its very nature be in-appropriate in the present Bill: it would be subjective. I was interested when visiting another county last week to discover that they had refused to show a certain film which they said would corrupt public morals. When I suggested that this was a purely subjective judgment they did not agree. But what is good for one may be bad for another. I am afraid that I cannot accept this particular Amendment in this Bill.
LORD WILLIS: I am grateful for the sympathy at least, that has been expressed in different parts of the Committee. The most surprising statement, I thought, came from my noble friend Lord Leatherland, when he said that he was not a sex symbol. He could have fooled me! May I come back to the point, which seems to me to be highly illogical in the extreme, made by my noble friend Lady Phillips and the noble Lords, Lord Drumalbyn and Lord Strabolgi, about subsidising. The whole levy is a subsidy. It is a subsidy, taken out of one pocket of the industry and given to the producers, in the form of a tax on seats. How else would British production have been kept going, and overseas production attracted, if that money had not been available? But it had to be produced, first of all, as I said, on a voluntary basis, and then on a statutory basis. It was there to help production. Mine is a simple suggestion about a slightly different apportionment.
If in moving the Amendment I used the words "art form" I hope I did not mislead the Committee, because I do not necessarily disagree with my noble friend Lady Phillips, that art and entertainment are not two separate entities; that often they go well together. But it is clearly wrong—and I think that nobody could hesitate to make a value judgment here —if you have a certain amount of money which is to be used to encourage British production and you have two members of the family, that one should get it all
62
because he is big and strong and successful, and the other should get nothing, although he has had a good try; that Goldfinger, for instance, should make an enormous sum of money out of the levy and Oh, What a Lovely War! should make nothing. That is the essence of the argument I am making.
There are all these fears that this would drive away overseas producers, and so on. But I am suggesting a quite small amount, one-sixth. Out of a total figure of £4 million, £3 million or more would be left in the kitty for overseas producers, for the producers of the successful pictures and so on. Would it be a subsidy from the successful to the less successful? No, because we fixed the figure, and the way it should be distributed, some years ago. I believe that we were wrong in the way we did it, and that it now needs adjusting. It is not their money that we are taking away from them. We are saying, "You have had so much all these years; now you can have a little less of our money. We are going to distribute it in certain other directions."
The other point made was that it would be impossible to have a panel of the kind I have suggested that would make a value judgment. Why? We have panels of this kind operating all the time with the Arts Council, and other bodies. It seems to me that it should not be beyond the wit of the Government, and of Parliament, to devise some form of panel, not necessarily exactly in the way I have indicated, but, if you like, completely independent, which could make this kind of value judgment on the basis of an application made. I think that this suggestion for an amendment of the Bill and of the way in which the Fund operates is of great importance. I recognise that perhaps at this moment it has; not the complete sympathy of the Committee. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Strabolgi, with whom I agree on so many other things, disagrees with me on this. But I am perfectly sure that it will not be long before he comes around to this point of view, as I am sure the industry will. At this stage, therefore, I shall not press the Amendment; but I hope that the Government will take note of the points and that it may be possible at a later date to introduce some way, such as I have suggested, of amending the form

63
of distribution of the levy. In other words, I remain unrepentant, but I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 14 agreed to.
5.26 p.m.
LORD WILLIS LORD WILLIS moved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause:
Applicant for registration of film to give certain statutory undertaking
".Section 9 of the Films Act 1960 shall be amended by adding at the end the words: —
'(8) The applicant for the registration of a film shall at the same time as he makes an application under this section furnish to the Board of Trade a statutory undertaking to the effect that he has either given or offered or offered to sell at cost price to the National Film Archive of the British Film Institute a positive print of the film.'"
The noble Lord said: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if with this Amendment we discuss the later Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Amulree. This is a simple Amendment upon which I shall not spend a great deal of time. The only difference between my Amendment and the later Amendment is that the word "offered" appears twice in my Amendment, which reads:
"… a statutory undertaking to the effect that he has either given or offered or offered to sell…
The reason why I put in the extra "offered" is that the National Film Archive may not want the film, but there is a statutory obligation that at least it has to be offered. It may be that it is the type of film that they do not think is worthy of inclusion in the Archive. Once again we come into the area of value judgment because the storage space is so sparse. But I think that enough was said on Second Reading to indicate the great importance of the National Film Archive. It is tremendously important that we build it up, and I think that this simple Amendment ought to commend itself to the Committee. It does not put a great expense on the industry; it finds a way of keeping alive a full record of what is being done in British film-making. I beg to move.
LORD AMULREE: I should like to support this Amendment which covers much of the ground of my Amendment. I should like to speak to this Amendment now, and possibly not talk on my own Amendment when it is called. I think it is extremely important to keep old films, both from the point of view of keeping a record of the film industry in the past, and of the research which can be done on them at the present moment and in the years to come. Copies of books have been kept since the reign of Queen Anne in 1709, but no similar pro-vision has been made for films.
The National Film Archive does not need to preserve for posterity all films. I think it realises that films are expensive things and it would be a trouble to get them all. But it would like to preserve some in the best possible tradition, which indeed it can do now with its present storage system. At the same time, the Archive would like to make the films available to those who wish to study them now. This is not always easy to do. As the noble Lord, Lord Willis, has said, they do not want to make it compulsory, but they wish to be selective. They have no statutory powers at all to do that.
The selection does not really work well. I have some figures from the British Film Institute. In the past ten years 3,292 films were shown in Great Britain, of which 849 were selected for the Archive, but are not in the Archive now because they could take only 227. This is one-quarter of what they chose; it is one-quarter of the total. So the number which they get is extremely small. The Independent Television Authority is making a gesture in the sense of giving the Archive a grant for the purchase of films shown on I.T.V. The B.B.C. could not do this because of their different financial structure, a matter which I do not want to go into just now.
Another danger is that it is always possible under the present voluntary system for an owner to take a film from the Film Archive. Although this is not very likely to occur, it is something that might well occur. This could be avoided if it were made statutory for the films to be offered to the Archive, which could buy what it requires. In that way they would be equipped with Parliamentary

65
sanction, and they would not be in any danger of losing the film.
One can see two difficulties in the way of this Amendment which may not apply so much to the noble Lord's Amendment as to my own. The Bill is one for the encouragement of the film industry. One wonders whether the thought of immortality might not give encouragement to the making of more films. If people thought that they were going to be kept and preserved, some encouragement might be generated. Secondly, I do not know what difference of opinion there might be between the Board of Trade and the Department of Education and Science. They are different Departments, but I imagine that they can solve their differences quite easily. I should like very much to support the Amendment moved by Lord Willis, and I trust that I shall not be called upon to move my own Amendments when they come to be called.
LORD FARINGDON: I should like to come to the support of my noble friends in this matter. I am confirmed in so doing by my recollection of the decision of Parliament that all plays should be preserved and kept, and I see no reason why the same compulsion should not be extended to films. I sincerely hope that Her Majesty's Government will agree to this Amendment and will give to the preservation of films the importance which they attach to the preservation of plays.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I think that those noble Lords who have spoken, including the movers of the Amendments, have, in a sense, anticipated what I am going to say. These three new clauses —and, with permission, I am speaking now to Amendments Nos. 6, 10 and 11 all relate to the National Film Archive, which is run by the British Film Institute, whose activities are concerned with the cultural and non-commercial aspect of film-making. The legislation for which the Board of Trade is responsible, including the present Bill, governs film-making, distribution and exhibition as a commercial business. The British Film Institute, as the noble Lord has already indicated, receive their grant from the Department of Education and Science, and the present legislation is not an appropriate place for provisions of this kind.
66
That is not to say that I do not sympathise entirely with the objectives of the Archive. On the contrary, I personally (as, I know, do Her Majesty's Govern-ment) appreciate its importance and value. But there is a distinction—as we discussed in the previous Amendments— between support for film-making as an industry, which is what we are concerned with here, and support for film-making as an art and as a valuable social record. The absence in this Bill of any provisions which have any relation to the artistic and cultural aspect of film-making is not to be taken as evidence that the Government are not very conscious of the great value of this, or indeed are neglecting it in any way. On the contrary, the annual grant to the British Film Institute has increased about fourfold over the last five years, and of course the Film Archive has benefited from this. But these matters cannot be considered within the con-text of this particular Bill, and I would accordingly ask the Committee to reject these new clauses. As to the new Clause 10, I should perhaps add that an exhibitor is, in the normal course, licensed to show a film in a particular cinema, and he does not own the print of the film which he uses for exhibition. Therefore, it would not be possible to impose on him an obligation to give or sell the film to the Archive or to anyone, else.
LORD STRABOLGI: May I say how very disappointed I am with my noble friend's reply. I warmly support what all other noble Lords have said. I think my noble friend Lady Phillips confused the subject by speaking of films as an art form and films which are commercial and are dealt with in this Bill. The National Film Archive is to deal with all films, whether they are commercial, art films, or anything else; it is to be an archive of all films. I have felt for some time that this very important Archive is really the Cinderella of the Arts. Enormous sums are poured into Covent Garden, the museums, the galleries, the theatres—some noble Lords may think not enough—but the sums which are given to the National Film Archive are absolutely pathetic. As my noble friend said, they are routed through the British Film Institute, which gets, I think, £350,000, and the Archive gets about £70,000 a year, which is absolutely ludicrous. As I said on Second Reading,

67
the Archive is, in many ways, just as important as the British Museum Library, and in the future, when students wish to study the whole of our civilisation, they will go just as much to the Archive as to the Library.
The film as an art is just as important as an opera, just as important as a ballet, just as important as a book or painting; yet it is treated as a Cinderella. I realise that probably there is not a place in this particular Bill for an Amendment of this kind, but I hope the Government will begin to realise how important and vital this Archive is, so that films can be preserved there before they perish —preserved not only for reference and for study now but for the future—and that some sum commensurate with its importance will begin to be granted to it by the Exchequer. I warmly support the Amendment of my noble friend.
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.46 p.m.
LORD WILLIS LORD WILLIS moved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause:
LORD WILLIS: I have very little to add to what my noble friend Lord Strabolgi has said. I think it is wrong to confuse the argument by talking about art films and entertainment films, and saying that this Bill is a Bill which deals with commercial films. As my noble friend has said, we are talking about an Archive which will reflect the whole of film-making and, through reflecting the whole of film-making, will reflect our age and our time. Like him, I am disappointed in the rather negative reply from the noble Baroness. I know it is not her fault, but I regret that in the circumstances I feel we ought to press the Amendment, because it is of such great importance.
5.41 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 59; Not-Contents, 20.

CONTENTS

Albemarle, E

E.Dundee, E.

Moyle, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Nunburnholme, L.

Amulree, L.[Teller.]

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Poltimore, L.

Archibald, L.

Faringdon, L.

Raglan, L.

Atholl, D.

Foot, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Auckland, L.

Gridley, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Audley, Bs.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Bernstein, L.

Headfort, M.

St. Oswald, L.

Birdwood, L.

Henley, L.

Sandford, L.

Blyton, L.

Ilford, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Braye, L.

Inglewood, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Brockway, L.

Jellicoe, E.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Burton, L.

Lauderdale, L.

Thurlow, L.

Byers, L.

Maelor, L.

Vivian, L.

Carrington, L.

Mancroft, L.

Wade, L.

Chorley, L.

Merrivale, L.

Willis, L.[Teller.]

Daventry, V.

Molson, L.

Windlesham, L.

Denham, L.

Mountevens, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Falkland, V.

Phillips, Bs.

Beswick, L.

Gardiner, L.(L. Chancellor.)

Rusholme, L.

Bowles, L.[Teller.]

Henderson, L.

St. Davids, V.

Brown, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.[Teller.]

Serota, Bs.

Burden, L.

Hughes, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Champion, L.

Leatherland, L.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Lindgren, L.

Amendment of section 17 of the Films Act 1960
".In section 17(2) of the Films Act 1960 (definition of status of films made in Eire and the British Commonwealth) there shall be inserted the following paragraph:—
'(d) that the government concerned shall have entered into reciprocal arrangements with the United Kingdom Government.'"
The noble Lord said: Again, this Amendment is a small but rather important one, because it takes note of changing circumstances in the film industry. It proposes that there should now be introduced a distinction between films made in Commonwealth countries and the Republic of Ireland, and films made in this country. Hitherto, films made in the Republic of Ireland and in the Commonwealth have been classified as British films from the point of view of quota and levy, and from the point of view of other considerations. But I think the situation is quite clearly changing, and this Bill, which, after all, makes legislation for a long time ahead, ought to take note of it.
There are very rapidly developing industries in Canada and Australia, in particular. Only recently, the Government of Australia introduced for the first time a Film Finance Corporation on a small basis, to subsidise local production. It has set up a planning committee, as we have done, to start its own National Film School, and is now beginning a move towards getting Federal legislation to impose a quota over the whole of Australia. Personally, I welcome that very much indeed. In fact, I was in Australia last year at the invitation of the Australian Government, and made some recommendations of this sort in a report to them. So I cannot do anything else but welcome them. On the other hand, if the industry is going to develop there, as I am sure it is—and I am only quoting that as one example—then clearly we have to take note of it. We have to ask—and I have no reason to think that we could not get them very easily—that there should be reciprocal arrangements between this country and Australia; in other words, we' should have from them a written assurance, a guarantee or whatever one calls it, that our films will be treated as Australian quota, just as we treat their films as British quota. I think that that kind of understanding should be extended to other Commonwealth countries.
There is also film development in the Republic of Ireland. They have recently introduced a new law whereby artists and writers and other such people can go there and pay either very low taxes or no taxes at all. So they are clearly making a great effort to attract and develop the film industry and other arts, and I think
70
that we shall be making a mistake if we do not take note of that trend. This should not be interpreted as a hostile move against the Commonwealth or the Republic of Ireland. As I said, I am sure that they would very readily agree to the reciprocal arrangements which I have suggested.
We have a rather anomalous situation at the moment, whereby some films that have been sponsored by overseas Governments and Commonwealth countries come in for a share in the Eady money, so that, perhaps in an indirect way, we are helping to subsidise films; made on behalf of Commonwealth Governments. I personally do not object to that, and I do not share the fears of some people, such as were expressed in another place during the debate in Committee, that there is a danger that Commonwealth Governments may make anti-British pictures and may infiltrate our cinemas with hostile propaganda. I think that is non-sense. We simply have to take note of the fact that film industries are developing in those countries, that they are going to develop even more rapidly and that their labour costs are cheaper and may well attract production away from this country in time to come. Therefore what we want is the friendliest reciprocal equality between us such as we have always had with the Commonwealth. I beg to move Amendment No. 7.
5.51 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I wonder whether it would be convenient to consider my Amendment, No. 8, at the same time. My Amendment tackles the same problem as does the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, but in a rather different way. In fact,. I confess freely that it was his Amendment which caused me to have a look again at Section 17, which I do not think I had looked at since I was myself at the Board of Trade. What I saw there made me wonder whether that section is really quite right now, for the present circum-stances, if indeed it ever was. Perhaps I may be allowed to go through the section, because it is very important.
What we are considering here is how far we should have reciprocal arrangements. I agree entirely with the noble Lord that having reciprocal arrangements is not in any sense to be interpreted as hostility. Reciprocity is indeed a mark

71
of friendship. What Section 17 says— and I shall try to cut out the words which are not necessary—is:
"… a film shall be registered as a British film if either—

(a)it is made by or on behalf of a department of Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, or by or on behalf of any Commonwealth Government or of the Government of the Republic of Ireland; or

(b)all the requirements specified in sub-section (2) of this section are satisfied with respect to it;…"

Subsection (2) then gives the requirements; and it is on these that the noble Lord, Lord Willis, seeks reciprocity.
The first point, which occurred to me, was that a film made by any Common-wealth Government or the Government of the Republic of Ireland is fine, but I am not so sure about the words "on behalf of". If it is made on behalf of one of those Governments it does not have to fulfil the requirements in sub-section (2). It may easily be made by a foreign company with foreign labour and foreign resources, and yet it is qualified to be registered as a British film. The noble Baroness may say that this has not happened very much so far, but once it has been drawn to the attention of Parliament it is very likely to happen. I think the noble Baroness will have to take serious account of this, because as the language stands it is wide open to this abuse—let us face it—and that abuse could come up at any time. So that is the purpose of the first part of my Amendment. I should add that, having asked myself, "What is the use of the words 'on behalf of' in connection with any Commonwealth Government or of the Government of the Republic of Ire-land?" and asked whether those words were right, I then wondered whether they were right in connection with Her Majesty's Government. I cannot conceive of Her Majesty's Government not con-forming with the requirements of sub-section (2), and therefore they are obviously not necessary in regard to Her Majesty's Government, either. So the words "on behalf of" can be dropped in both cases.
The second part of my Amendment deals with the remaining subsections of Section 17. Subsection (2) prescribes the requirements, and subsections (3), (4), (5)
72
and (6) make various qualifications. So that nothing is missed out, I have added subsections (3), (4), (5) and (6) to the Amendment. But subsection (2) says:
"The requirements referred to in paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of this section are—

(a)that the maker of the film was, through-out the time during which the film was being made, either a British subject or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland or a company to which this paragraph applies; and

(b)that the studio, if any, used in making the film was in a Commonwealth country "—

which presumably includes Great Britain—
" or the Republic of Ireland; and
(c)that not less than the requisite amount of labour costs represents payments paid or payable in respect of the labour or services of British subjects or citizens of the Republic of Ireland by persons ordinarily resident in a Commonwealth country or the Republic of Ireland."
What my Amendment says is:
"The Board of Trade may by order vary the requirements … of the said section 17
so that, in effect, if any of the particular countries did not think that reciprocity was a good thing, then an order could be laid before Parliament to exclude that country. No doubt, of course, it would not be done as harshly as that. There would be a conference in the usual way to decide which countries wanted to be included and which countries did not; there would be an order in consequence, and it would be subject to Affirmative Resolution of the House. As we are legislating for quite a long time ahead, again it seems well worth while to include in the Bill as it now is something along the lines either of what the noble Lord proposes or of what I propose; and I hope the noble Baroness will consider the Amendments from that point of view without having too much regard to their perfection from the point of view of draftsmanship.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: The noble Lord has made the point that he hopes I will look at these Amendments from the point of view of their principle rather than their perfection; but as he will know as well as I, one has to look at the effect of the clause when one is de-bating it in this context. I will deal first of all with the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, for which he made a very good case. The effect of the new clause would be to deny quota status to films made in studios in

73
Ireland or in Commonwealth countries unless there were reciprocal arrangements. This is the other side of it. The question of the treatment accorded to these must be looked at in the context of our general commercial relations with those countries. The present arrangements have been in force for a long time, and the Government are unwilling to upset them in the absence of very strong reasons for doing so. I am not sure that the noble Lord has made out a strong practical reason for a change at the present time.
Figures were given in the other place, some of which, I thought, were slightly ridiculous. It was suggested, I think, that 1,700 films might be made during the next ten years which could be registered as British. The actual figures are that 17 feature films from these sources, the Commonwealth and the Republic of Ireland together, have been registered as British quota films during the last five years. I do not think any noble Lord could suggest that that constitutes a real danger. But I should like to stress that the Government are watching this matter all the time. However, they are equally concerned not to upset the good commercial relationship which exists, and therefore they would be very loth to interfere in any way with the legislation at this time. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Willis, to accept that point. He may say that it is purely negative, but I am making a strong plea for what is good, commercial practice: that you do not upset an undertaking which is working satisfactorily at this time.
As regards the case made by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, I am afraid that, on his first point in connection with a film being registered as a British film and counting towards the British quota, the present wording of the Act allows such a film to be made, as he said, either by a Government itself or, as is more usual, by a film-maker commissioned for that purpose by a Government. If this section were altered in the way suggested by the Amendment the only Government films that would qualify as British films would be those made by a Government Department. In fact, most Government films are made not by Government Departments but by persons or companies commissioned by Departments, so the effect of the Amendment would be to disqualify the films so commissioned. Therefore I
74
cannot accept the Amendment. I appreciate that this is on a drafting point; but this would be the effect of the Amendment.
On the other Amendment, No. 8, I know that both noble Lords will agree with me that the requirements for the qualification of a British film are central to the whole purpose of the Act. The main purpose of the Act is to provide for the screen quota, the purpose of which is to ensure that British quota films occupy at least a prescribed percentage of screen showing time, as already discussed. In this context, the definition of what constitutes a British film is central to the purpose of the legislation. The noble Lord's Amendment, No. 8, seeks to permit variation, by subordinate legislation, of the provisions which set out the requirements for qualification as a British film. The Government do not feel that this would be right. There are strong objections in principle to permitting variation by subordinate legislation of provisions which an; basic to the main legislation; and I feel sure that the noble Lord will see this point. As he said, we are making legislation for some time to come. I am sure he would agree that any basic change should be made by the legislation which affects the main Act and not by subordinate legislation. On these grounds, I would ask him to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD WILLIS: I am naturally disappointed at that reply. I must say that on the whole my sympathy goes towards the idea of withdrawing my Amendment and supporting that of Lord Drumalbyn. It seems to me to be some-thing the Government could accept. It does not alter the terms of the Bill at all. If paragraph 2 of Amendment No. 8 were inserted in the Bill its effect would simply be to allow the; Government to have a reserve power; and if the situation altered drastically in the Commonwealth or if somebody drove a coach-and-horses through the Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said, it would be possible to rectify it quickly by Order. Therefore it seems to me to be something eminently reasonable. I do not intend to press my Amendment at this stage, but I would urge the noble Baroness to go back and consult to see whether there is not sense to this and whether an acceptable form of words could not be

75
devised to meet the case. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.4 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 8:
After Clause 14, insert the following new clause:
Power of Board of Trade to vary requirements of subsections (2)-(6) of section 17 of the Films Act 1960
(" .—(1) In section 17 of the Films Act 1960 the words "on behalf of" wherever they occur in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) shall be omitted.
(2) The Board of Trade may by order vary the requirements specified in subsections (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6) of the said section 17 (requirements which have to be satisfied before a film may be registered as a British film), but no such order shall be made unless a draft thereof has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.")
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may be allowed to say just a few words on this Amendment in the light of what the noble Baroness has said. In view of what she has said about drafting, I do not wish to press this Amendment, but I hope that she will look again at the point I made, which was that any Common-wealth Government film, or Government of the Republic of Ireland film, that was made in the Commonwealth or in the Republic of Ireland would surely—and this was the intention—have been allowed in if it conformed to the requirements referred to in paragraph (b) of the subsection. Then it would not matter who made it, whether it was the Government or anybody else. A film made by any Commonwealth Government or the Government of the Republic of Ireland is not excluded simply because they commissioned somebody else to make it; because if it is commissioned by some-body else, it will come within the requirements of subsection (2), so long as it were made in those countries or in Great Britain. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness would look at that intention.
As to the second part, I agree with what Lord Willis has said, and I am grateful for his support. But again I should not wish to press this Amendment if there were a likelihood that it might not be quite sound from the draftsmanship point of view. I should have
76
thought it likely that in the next ten years we shall run into a period when we are in any event going to have a great many changes of relationships. I should have thought that it was wise to do something of this kind in order that we might maintain the necessary flexibility. I think that the noble Baroness read the Amendment more widely than it was intended to be used. The power taken may in fact be wider than the power you expect to use; although, as Lord Willis said, some-body might drive a coach-and-horses through the rest of it, and any Government would be glad to have the power of variation that this Amendment provides. The power of variation was the power in regard to nationality and locality; British subjects or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland or the place where it was made, and so on; it was in regard to variations of that kind. I should have thought that, in the light of the developments that we are likely to see, this is a power that the Government should consider very carefully. I think the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, wishes to say something, so I shall not withdraw my Amendment yet. I beg to move.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. I want to say very briefly that I agree with very much of what he has said on the second paragraph of his Amendment, No. 8. There is, I think, a great need for flexibility. On the other hand, as my noble friend Lady Phillips said, I do not think it right that this should be done by subordinate legislation. I realise that with this particular Bill we are being asked to pass a Bill which we hope will remain law for about ten years. But as Lord Drumalbyn knows, in the industry in the last twenty years there have been quite a number of small amending Acts—in fact, the last Schedule to this particular Bill lists them. I think that over the last twenty years there have been six Acts. It seems to me that there is no reason why the kind of flexibility which the noble Lord wants, and rightly wants, should not be secured by a small amending Bill when this is required. I think that everything my noble friend Lady Phillips said is right. With respect to the noble Lord, I am quite sure that that is the right way to approach it.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I will give an assurance that I will look at the first part

77
of the noble Lord's Amendment. His intention did not come over clearly, and my reply was based on a different inference, largely because of the drafting. On the second point, I will certainly take it back, but on this I cannot offer a great deal of hope because it is a very basic point. As my noble friend Lord Strabolgi has said, there seems to be no difficulty about providing amending legislation, and this has been done before. I think there is always an objection to subordinate legislation if it is something which is germane to the principal Act; but, as I say, I will take it back.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for what she has said. I think there are advantages in flexibility. After all, this legislation was passed ten years ago, and we must presumably always envisage moving on to something else. I would draw her attention to Section 19 of the Films Act 1960 which provides:
"Her Majesty's Government may by Order in Council provide for treating films which are made in accordance with the terms of any agreement between Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and any other government or any international organisation or authority, but with respect to which the requirements of this Part of this Act as to the registration of a film as a British film are not fulfilled, as if they were films with respect to which those requirements are fulfilled."
So there is scope here for proceeding country by country within the Common-wealth with agreements of this kind, whether or not they comply with Section 17. I would not say, simply because power was taken to vary Section 17, that a radical change was going to be made. You might make a partial change with a particular country that did not feel able to comply with all the requirements here, or was not willing to give reciprocal facilities with regard to those requirements. So there is quite a lot which is worth looking at, I think, before the next stage of the Bill. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 15 to 18 agreed to.
6.10 p.m.
LORD WILLIS LORD WILLIS moved Amendment No. 9:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause:
Amendment of section 30(l)(c)of the Films Act 1960
".In Section 30(l)(c) of the Films Act 1960 the words "if the film is a long film" shall be omitted."
The noble Lord said: Very briefly, this is an attempt to insert into the Bill a requirement which will enable us to get much more adequate information about short films and the rentals paid for them in cinemas than is at present available. I hope that the Amendment will com-mend itself to the Government. The situation is that we have had no information and no accurate figures about short films in cinemas since about 1954. Short films are becoming increasingly popular (by " short films " I mean anything, as defined in the Act, under 33½ minutes long) because of the longer films that are being made and because the double feature has gone out of fashion. Therefore, it is useful to exhibitors to have one fairly long film of 100 minutes and a half-hour short to go with it.
What often happens is that the two films are lumped together by one distributor and no separate figures are kept of what rental is paid for the short film. At some stage—certainly not tonight— think it would be useful if the House debated the whole position of short films. In this country there is a history of shameful neglect in respect of short films and a great deal more could be done. I am asking for this tiny Amendment which will simply require exhibitors and distributors to keep accurate records of rentals paid for short films as well as for feature films so that we may have a record of what was paid for them and what were the returns. I beg to move.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: The noble Lord, Lord Willis, has given the reason why a record has to be kept in respect of a long film and the rental payable; and the renter must produce that record if requested by the Board of Trade to do so. The noble Lord will know better than I the reason for this requirement. It is essential that the record of the rental should be available. The reason for the obligation on renters to keep records is in the Act. No such need arises in relation to other than first feature films and there could be no justification for imposing on renters an obligation to keep records which were not required for the purposes of legislation.

79
I think it important to preserve the principle that Departments should not be required, or authorised, to demand information which they do not need in order to perform their statutory duties. I hope that my noble friend will appreciate this point and withdraw the proposed new clause.
LORD WILLIS: I find that reply rather extraordinary, if I may say so. Short films play their part alongside ordinary feature films. There are a large number of individuals who make short films. Some of our best directors have graduated from making short films, people like George Schlesinger, who made Terminus. The situation now is that the short film is lumped in with the general first feature that is being played at a particular cinema, so that no accurate records exist. If one wanted to impose other parts of this Bill that are important, one would have no accurate records with which to do so. It seems to me that the acceptance of the Amendment could only help the implementation of the legislation. It would be very difficult to operate the provisions in the Bill efficiently and properly without this relevant information about short films, and I am rather flabbergasted by the suggestion that one does not need information about rentals paid for short films. That affects the Eady Fund, the distribution of the levy and a whole number of other areas covered by legislation. It seems to me that without this information it would be impossible properly to operate the provisions of the Bill and I beg the noble Lady to think again.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: What the noble Lord has said seems in direct conflict with the information that I have been given, that it is the rentals for first feature films which are recorded. The noble Lord suggests that the films are heaped together and therefore it is impossible to distinguish between the rentals. That is what I understood him to say, and that would alter the situation. But I think he will agree that it is only the first feature films about which the information is needed. If there is any conflict, it is determined on which is the longer of the films.
LORD WILLIS: If the noble Baroness will excuse me, and while I do not wish to keep the Committee too long on this matter, I should like to give one practical example. We have a system in which there are two big circuits which largely control the bookings in the cinemas. If you make a short film you are dependent on one or other of those circuits to show it. What has sometimes happened in the past has been that a circuit has said (and it is case of " take it or leave it"; one is hardly independent in the matter) " We will give you a lump sum for this short film." So you take a lump sum and they then have the film to distribute; it is theirs, they have bought it. They put it out round the cinemas and they charge because they are in their own cinemas. Sometimes they charge a rental which is out of all proportion in respect of a particular short film. That is one way in which the system operates and therefore it could be wrong.
Another way is that a film is distributed by a particular circuit, it does not get a full circuit release, and therefore it is affected under the Act because of the Eady Plan and so forth. It does not get to some favoured cinemas or it gets to some non-favoured cinemas. I could go on for a long time with this particular argument. I urge that the Government should look at this matter again, because I assure the noble Baroness that it does affect the implementation of the provisions in the Bill.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I think the noble Lord, Lord Willis, has made out a strong case. I suspect that at the same time as taking a look at this Amendment we should have to look pretty closely at the terms of the levy distribution. May I suggest that the noble Lord might withdraw his Amendment on an assurance from the noble Baroness, which I hope will be forthcoming, that the matter will be looked at before the next stage in the progress of the Bill?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I think that in the circumstances the noble Lord might withdraw his Amendment. I can only repeat that my information is that when delivering a registered film it is required that a record of the rental shall be kept if the film is a long film; and that the record must be produced at the request of the Board of Trade. This seems in

81
direct contradiction to what the noble Lord has said, but if he will withdraw his Amendment, I will look at the matter.
LORD WILLIS: I beg leave to with-draw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Fees]:
On Question, Whether Clause 20 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DRUMALBYN: With Clause 20 we are in a rather peculiar position, because it refers to Section 44(3) of the Films Act 1960 which has two legs. The first leg deals with regulations prescribing the amount of any fees and it states in the subsection that they
"shall be so framed to secure, as nearly as may be, that the aggregate amount produced by those fees will be equal to the amount of the expenses incidental to the carrying out of this Act."
It goes on to state the amount of the fees payable for those items specified in the Second Schedule, that is:
"On an application for the registration of a film … on an application to amend the register … on an application for a renter's licence "
—which is the most important—
"on an application for an annual exhibitor's licence in respect of a quarterly period ".
All those are prescribed separately, and it is difficult to see exactly whether the effect of ruling this out means that the first part of Clause 44(3) is all that is left.
I take it that what is proposed here is that these fees, previously contained in the Schedule, will now be fixed by legislation, and the obligation in the first part of the clause will apply so as to make the fees meet the expenses incidental to carrying out this Act. I think that one is bound to ask what are the expenses incidental to carrying out this Act and what will be the amount of fees required in order to cover those expenses. I am obviously not asking for individual fees but for the level of increase in fees required to cover the increase of expenses in recent years. Perhaps the noble Baroness can tell us that.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: As the noble Lord has pointed out, the 1960 Act re-
82
quires the Board to fix fees for the registration of films and exhibitors' licences as nearly as may be to meet the expenses of administration. At the same time, it lays down a maximum for the various fees. The present practice shows that legislation should not provide maxima and the Bill provides for their abolition to bring legislation in accord with the practice. It happens that the present fees, fixed in 1961, no longer produce sufficient to cover costs and an increase is needed. The Board of Trade has under consideration the level to which fees need to be increased to cover the expected cost over the next few years. I cannot give the figures and would merely say that at the moment they are out of proportion with fees laid down in other connections. But I can get the precise figures for the noble Lord, if he would like me to do so.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I think it would be helpful if figures could be obtained, because when passing legislation of this kind we should know the order of magnitude of the increases that are likely to result, especially as the phrase in the 1960 Act is itself not very clear. It says:
"… equal to the amount of the expenses incidental to the carrying out of this Act".
The whole Act? I hope that the noble Baroness will look at that aspect.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I will see whether I can get the information for the noble Lord.
Clause 20 agreed to.
6.25 p.m.
LORD WILLIS LORD WILLIS moved Amendment No. 12:
After Clause 20, insert the following new clause:
Amendment of Schedule 1 to Films Act 1960
". Schedule 1 to the Films Act 1960 shall be amended:—

(a) in paragraph 1

(i) by the substitution for the word ' twenty-two ' of the word ' nineteen';

(ii) by the substitution in sub-paragraph (a) for the word ' seven' of the word ' five';

(iii) by the substitution in sub-paragraph (b) after the word ' British' of the word ' financed ';

(iv) by the substitution in sub-paragraph (d) for the word ' five' of the word ' four'; and

83

(b) in paragraph 2 by inserting after the word 'Council' where it first appears the words 'and no person shall be appointed in any representative capacity who has an interest in any other representative capacity'."

The noble Lord said: This is the last of my Amendments and I shall be brief, because the matter was fairly thoroughly covered in the Second Reading debate. My Amendment intends to do two things: first, to take recognition of the fact that the C.F.C. have, under this Bill, greatly increased authority, even power. It is laid down that the Board of Trade must consult the C.F.C. at various intervals, and they are given increased status. It has been recognised with some feeling in another place, if not recognised outright by the Government, and in our Second Reading debate, that there may be a case for changing the composition of the Council. But it has been felt that it would be difficult so to do. It has been said that the balance has proved fairly right in the past and that we should leave well alone. But if we feel that a change ought to be made—and I think there ought to be a change—let us do it now, because we are legislating for ten years ahead.
My Amendment proposes that the number of exhibitors should be reduced by one, which would still leave them with a fairly hefty representation; that the number from the trade union organisations or professional associations should be increased by one, and that there should be an understanding that one person does not represent an organisation or function when he has a dual capacity. I am not saying anything against the individuals on the Council, because they try to carry out their duties without bias, but, human nature being what it is, we feel that the situation is quite wrong where one per-son, whom we all know to be a powerful exhibitor and distributor, represents the producers. We need to have people who represent one particular category. I know that that may be difficult at limes but it is not impossible to do this. That is the basic argument in favour of my Amendment and I beg to move.
LORD STRABOLGI: Before my noble friend replies, may I ask my noble friend Lord Willis if he will further explain one or two points about his Amendment. First, it is proposed to insert in sub-
84
paragraph (iii) the word " financed " to make the 1960 Act read:
"Four shall be appointed as representing makers of British financed films."
The definition of a British film is given in Clause 17 of the 1960 Act. I think it is a very good definition, but it does not necessarily say that the film has to be wholly British financed. What does my noble friend mean by a " British financed film "? Does he mean a film made here on a co-production basis or does he mean that every pound put into it must come from British sources? That is one point.
The other is that in sub-paragraph (b) my noble friend's Amendment proposes to insert after the word " Council ", where it first appears, the words set out on the Marshalled List. I think that it should be after the word " Council" where it appears for the second time, because if the proposed words of my noble friend appear after "Council" where it first appears, it will not make any sense at all.
There is also the question of the representatives of producers and exhibitors. I know that my noble friend has here in mind the two main producing and exhibiting companies. I think it is only right that representatives of those two companies should sit on the Council and I cannot see that there is any objection to that. As I think was said in another place, the members of the Council sit as experts on the industry generally. They can wear different caps and I think it is wrong to put them into completely closed compartments. I think also that the film industry owes a great deal to those two companies, with one of which I am associated. In fact, I think it is fair to say that they have kept the whole industry going for the last twenty or thirty years and even before the war. If it had not been for them, there would not be a British film industry. It is true that they are both embarking on fairly ambitious programmes of films, as I said on Second Reading, and I think it would be quite wrong to exclude them from the Cinematograph Films Council.
LORD WILLIS: Perhaps I may briefly reply to my noble friend. I think he has a point in regard to sub-paragraph (a)(iii) and the words " British finance ". But the purpose of this—and I would not press it—was to make quite sure that the

85
Council was made up of people who were representative of the British film industry and not necessarily overseas producers and distributors who happened to be here operating in this country. This is not to say that I have anything against them, of course. One of the difficulties always in moving an Amendment of this sort is that one is accused, or the implication is there, that one is necessarily hostile to the big circuits. I do not regard them in quite the angelic light that my noble friend Lord Strabolgi does; on the other hand, I recognise the justice of his tribute to what they have contributed to British films. I certainly can-not accept that, but for them, British films would be dead, but it is fair to say that we should have a completely different kind of situation.
I think it is fair that the big circuits should be represented on the Cinematograph Films Council, but I do not think that they should be representative in one or two capacities as they are now, and for this reason: that there has been an increasing feeling on the C.F.C. that it has concerned itself in the past few years far too much with problems of exhibition and distribution and not with the problems of production. This new Bill will make it essential that they concentrate an equal effort on the question of production. It is for that reason that I have suggested this adjustment in the balance.
The balance may not be absolutely right. It may be that the Government have other ideas or suggestions; indeed, I hope that this is the case. But I think the principle is right. I feel strongly that it is wrong to say, as has been said: " Well, we know it is not quite right, but it is the best we can do so far. Do not let us tinker with it, because if we do other people will want extra representation. Let us leave something that is not very good well alone." We cannot do that for the next ten years, and that is why I wanted to air this matter by means of this Amendment.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I should like to deal with this Amendment in its different parts: this is the only way, I think, that one can satisfactorily deal with a long clause of this kind. However, I shall be quite brief. My noble friend's Amendment seeks to change the constitution. First of all, he seeks to reduce
86
the number of independent members. To substitute " five " for " seven " in sub-paragraph (a) would, in the view of the Government, provide for insufficient in-dependent representatives. I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that it is important to take into account public interest, as well as the interests of the industry, and for this purpose adequate independent representation is essential. Moreover, a qualification for appointment as an independent is that the person appointed shall have no such financial or commercial interest as is likely to affect him in the discharge of his functions as a member of the Council. This means that he must be independent of the industry, and so he brings, and can apply, knowledge and experience from other fields. The Government feel that the balance at the moment, of seven independents, is right.
I note that my noble friend does not wish to press this point about British finance, and I would only underline what my noble friend Lord Strabolgi has said: that this could have the effect of appearing to suggest that the American capital, which has been invested in the industry at some risk, is to our disadvantage. This we know to be not entirely the case, and we should not do anything to discourage American investment.
The third point is the question of reducing the number of exhibitor representatives. During the review of legislation all sections of the industry have been invited to express their views on future films legislation, and they responded with enthusiasm. It was no surprise that most sections wanted in-creased representation for themselves. I know that the noble Lord has said that this is no argument for turning down his Amendment, but it has some relevance in any kind of discussion that if you increase the representation of one group you automatically upset the balance and the others will immediately demand representation.
The Council itself, and the Government, have given careful consideration to these proposals for changes in the repre-sentation—it was not done lightly—and feel that the proposed insertion which relates to the dual capacity might be anomalous. For instance, the fact that a producer has interests in producing or in exhibition, or that a renter is concerned with production and exhibition,

87
does not mean that he is incapable of being a useful or disinterested person on the Council, or of making disinterested contributions. On the contrary, he may take a very broad view. The Government are satisfied with the constitution of the Council, and I cannot hold out any hope of a change. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend will withdraw the Amendment.
LORD WILLIS: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining clauses and Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with Amendments.

ROADS (SCOTLAND) BILL
6.37 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move that the Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 13, line 12, leave out subsection (7), and insert—
("(7) As soon as may be after the necessity for work under this section arises on a tree which is subject to a tree preservation order made under section 26(1) of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1947 and before any such work is commenced, the highway authority shall give notice of the proposed work to the local planning authority within the meaning of section 2 of the said Act of 1947:
Provided that if in the opinion of the high-way authority there is imminent danger from the tree falling on the road, they may dispense with the giving of such notice.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when the Bill was in Committee the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, tabled an Amendment which would have required the planning authority to be consulted, except in case of emergency, where a tree was to be felled or lopped under Clause 19. He was good enough to withdraw the Amendment on my undertaking to put down another which would accomplish the same object. The Amendment which I now move requires the highway
88
authority to give advance notice to the planning authority before work is begun, under Clause 19 of the Bill, to lop or fell a tree which is likely to create danger or obstruction on a highway. I would point out that the obligation to give notice is laid on the highway authority, and not on any other person who is required by them to lop or fell a tree. If in the opinion of the highway authority there is imminent danger from the tree falling on the road, they need not give notice. That is in keeping with the noble Lord's own Amendment. I think I should point out that there is nothing here which conflicts with Section 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1947, which provides for the making of tree preservation orders. The proviso to subsection (6) of Section 26 says that nothing in a tree preservation order shall prohibit the felling or lopping of any tree if such felling or lopping is urgently necessary in the interests of safety, or is necessary for the prevention or abatement of a nuisance, so long as notice of the proposed operations is given to the local planning authority as soon as may be after they become necessary. Section 26 also provides that a tree preservation order is overriden by a statutory obligation to fell or lop the tree, such as Clause 19 of the Bill would impose. In that case it would appear that no notice need be given to the planning authority, but I think it is only reasonable that they should have such notice, and my Amendment provides accordingly. I beg to move.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I appreciate the action of the noble Lord in this matter, and I assure him that his Amendment fully meets the point which I raised.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 [Deposit of mud or liquid from vehicles on roads]:
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 14, line 14, at end insert—
("(4) In this section, 'vehicle' includes anything towed or pushed by a vehicle and any appliance.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when the Bill was in Committee I promised to consider the point made by my noble friend Lord Kilbracken that Clause 21 might not cover mud dropped from a

89
trailer or from equipment drawn by a vehicle. A trailer is covered by the clause as it stands, but it is possible that some kinds of farm implements or contractors' equipment would not come within the definition of a vehicle. The Amendment therefore makes it clear that the word " vehicle" includes anything drawn or pushed by a vehicle, and any appliance. I am grateful to my noble friend for bringing this to my attention. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 36, insert the following new clause:
Power to obtain road-making materials
"(1) The highway authority may enter any land to search for, dig and carry away materials for the purpose of making or repairing a highway and may carry such materials through the land of any person.
(2) Before carrying out any operations under this section, the highway authority shall serve notice of their intention on the owner and the occupier of the land concerned together with a description of the proposed operations and of the right to object thereto within 28 days after the service of the notice.
(3) Where the highway authority is a local highway authority and within the said period of 28 days the owner or the occupier objects to the proposed operations, and that objection is not withdrawn, the local highway authority shall not proceed to execute the operations without consent after mentioned but may refer the matter for the determination of the Secretary of State who may grant consent to the proposed operations either unconditionally or subject to such terms and conditions as he thinks just, or who may withhold his consent, and the decision of the Secretary of State on the matter shall be final.
(4) The highway authority shall pay compensation to the owner or occupier of the land for any damage done thereto by reason of the exercise of their powers under this section and for the value of materials carried away by them.
(5) Where an excavation is made by the highway authority in the exercise of their powers under this section, the authority shall—

(a) while the work is in progress, and there-after so long as the excavation remains open, keep the excavation sufficiently fenced to prevent accidents to persons or animals,

(b) as soon as is reasonably practicable after the completion of the work, fill up the excavation or slope it down and fence it off, if the owner or occupier so requires, and thereafter keep it so fenced,

(c) so far is reasonably practicable, when filling up the excavation, make good and level the ground."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 3 is the principal Amendment, and Amendments Nos. 4 to 8 are all consequential upon it. When the Bill was in Committee, the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, tabled an Amendment to repeal Section LXXX of the General Turnpike Act 1831, which appears as Schedule C to the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act 1878. I accepted his Amendment, and indicated that I would at a later stage put down Amendments which would re-enact the main substance of the repealed provisions, but in more modern terms and divested of certain features which cannot be justified in modern conditions. Subsection (1) of the new clause contains the substantive powers enabling highway authorities to search for, dig and carry away materials from any land, and to carry them over any land. This power, which essentially re-enacts the basic power in the General Turnpike Act, is still necessary, because there are places, especially remote areas, where the cost of buying road-making materials commercially is uneconomic, as compared with the excavation of a small quarry near the road by the highway authority. We have all seen small workings of this kind, and most of them do little harm to the land on which they are situated. Subsections (2) and (3) deal with notice to owners and occupiers of land and objections. Before exercising their powers under the new clause, the highway authority must give notice to the owner and occupier of any land concerned, who has a right to object within 28 days. If a local highway authority is concerned, any unresolved objections must be referred to The Secretary of State for his decision. I think this represents a distinct advance: on the provisions of the General Turnpike Act. They distinguish between unenclosed land and enclosed land, and require notice to be given to the proprietors only where the land has been enclosed, in which case they receive 14 days' notice and can lodge an objection with the sheriff. Where the land is unenclosed, no notice and no right of objection is given. The new clause provides for notice and a right of objection in all cases, and provides for longer notice.
Subsection (4) of the new clause requires the highway authority to compensate the owner or occupier of land for any damage done by the exercise of

91
their powers under it, and for the value of the materials that they remove. Again, this represents a rather more satisfactory arrangement than is provided under Section LXXX of the 1831 Act. That section originally provided that where materials were taken from unenclosed land compensation should be paid only for stone used for building. There was to be no compensation for surface damage, or for the removal of any other materials. Where the land was enclosed, compensation was to be paid for stone to be used for building and for surface damage. Section 123 of the Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Act 1878 added to this a provision saying that compensation was to be paid for any materials which were obtained outside the highway authority's area, or were carried more than three miles from the place where they were got. I am not sure what was the justification for those rather odd provisions, but we could hardly defend them in the light of modern notions about compensation. I am quite certain that if this Government attempted to introduce such legislation in this year noble Lords opposite would find many reasons for opposing it. The new clause provides for compensation to be paid for damage done and materials taken, irrespective of the type of land from which they were taken and the distance for which they were carried. Finally, subsection (5) of the new clause requires the highway authority to fence excavations while work is going on and, when it is completed, either to fence excavations or to fill them in and make good the ground surface. In the General Turnpike Act there are rather similar requirements in relation to un-enclosed land, but not, strangely enough, in relation to enclosed land. I beg to move.
6.46 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, Viscount Massereene and Ferrard, I should like to thank the noble Lord for the Amendment that he has proposed. My noble friend regrets very much that he is un-able to be here to thank him in person. I understand from my noble friend that the Amendment the noble Lord has moved meets his point in a very satisfactory way. There is one question I should like to ask; it is a question to
92
which no doubt I ought to know the answer, but perhaps the noble Lord can give me the information. When the word "compensation" is used, does it always follow that in the event of differences as to what the compensation should be there is recourse to arbitration? Under the existing law, for example, if stone is taken from outside the highway authority's area, or carried for more than three miles, who decides what the amount of compensation for the value of the stone, or for any damage done, is; and is that final?
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, at the Committee stage the noble Lord chid me for complaining that the stage had come so soon after the Second Reading that it had not given much time for Amendments to reach interested Peers. I feel it is only right that I should put it on record that although I had given notice to the Printed Paper Office that I wanted these Amendments sent to me, and they dealt with them accordingly, I have just telephoned my home and I learn that they actually arrived in my home to-day, as did the Bill as amended. However, I received copies in the Printed Paper Office this morning. I think it is fair to indicate that although the Easter holidays must have had something to do with it, the postal service is not quite as quick as it used to be, although my local post office is extremely efficient. The fact is that I did not get this Amendment. The noble Lord was good enough to send me Amendment No. 1, to which he has already referred. I did not get either the Bill or the Amendments until to-day.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that this Amendment goes a very long way to meet the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, at the Committee stage, when moving his Amendment to which incidentally I also put my name. I say, " goes a very long way ", but there is one point which I feel inclined to mention, and that is that the matter of amenity has not been referred to, nor, arising out of that, the matter of planning. However, this Amendment rep-resents a great advance on previous conditions. My friends the Land Owners' Federation in Edinburgh suggested to me that the question whether conditions in this proposed clause run in accordance

93
with the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1963 might be worth looking into. How-ever, I have reason to believe that they do not clash in any way.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, I also should like to take this opportunity of thanking the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, not only for this Amendment but for the way he has met us on so many points in this Bill. I should like to back up my noble friend Lord Ferrier on the question of amenity. I feel that not only on this point but throughout the Bill there is a tendency in regard to any road works to ignore the planning and amenity side. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, will have a look at this point.
VISCOUNT STONEHAVEN: My Lords, on this matter I am not yet quite clear that this Amendment covers road-making materials. The old Acts covered stone used in the actual pitching of the road or the surface of the road. " Road making materials " can be construed, I think, to cover fill and embankments. If that is so, does this clause cover borrow pits? Another point that arises is this. When you are building a road you frequently have to dump surplus or unsuitable materials. Your first efforts are to balance your cut and fill. One does that to the best of one's ability, but sometimes it is quite impossible to accomplish and one has to make quite large excavations in order to get other material. This is generally called a " borrow pit". In other cases one has to dump material unsuitable for road-making, and on occasions both these things can be very unsightly. It may be that such cases are not covered 'by this provision; I do not know.
Subsection (5)(c) says:
"so far as is reasonably practicable, when filling up the excavation, make good and level the ground."
The point I should like to make is that in these circumstances topsoil is not required to be spread. That is a point which ought to be considered. I am not suggesting that it is a big point, because I think that this legislation is better than the former legislation; but if we are doing something about these matters now, these points should be covered, or at least considered.
6.52 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, may I deal with the points in the order in which they have been raised? The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, asked about compensation and how, if there were any dispute, this would be resolved. Clause 39 of the Bill applies to disputes about compensation, and they do go to arbitration. I am not certain whether the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, was anxious; to pursue a point on the Bill or had to " have a go " at the Printed Paper Office. But I do not think it was really either of these: I think that, having discovered that the word could be used either as "chid" or "chided ", he was very anxious to get the word "chid" into the Record. I discussed this point with my advisers, and they are of the opinion that he is perfectly correct, although they thought his meaning might have been quite clear to everybody concerned, without explanation, if he had used the word "rebuked".
The operations under the new clause would be subject to the normal operations of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Acts. Broadly speaking, that means that planning permission would have to be obtained by the highway authority, except in certain specified cases. These are where development is carried out by a highway authority who are themselves the planning authority and the cost does not exceed £5,000. This is permitted development. In general, there-fore, I think the noble Lord's point about the protection of amenity (and in this he was supported by the noble Lord, Lord Burton) is covered by the Planning Acts.
The final points were those raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Stonehaven. The old provision concerned fill as well as stone. The new clause does not cover dumping of waste material. The spread of topsoil is covered by subsection (5). I hope that in my reply I have covered all the points that have been made.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I should like to emphasise that I did not criticise the Printed Paper Office; I drew attention to the postal service. I am informed that this Amendment was tabled on April 1; and that was in fact the case. This was printed on the 2nd, and posted on the 2nd or the 3rd; but it did not reach my address until the 7th. That was the point I wanted to make.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I still think that the main object was to get that unusual word into the debate.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 38 [Powers of entry]:
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4.
Amendment moved—
Page 22, line 40, leave out ("and 10") and insert (" 10 and—(Power to obtain road-making materials) ")—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 39 [Determination of disputes as to compensation]:
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 5.
Amendment moved—
Page 23, line 44, after (" 15") insert ("—(Power to obtain road-making materials)"). —(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 6.
Amendment moved—
Page 29, line 17, at end insert—
("The Roads and Bridges (Scotland) Amendment Act 1892 (c. 12)
2. In section 5 (preservation of lands from injury), for the words from the beginning to ' extended to' there shall be substituted the words ' Nothing in section (power to obtain road-making materials) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1970 shall empower the highway authority to search for, dig and carry away materials from.'
The Local Government (Scotland) Act 1908 (c. 62)
3. In section 26 (Use of machinery in quarries)—

(a) for the words from ' a county council' where they first occur to ' 1878' there shall be substituted the words ' the highway authority under section (power to obtain road-making materials) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1970';

(b) for the words ' a county council' where they subsequently occur there shall be substituted the words ' the highway authority';

(c) the words from ' to show cause' to the end shall cease to have effect.

4. In section 27 (fencing of quarries), for the words from ' the Roads' to ' therewith' there shall be substituted the words ' section (power to obtain road-making materials) of the Roads (Scotland) Act 1970'.")—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I am encouraged by what the noble Lord, Lord Burton, said to refer again to the question of amenity under this Amendment. The section concerned in the Act of 1892 is going to conclude with the words:
"desirable to preserve intact on the ground of national or public interest or historical association."
I wonder whether the word " amenity " was being used in 1892 with the particular meaning that we attach to it to-day. I would ask the noble Lord whether he will look into this point, and to consider whether it would not be wise to add some reference to the word " amenity " at the end of Section 5 of the Act of 1892.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I have accepted the advice of my officials that it is not necessary to do so, in view of the references I have already made to the Town and Country Planning Acts, which cover the point. But I will have a look at the point to find out whether there is any need to do so. I must say that I do not like Third Reading Amendments, but if it should be absolutely necessary then I will undertake to bring one forward.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Enactments Repealed]:
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 7.
Amendment moved—
Page 30, line 25, column 3, at end insert—
("In section 123, the word 'eighty' and the proviso.").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 8.
Amendment moved—
Page 31, line 14, at end insert—

(" 8 Edw. 7. c.62.

The Local Government (Scotland) Act 1908.

In section 26, the words from "to show cause" to the end.)"

—(Lord Hughes.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EXPORT GUARANTEES AND PAYMENTS BILL
6.58 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD BROWN): My Lords, I beg to move the Second Reading of the Export Guarantees and Payments Bill, which has as its main object the raising of the statutory limits which are set on the liabilities of the Export Credits Guarantee Department. This Department is run as a fully viable business organisation and for over fifty years has fulfilled its mandate by providing a cheap and efficient credit insurance scheme and, taking one year with another, makes neither profit at the expense of our ex-porters nor losses at the expense of the Exchequer. The premiums which the Department charges for its guarantees have, over the years, been cut many times. Indeed, for comprehensive cover up to six months premiums have dropped from 9s. 7d. per £100 in 1959 to under 5s. for £100 in 1969.
Since this House last debated the work of E.C.G.D. in 1967, the Department has continued to expand its facilities. In 1967, it covered 30 per cent, of British exports. The figure has now risen to 35 per cent, of a very much larger total of exports. E.C.G.D. has also introduced new facilities. It has, for example, been very active in negotiating lines of credit whose purpose is to act as a spearhead to create new opportunities for British exports. E.C.G.D. has extended the technique of guaranteeing a loan by a British bank to an overseas buyer so that he can pay cash for British goods. Last May the Government announced the ex-tension of this facility to any capital goods or projects contracts over £1 million. This is therefore not a desk-bound bureaucracy but a commercially orientated virile organisation whose members are prepared to get up off their seats and go into the world market and " mix it" with their foreign competitors. What this Bill seeks to do is, first to allow E.C.G.D. to keep pace with the ever-increasing export business offered for insurance cover, and secondly, to strengthen the hand of the Department in matching foreign credit-mixte competition.
I should now like to deal with the provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 deals
98
with the raising of the limits on E.C.G.D. liabilities. The Export Guarantees Act 1968, which consolidated previous legislation, empowers E.C.G.D. to give credit insurance cover under two headings, Section 1 and Section 2 of the Act, and these are both subject to limits on the Department's aggregate liabilities. These limits are filling up fast, and the Bill provides for appropriate increases. The bulk of E.C.G.D. business is underwritten under Section 1 on a normal commercial basis. The Department acts on the advice of the Export Guarantees Advisory Council, a body consisting of eminent bankers, businessmen and other, acting under the very able chairmanship of Sir Frederic Seebohm. Their help has proved invaluable in this field of the Department's operations.
The limit on Section 1 business was raised in 1967 from £1,500 million to £2,400 million. With the dramatic in-crease in British exports over the past few years, and the increasing proportion of them covered by E.C.G.D., this limit is fast being reached. Your Lordships will appreciate that unless the limit was raised, E.C.G.D. would soon be unable to insure further exports, except to the extent that existing liabilities ran off. This is a situation which we cannot allow to arise. We have, therefore, provided for an increase in the Section 1 limit from £2,400 million to £4,000 million, in anticipation that this will accommodate the expected rise in business over the next three to five years.
Section 2 of the Act empowers E.C.G.D. to insure export business " in the national interest". Although E.C.G.D. acts under Section 2 without the advice of the Council it still applies its normal underwriting judgment and will not undertake any unduly hazardous risks. I should like to emphasise that this is not unsound business, and E.C.G.D. has succeeded in balancing its books in this field just as it has in relation to its Section 1 business. Section 2 of the Act, when read together with Section 3, also empowers E.C.G.D. to make loans to help buyers to make payments under export contracts. These powers may at present be used only for the purpose of giving economic aid, and until responsibility for such aid was taken over by the Ministry of Overseas Development E.C.G.D. was the vehicle

99
for providing tied aid loans to developing countries. These powers are at pre-sent used solely to administer payments and receipts under existing loans, but, as I shall explain fully later on, we propose to extend the present powers to enable E.C.G.D. to give loans to encourage trade. The Section 2 limit, which covers these loans, as well as the ordinary guarantees, was raised in 1967 from £1,300 million to £1,500 million. Business under Section 2 has also risen fast and the present limit is also rapidly being approached. We propose in the Bill to raise the limit on Section 2 business from £1,500 million to £2,500 million.
As I mentioned earlier, we are proposing in the Bill to extend E.C.G.D.'s powers to enable it to match foreign credit offers. Although E.C.G.D. has not taken the lead in the credit race it has refused to be left behind, although we do not, of course, set out to match straight-forward aid financing on generous terms. But E.C.G.D. has always been ready to support British exporters in their efforts to match long commercial credit terms which are offered by their foreign competitors with the support of their own credit insurance organisations. Within certain limits agreed with the Treasury, and without supporting uneconomic business, E.C.G.D. has therefore frequently stretched the terms of its cover to enable our exporters to compete for worthwhile orders on equal terms with their overseas competitors. But what we have been able to do in the past under existing powers has not been sufficient to match a new form of com-petition which has emerged. Some countries have softened the terms of their offers by mixing commercial credit with Government funds, often at concessionary interest rates, with the result that the buyer has either been able to refinance his pre-delivery payments or paid a sub-commercial rate of interest. Since it would not be appropriate to match these techniques by using Britain's aid resources, we are proposing in the Bill to extend E.C.G.D.'s powers to enable Government loans or grants to be made for this purpose.
E.C.G.D.'s existing powers under Sections 2 and 3 of the 1968 Act enable it to make loans to facilitate payments by overseas buyers, but such loans must be
100
for the purpose of giving economic assistance to another country. These powers have not been used for new loans of this type since the Ministry of Overseas Development took over responsibility for aid. They have remained in the Act to enable E.C.G.D. to administer previous loans. But they cannot be used for trade promotion purposes. We are now putting this right, and Clause 2 of the Bill extends these powers to enable loans to be made by E.C.G.D. out of money voted by Parliament where the purpose is not economic assistance but the encouragement of trade. We have in mind that a loan under the new powers would be appropriate in order to assist in the capture of a major capital project over-seas for which the buyer is being offered concessionary terms by our competitors. For example, the buyer might be relieved of all payments until after completion of the project. In such a case, we envisage that the British contractor would negotiate on conventional terms, but an E.C.G.D. loan would be offered to enable the buyer to make the pre-completion payments.
The fixed United Kingdom interest rate for long-term export finance (at present 5½ per cent.) is competitive with that available in the other major exporting countries. But, as I mentioned earlier, in some instances in recent years the rate available to some of our competitors has been artificially lowered by the introduction of Government funds. This is something which has not, so far, been available to our exporters. We are therefore proposing, in Clause 3 of the Bill, to empower E.C.G.D. to make a grant to enable the true interest cost to the overseas buyer or borrower to be reduced to the level set by the competitive overseas offer. This could be achieved either by the finance for the project being negotiated at the normal fixed rate of interest, and for E.C.G.D. to make grants to the buyer to reduce the effective rate at the date of payment of each instalment of interest, or alternatively, the United Kingdom bank could finance at the lower rate and the E.C.G.D. grant could be paid to the bank. As with the loans under Clause 2 of the Bill, any money required will have to be voted by Parliament.
I should stress, in relation to both loans under Clause 2 and grants under Clause

101
3, that these powers will be used very sparingly and only to match foreign com-petition for business which is manifestly to the benefit of the British economy. Parliament will exercise control over the use of these powers, first because the money will have to be voted, and, secondly, because the amounts disbursed each year will appear in E.C.G.D. accounts and can be debated. It is not the Government's intention to use these new powers to accelerate the credit race. Indeed, if the knowledge that we can match credit-mixte offers leads to the abandonment of this technique, no-one will be better pleased than we shall.
With regard to the winding up of the Acquisition of Guaranteed Securities Fund (Clause 4), the opportunity pro-vided by this Bill has been taken to tidy up E.C.G.D.'s accounting procedures in one respect. Prior to the changes made in Government accounting by the National Loans Act 1968, E.C.G.D. drew monies direct from the Consolidated Fund for the purposes of its economic assistance loans. These monies were thus not accounted for through the normal Parliamentary accounting procedure. To enable the Department properly to account for these operations the Acquisition of Guaranteed Securities Fund was established by the Overseas Trade Guarantees Act of 1939, and has been used ever since. Now that E.C.G.D. finances its operations from monies provided by Parliament, and accounts for them accordingly, this special Fund is no longer necessary. Clause 4 of the Bill therefore proposes that it should be wound up on a day which will be fixed by the Treasury. The change will not affect the substance of E.C.G.D.'s operations and does not affect the Department's accountability, or the use of public money, in any way.
My Lords, I apologise if my speech has strayed into some rather technical matters, but the subject of this Bill is of vital importance to our export trade and to the British economy. I have tried to illustrate the outstanding contribution made by E.C.G.D. to our export effort. In 1969 the Department insured business of over £2,500 million. It is constantly keeping its facilities under review and devising new arrangements to meet the ever-changing needs of our export trade. This Bill claims to ensure that E.C.G.D.
102
continues to back up the very fine efforts of our exporters and to enable the Department to assist our exporters in meeting some of the new techniques devised by our competitors. We believe that we have the finest credit insurance system in the world and the Bill which is now before your Lordships will help to keep it that way. I invite you now to give this Bill a Second Reading. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Brown.)
7.12 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should like to start by thanking the noble Lord for his explanation of this Bill. It is, I know, a subject very dear to his heart. He spends a great deal of his working days with it and so he is a real expert. It is, of course, a Bill to raise the limits of guarantees. This is a periodic exercise; indeed I have introduced such a Bill myself into your Lordships' House. There always tends to be a bit of a scramble to get the legislation through in time before the flow of guarantees dries up, but I hope the noble Lord will be able to tell us that there has been and will be no interruption of that flow. I can assure him that we shall not do any-thing whatever to delay the passage of this Bill.
It is a fact, of course, that the Bill reflects many factors, the chief of which, as the noble Lord said, is the progress of E.C.G.D. both in its coverage of total exports and in the kind of business it undertakes. Since 1957–58—and I go back a little further in the comparison because I think it is worth making—the proportion of a rising total of United Kingdom exports insured by E.C.G.D. has more than doubled, from 16 per cent. in 1957–58 to 34·7 per cent. in 1968–69. The opportunity offered by devaluation in 1967 has been taken by industry, and there has been a spurt in exports, I under-stand, of 46 per cent. in value and 28 per cent in volume up to the end of last year, taking one quarter with another. This spurt has been aided by favourable conditions of world trade on the one hand and by the sluggishness of the home market on the other. Nevertheless, British industry's achievement is considerable and well deserves all the praise it can get; the noble Lord himself bestowed praise on it.

103
It is worth noting, I think, that with the aid of the sound advice from the Ex-port Guarantees Advisory Council, to which the noble Lord referred, E.C.G.D. has proceeded cautiously over the years. In consequence, it has at times been criticised for not progressing fast enough in the facilities it offers. In particular, it has often been criticised for not enabling our exports of capital goods to match the terms offered by our international competitors, generally because of its insistence on obtaining proof of those terms in circumstances where conclusive proof cannot be obtained, or cannot be obtained in time to be of any use. This has been, I think, the main criticism, and I think, if I may say so, the E.C.G.D. is right to insist on proof; otherwise it would be impossible to maintain control of the exercise.
But this is not just another Export Guarantees Bill; it is an Export Guarantees and Payments Bill. The most novel and the most interesting of its provisions are those in Clauses 2, 3 and 4. I must confess that I find the clauses somewhat obscure, partly because they are by reference. That is a reflection not on the draftsman but on the technicality of the subject and my ability to comprehend it.
Under Section 2 of the 1968 Act the Board of Trade has power to give guarantees in respect of exports deemed to be in the national interest, as distinct from ordinary transactions of purely commercial significance, and such guarantees include arrangements for facilitating payments where the exports are to be made for the purpose of rendering economic assistance to other countries. The power to make arrangements to facilitate payments is now, as I understand it, to be extended by Clause 2(1) to cover the purpose of encouraging trade with other countries. The clause then goes on to deal with the acquisition of securities.
May I ask the noble Lord to confirm this point, because he is so familiar with it, and it is perhaps a little difficult to be quite certain that one is right about it. Am I right in thinking that the purpose of the clause is to facilitate payments to be made by a foreign buyer, and to do so by loans to that buyer to enable him to pay to the supplier part of what
104
is due under the contract, and that E.C.G.D. will acquire securities against loans so made? I take it that this is the purpose of the securities provision. If I understand correctly what the noble Lord said, such loans will normally be used to finance payments under a major export contract in its early stages; that is, before delivery or up to the completion or for a time afterwards.
I should also like to ask the noble Lord whether I am right in thinking that such loans would be made to match terms offered by international competitors —I think he said that—and secondly, that British exporters have in the past lost contracts because they were unable to get such facilities. I did not hear the noble Lord actually say that. He did say that there were facilities of certain kinds offered, but there is no evidence that we have actually lost contracts through the inability to get such facilities. Perhaps he could confirm that.
There are one or two points I should like to refer to in particular, and one arises from the E.C.G.D. handbook called E.C.GD. Services, revised in August, 1969. At page 40 it says:
"Under a buyer credit guarantee the over-seas purchaser out of his own resources is normally required to pay direct to the supplier not less than 20 per cent. of the contract price including an adequate down payment on signature of the contract."
What I am not clear about is exactly the need to be filled. Is it that other countries have been lending the money to cover down payments? Or is it also that credit guarantee bodies in other countries do not insist on a down payment? Or is it that banks in this country are reluctant to lend either to the exporter or to the buyer before the goods are delivered? I am not clear what the gap to be met is. It is important one should be absolutely clear, because this is a new departure—the making of loans by E.C.G.D. in transactions not necessarily connected or not connected at all with aid to underdeveloped countries. So it is a new departure. Indeed, so far as loans are concerned, is it not true that, since the setting up of the Ministry of Overseas Development, E.C.G.D. have not made loans at all, except in continuation of what is already agreed, but have merely guaranteed loans made by banks? If so, this is a totally new function for E.C.G.D.

105
I was not altogether happy with what the noble Lord said about the method of financing these loans. He said that they would be financed by monies voted by Parliament, and that they would subsequently be accounted for in the E.C.G.D. accounts. But is there included in this year's Estimates an estimate to cover this sort of contingency? It would seem to be rather unsatisfactory that all such contingencies should be provided each year only on Supplementary Estimates. I know how difficult it is to anticipate what kind of commitments may arise, but from the point of view of normal Parliamentary control an estimate of some sort is desirable, and if there is one included in the Estimates I should like to know what it is.
While I quite understand that the purpose of the clause is to help British exporters to match terms offered by foreign competitors, I am asking these questions because if the Government ask for powers to lend public money they really have to say in what circumstances they will spend the money, and how much money they estimate they will lend. I think the noble Lord has given a good account of how they intend to spend the money, although he will understand it when I say that I should like to read in the OFFICIAL REPORT what he said.
Clause 3 seems to empower the Board of Trade to make grants for the purpose of reducing costs which have been, or may be, incurred by persons outside the United Kingdom in making interest pay-ments—I am paraphrasing what the clause actually says. Does this mean that payments to enable interest to be reduced are made only for buyer credit and not for supplier credit? According to the E.C.G.D. Services handbook, for finance under both Buyer Credit Guarantees and Financial Guarantees, which are reserved for cases where the minimum contract value is £2 million (£1 million for ships), the fixed rate of interest which the banks have agreed to charge is 5½ per cent. This is also the rate at which the banks finance credit that is the subject of specific guarantees to banks on medium-term supplier credit. But I understand that credits covered under the Comprehensive Open Account Guarantees are evidently financed at bank rate. That is why I want to be quite clear whether this
106
relates only to specific guarantees, and then only to supplier credit.
The Parliamentary Secretary stated in another place on February 2 (column 73), that the French and Japanese sometimes agree to credit at as low as 3½ per cent., at least for part of a transaction. I gathered from what the noble Lord said to-day that this was through Government assistance. May I ask this question, because I think it is most important? Is this not really a naked export subsidy? And is it not at variance with GATT rules? I appreciate from what the noble Lord said that the Government would like to get rid of this altogether. But am I not right in saying that the right course is to stop this kind of subsidising of exports, rather than to start doing it ourselves? I know, of course, that credit insurance is a matter for the Berne Union, and that Japan is not represented there. But rates of interest for the financing of exports are a matter which seems right outside the insurance of credit, which is what the Berne Union is concerned with.
Perhaps I could sum up my attitude to these clauses by saying that if they are indeed necessary as the only way to put our exporters on an even footing with foreign exporters, I, for one, shall welcome them. But I cannot welcome them with any great enthusiasm (and I do not think the noble Lord, did, either), for they represent not only one more way of lending the taxpayer's money but also one more distortion of trade; and the thing to do is to get away from the basic distortion of trade.
Perhaps I may make one or two more general comments. One of the headings in the E.C.G.D. Services handbook is "Credit Insurance is Confidential"— and rightly so, so far as individual trans-actions are concerned. As the noble Lord said, credit insurance has been going now for fifty years, and I wonder whether it is not a little too confidential. I cannot help feeling that Parliament and the nation are not given as much information as might be given about the activities of E.C.G.D. E.C.G.D. is not engaged in some kind of economic warfare but on assistance to trade. I notice that the information that is given relates only to the total of business declared under Sections 1 and 2 respectively, divided into short term, extended terms and

107
medium and long term. There is no distinction between the four categories of countries. I realise, of course, that the rating of countries, and consequently the composition of each category changes. Even so, one might have some idea of the amount of the business that is done in each of the four categories, and what proportion is covered by guarantees in the trade in each of the four categories.
Again, there is no distinction between the various headings of insurance for supplier credit, such as consumer goods, stocks endorsement, dealing in foreign goods, the small exporter policies, construction projects and services policies. Incidentally, I should like particularly to know to what extent guarantees on services are being given just now. It would be interesting to know that. Then there is no distinction between supplier credit and buyers' credit. There is no information about the countries with whom lines of credit are negotiated. Could we not have more information about these—not about the individual contracts, of course, but about the totals involved?
I should like also to know what has been the experience of the "small exporter" policies. How many policies have been issued, and how many have led on to steady growth of exports? I know that there is no duty under the 1968 Act to publish an annual report. But, after all, E.C.G.D. is not just another Department of government; it is much more akin to a trading organisation. I realise that its reserves, even though they now amount to over £56 million, are not held separately, for the very good reason that if things in the world went wrong they would be totally inadequate to meet liabilities and the Exchequer would have to foot the bill. But that only means, surely, that the Exchequer guarantees the guarantors: it underwrites the guarantees. It is not in itself a justification for a policy of restricting information.
My Lords, I think that, now that the E.C.G.D. has grown up, and is so well established as such an important body, it could give more information. After all, these are days when information from all kinds of organisations, official, semi-official and unofficial, is being required to be made public; and I think that is one
108
reason why we might have more information from a body of this gigantic size. And it is gigantic. Here we are, increasing the total permitted guarantees to £6,500 million, and all we get are quarterly returns of the total of guarantees given respectively under Sections 1 and 2 since the last returns, and an annual Press notice, plus occasional announcements by Ministers in Parliament.
This sounds somewhat critical, I know. But it is only because we have so much admiration for E.C.G.D., and we genuinely want to know more about what it is doing. I yield to nobody in my admiration for the work of E.C.G.D. It entirely justifies its claim that it provides the exporter with a climate of security and so performs a great service for the nation. The business it does has steadily increased; and, as the noble Lord has said, the premiums that it charges have steadily diminished. That is a good record. But why hide its light under a bushel? The real difficulty is no longer the cost of guaranteeing credit but the cost of credit itself. If the Government had not completely mishandled their incomes policy so that we now have the incomes explosion, which the Government were warned on all sides would happen, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would now already have been in a position further to reduce the bank rate and so help to make British exports more competitive. As it is, we are certain to have a prices explosion to follow the incomes explosion; and whatever the E.C.G.D. may do to help will do British exports no good at all. And I do not envy the noble Lord in his job when that starts to happen.
7.30 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, while we all welcome this Bill, not only because of its importance but also because of its brevity—so many Bills introduced into your Lordships' House are far too long—at the same time I think we can regret that a Bill of this importance is drafted in such complicated terms, with so many references to other legislation that it is virtually unintelligible. I would say not only to us here who are fairly familiar with the language employed in Statutes but also to those who will be expected to operate it.

109
There is so much that is important in this Bill that I think it is a pity—and here I agree with my noble friend—that the opportunities in this House for discussing the thinking behind it and the implications should appear to be so curtailed. For instance, there was one phrase in the noble Lord's speech which I thought very important. He said that part of the thinking behind this Bill was to enable us to match foreign credit offers—and we all know the difficulties that exporters suffer, or claim that they suffer, because their competitors abroad enjoy wider credit opportunities than they themselves can draw on here. I am not expressing any views on the merits, I am simply saying what is reported, and I should have thought that we ought to have been given an opportunity to go into greater detail on this point and similar points. Then we could see whether in fact we agree with the noble Lord that they have drawn the line in the right place and that their thinking is leading to the conclusion that he has claimed.
But where and when are we to have this opportunity? Will this evening be the only chance? Surely this is not a Money Bill in the sense that a charge is being laid on the public which they are never going to see back? As I understand it, this is money which, by and large, the public are going to see come back, and I cannot therefore see why your Lordships should be deprived of the chance of discussing this Bill and going into its merits. We do not want to waste a great deal of time on it, but this House has very great experience (although it is not obvious here to-night on the Benches opposite or on the Cross Benches, with respect to the one noble Lord who is sitting there, yet many of his fellow Cross Benchers have great experience in this field) and I should have thought it would be valuable to hear more views on this Bill. Short debates on the Question whether the clause stand part—and there are not so many clauses —would not take a great deal of time, and could be extremely valuable not just for us here, the Members of your Lord-ships' House, but also for the business world and all those who are going to operate the Bill and will stand to benefit under it.
I do not want to criticise the noble Lord or his speech—and I am sure he
110
will take that from me—but he admitted the complication, and all of us who have held office, however junior, know that to try to make the introduction of a technical Bill sound different from a 3.30 p.m. Statement is extremely difficult. That is another reason why we ought to have a wider opportunity than this short Second Reading debate, a wider opportunity than the few arid minutes of exchanges be-tween—again I say this without offence— Board of Trade Ministers present and previous. They have commanded my admiration, but I do not think that this goes far enough.
We have a duty in this House, and I hope that the Government this evening will change their mind and give us an opportunity to consider this Bill during another stage. I believe it is their intention to deny us the chance of such short debates on the Question whether the clause stands part, but I think it would be very valuable if, at this hour, they could change their mind and allow this. If they did so, we should not take up a great deal of Parliamentary time, and the business world would be grateful.
7.35 p.m.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, may I deal first with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, and then proceed to those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. I personally find that the lack of debating time expended in this House on the subject of exports and export credits slightly deplorable, as I have always felt it to be such an important subject. Perhaps I am a little biased, but I should have been happier, too, if there had been more debate. On this Bill I am afraid there is a technical difficulty; it has been certified to be a Money Bill. I cannot support the argument for or against its being a Money Bill, as I am not sufficiently aware of the technical processes involved in arriving at these conclusions. However, there it is, and I shall shortly move that the Bill be not committed. I am sorry about it, but that is the situation. There are other opportunities, and I seize the opportunity of mentioning E.C.G.D. and ex-ports in almost every debate I take part in as the liberality of this House allows—and I did so quite recently, as the noble Lord will remember.

111
There were a number of points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and it may take me a little time to deal with all of them. I am glad that to begin with he raised the feeling in industry that E.C.G.D. insists on exporters obtaining proof of credit offers that are better than those offered by E.C.G.D., because it gives me the opportunity of making a statement here which I hope will gain general currency. E.C.G.D. does insist that an exporter who wants it to examine a foreign country's competitive credit offer presents some sort of superficial evidence that some superior credit offer has been made, but it does not seek to lay the onus of getting proof on our exporters because we know they cannot get such proof and we have means, through the Berne Union, of get-ting details of what foreign Government credit insurers are prepared to back. We can virtually insist on getting these, and we do get them. The Department has been trying to make it clear in the last year or two that all we want is prima facie evidence and not proof. Many companies have now realised this, but the fact needs advertising that we do not expect them to give proof. It is important that they should realise this.
The noble Lord touched upon a part of the Bill that I must admit is very difficult to understand. I could not under-stand it when I first read it, and it is this business of acquisition of securities. This is not a reference to the current operations of E.C.G.D., but is a reference back to the days when, under Section 3, they were responsible for administering aid to developing countries overseas, and they did it largely by a technique of acquiring securities. They no longer require these securities for that purpose, except in any residual matters of aid which arose before the Ministry of Over-seas Development took over that responsibility.
I assure the noble Lord that these new clauses concerned with grants and loans are entirely intended to match offers to competitors by other countries and with no other circumstances. Indeed, I would go further than this and suggest that what we are really doing is arming our-selves with a sword in order to challenge our competitors, in the hope that it will never be drawn from its scabbard; and
112
to the extent that we are able, through legislation, to take action similar to that which has been taken by other countries, it may have the result that other countries will cease these unfortunate practices. I hope I have given adequate assurance on those grounds. We have lost contracts in the past as a result of Government funds from one or two other countries being made available to reduce the rate of interest, or to allow buyers in overseas countries to borrow money from their supplier countries in order to pay the initial down payments and thus wait until some great plant has gone into operation before the crunch of the repayment of the loans or credit has begun to bite.
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, referred to a matter arising from page 40 of the E.C.G.D. handbook. He asked whether other countries have been lending money to cover down payments. I think I have just answered that question. He also asked what is the gap to be met. The gap that we are meeting with these two new clauses about loans and grants is simply the gap created in our competitive armoury of credit by other Governments giving funds, possibly aid funds, and mixing them with commercial credit to put us in an unfortunate position. It is not a very extensive problem and it is not used over a broad front, but it has been used and it has lost us large contracts. So we want to be in a position to retaliate, if necessary, although I hope that we shall not have to do so and that the existence of these powers will cause others to think twice.
The noble Lord asked whether these practices were GATT-worthy. He will know that it is sometimes not easy to interpret exactly what GATT means in the face of circumstances, when there has not been an actual test case raised in front of GATT. The question of whether the practices against which we now wish to defend ourselves are GATT-worthy is a very open one. Were this matter to be taken to GATT, I should be very happy if GATT turned round and said that it is against the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, and abolished the whole thing. But although a great many discussions go on, and indeed are going on now, in O.E.C.D. towards a proper limitation of credit, this subject has not yet arisen. Other subjects have arisen and there has been some limitation, and we hope to pursue this matter further

113
in order that we can get credit back on to a more sensible basis than is some-times now the case. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, asked whether these grants and loans were available to help the terms of supplier credit as well as buyer credit. The answer is, yes, they are, although I think, by the nature of things and the technicalities involved, most of the cases which will arise will probably be in terms of buyer credit. But there is nothing to prevent funds' being used on supplier credit as well.
The noble Lord raised the question of the French and Japanese being purported to have financed credit at the rate of 3½ per cent. with the aid of Government funds. There have been cases of this, and although interest rates in both of those countries have been rising in recent times, this mixing of credit may still be going on. I hope we now have some-thing with which to retaliate. I entirely agreed with the noble Lord when he said that we ought to get away from the basic distortions of trade caused by these un-fortunate practices of mixing up aid, which is very essential in the developing world, with these credit terms. It is a bad practice. We do not condone it by introducing these clauses into this Bill, and we hope that they will tend to diminish it rather than otherwise. We have no intention of taking part in a credit race. I have noted the noble Lord's series of comments on the amount of information given in the E.C.G.D.'s accounts. The E.C.G.D. is secretive about its commercial transactions with its own customers, if I may put it that way, but it does not wish to be secretive about its accounts I take due note of this point and will discuss it with the E.C.G.D. to see whether anything can be done to satisfy the noble Lord on some of the points he raised.
I am sorry that after making a very interesting speech the noble Lord ended on a slightly waspish note and drew attention to the current level of bank interest and so on. I think he has the position completely wrong. World interest rates have for some time been at a peak, and the cause of our present high interest rates has nothing to do with our domestic economy. It is a world problem, and I think the noble Lord fully realises that. The problem will be solved internationally, not by particular circumstances in this country, and it has
114
been debated at great length in another place. I must declare, here and now, that the noble Lord is not right in his contention that the problem is due to Government policies; it is a world problem. I do not wish to end on a waspish note myself, and I must say that I am grateful for the comments which the noble Lord made. I am sure that the E.C.G.D. will be delighted with some of the remarks he has made about their efficiency as an organisation.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

PROBATION AND AFTER-CARE SERVICE
7.45 p.m.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL LORD WELLS-PESTELL rose to ask Her Majesty's Government: Whether they are satisfied with the prevailing state of the Probation and After-Care Service in England and Wales. The noble Lord said: My Lords I should like to preface my remarks by making a statement as to my position in this matter. I am sure your Lordships will recall that, in the years that I have been a Member of your Lordships' House, I have spoken when-ever a matter has affected or concerned the Probation Service. With the consent of the noble Lords from Scotland I intervened in the Social Work (Scotland) Bill, as the Probation Service in Scotland was involved in that Bill. But in recent months a member of my family has entered the Probation Service and is, in fact, serving in the Inner London area. I have therefore resigned, with regret, from the Inner London Probation and After-Care Committee, but I hope your Lordships will feel that it is quite proper for me to continue to express in your Lordships' House my views on the Probation Service.
On February 24 last, in reply to a Question which I had asked on the appointments and resignations in the Probation Service in England and Wales, I was informed that in the immediate past five years from 1965 to 1969, inclusive, 1,812 men and women had been appointed to the Probation Service in England and Wales. In the same period, 734 had resigned and left the Service—and that does not take into account losses as a result of death and normal retirement. It

115
may be argued that the figure is not high, that it is only between 4 and 5 per cent. of the Service; but I will come back to that later. Of the 1,812 recruited, 273 were posted to the Inner London Probation Service, but in the same period 103 probation officers left the Inner London Service. If I may now come back to the figure of 734 who left the Service in those five years, 1965 to 1969, 303 of them—over 40 per cent.—were either graduates or holders of university social work qualifications; and of the 103 who left the Inner London Probation Service about 50 per cent. were either graduates or holders of university social work qualifications.
I am not suggesting for one moment that these men and women who left the Probation Service were lost to the wider field of professional social work, but I am suggesting that there is something seriously wrong in the Probation Service when this kind of situation arises. Having regard to the nature of probation work, the Service cannot afford to lose each year so many probation officers, particularly so many who are so well qualified academically. Your Lordships will see from the figures I have given that the Inner London Probation Service has become a kind of transit camp where men and women arrive, stay for a while and then leave.
In the Inner London area there are 50 new entrants a year, in an establishment of just over 300 probation officers. At this moment there are about 50 probation officers in the Inner London area—more than 15 per cent. of the entire staff— whose appointments have yet to be con-firmed because confirmation (or ratification, as it is sometimes called) normally takes place within twelve months of appointment. The skill and competence required of probation officers, particularly in an area like Inner London, with its special problems of crime and after-care of delinquents, is such that, in my view, the Service cannot carry so high a percentage of newcomers each year; nor can it afford to lose so many experienced officers.
In Inner London, male probation officers are well below establishment, and this has been the position for several years: it is not something new. Women officers are well above establishment;
116
and this means that many women officers, some completely new to the Probation Service, are supervising men immediately they are appointed. I think that in some cases and in some respects this is undesirable. I think it is an unsatisfactory state of affairs, not because I am opposed to women probation officers' supervising men, or men supervising women, but because this situation has been brought about as a result of necessity and not as a result of some investigation, some careful planning and some sort of psychological understanding of what is involved. If this were a care-fully prepared experiment, I should feel happier about it. The success of the probation system depends on having a well-trained body of men and women able to understand the problems of delinquents and capable of maintaining a relationship in some substance and in some depth with those they are trying to help.
On March 19 last, in reply to a Question I had put down for Written Answer, it was stated that the cost of training a man or a woman on the short Home Office course for entry into the Probation Service is about £1,800. My Lords, this does not take into account tutorial and administrative services provided by members of the staff at the Home Office, which (let me be frank) are very considerable. The training of those probation officer trainees who are university-trained at the expense of the Home Office, or of the taxpayer, if one can put it that way, cost, or can cost, as much as £1,650 each per year. How many of the 734 men and women who left the Probation Service in the last five years were trained at the public expense I do not know, but their departure and the loss of skills they took with them have, I believe, weakened the Probation Service and have been costly in terms of training. I do not think it is any answer to say, "Well, they are not lost to the wider field of social work; they take their skills with them". The Seebohm Report said, I think, that if their recommendations were to be put into operation we should need several thousand more trained social workers. This is perfectly true; but, with very great respect, I think the Government must do something about training these people and must not tolerate the situation where they are

117
taken from one service at the expense of that service.
The present salary structure is quite inadequate when it comes to attracting the right people—or, for that matter, my Lords, to retaining the best of those who have entered the Service. I know that my noble friend the Minister who will be replying will tell your Lordships of a recent pay award to probation officers which took effect on the 1st of this month—only a week ago. In prices and incomes terms, the award may appear to be generous, although there have been many much higher awards. Basic grade officers get an increase of about 12 per cent., and senior probation officers get about 15 per cent. In terms of hours worked, of the nature of the job and of the skills required, the award and the new salary scale are absolutely unrealistic. I think I am right in saying that the previous increase was about two years ago. I do not know when the next one is going to be, but I think everyone must realise that the present award has hardly (if at all) kept pace, or is hardly keeping pace, with the rising cost of living.
The new salary scale—and I want to emphasise this—provides a salary on appointment of £975 per annum, rising to £1,851 after 13 years' service. I realise that comparisons are odious, but a police constable, on joining the Metropolitan Police Force at 19 years of age, gets £950; and by the time he is 25 he receives £1,390—the sum received by the average probation officer in his early or middle thirties. Furthermore, the probation officer does not get a rent allowance, which in the case of an ordinary police constable can be as much as £7 18s. per week—that is, about £400 a year. It can be as much as that, although obviously he does not get it if he does not pay that amount of rent. He pays tax on it, but he gets a refund of some of the tax that he pays on it; and this is over and above the salary he gets.
Let me make it clear, my Lords, that I am not objecting in any way to what the police are paid. Crime must be deterred. But the offender must be dealt with intelligently and must be rehabilitated, and it is in society's interest that he should be adquately and properly treated. This is a difficult task which, as I have already said, demands long hours of work
118
and the possession of many skills. It is appalling that some probation officers, because of the still inadequate salary scale, find it necessary to have a part-time job. When the hours worked by some officers and the net amount they receive are taken into account, it will be found that in some instances the hourly rate of pay may be less than that received by some charwomen.
I hope the Minister will hold out some hope of an early revision of the salary scale and of the London weighting allowance. The Inner London weighting allowance of £90 per annum does very little, if anything, to meet the high cost of housing or the amount of rent that one has to pay if one is living in London. On his income, the younger basic-grade officer has no chance whatever of buying a house, or even of being able to afford the high rents demanded these days.
For some, the only alternative is to leave the Service and enter some other branch of social work where the pay is infinitely better. This is done at the expense of the effectiveness and efficiency of the Probation Service. It is of paramount importance that the Probation Service retains those who hold special qualifications and whose training has been geared to the understanding and treatment of delinquents. I would there-fore ask the Minister to say that consideration will be given to the making of a special annual allowance (as one finds in the teaching profession) to such probation officers.
Morale in the Probation Service is at a fairly low ebb at the present time. I do not know whether my noble friend saw the article in New Society on March 5 headed, "Probation: A Worried Service." The article opens with these words:
"The Probation Service is going through a period of profound professional depression."
I shall not refer to this article any more, other than to say to my noble friend that if she has not already read it—she probably has—I hope she will do so. The unrest in the Probation Service; is not due solely to the inadequate salary scale but also to the uncertainty about the future of the Probation Service in England and Wales. I believe that it would help matters considerably if the Minister were to state the Government

119
intentions in this matter. Is the Service to be integrated into local authority services, or will it be retained as an independent service, independent of both the local authority social work service, and the Prison Service? The overwhelming majority of probation officers want it to remain as it is, an independent service.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell, who is President of the National Association of Probation Officers—and I am grateful to him for his being prepared to speak on this occasion —may have more to say about this matter; I do not know. But I repeat my hope that the Minister will be able to give me a frank and unequivocal answer. If the matters that I have raised could be dealt with in a realistic way I am sure that it would result in strengthening and stabilising a service which has not only proved itself but which I believe is of supreme importance to our vast and comprehensive network of social services. A lot of lip service is paid to the importance of the Probation Service and to the value of the work done by probation officers. In recent years more and more responsibility has been put on probation officers, particularly in the field of after-care and parole. They are praised, but they are penniless.
Some four and a half years ago my noble friend Lord Longford, then a Minister, said—and I hope I may be permitted to quote him—
"… it is intended to bring the service up to a strength of 3,500 by 1970."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14/7/65, col. 239.]
On November 16, 1965, my noble friend Lord Stonham, who has done much for the probation officer, said much the same thing [Col. 550]. I did not think that that was possible—and I believe I said so myself at the time—because of the wastage factor which had to be taken into account along with the growing discontent within the Service. In the past five years, for every five new entrants into the Probation Service two salaried and trained officers have left. The figures in the Report of the Probation and Aftercare Department show that there were 3,121 probation officers at June 30, 1969. But 110 of those were welfare officers and social workers who were taken over by
120
the Probation Service and given the status of probation officer when the Probation Service was made responsible for various other duties; so the real figure at June 30, 1969, was 3,011. Even that figure includes between 200 and 300 Scottish probation officers who ceased to be probation officers when the Social Work (Scotland) Act came into force on November 17 last.
The point that I am trying to make is this. We are a long way from the target figure which was mentioned in 1965: 3,500 probation officers by 1970. In my submission it will be some years yet before that figure is reached unless the Service is made far more attractive than it is at the present moment. If we attach importance to the rehabilitation of the delinquent, we must recognise that the work is time-consuming and calls for special skills, skills which are possessed by the probation officer. Let us make a sincere effort to retain those skills and not force those who possess them to seek more lucrative work in some other field.
My Lords, in conclusion I should like to thank those noble Lords who have been good enough to put their names down to speak to-night. In view of the hour I feel that I ought to apologise to them for putting down this Unstarred Question for to-night. I wanted to make this a Motion, but when I tried to put it down for debate I was told that the earliest date that I could have was Wednesday, July 15. I wished to get the matter before your Lordships sooner. But I want to thank particularly the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, who, so far as I know, is not participating in this debate, for his courtesy in being here this evening.
8.7 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I do not think that any apology is due from the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for having initiated this debate. In fact, our thanks are due to him for having raised such an important matter. He began his remarks by telling us of his interest in and connections with the Service. I have a number as well, perhaps chief of which is that I am a member of the Home Secretary's Advisory Council on the Penal System. If I had not formed my own personal conclusions about the vital importance of the Probation Service the experience of the past few years

121
would certainly have confirmed it for me. I believe that once the criminal detection rate has been raised by increasing the size and efficiency of the police force, the key to any further workable reform of the penal system certainly lies in strengthening and revitalising our Probation Service, for it is absolutely the key social work service.
Probation is not a substitute for prison; but I think it is well to remember—and I do not think the noble Lord reminded us of this—that while for many offenders probation is an apt and effective sentence, it has the great additional advantage to us as taxpayers that its cost is about one-thirtieth of that involved when putting a man into prison. A year's prison sentence will, I suppose, cost some £600— and apart from keeping dangerous criminals out of the way perhaps it does not achieve much. A year's probation costs something of the order of £50, or perhaps not quite so much; and in 75 per cent. of the cases, sometimes even more, it is successful in checking a career of crime once and for all.
My Lords, having made those few opening remarks I should like to take up the last point with which the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, left us and to ask the Minister of State a few more specific questions. It was in 1965 that the Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders recommended that the Probation Service should reach 3,500 by 1970. Like the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, I have asked a number of questions on various occasions in the last few years and I have received the answer that this was indeed the target at which the Government were aiming. It was not so very long ago that we were led to expect that the target would not be achieved, but it might be achieved in 1971. I should like to ask now, in the context of this debate, where it had got to by the end of 1969 and when it will reach 3,500 at the present rate of net increase. I should like also to ask whether this target is not now outdated. What real reason has the Minister of State for assuming that such a figure is still the right figure? When was it last re-assessed, and with what result? That is all I wish to ask on the overall strength of the Service.
My Lords, I should like now to turn to the question of the output from train-
122
ing. It was recommended by the Training Committee of the Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders that this should reach the figure of 350; that was their recommendation in 1966. Is it not the case that in 1969 the figure was still 325? Is it not the case that the number expected to complete training in 1970 is under 300; namely, 282? Is it not the case that the number in the pipeline at the moment, due to complete training in 1971, is down to 183? If those figures are not right, I think it would be useful to have the correct figures. Just as an aside on that point, is it realistic to take mature people into training—which is what the Probation Service does rather more than some of the other social work services—and to offer only student level grants while mature students are under training? I may have missed some announcement that has corrected this position, but this was one of the anomalies acting to the disadvantage of the Probation Service at one time. If it has been corrected, I shall be glad to hear about it.
My Lords, to turn now to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, about wastage after training, the figures he gave were indeed disturbing. But I think there are even more disturbing figures if one looks at the table on page 20 of the last Report on the work of the Probation and Aftercare Department. The table does not have a number, but it appears on page 20 of the Report. Compare that with the figures given in the Answer to the noble Lord's Question which was printed in the OFFICIAL REPORT for February 24. Taking those two figures, it is possible to compare the intake into the Service between the years 1966 and 1968 and the wastage out of the Service. If you consider graduates and those with university qualifications, the unhappy state of affairs which is revealed (if I have done my arithmetic correctly) is that the intake into the Service over those three years includes 112 graduates—that follows from the process of addition from the table on page 20—and 107 other people with qualifications gained at university which were short of degrees. That adds up to 219.
In the same period—from the figures given to the noble Lord which appear in Hansard for February 24–171 people with degrees and qualifications gained

123
at university have left the Service. That is 219 coming in—these are the most highly qualified people the Service recruited in that period—and 171 leaving, which is a bare net gain of just over 50 people. How long can the Service stand attrition of this order among its most highly paid officers?
Now, my Lords, I should like to turn to case loads. This strength (which we have not yet reached) combined with the sentences of the courts and the additional duties given to the Probation Service in the past few years has resulted in a case load of just over 50. That was the target set by the Morrison Committee in 1962 to replace the figure of 60 which then prevailed. Does this standard of supervision produce a success rate; that is to say, an absence of further convictions after probation, such as will satisfy us that case loads of 50 are about right?
I believe, though I regret that I have not the details before me, that other countries with different probation services work to case loads much lower than this and with better results, as one might expect. What I should like to ask the Minister of State is this. Have any experiments been undertaken; is any research in hand or in prospect; is any evidence available from elsewhere to show whether a higher proportion of more offenders can be successfully turned away from crime by giving each probation officer fewer to look after; that is to say by adopting a policy of more intensive care? Common sense would point that way. If the failure of a period of probation, because probation officers are asked to look after too many offenders, results in a prison sentence at 30 times the cost to us as taxpayers, I, as a tax-payer, would like to have more of my money put into the Probation Service.
I should like now to turn to the longer-term salary prospect. I am not sure that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, after taking into account recent pay awards, that the Probation Service compares all that unfavourably with other social work professions, either on entry or in terms of prospects of pro-motion to senior probation officer. But I should like to ask the noble Baroness what she has to say about the fact that the principal probation officer of the whole of Inner London—the most highly
124
paid probation officer in the country, I believe—with a professional staff of something over 350, commands a salary of £3,800 or thereabouts when an advertisement appeared the other day (I think it was in New Society) for the post of Director of the Social Work Department of the single Borough of Islington at a salary of over £5,000? The staff at Islington might number somewhere between 100 and 200, but the Director is certainly not at the top of the national pyramid in the united social work professions. Is the sense of dedication to probation among the social workers in the Probation Service strong enough to resist the counter attraction of that sort of thing?
Finally, my Lords, I should like to turn to a broader question, the one with which the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, left us. Perhaps it is more a question for the profession than for the noble Baroness, but I will put it to her because the whole debate is directed towards her. Is she satisfied that the Probation Service will be able to remain outside the main stream of British social work which is now flowing so strongly in one single unified channel in local government? Is she satisfied that it can do this and yet succeed in maintaining its character as a primary social work service? What is to be done to prevent it becoming the Cinderella ser-vice of which alas! we are not getting so many indications? What is to prevent it becoming a Cinderella service in the same way as perhaps the psychiatric social workers in the Hospital Service seemed to be tending to become until quite recently? I understand that the probation service in the United States has assumed, or is on the way to assuming, a correction rather than a social work role. Is this the way our Probation Service is now to go? My hope is that the Service will develop and grow as one of our key social work services. It will have to do so to match and cope with the very heavy responsibilities laid upon it by our steadily growing crime wave. My hope is that this short debate may make some contribution to that end, but I fear that, although we all want to see it, it is an end about which many, like the noble Lord, feel anxious and doubtful.
8.20 p.m.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, I feel at a disadvantage in speaking in this short

125
debate because I cannot claim any of the qualifications which are obviously vested in the noble Lords, Lord Wells-Pestell and Lord Sandford, and in those noble Lords who are to follow me. My experience of the work of the Probation and After-Care Service is limited to that of a solicitor, who throughout most of his working life has been practising for the main part in the criminal and magistrates' courts. I cannot claim any intimate knowledge of the Service.
I suffer from a second disadvantage in that, possibly stupidly, I anticipated that the noble Lord might be raising this question in a wider way than he did, but he confined himself to the internal structure of the Service. So I have had to revise in my mind what I was going to say. Certainly it is time that this question was raised, because we are very much preoccupied at the present time with questions of the enforcement of law and order. It is proper and salutary that there should be so much public concern about the increase in crime, whether assessed by the continuing increase in the number of indictable offences or by the continuing increase in prison population.
There are, however, two dangers attendant upon this debate. One is that the questions of the containment of crime should become matters of Party political conflict. I do not want to say more about this, because I do not want to add any fuel, but I think it is deplorable that we should have had this exchange of charges and counter-charges between the two major Parties as to who has done best. I will say for the Government that they did not start it and only retorted to charges brought against them. The other danger is that it is all too easy to discuss these grave and sombre questions in over-simple terms and to regard it as a game, even if a grim one, of "cops and robbers". If we take that approach to the problem, we are liable to look at it as one of the prevention of crime, of bringing people to conviction and punishing them; to think that the contribution to be made by the courts is to be rough and tough with offenders and that, once they have been convicted, justice has been vindicated and that is the end of the matter; to think that when somebody is sentenced to a term of imprisonment and goes down from the dock into the cells below, the problem is solved—a crime has been cleared up, as the police say.
126
But, my Lords, at the very same moment that the problem is supposed to be resolved, another is created: the problem of what is to be done with the offender, and eventually still another problem, that of how he is going to be reabsorbed into society. At this stage the police and the courts disappear from the scene, and the Prison Service and the Probation and After-Care Service take over the new problem. I believe that the success we achieve in dealing with offenders after sentence makes just as big a contribution to the general question of the containment of crime as the process of detection and conviction. That is why the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, is so right in saying that the maintaining of the standards and qualifications of the Probation Service is a vitally important matter in considering the general question of law and order.
That brings me to the second thing that I should like to say which is relevant to the noble Lord's Question. No one who has had any association with the Probation and After-Care Service can be in any doubt about the difficulties of the job, or about the wide range of capabilities and high level of expertise for which it calls. I am entirely with the noble Lord when he says that it is a matter for alarm if fully qualified people of this kind are disappearing from the Service at the rate he mentioned.
The difficulties of the probation officer are many, but I would direct attention to only one or two of them. The first is that the After-Care Service has to deal with very indifferent material. It is a great mistake to suppose that, in the main, indictable offences are committed by tough, formidable criminals. The great mass of crimes are committed by people who are weak, foolish and inadequate. These are the people who fall into the hands of the probation officer and with whom he has to cope. Probation officers are, as I say, working with indifferent material. As a probation officer said to me the other day, talking about the frustrations and disappointments of his work—although he is not discouraged by them: "We have to count our successes in very small currency". It is a very frustrating and difficult job.
The second thing about the after-care work of the probation officer, as it seems

127
to me, is that he is in an ambiguous position towards his charge, because, unlike the lawyer and the priest, the probation officer is a public servant and his first duty is to society. On the other hand, it is absolutely fatal to his work if he appears to his charge to be a member and functionary of the Establishment. The confidence and confidentiality between the probation officer and the prisoner or the ex-prisoner is the very basis, and the sole basis, on which he can establish any useful relationship. That makes it an extraordinarily difficult task. The third difficulty facing the probation officer in his after-care work is that no two cases are the same. There is no formula of after-care which can be applied generally to the different individuals with whom he has to deal: each case is a specialty. As a result, the probation officer has to be a psychologist and a diagnostician. It is, as the noble Lord has said, a profession which calls for a remarkable range of quality and training.
I should like here to pay some small tribute to the achievement of the Probation Service. I have seen it only in one small sphere, in my home town of Ply-mouth, but I am perpetually astonished by, and marvel at, the high level of cap-ability with which -these officers, in the higher and the lower ranges, carry out their job. I believe that there is an improvement in the Probation and After-Care Service with the new and onerous duties which have been given to it, in three particular ways, in recent years. They have been given the general control and direction of the whole after-care and through-care service. This is a vast improvement on the tenuous assistance which the voluntary bodies were previously able to give to the discharged prisoner. The Service has had that task thrown upon it, and an important and valuable change I believe it to be.
Then we have had the introduction of the parole system, in which the Probation Service, of course, is intimately connected: in the interview, in the review committee and in the after-care of the prisoner while on licence. We have had also the encouragement given by the Government to the establishment of voluntary hostels for the reception of prisoners when they come out of prison.
128
All these are big achievements. I had the pleasure the other day of listening to the noble and learned Lord on the Wool-sack talking about law reform. He did not of course have an opportunity of referring to these things that have been done, but the putting of the after-care service under the supervision of the probation officer, the introduction of the parole system, with all the matters thrown upon the Probation Service, and the encouragement of the hostel service are greatly to the credit of the Government. It may be that to identify and acknowledge these things that have been done in these last three or four years—big advances as I believe them to be, particularly the introduction of the parole system—may possibly come a little more gracefully from this side of the House than from behind where the noble Baroness sits. These are, as I say, big achievements.
In the realm of penology and criminology reform is always slow, and some-times painfully slow. But I feel that the Government are entitled to claim in this particular field of the treatment of the offender that they have made bigger advances than have been made perhaps in the last 20 or 30 years. I should like to acknowledge that as being the case. I conclude by saying this. It is no doubt right that in the field of combating crime and the containment of crime the police, and indeed perhaps the courts, may be regarded as the front-line troops in the operation. But unless they are backed up by a humane and intelligent treatment of the offender, after his conviction, the ground which may have been gained by the processes of detection and conviction will all be lost. It is the Probation Service, the Prison Service and the Social Services which can consolidate the ground that may be gained for us by those who may be regarded as the front-line troops.
8.36 p.m.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I particularly want to follow the noble Lord, Lord Foot, on his first point. This does not mean that I do not support my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell or the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, in their querying of conditions. I think that problem is vital, and we must have more attempts to bring people into the Probation Service. The point I am particularly interested in, however, is

129
the duty that probation officers must undertake if we are to tackle the crime wave which is depressing everybody. One type of duty which has not been mentioned to-day does not exist at the moment: but my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger is sitting on a Committee which I understand will report in a few months on alternatives to prison. Nothing of the faintest value seems to happen in any local, overcrowded prison in this country, although that is not true of the regional and training prisons, where much good work is done. I think it is fair to say that no change worth having takes place in any man as a result of his being imprisoned for six months or less, or even for a year or less, in a local prison. People may have to defend that statement a little, but really nobody disputes it, and it is because there are 34,000 people in prisons which are meant to take, I should guess, 20,000.
If we accept those figures—they may be wrong—it means that with the help of my noble friend Lady Wootton we have to find alternative accommodation each year for something over 10,000 people. That is not very much in relation to a population of 55 million; but when one considers that the facilities which are suitable as alternatives to prison are exactly the same as the facilities which are suitable for after-prison, and that we have 110 hostels with 1,500 places to deal with the discharge of 50,000 a year, one sees that on those two heads alone there is an enormous way to go.
I am not getting at anybody about this. I think that the Government and the previous Government (it is fair to them that I should tell the noble Lord, Lord Foot, that they were the people who started the change of professional after-care) and previous Home Secretaries have done a great deal towards making a vast change. I think that we are just getting into gear. I hope that in a year or two the combination of a properly paid and increased Probation Service, with a vast investment of capital and with the involvement of the community these facilities, we shall have the kind of alter-native to prison and the kind of after-care duties that we require.
I speak of a vast sum of money. Of course, if we can take 10,000 people out of prison we can afford to spend £400
130
a year on them and still halve the cost. We always say this; we have been saying it for 25 years. Nobody has taken the slightest notice, but it is still true. The point is that it is rather difficult to find the right facilities. I think we are going to do this now. I want to impress upon your Lordships that there is only one way to deal with petty crime, and that is by dealing with petty criminals. The petty criminals have identified themselves very clearly by constantly getting them-selves caught and sent to prison Eighty-three per cent. of the prison population to-day has had three previous proved offences. It is not difficult to guess that if out of 34,000 you took the 25,000 who have had three previous proved offences, and for four years put them all at the bottom of the sea, you would make a very big hole in petty crime. We cannot do that, but we can make a very much bigger effort to do things which we know to some extent work in order to reduce this number and to change these self-identified people who are a captive audience and available to us.
We know from places like Grendon and Coldingley, and other progressive prisons that are not overcrowded, that men's habits can be changed. I do not say that it happens every time, but it can be done. We know that if you are not too ambitious and are prepared to change their habits, not into being virtuous, but into being socially acceptable, with a bit of help afterwards quite a lot of people can keep out of trouble as long as that help remains. Everybody is worried about crime. We have these things which we know help some people. I do not know what we are waiting for. We have to take this problem very seriously. In all this the key man is the probation officer. He is the prison welfare officer, he is the after-care officer and he is the probation officer.
I spoke to my noble friend Lord Hunt this afternoon and he said how sorry he was that he would not be able to attend your Lordships' House. He asked me to make a point about paroles with which I fully agree. He said that there are currently about 1,000 men in the community on parole; that the failure rate so far is 4 per cent., and that therefore we must expect this to be looked upon as a successful experiment and must expect an increase in the number of people

131
in the community who are on parole. He said something else which I know to be true: that the supervision of the man actually under sentence in a community is a more difficult and time-taking affair than the supervision of a man who is accepting voluntary after-care. He also said that the probation officer has to make an interim and final report to the parole board on the "parolees" (if that is the right word); that the Probation Service is providing at least one member on every parole board in every prison in the country, and that the Service is used to make social and family inquiries about the people on whom the parole board are making decisions. You now have three enormous areas. You have a growing parole board with these three or four different needs; you have a growing after-care demand, which is just be-ginning, and you have a so far non-existent, but vitally important, alternative to prison. Do not let us talk about losing probation officers. We have to increase their number pretty quickly. I do not know how we can do this; I know only that demand creates supply, and without demand you cannot get supply. I would ask my noble friend to do the two or three things which we know will be helpful. The first is for her right honourable friend the Home Secretary to make an unequivocal statement that there is no intention at this stage, at the take-off point for enormous growth, of putting the Probation Service under any other body. Seebohm was not asked to inquire into it; the Seebohm Report did not suggest that the Probation Service should be put under the local authorities. Nobody has really specifically said that, but for some reason they are frightened about it. My right honour-able friend should make a statement as soon as possible.
Secondly, there is the point made by my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell and the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, of the higher salaries being paid by one social service than are paid for equivalent people in the Probation Service. This is an absurd situation which should be looked into. This is a difficult matter because it is inter-departmental. But Ministers should find a way of dealing with it. If we dealt with those problems and had a target which in five years would give a 10 per cent. handling of
132
after-care, and a 10 per cent. handling of alternatives to prison, plus the present work, we should have gone a long way towards reassuring the Service.
8.46 p.m.
LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: My Lords, I gather that the practice of thanking noble Lords for introducing topics for discussion in your Lordships' House is frowned upon nowadays, but I have no hesitation is doing so to-night. And in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for putting down this Question I would say that it is no empty formality for me to do so. The noble Lord has on many occasions given evidence in your Lordships' House of his concern for the Probation and After-Care Service. He has reminded us of one or two of them to-day. The Service, as well as your Lordships, has good occasion to be grateful to him.
I have little to add to what he and other noble Lords have already said. When the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, comes to reply she will refer to the recently agreed pay scale for basic grade and senior officers. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, was somewhat scathing about this; but I can say that this scale has been accepted at the official level of the National Association of Probation Officers as being as good as can be expected in the present circumstances, even against the background of the very remarkable increases being won by others. There has not yet been time to assess the reaction of the basic grade officers themselves, but I hope to be able to do so at the Association's annual conference in a few weeks' time. The new salaries for the principal officers have not yet been settled—I gather they are still under discussion. It may be that the noble Baroness will be able to point to that as an explanation of the strange discrepancy that has been brought to our notice. I hope that that may be so.
I think that the noble Baroness will also be able to point out that recruiting to the Service continues to be reasonably satisfactory, and that while wastage is a serious factor—especially that of highly qualified officers—it is at least no worse than that in other comparable services. But in spite of all this, the fact remains that there is anxiety in the Probation Service at the present time about its future and this anxiety is having a damaging

133
effect on morale. I believe that this applies especially to the older and more senior officers who form the backbone of the Service.
A series of events has contributed to this anxiety, among them the loss of a role which was important to many officers through the introduction of the Children and Young Persons Act; the abolition of an independent Probation Service in Scotland; and the Seebohm Report, which seemed to imply that the same thing would be a good idea in England, too. It is true that the Local Authority Social Services Bill does not touch the Probation Service, but that is no more than a negative and temporary reassurance. I read with care the speeches of the Ministers who took part in the Second Reading debate in another place on that Bill. The only reference to the Probation Service I have been able to find is a rather cryptic remark by the Minister of State at the Home Office about the difficulty of deciding which services should be included in the new organisation and which should be left out, and a plea to be given time to see how it works, and then look at it again.
The Probation Service itself is in no doubt whatever on this point, as is shown by a memorandum on the future development of the Service which was recently produced by the National Association of Probation Officers. The memorandum is based on the results of an invitation to the members of the Association to give their views, and it says that there was a large response from branches, from ad hoc groups and from individuals— perhaps the largest in the Association's experience. I must say that I have always understood that there was quite a substantial body of opinion in the Service, albeit a minority, which accepted the proposition that probation and aftercare could with advantage be amalgamated with the rest of the social services to the community. I was therefore rather surprised to read in this paper—and I should like to quote a few words from it:
"We wish first to state that in our opinion it is vital that there should continue to be a separate probation and after-care service, independent of both the local authority social work service and the prison service. Of those who responded to our inquiry only a tiny minority was against the principle of an independent service, or uncertain about it, and
134
the great majority feel very strongly indeed about the matter."
This is not an occasion to go further into the Association's memorandum, but it is a most useful paper, and I commend it to anyone who is interested in this subject. I do not know whether the noble Baroness who is to reply has had an opportunity of seeing it. I know that copies were sent to the Home Office, and it is conceivable that one has reached her.
However, the point is that there is uncertainty among those in the Service about their future; and this uncertainty is damaging. I realise that everything is in such a state of flux at the moment that it is difficult for the Government to give a clear answer about practically any-thing. For example, there cam be no doubt that both Beeching and Maud will have their effects on the administration of the Service. But it seems to me that it should be possible, and most certainly it is highly desirable, for the Government to make a definite statement about whether or not it is the intention to maintain an independent Probation and After-Care Service for the foreseeable future. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to give such an assurance to-day; and it will be even more helpful if the Minister of State at the Home Office can also do so when she comes to speak to the annual conference of the National Association of Probation Officers on May 2.
8.53 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I am sure that all those who have taken part in this debate on the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, would wish me to thank him for the opportunity which he has given us to consider the Probation and After-Care Service in England and Wales. All those who have spoken, too, are agreed that this service has a vital part to play in the treatment of delinquency. I was very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Foot, reminded the House of the great changes that have taken place in recent years as the Probation and After-Care Service has, in addition to its traditional functions of supervising offenders placed on probation by the courts in the community, added a new range of functions, notably in relation to after-care, to social work in prisons and now, most recently, this important Service for parole, covering, as

135
the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, has just reminded us, some 1,000 parolees. Also, of course, the implementation of the recent Children and Young Persons Act, and the possible recommendations of Lady Wootton's Sub-Committee of the Advisory Council on the Penal System on non-custodial and semi-custodial penalties, may also affect its work.
I should very much like to follow some of the thinking of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, in what I found to be a most valuable and thoughtful contribution to our discussion. But in view of the very large number of detailed questions that have been asked, and in view of the late hour, I think I ought to confine myself to some of the practical questions that have been raised, and to indicate how the changing tasks which are now being undertaken by the Service, and the growth of its work, are seen by the Government in relation to subjects such as staffing, salaries and wastage, and those other points which have been raised by noble Lords.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, remind-ed us that in 1965 the Advisory Council for Probation and After-care estimated that there should be an increase in the number of probation officers from 2,200, at that time, to some 3,500 in 1970; and he reminded us of the statements made in this House by the noble Earl, Lord Longford, and my noble friend Lord Stonham from this Front Bench. On present trends, we shall not in fact reach that figure of 3,500 until next year. But I should like to place on record at this moment what I regard as the most necessary, and indeed a very dramatic, increase in the size of the Service—a 50 per cent. increase in the last five years, which now brings it up to our present strength of 3,200 established officers. There are, in addition, some 70 temporary officers and nearly 80 part-time officers. There was in 1969 a record output of some 331 qualified persons from training, although unfortunately that total will be some 50 or 60 fewer this year.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, asked me about the relationship of this figure to current needs, and whether it had been recently reassessed in the light of the changing nature of the Service. I understand that the Advisory Council
136
are shortly to reappraise this target, but I should like on this occasion to pay tribute to the work of that Council, particularly to their Training Committee, to the inspectorate of the Home Office Probation Department, and all those who have managed to achieve what I think is a remarkable increase of 50 per cent. in some five years.
The Government have of course had under consideration the general question of training in the social work services in the light of the recommendations of the Seebohm Committee. Noble Lords will have seen from the Bill which is now under consideration in another place that it has been agreed to unite the three present training councils—the Central Training Council in Child Care, the Council for Training in Social Work and the training side of the Advisory Council on Probation and After-care—into one new Training Council. We are at present consulting with the various interested bodies, including those representing the probation and after-care services, on these new training arrangements.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, asked me for details of output. From 1966 the figure has fluctuated, but at that year it was some 231 probation officers, rising to the peak that I have just mentioned, of 331 in 1969; and now, on the basis of our latest recruitment figures, we hope in 1971 to have an output of over 300 trained probation officers. In March of this year some 381 persons were undergoing probation training. The noble Lord also asked about caseloads of officers, and reminded us of the report of the Morrison Committee. The average caseload for probation officers has decreased from the figure of 60 at the time of the Morrison Committee to some 52·7 in December of 1968—the latest figures which we have available. All of us recognise that in calculating this kind of activity it is really workload, as opposed to caseload, which one ought to consider. No one who knows this Service, as all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate do, could deny that in fact the workload on the Probation Service has increased consider-ably in recent years, in the light of the developments which have already been placed on record in this debate.
Several noble Lords have touched on the very important question of wastage, which is always a matter for concern in

137
any service. But again I should like to put the matter into some perspective. It can be said that during the last five years wastage other than from normal or medical retirement was 6·3 per cent. in 1965, 5 per cent. in 1966, 5·1 per cent. in 1967, 4·8 per cent. in 1968 and 5·6 per cent. in 1969. Clearly we all regret these losses from the Service, although we know that these trained officers move into other social work services. It is interesting to record, however, that despite these losses the number of whole-time established probation officers rose from 2,319 at the end of 1965 to 3,169 at the end of 1969—an increase of some 36·6 per cent. I was delighted to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell, that the National Association of Probation Officers had accepted the salary settlement. It is equally true to say, as he reminded us, that negotiations in respect of principal probation officers are still in progress. Therefore—and he so rightly forecast this— the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, must await the outcome of those negotiations before making the kind of comparison that he sought to make earlier in our debate.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, I can tell the House that this agreement is not a two-year agreement, as he thought it might be. It is an agreement which will run for twenty-one months, expiring in December, 1971, but there is provision that during the month of January, 1971, the Joint Negotiating Committee, which is responsible for considering these matters, will, without commitment, review the agreement and determine whether any significant changes have occurred in relation to the Probation Service and its salary scale which will justify the reopening of the settlement. If it is agreed that such changes have occurred, the settlement could be revised and the consequential changes would have effect from April 1, 1971. I hope that statement puts the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, at rest.
The noble Lord also drew our attention to the special problems of London, which none of us who knows the Metropolis could possibly deny. It has a concentration of social problems throughout the range of its social services, and as to the treatment of offenders, the existence within this area of some five prisons and
138
the movement back to the capital city of homeless offenders clearly increases the strain on the services operating in this particular part of the country. The calls on the Inner London Probation Service, which covers the twelve Inner London boroughs in relation to social work in prisons, after-care and parole, are clearly particularly demanding, and that is why the present aim of the Probation and After-Care Committee is that within the context of the total strength of some 3,500 officers there should be a service of some 400 established officers in the Inner London area.
My Lords, I have considerable details relating to wastage and recruitment in this area which I had intended to give to the House, but if the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, will allow me, and in view of the lateness of the hour, I will, with his agreement, write to him and give him the information for which he has asked.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Baroness.
BARONESS SEROTA: That being so, my Lords, I would conclude by dealing with this major question which almost every noble Lord has put to me, the future organisation of the Service. I think that all of us in this Chamber to-night, in one capacity or another, are conscious that the present organisational pattern of the Service takes a very un-usual form. It is administered by a range of probation and after-care committees composed mainly of magistrates throughout the separate parts of Eng-land and Wales, divided into probation and after-care areas, and the cost of the Service, now running at some £11 million a year, is borne half by central Government and half by local authorities. The unusual nature of this organisation has, I believe, made the Service conscious of its obligations both to the courts and to the local communities it serves, and has made the courts equally aware of the importance of probation and its value as a form of treatment for offenders. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, and others have pointed out to-night, the Report and recommendations of the Seebohm Committee on the Local Authority and Allied Personal Social Services, and those of the Royal Commissions on Local Government in England and on Assizes and Quarter Sessions, although not

139
directly concerned with the Probation and After-Care Service, have undoubtedly created uncertainty within the Service itself about its future organisation.
Furthermore (and these also are points that were raised by noble Lords in the debate), the increasing involvement of the Service in the treatment of adult offenders and the need to reduce our growing prison population are additional factors which could well affect its future administrative framework. The Government are conscious that this situation has led to considerable unease, and it is certainly the wish of the Government to reassure the Service. It is quite clear from all that has been said, in all parts of the House this evening, that the Probation and After-Care Service has an essential part to play in our system of the administration of justice and the treatment and rehabilitation of offenders, both in penal establishments and in the community, and that the performance of this role must rest, in the first place —and several noble Lords made this point in the debate—on the qualities, including the personal responsibility, of the probation officer in the field.
These qualities must of course be deployed in the most suitable pattern of organisation for the Service in the light of the changes which are taking place, or which may take place, in other ser-vices, and of the possible developments in the future tasks of the Probation and After-Care Service itself. It is not yet possible, however, to foresee what the most suitable form of organisation for the Service will be, and the Government —I say this on behalf of my right honourable friend—have no present intention of altering the arrangements for probation and after-care as a separate service, working in close collaboration with the proposed new local authorities' social services departments and the Prison Service.
Finally, my Lords, I would maintain that the overall picture of the service which emerges from this short debate is far from being an unfavourable one. For while with this Service, as indeed with all human agencies, there is undoubtedly
140
scope for further improvement and development, none of us, I am sure, is complacent. Much progress, I believe, has been made in recent years, and I am sure that the Service is in a fit state, and indeed a confident state, to perform its important and, as noble Lords have re-minded us, very onerous duties. And in that it will certainly continue to receive the support and encouragement of Her Majesty's Government. I hope, in particular, that the assurance I have given this evening about the future of the Ser-vice will give it further confidence in the discharge of its most exacting duties, which form a vital part of our services for the treatment and rehabilitation of offenders.

STAFFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
LINDSEY COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
PEMBROKESHIRE WATER BOARD BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.