Lords Sitting of 16 April 1970

Preamble
The House mot at three of the clock: The Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Guildford.

ROYAL ASSENT
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signfied Her Royal Assent to the following Act:
Export Guarantees and Payments Act.

AIRCRAFT EXHAUST AND POLLUTION HAZARD
3.6 p.m.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government to what extent it is estimated that air-craft exhaust causes or increases air pollution, particularly in the vicinity of airports; and in view of the further increase in aircraft in this country what consideration is being given to this hazard to amenity and health.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, periodic measurements of air pollution carried out over the past few years, both in this country and the United States of America, have indicated that, even in the vicinity of major airports, aircraft exhausts are responsible for less than 1 per cent, of total atmospheric pollution and are not a hazard to health. A further series of tests has recently commenced at Heath-row, and a close watch is being kept on the situation.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask him when we shall have a report regarding this fresh investigation?
554
Further, does he not agree that the visible exhaust discharge which comes from air-craft and which must descend to the ground represents a hazard both to health and to amenities?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, on the first point, I may say that there will be no published report, but if my noble friend wishes to put down another Question after the result of this investigation is made known I shall be happy to give him any further information available. As to the second part of his supplementary question, I agree that, looking up into the sky, one sometimes feels that there is a certain amount of pollution about. But I am assured that the amount deposited on the ground is in as small a quantity as I have indicated.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, may I ask when we can expect the report?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, as I have said, there will be no published report; but I imagine that these inquiries will take about a month as from now. I will advise my noble friend when it will be useful to put down a Question.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that, even if there is no health hazard, the smell at Heathrow is getting worse and worse, month by month? Surely this must have an effect on the people working there.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I myself asked about the smell. It does not constitute a health hazard. On the other hand, as I have already said inquiries are being continued into this matter.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: My Lords, am I right in saying that the dangers in the upper atmosphere are perhaps even more serious, because the air is much thinner and the balance much more critical? Some scientists are more concerned about that aspect.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I sup-pose the point is that my noble friend Lord Sorensen spends less time up there than he does down here.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, may we be assured that the Royal Commission on Pollution will give attention to this matter as well as to all other forms of air pollution?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I will certainly see that what the noble Lord says is brought to the attention of those concerned.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, has my noble friend any figures on the actual amount of carbon dioxide generated per take-off? I estimate that probably it is 1lb. of carbon dioxide per take-off, which is mainly given off in the immediate vicinity of the ground.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord is pursuing a line of inquiry which I myself pursued. If one talks about one per cent., I want to know, "One per cent, of what?" The further inquiries that are now taking place should give us more information in relation to the question the noble Lord is asking.
LORD IRONSIDE: My Lords, could the noble Lord say which pollutants are going to be monitored in the new tests at Heathrow?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the dis-charges from aero engines.

PORT DEVELOPMENT SCHEMES
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what port development location is now the subject of cost/benefit analysis.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE, R.A.F. (LORD WINTER-BOTTOM): My Lords, development schemes carried out by port authorities are normally expected to meet the mini-mum test rate of discount laid down for public sector investment, which for low-risk projects is currently 10 per cent, in real terms. Government policy in this field does, however, enable other criteria to be taken into account where necessary, including social costs and benefits or the need to meet statutory obligations.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that informative reply, may I ask him whether these studies henceforth will be
556
related at all to the Peston studies to be undertaken at the University of London regarding MIDAS?
LORD WINTER.BOTTOM: My Lords, as the noble Earl knows, the National Ports Council have just published a valuable report by Professor Peston on Cost/ Benefit Assessment of Maritime Indus-trial Development Areas. Apart from the Government studies announced by the Secretary of State for Local Government and Regional Planning on April 13 of this year, careful consideration will be given to the relevance of Professor Peston's findings to other port investment decisions.

RAILWAY ACCIDENTS AND WELDED TRACK
3.14 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what further measures they are asking British Railways to take in the light of Major Rose's report on railway accidents due to failures in continuous welded rail.]
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, Major Rose's report on the rail-way accidents that occurred on continuous welded rail track during 1969, and on the general safety of this form of track, is an interim one. It lists the various weaknesses in design and procedures that have been brought to light following the accidents, and the measures being taken by the Railways Board to strengthen existing track and to ensure that track laid in future will have a greater resistance to distortion. The investigation is continuing, and further reports will be published. These will, of course, describe what further action the Board may decide to take. But statutory responsibility for the safety of operation of British Railways rests with the Board, and not with the Government.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for that Answer to my Question? Is he aware that, following the three serious derailments of last year, there is a good

557
deal of public anxiety about this matter, and although continuous welded rail should be the safest and most economic method of rail-laying this anxiety continues? In the light of Major Rose's findings that some 90 per cent, of these distortions are due to faulty installation or lack of maintenance, could the noble Lord tell us what assurances British Rail-ways have given to Her Majesty's Government that they are really covering those aspects of it that are under their control?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I would not claim to be an expert on this subject which, having prepared my-self to answer this Question, I find is much more complex than I myself fore-saw. As the noble Lord is probably aware, the British Railways Board at its Derby Research Station is carrying out extensive researches into the problem, and a second interim report on its findings will be published towards the end of this year. A final report will come later because of two particular elements in the study. Some of the short-comings of procedures that were indicated were, in fact, not shortcomings in the integrity of the individual but were due to lack of knowledge of how sophisticated this problem is in its nature.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, do I understand my noble friend to say that as a result of the interim report some steps have been taken to remedy existing faults in procedure? Could he be more specific about the steps that are going to be taken about rails that have already been laid and are thought to be dangerous?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, as I said, I am not hiding behind words, but this is extraordinarily complex. The actual second interim report which I have forecast will depend on studies into the cold rolling of rails, which has an effect on stressing the rails, and the relating of newly rolled rails to rails already in position. That is a complicated relationship. The second study relates to temperature cycling of the bed, of the ballast of rails. The question which the noble Lord put to me originally was on the temperature of last summer. It is not extremes of temperature that are now indicated to be the problem, but
558
temperature cycling and its effect on the ballast. This subject is not one you can deal with by a simple "Yes" or "No" answer. If my noble friend is interested, I am certain we could arrange a small debate on the subject.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, in view of the fact that there are many miles of this welded rail on the Continent and elsewhere, could my noble friend give any indication whether consultations have been taking place about these Continental lines compared with ours? Could he also say what the difference is in laying these long welded rails here compared with the Continental system?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I think the experience of German rail-ways, if we talk about this specifically, is very similar to our own. They had two serious accidents in 1969, caused by the buckling of track formed of rail welded into 70 metre lengths. The Ministry of Transport and the British Railways Board are both in touch with the Continental railway administrations, and in particular with the Germans, to find a firm solution to this problem.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY: My Lords, assuming that we may this forthcoming summer get the same differences in temperature which occurred last summer, and which apparently caused the temperature cycling, or what-ever it is called, which was the cause of this buckling, can the noble Lord say whether work has been done on all the welded rail presently laid down which would prevent that from happening in the circumstances I have adumbrated?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: No, my Lords, I cannot, because as a result of last year's experience a whole series of tests will be taking place during the coming summer in order to establish with certainty the various factors relating to this particular problem. That is one of the reasons for a second interim report in the autumn.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, may I put a supplementary question to the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell? Do we understand that the British Railways Board are having consultations with the European countries which we

559
know have longer experience with welded rail than we have? And supplementary to the noble Lord's reply to the question by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, may I ask this question? Paragraph 40 of the Report tells us that after the Somerton disaster the chief civil engineer of the Western Region issued special instructions about de-stressing for certain distances beyond any spot at which rails had been disturbed for maintenance reasons. My question is, why has this line of thought not been reproduced in the new British Railways Code of Practice? Or is it in fact incorporated in sub-paragraph 7?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, without answering the noble Lord's question in detail, I can answer him in principle. In point of fact, the Somerton disaster was due to human error but not human negligence. As I said earlier, this is an extremely sophisticated problem. The engineer in question carried out all the practices with precision, but there were certain factors—namely, the restructuring of the bridge and the disturbance of the ballast before that time—which caused the accident to take place. We know what happened on that occasion, and that is why I am saying that studies are going forward and there will be tests during the summer, and a second interim report will, we hope, be issued in the autumn. It is not a simple question, as it might seem.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for the trouble he has taken to deal with this complicated subject? Is he aware that we recognise that it is complicated and might more easily be dealt with by an Unstarred Question, and that we may pursue it in the future in that way?
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, can it be said that a large number of accidents with jointed rails led to the adoption of single welded rails?
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the noble Marquess is of course right. We have had very serious accidents with non-welded jointed rails.

GENEVA CONFERENCE AND TERRITORIAL RIGHTS
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will propose to the Geneva Conference on Disarmament that a limit should be placed on the approach of military aircraft or sub-marines to the air space or territorial waters of other nations.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD CHALFONT): No, my Lords. There would be immense problems in devising effective arrangements of this kind which would not give un-acceptable advantage to one nation or another. It would furthermore be extremely difficult to ensure that the pro-visions of any agreement on this matter were in fact observed.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. I recognise the difficulties, and also the fact that this limitation may become irrelevant with modern missiles. Nevertheless, will my noble friend consider this matter from two points of view: first, whether it would not reduce the threat of escalation and of planes directly dropping bombs; and, secondly, whether it might not reduce rivalry in the Mediterranean and Asian Seas in the competition between the forces of the cold war?
LORD CHALFONT: My Lords, if I may say so I think there are more urgent matters of arms control than this to be dealt with in the Disarmament Committee. Even if we were to attack this problem, I think it would prove to be an intractable one. The fact is that the width of territorial sea and air space, for example, over which countries claim jurisdiction ranges from 3 nautical miles, in the case of some countries, to 200 nautical miles in the case of others. So the areas that would be banned and the number of aircraft involved would be enormous. Quite frankly, I cannot see the utility of this kind of agreement, nor can I really see any good case for taking up the time of the Disarmament Committee in discussing it.

STAFFORDSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
LINDSEY COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
PEMBROKESHIRE WATER BOARD BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT 1932
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (BARONESS SEROTA): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department for extending Section 1 of the Sun-day Entertainments Act 1932 to the Borough of Ilkeston, be approved.— (Baroness Serota.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

FILMS BILL
3.25 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Baroness Phillips.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 6 [Extension of objects of British Film Fund Agency]:
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 43, leave out (" to ") and insert (" towards the costs to be incurred by ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is the same as the Amendment I put down in Committee. I have
562
ventured to put it down again because my noble friend Lady Phillips was good enough to say that she would look into the point that I raised. I shall not weary the House by repeating the arguments that I developed in Committee, and will confine my remarks to the fact that the Amendment deals with the running costs of the National Film School. The original intention of the Government was that these running costs should be met entirely by the cinema exhibitors, through the so-called Eady levy. This was resolutely opposed by all the main bodies of the film industry, not only by the exhibitors but also by the producers and most of the other bodies.
During the passage of the Bill through the other place, and also through this House, it was increasingly recognised that this School should also be financed by other bodies who would derive equal benefit from it. Graduates from the School would work not only in the film industry, but also in television, and it was recognised that the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. should also be asked to help with the finance. The Government agreed to this and very wisely redrafted the sub-section concerned, with vastly improved wording, and it was passed by your Lord-ships during the Committee stage.
However, I am still not happy in the redrafted subsection (1)(d) of Clause 6 with the word " to", and than is why I am proposing this Amendment. To my mind the words,
"with the approval of the Board of Trade, payments to not more than one body"
mean that the entire costs will come from the Eady levy, while the words in my Amendment,
"towards the costs to be incurred by"
mean that only part of the costs need come from the Eady levy, and the rest will come from the other bodies after the Government have consulted with them through the Cinematograph Films Council. As I have said, my noble friend very kindly agreed to look into this matter, and I feel sure that she will be able either to meet me in this or to explain what the wording of the clause means. My Lords, I beg to move.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, the noble Lord is clearly concerned that nothing should be done which might imply that the running costs of the National Film School should or could be

563
met entirely from the levy. As I said during the debate on Committee stage, in making their recommendation about financial support for the National Film School the Cinematograph Films Council said that they considered it would be wrong for the annual cost of the School to be met entirely out of the British Film Fund. They took the view that the B.B.C. and the independent television companies, who would employ graduates from the School, should also contribute to its annual cost. The Bill in the form in which we now have it before us will make it obligatory on the part of the Board of Trade to consult the Cinematograph Films Council before any payment is made.
I have already given assurances that this consultation would always take place, even had the provision for consultation been omitted from the Bill. I feel sure that we can rely on the Council to take full account of points such as those which have been made in this House when considering what their advice to the Board of Trade should be regarding the amount of any payment. The Council have already made it clear that in their view it would be wrong for the annual cost of the School to be met entirely out of the British Film Fund, and I hope that I may suggest that the noble Lord's point in moving this Amendment is already met. On those grounds alone, I would invite him to withdraw it.
As regards the Amendment itself, I am advised that it does not achieve what the noble Lord has in mind. It does not have the effect of earmarking the payments to the cost of running the School, which is what he wants; nor does it certainly ensure that the Film School will not be maintained wholly from the levy. I can give the noble Lord an assurance that it is the intention of the Government that payments will be approved by the Board of Trade only to meet the running costs of the School, and that the running costs will not be wholly met from the levy. As I have made clear, the noble Lord need have no fears on this score, and I hope that perhaps he will see his way clear to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords I am very grateful to my noble friend. In view of the assurances which she has given, which I am sure will be welcomed
564
throughout the film industry, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 [Applicant for registration of film to give certain statutory under-taking]:
3.32 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS BARONESS PHILLIPS moved Amendment No. 2:
Leave out Clause 15.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, at the Committee stage an Amendment was agreed to and is now included in the Bill as Clause 15. I hope noble Lords will bear with me if, in moving this further Amendment, I have to repeat some of the things I said at the earlier stage. I am not certain that all of your Lordships were present at that time. I should like first of all to say that there is a very wide sympathy for the principles which motivated the noble Lord, Lord Willis—and indeed other noble Lords who had similar Amendments down—in moving the inclusion of the clause; and also, of course, for those who supported him. But this Bill is not the proper place for such a measure, nor is the time right for the inclusion in our legislation of the principles envisaged. In the earlier debate I explained that, while great sympathy was expressed for the worthy objects of the Archive, the preservation of copies of films which are made is the responsibility of the British Film Institute, of which the National Film Archive is a part, and Ministerial responsibility rests with the right honourable lady the Minister of State for the Arts. For those reasons alone, therefore, the Bill before us is not the proper place for legislation of this kind.
Quite apart from that, noble Lords might like to know or be reminded that just about a year ago a Bill was introduced in another place which had as its object the provision of legislation the effect of which, if enacted, would have been very much the same as the present clause is designed to achieve. That Bill was not given a Second Reading, and it was said during the debate that the British Film Institute, and therefore the National Film Archive, is financed almost entirely by a grant from Government sources. The grant to the British Film Institute has been increased from £100,000 in

565
1963–64 to £625,000 in the current financial year, and the Archive itself has benefited substantially from this grant. For example, the Government have pro-vided £64,000 for new vaults, opened in 1968, and this year the Institute's grant includes £29,000 for further vaults and £37,000 for the duplication of nitrate film.
The right honourable lady further said that in a more favourable economic climate this was one measure which the Government would like to see on the Statute Book. I know that there are many pressures on money available for the Arts—your Lordships do not need to be reminded of this—and, as the right honourable lady indicated a year ago, it is a question of priorities. But it would be wrong to allow a provision to become embodied in legislation which involved the provision of public funds which the Department concerned is unable to pro-vide. I recognise that Clause 15 intends that the existing procedure, whereby films are offered to the Archive, will continue. These offers are made voluntarily, and the Archive receives many copies of films without cost to itself—an arrangement which can and should continue. However, much as we recognise the principle behind this provision, and however greatly we regret the necessity for doing so, for the reasons given I cannot support the inclusion of the clause in the Bill, and I sincerely ask noble Lords to accept my Amendment to remove it. I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, I find myself in a rather curious situation to-day with regard to this Amendment, because little more than a week ago your Lordships' Committee, by a substantial majority, passed my Amendment and included this clause in the Bill. A number of other equally reasonable Amendments which I and other noble Lords put up were rejected, and the Government refused to budge one inch towards what were considered in the industry, never mind by your Lordships, as being perfectly reasonable Amendments. On this particular Amendment, which was perhaps the most reasonable of all, the Government opposed it, but in this case your Lordships' Committee passed it and this clause is now included in this legislation. Now this House, which is supposed to be established for
566
the benefit of having second thoughts, is being asked to have third thoughts.
My Lords, the argument is that this Bill is not the place for this particular clause. In my view, that is nonsense. The fact is that this Bill deals with questions like the Eady levy and the money going from that levy to the British Film Institute. The British Film Institute is in fact largely run on funds from the Eady levy, which is mentioned in this Bill; and in any one year the acquisition of films for the Archive—the pure acquisition, which is mentioned here—would cost the British Film Institute something like £8,000 to £10,000 at the maximum. It is perfectly reasonable, therefore, that this clause should be included in this Bill as a stipulation to the British Film Institute.
However, it may be that it is awkward for the Government for the clause to be in this particular Bill. In those circum-stances, I should have hoped that they would have taken note of the feeling of your Lordships as expressed in the passing of this Amendment and would have said, "We are prepared to give some consideration, some kind of quid pro quo, so to speak, for the future, so that the clear wish of the Committee can be ex-pressed in other legislation." No such assurance has been forthcoming, which I find surprising. I find it surprising, in fact, that the Government have taken the responsibility on their shoulders of trying to delete this clause from the Bill on Report stage to-day, because it seems to me to be a small and almost tiny Amendment to an important Bill that is going to be enshrined for ten years in our legislation. Yet we have all kinds of pressures about this clause, even to the extent that we have had moved to-day an Amendment to completely delete it.
My Lords, the Government ought to learn that they cannot win them all. This was one which was won against their wishes about a week to 10 days ago, and I think it shows—well, I will not use a description for it, but I think it shows perhaps a bad spirit that they should come back to-day and refuse to accept what was, after all, a very minor defeat that is certainly not going to rock 10 Downing Street, the Cabinet or anybody else. I am not sure what is going to be the position of the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, who was associated with me

567
in this Amendment, but in the circum-stances I certainly do not feel inclined to withdraw from my position or to sup-port the Amendment which is on the Order Paper to-day.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, may I briefly join in what the noble Lord, Lord Willis, has said in asking the House not to accept the Amendment which we are now discussing. I do not want to go over all the arguments which the noble Lord has already put forward, but it seems to me that when an Amendment to a Bill is carried by a substantial majority in your Lordships' Committee one should not be asked to withdraw it or to agree to its being removed unless some very substantial promise is given to us that the purpose of the Amendment is going to be included in some other form of Government measure or in some other way, although I do not know what it would be. But just to accept that the Amendment we put in should now be withdrawn, with no possibility of anything occurring further, is not satisfactory, and I hope that the House will not accept the Amendment.
LORD LLOYD OF HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, as a governor of the British Film Institute I naturally feel profound sympathy towards the object of this new clause, and I would certainly strongly support any practical move to assist the National Film Archive in achieving its purpose of securing copies of as many films as it needs. Unfortunately, I was unable to be present at the Committee stage proceedings, but I have read care-fully the Report of the discussion which took place. It seems to me that the issue was a litle confused because of the point taken that this legislation is concerned only with the film as an industry and not with the film as art or a social record. With all respect, I do not think that these two are separable. To some extent this idea flows from the very uneasy division which exists between, on the one hand, the Board of Trade, which is concerned with the industrial aspect, and, on the other, the Department of Education, which by its tutelage of the British Film Institute is concerned with the artistic aims. These two are inseparable; and on the Continent the normal practice is for ministerial responsibility for films to
568
be unified in one Ministry, which I venture to think is a more satisfactory arrangement. Also, as my noble friend Lord Willis pointed out, Clause 6 itself shows the indivisibility of the film as a mode of communication, a form of entertainment and a form of art.
I am bound to say that I feel a certain difficulty about this Amendment from the technical point of view, because by Section 9 of the Films Act 1960 (which is the one to which this Amendment is integrated) an application for registration is to be made either by the maker of a film or by the renter who acquired it for distribution. It is of no use imposing a statutory duty upon someone who cannot necessarily implement that duty. The difficulty might arise on the form in which this Amendment is drafted because the person who registers the film might well not be in a position to supply a copy. It is clearly not desirable to impose upon a person a statutory obligation which he cannot fulfil. It seems to me also that this may create a certain difficulty in respect of foreign films, and might in some cases prevent their registration in this country.
Therefore I feel, first, that this Amendment calls for a certain amount of scrutiny and revision; and, secondly, there is the question of the financial aspect. It is no use offering a positive print to the Archive if they do not have the money to pay for it. We are not dealing here with something like a book which is presented to the British Museum or to some university library which has to pay for the book: that might involve a matter of only £2 or £3. A feature film print, however, might cost several hundred pounds, so that this may involve considerable sums of money. In these circumstances, a provision of this kind, unless linked in some way with a financial grant, may prove somewhat illusory.
There is also a third point. As the noble Baroness pointed out, at the moment the Archive obtains a consider-able number of copies of films from commercial companies free of charge. There is a possibility that if a statutory provision of this kind were passed in exactly this form it might have the effect of causing the source of free copies to dry up, which would be not a very desirable consequence. It seems to be agreed on all sides that this is the kind of

569
provision which ought to be introduced for the benefit of the Archive—and we have had Dr. Kerr's Bill which had an airing in the other place but which in fact was not passed. I would therefore venture to suggest, and to take up the point forcefully put by my noble friend Lord Willis, that the appropriate out-come of this matter should be for the Government to take some positive line on this matter, if only to the extent of saying that some departmental committee might be set up to review this whole situation and to make recommendations for the benefit of the Archive.
I would certainly join in the pressure (if I may so describe it) of Lord Willis upon the Minister to make a more positive reaction to this suggestion—parti-cularly in view of the fact that this Amendment was passed previously by a substantial majority—at any rate to the extent of saying that she will seriously consider the setting up of a departmental committee to give close consideration to this question which represents such an important aspect of the work of the British Film Institute and, in particular, of the National Film Archive.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY:My Lords, on the Second Reading of this Bill I said that I hoped to put down an Amendment very much on the lines of that put down by the noble Lord, Lord Willis. If it had not been for my unavoidable absence from the Committee stage I should have joined with my noble friend Lord Amulree in putting down the Amendment that he did. I read with interest and attention the Report of the debate on the Committee stage; I listened with attention to what the noble Baroness said this afternoon and I confess that I did not get from her a single reason why this Amendment should be passed. We were told that the clause which she now asks us
to omit is inappropriate here. Perhaps that is so; and perhaps when the noble Baroness comes to speak again she will spell out what bad consequences this inappropriateness may have. If this House were to decide to go ahead, and if this Clause 15 were to become part of the Bill, what would happen that would be so disastrous?
The whole question of cost is fairly irrelevant. I must say, with respect, that I differ from the expert noble Lord
570
who has just spoken because I think it is worth while to lay down the requirement that these films should be offered to the Archive. Even if the Archive cannot at any particular time afford to buy them, or can afford to buy only some of them, or even if for a period of time they can afford to buy none, it is worth while putting it down so that when the Archive have the money, and when the films are important, they should be able to acquire them. Then there is the technical disadvantage of this Amendment which the noble Lord has pointed out to us. Unless there is a full answer to this, I suggest this should not necessarily be a reason for us to accept this Amendment to-day, but rather a reason to oppose this Amendment and to put clown perhaps a slightly different one on Third Reading to make the Amendment technically applicable.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I should like to say a word on this Amendment. For some years I was on the British Film Institute. I think I served for five or six years. It was some time ago. I have a distinct recollection of the great value attaching to the National Film Archive, a section of the Film Institute. I think it would be the greatest mistake to take out this clause. It stresses the importance of having records. These records are historical; they are part of our history. And the fact that they are kept in the National Film Archive is, I think, an excellent thing, as in the case of books which are kept in any great library. In my view, it would be the greatest mistake not to include this clause in the Bill.
The noble Lord who has just spoken, and who is a member to-day of the British Film Institute (I am no longer), suggested the setting up of a depart-mental committee. If there is one way in the world of burying something for a long time, it is to set up a departmental committee to consider it. When the departmental committee reports, where is the Bill in which this particular small provision is to be put? Surely this is the Bill to put it in. This Bill is about films; it deals with the British Film Institute and the National Film Archive. It would be the greatest possible mistake if we were to accept this Amendment and were not to stick to our guns. I was one of the people who voted for Lord

571
Willis's Amendment last week, and I shall vote for it again.
3.50 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, may I, with the leave of the House, say a few words on this Amendment? In Committee I supported the spirit of the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Willis because I felt that something should be done to help the National Film Archive, but I agree with my noble friend Lady Phillips that this Bill is not the place in which to do it. If this debate to-day and the discussions during the Committee stage do something to remind the Government of the urgent need of the Archive for funds, they will have done a lot of good.
My noble friend is quite right: the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Willis, which the Government Amendment seeks to take out, has no place in the Bill. The Bill we are considering is
"An Act to amend the enactments relating to the financing and exhibition of films."
I have with me a copy of the Private Member's Bill which was discussed in another place but did not reach a Second Reading. It was to deal with films statutorily deposited. The Preamble says that it is:
"A Bill to require the deposit of certain copies of moving pictures in the National Film Archive of the British Film Institute."
That is quite a different matter. In another place the Minister, Miss Jennie Lee, accepted the principle of the Bill. I have a copy of Hansard which reports that she said:
"I must not, however, convey to the House anything more than I have done, which is the good will of the Government and acceptance of the Bill in principle. We would like to consult the British Film Institute, the commercial industry and everyone concerned about how best it should be carried out."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 18/4/69; col. 1529.]
As my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Hampstead said (he knows a great deal about this; he is a distinguished lawyer and knows about the legal implications as well) this is a matter which is very complicated from the copyright and deposit point of view. It is not, I think, some-thing that this House should be asked to send back to the other place based on an argument which, I suggest with respect, is an emotional argument because it is motivated by the great wish that we
572
all have to help the Archive to get the increased funds it deserves. If this debate helps towards that, no one will be more grateful than I shall be. I suggest also to my noble friend Lord Willis that this is an excellent matter for a Private Member's Bill. We had a Bill before from my noble friend, for which we are grateful, and if he could give his energies to drafting a Bill which was acceptable I think that we should all be greatly indebted to him.
LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY:My Lords, I am somewhat worried about the position of the House in this matter. This is not a Party political matter; neither are we in this position because of a chance decision, or because it was taken late when there were few people present. The
decision was taken a week ago, after some discussion, by a large majority. We are faced to-day with the bald request to stand on our heads—just like that—with no extra reason being given, and no indication that the matter will be looked at again. I think it is putting the House in a rather absurd position if we calmly agree to stand on our heads after having come to a decision, not by accident—and one which is not a Party decision—a week ago. I ask the Government to look at this matter from that point of view.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, I would ask the leave of the House to say one or two words in reply to questions put to me.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, I must say that I am very sympathetic but, strictly speaking, he can rise only on a point of explanation now. He has no right, I am afraid, even with the leave of the House, to speak a second time. I am sorry, but this is the Report stage.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, may I have the leave of the House to make a point of explanation? The short point of explanation that I wish to make is about the vexed question which was raised by my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, about the requirement in the original Bill that renters and producers of films be the people that register films as British films. He made the point that renters do not necessarily own the films and therefore that this clause would lay an obligation on them to offer for sale

573
something which was not their property. I am afraid that that does not hold water, because those renters which do make an approach to register a film to make it British are those who are also the producers of the picture—
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again, but he is replying to a point in the debate. It is very trying to have these Standing Orders, but his right is one of explanation or exposition of some point he himself has made in a speech; and I am not sure whether in fact he is not now replying to a point made by somebody else.
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, with respect, I think it was a point I made which the noble Lord took up from me, and therefore it is six of one and half-a-dozen of the other. The other point I made in my remarks that I should like to expand on very briefly, or to explain briefly, is that this clause, as was said by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, only lays an obligation on the parties to offer for sale. It does not lay an obligation on anybody to give more funds to the N.F.I. at this moment.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, may I ask a question of the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips'? Am I right in thinking that there is at least one stage more for this Bill in this House, and three in another place? It is not unknown for another place to alter decisions that we have made in this House, but I think it an extremely bad precedent for us to alter our decision within a week.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I wonder whether I may intervene at this point. First, I should say to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, that he did go a little far, but the House obviously was in a tolerant mood. However, I should not like to think that our Standing Order had been eroded thereby. I wish to intervene now because there has been some criticism about whether we were right to attempt to overturn a decision taken on what I believe—I may be wrong—was a fairly unexpected Division; but, none the less, the subject was fully debated and discussed. There has been criticism of whether we are right on Report stage to overturn that decision. May I say to the noble Lord, Lord Willis, who I
574
know is concerned about this matter, that there are difficulties according to which Party is in Government. When we were in Opposition there was, practically speaking, never an occasion when the Government of that day needed to overturn a decision in Committee, because they had a built-in majority and they usually won. May I say, if the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, is worried, that I am not seeking to make Party political points. I am trying to explain the difference between the two sides in this matter.
The question that confronts those in charge of Government business is whether the Amendment is one which in all the circumstances should go to the Commons (I mean that in the last resort it is the decision of the House of Lords itself whether it should do), or whether it is one that in our judgment would inevitably return to us again. It is always difficult for the minority Party in this House to be certain of overturning a decision in those circumstances. Noble Lords have rather more freedom in this House. Per-haps I had better not say anything about another place or I shall be in trouble, as I was once before, but we have considerable freedom. Very careful consideration was given to this matter. My noble friend has made clear that there is great sympathy for this proposition, and that was not said just to disarm criticism. There is general sympathy for the proposal. But, for reasons that she gave, which clearly have not satisfied every noble Lord, it is inappropriate to retain that Amendment.
I see nothing wrong—I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Grimston of Westbury—in this House having second thoughts. I do not think it is unbefitting to our dignity to do so. The Government judged that it was right that before this Bill went to another place there should be an opportunity for second thoughts. So I hope that your Lord-ships will not think that this is in any way disrespectful to the House; I am sure that that is not so. Basically, the argument is: is this appropriate? There is one aspect of the Amendment which
has been put into the Bill and which worries me, I shall mention it very cautiously because I am anxious not to mislead the House. I doubt very much whether that Amendment could have been put into the Bill in another place

575
within the Long Title of the Bill. That, to me, has always been very much a guiding line. We can do what we like in this House. We can make a nonsense of it. If we leave that Amendment in the Bill, it will go to another place. Of course, it would be possible to amend the Long Title, but I do not find it a very satisfactory Amendment.
I accept the arguments of noble Lords that this is not a Party issue. I certainly would not suggest that the Conservative Party are necessarily going to vote on the Party Whip, although we are Whipping on this side, because this is Government business. But not every noble Lord on either side obeys the Whip. We do not take that too much to heart. But I am bothered about putting some-thing like this in the Bill which would have to go to another place for consideration. I am wondering whether the suggestion, which I think was beginning to come out in certain speeches—and I was impressed by the speech of my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Hampstead—of whether it would not be better to restore the situation, might be considered. There will be a further occasion on Third Reading, though I am hesitant about dragging this out. It is now for noble Lords to make up their minds. My noble friend Lady Phillips, who has the right to reply, will undoubtedly wish to deal with some of these points, but I thought it was right that I should intervene to give my personal observations on the matter.
4.2 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am puzzled by the statesmanlike intervention of the noble Lord the Leader of the House, because he said that he doubted whether this Amendment could be made in another place. The Amendment is plainly within the Long Title. I do not think that anyone could dispute that, because the very Act that this Amendment is aimed to change is amended by this Bill elsewhere. From that point of view, this is one of the enactments relating to the Films Act, which is amended. I think that the noble Baroness can only mean that this must have involved something outside the financial resolution of another place.
With respect, is this so? The noble Baroness, who is arguing in effect not on
576
this Bill but on the Bill that came before another place last year, Dr. Kerr's Bill, said that it would need more money in order to implement it. But this Bill does not do that. As the noble Lord, Lord Willis, said, and as I would have said if he had not said it, all this Amendment does is to ensure that a film is offered to the British Film Institute. It does not necessarily involve any more expenditure. It only means that some films, which otherwise would not have been offered to the B.F.I., would be offered. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, knows a good deal more about the workings of the film industry than I do, but I should have thought that if a renter knew that he had to offer a film, he would make perfectly certain that he was in a position to offer the film, otherwise he would not be able to rent it. So that argument completely falls.
We are in some difficulty about this, though I think that perhaps the noble Lord the Leader of the House rather overstressed the difficulty. Everybody wants this Bill, and if one thing is absolutely certain it is that this House would not hold up the Bill if it came back to us again with the Commons disagreeing with the Amendment. All it will do is to give another place the opportunity of looking at the Amendment. It may be that the Amendment is not in exactly the right form. In that case, having got the will of the House, surely the Government ought to discuss with the noble Lords, Lord Willis and Lord Amulree, to see that it is put into proper shape. It may be necessary, for example, to say, "a British film" to get over the difficulty the noble Lord mentioned.
I would say with great respect that the Government have not really made a case for leaving out this clause, although I take the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead. There is still an opportunity to improve this clause, if we leave it in. Is not that the position? I hope that the noble Baroness will not stand on the argument of the appropriate-ness of the Amendment, because obviously it is not ultra vires, and we all know, whether it is a Government or a Private Member's Bill, that Bills give the opportunity to include improvements, whether they were in the original intention of the Bill or are four square within the power of a particular Department. I

577
see the difficulty of the noble Baroness. She is doing her best, but I think she ought to consider the wishes of the House. If she can now give good reasons why we should accept her Amendment and leave out the clause that was inserted on the last stage of the Bill, that is fine. With that, I must leave this matter to the noble Baroness's reply.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, on a point of explanation, may I say that I did not wish to mislead the House, because I am certain that the Long Title is too restricted. If the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, takes a contrary view, your Lordships may wish to consider that, but I would still stand on my point that it is not relevant to the subject matter and may still therefore be ruled out of order.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like to say at once—and I hope that noble Lords sitting on the Benches opposite will not take exception to this— that there has been some little play on the matter of the majority vote. I should not like to put too much emphasis on this point. As we know—perhaps my noble friend Lord Willis will bear me out— there were not many noble Lords sitting in the Chamber at the time we debated this matter on Committee stage. No doubt they were studying the Bill outside in the tea room and therefore understood exactly what we were talking about. But I feel that there is a slight element of hypocrisy if we stress the majority in this case. I put it no higher than that.
If the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, will forgive my saying so, he did make the point in Committee (although I have not the words in front of me now) that he was trying by his Amendment to bring the attention of the Committee to this point and would probably not press it to a Division. He made the point to me several times that he wanted some-thing on the Record. I appreciate this, because it is exactly what I would do if I were sitting where the noble Lord is sitting. In any event, I think that all noble Lords who spoke in Committee— some, like my noble friend Lord Willis, with great knowledge of the industry and some with great emotion, like the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood— took the view that we have now heard with great clarity from my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, that we should
578
have these films for the Archive. I do not think there is any question about this.
This Government have no need to apologise to anyone for the money spent on the Arts. No other Government has spent so much money on the Arts. I can say this without fear of contradiction. I repeated what my right honourable friend said in another place about this. That was intended to be a reassuring factor, which evidently did not work.
I should like to turn to one point which is important. We are discussing a provision to spend public funds. I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, who combs Bills very carefully, make the point that no money would be involved. If a dealer offers to sell a film at cost price, where is money coming from to buy the film?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, it may come from refusing another offer at cost price.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: The noble Lord means that there is the alternative of one for nothing and one at cost price.
LORD DRUMALBYN: It would at least improve the quality of films rented for the Archive, because in this way the B.F. I. would be able to acquire films that they really wanted to retain and could not otherwise acquire.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I would repeat that on this matter the Government are sympathetic, and I think it would be quite wrong if it went out to-day that they are not. The actions of the Government in other connections have shown that they recognise the importance of keeping historical records. I must repeat—and the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, from his distinguished career, will know this far better than I—that one must be guided by the experts on this aspect, and it is wrong to embody in legislation from one Department something which will involve expenditure from another.
I have the feeling that, whatever I say on this matter, some noble Lords will have made up their minds. I am never one who knocks at an open door—per-haps that is not a very good metaphor. What I say is that we shall have on the Record what was said in another place

579
by my right honourable friend the Minister for the Arts when this other Bill which dealt more specifically with this subject was discussed. I feel that what set out in the first place to be a statement of fact to elicit from the Government sympathy has become rather an enshrined principle in the Bill, which has no place in that Bill. May I beg those of your Lordships who view this with an open mind (there must be some noble Lords who do) on this occasion to support the Government, with the assur-
ance that we have the interests of the film archives at heart?
LORD WILLIS: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I wonder whether I may ask her if her appeal about the open mind also applies to those who might support her in the Division Lobby.
4.13 p.m.
On Question: Whether the said Amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships Divided: Contents, 55; Not-Contents, 62.

CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Granville of Eye, L.

Royle, L.

Ardwick, L.

Hankey, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Beswick, L.

Henley, L.

St. Davids, V.

Birk, Bs.

Hilton of Upton, L. [Teller.]

Segal, L.

Boothby, L.

Jacques, L.

Serota, Bs.

Bowles, L. [Teller.]

Kennet, L.

Shackleton, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Brockway, L.

Leatherland, L.

Shepherd, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Sorensen, L.

Chalfont, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Champion, L.

McLeavy, L.

Stonham, L.

Citrine, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Moyle, L.

Walston, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Energlyn, L.

Pargiter, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Fiske, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Popplewell, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Redesdale, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Milverton, L.

Abergavenny, M.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Morrison, L.

Airedale, L.

Falkland, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Albemarle, E.

Faringdon, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gray, L.

Oakshott, L.

Alport, L.

Grenfell, L.

Ogmore, L.

Amherst, E.

Gridley, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Amulree, L. [Teller.]

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Balerno, L.

Guildford, L. Bp.

St. Helens, L.

Barnby, L.

Hanworth, V.

Salisbury, M.

Barrington, V.

Hawke, L.

Sandys, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hayter, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Belstead, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Somers, L.

Bourne, L.

Jessel, L.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Stamp, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Strange of Knokin, Bs

Cowley, E.

Loudoun, C.

Teviot, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Vivian, L.

Cromartie, E.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Wade, L.

Daventry, V.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Willis, L. [Teller.]

Dundee, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

PRICE STABILITY OF IMPORTED PRODUCTS (SPECIFIED COM-MODITIES) (EGGS) ORDER 1970
4.23 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that the Price Stability of Imported Products (Specified Commodities) (Eggs) Order 1970, which was laid before this House on March 6, be approved. When we were debating the Eggs (Guaranteed Prices) Order 1969 about a year ago I stressed the importance of a minimum import price scheme for shell eggs and egg products. This Order pro-vides the foundation for the scheme.
The Order is made under Section 1 of the Agriculture and Horticulture Act 1964. The first step in the procedure is that Ministers must specify by Order the commodities to which they wish to apply minimum import price and levy arrangements. Once such an Order is in operation it is open to Ministers to proceed to the making of two further Orders, setting out respectively the levels of the minimum import prices for the specified commodities and the arrangements for the charging of levies for the purpose of maintaining those price levels. This Order is the first step and specifies the commodities to which minimum import price and levy arrangements may be applied.
The Order is concerned with the group of commodities (I am sure that noble Lords will be intrigued by this) which falls within the Customs tariff heading, "04. 05". Eggs in shell, frozen whole egg, liquid whole egg, dried whole egg and egg yolks are the commodities which fall within this heading. The Order specifies that all these commodities, with one exception, are commodities which the
Ministers may prescribe in minimum import price and levy arrangements. The one exception is egg yolks. This is a specialised product, meeting a comparatively limited demand, and it has been excluded on de minimis grounds. The present Order came into operation on March 7, and the Ministers then made and laid before Parliament the two other Orders to which I have referred.
My Lords, there has already been some discussion in this House on the Government's proposals on future subsidy and marketing arrangements for eggs,
582
and I am sure that noble Lords are familiar with the broad principles of the arrangements. I know that I have no need to explain them to the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, who knows far more about that than I do. Those proposals were directed towards establishing a basically free market for home-produced eggs replacing the British Egg Marketing Board by a more broadly based Eggs Authority. The point that I should like to emphasise is that we regard the system of minimum import prices for shell eggs and egg products as an integral part of the new arrangements for eggs. As we move towards, and into, a basically free market for home-produced eggs, there should be an effective and continuing safeguard for the home producer against the risk of market disruption by excessively low priced imports. The arrangements for which the present Order lays the foundation are being introduced in order to provide this essential safeguard for the home industry. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Price Stability of Imported Products (Specified Commodities) (Eggs) Order 1970, be approved.— (Lord Beswick.)
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for explaining to us the purpose of this Order, and assure him that, despite its complexities, I welcome it? I shall have a comment to make later, in the few words that I have to say, about the procedure in regard to this Order. But on the general principle, as the noble Lord has said, this is part of the Government's policy to move eggs out of the guaranteed price schedule, where they have had a guarantee under the 1947 and 1957 Acts. They have had a guaranteed price for the past twenty years or so, and now they are moved into the free market. This minimum import price machinery is a safeguard to make sure that the home producer has reasonable certainty of the home markets.
One of the major reasons why the Government are making this effort to move the eggs out of the guaranteed price schedule (it is the first time that the commodity has ever been so moved) is the capacity of modern production to expand rapidly, with the result that surplus is continuously overhanging the

583
market. In these circumstances, it obviously is not very good sense to continue with a system of price guarantee costing the taxpayer some £13 million a year. So I accept the change in principle, and I also accept the safeguard which the noble Lord has mentioned.
The risk to the housewife is negligible. Normally, imports do not amount, on average, to more than about 2 per cent. per annum—they are quite marginal. Quite a small increase in that import, say another 2 per cent., could be enough to knock the price structure in this country down even as much as 6d. a dozen, with disaster to all the home producers. It is no more than a fair bargain to the home producers to give them this longstop assurance. I have hesitated a little in saying that it is no more than a fair bargain, because the National Farmers' Union do not think it is a fair bargain at all: they are bitterly opposed to it. Personally, I think it is the right thing to do, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, would like me to say how pleased he is to find the 1964 Act on the Statute Book which enables him to do it, because this must be a great help to him. I am glad that we left it there for him.
May I also say that I particularly welcome the fact that the Government have extended the effects of this Order to egg products as well as shell eggs? This is of basic importance. The Reorganisation Commission did not recommend the inclusion of egg products in the import control, but I am sure that the Government are right to do it, because otherwise an excessive import of egg products could easily undermine the whole market.
The noble Lord referred in passing to two other Orders that are related to this one. There is a point here that this Order on its own really is, I suggest, unintelligible, even to your Lordships. The fact is that there are two other Orders, subject to the negative resolution procedure, which do not normally come before this noble House and which are related to, and need to be read together with, this Affirmative Order. I have been able, with the help of the Printed (Paper Office, to get copies of these Orders from the other place. They set out the schedule of minimum prices which
584
it is proposed to introduce, and also the machinery for prescribing a levy. Of course, they are the pieces of vital machinery that go with the Order that is before your Lordships. Perhaps I might make a suggestion to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, that the Ministry concerned, or the Officers of the House, might see whether there is some way in which these negative Orders, where they are so directly related to an Affirmative Order, can be brought before this House so that we may have the whole picture before us.
There are only two points in these other two Orders to which I should like to refer. I feel that I should be out of order if I went further, and references to them must be impossible for noble Lords to follow without copies before them. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, whether the producers' repre-sentatives—I suppose the National Farmers' Union, and possibly the Egg Marketing Board—have been consulted with regard to the schedule of minimum prices, and, if so, are they satisfied with them? Are they satisfied that they pro-vide a reasonable assurance that we shall not have excessive quantities of imported eggs dumped here?
Secondly, with regard to the schedule in the second Order (Order 359), which sets out the countries that are to be excluded from the effects of the levy, can we be certain that we may not receive from those countries — particularly Holland, which I notice is among them— an excessive quantity of imports, as they will not in practice be subject to the levy? These are two small technical points that I should like to put to the noble Lord, but I do in all seriousness ask him, among the many things he looks after so well in the procedure of the House, if he will consider whether it is possible to find some way of having negative Orders brought along at the same time as Affirmative Orders when they are so closely related. I have much pleasure in welcoming the Orders.
4.33 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I had a little difficulty myself over this negative Order situation, but the fact is, I am informed, that there are so many negative Orders it would be quite impossible to keep a stock of each one of them in

585
the other place. There is a list published (I am open to correction), I think once a fortnight, of negative Orders which are before the House, and it would be possible for the noble Lord to study that list to see what was, as it were, in the pipe-line.
The noble Lord asked me whether I would express some satisfaction for the Act for which he was responsible, or in part for which his Government were responsible. I go out of my way to express complete satisfaction that that Act should be on the Statute Book. But I am bound to tell him that we are now following the precedents which were established by that Act so far as negative Orders were concerned. We are doing no more and no less than was done by his Government in connection, for example, with the arrangement for minimum price Orders for cereals, stemming from the 1964 Act. The noble Lord asked me why certain countries have been excluded from the provisions of these Orders. The reason is that with each of those countries which are excluded from the special levy we have an agreement under which they have under-taken to fulfil obligations with regard to minimum import prices; and we accept that there will be no difficulty in the case of each of those countries listed in one of the negative Orders.
The noble Lord asked whether I thought that the prices set out in the other Order (set out in some detail, as he will find) were adequate. In the opinion of Her Majesty's Government they will be sufficient to fulfil the objective of safeguarding the domestic producer. They are a little above the recent level of prices from most sources. After taking account of on-costs from the ports, and allowing for the discount at which imported eggs must sell in relation to home-produced eggs, the mini-mum import prices are broadly equivalent to a first-hand selling price of 3s. 1d. per dozen. This is the level of the indicated price in the egg guarantee arrangements—that is, the price which should be received by the Board if domestic supplies of eggs are sufficient but not excessive, and imports are at normal level. In any case, of course, the rate of levy can be varied, and varied at quite short notice, should market conditions so warrant.
586
I was also asked by the noble Lord whether the Fanners' Union had agreed this. I understand that they welcome the arrangements in principle, though not unnaturally, and I should say not un-usually, they thought that a higher level should have been set for the minimum prices. As for the trade themselves, they would have preferred a system of quota, but I think the noble Lord will agree with me that in the circumstances that was quite impracticable. For ourselves, as I say, we believe that the prices will be sufficient, but I can assure the noble Lord that my right honourable friend will watch the situation; and if the market conditions did so demand, he would not hesitate to take appropriate action. With that explanation I hope again for agreement to this Order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MINES MANAGEMENT BILL [H.L.]
4.37 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, MINISTRY OF TECHNOLOGY (LORD DELACOURT-SMITH): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. We are dealing in this Bill with a practice which has deep roots in the social and industrial history of this country; that is to say, the practice of imposing personal, statutory duties on individual managers in the mining industry and holding them criminally responsible when things go wrong. This practice is a reminder of the heavy hazards which arose in the mining industry and which compelled the intervention of Parliament. The fundamental purpose of the Bill before your Lordships' House is to bring that practice up to date in statutory terms in the light of current technical and organisational circum-stances.
Over the years the pattern of individual responsibility has been elaborated; the statutory responsibilities of the owner of a mine and his agents and the statutory responsibilities of under-managers, engineers and other officials at a mine have also been spelled out in Acts of Parliament and regulations to ensure that the responsibility of each of these individuals is fully understood. It has indeed long been well established that authority and criminal responsibility are inseparable, both in the practice of the mining

587
industry and in the thinking of those who were in the industry.
I think one may say that, on the whole, this system has worked well. Certainly the safety record of British mines stands comparison with the best and is the envy of most mining countries. The number of men killed and seriously injured has fallen, of course, with the decline in the number of coal mines and the pit population, but perhaps what really matters is that the accident rate worked out on the basis of deaths and serious injuries per 100,000 manshifts has also fallen, particularly during the last seven years. Indeed, the latest figures, not yet published but compiled for the year 1969, indicate a rate of 1·16 per 100,000 manshifts; and this in fact represents the seventh successive annual fall in this figure. And one has to bear in mind that this improvement has been taking place against the enormous increase in mechanisation and the revolution in mining methods which has taken place and which in this sense is causing anxiety in many countries.
Against that background these figures arc encouraging, but we can never be satisfied so long as the winning of minerals exacts the toll of human suffering that it still does. And even now we must remember that in the latest figures, compiled for the year 1969, there were 100 deaths and 712 serious injuries in the industry. But the industry and Her Majesty's Inspectors of Mines are to be congratulated on the degree of progress which has been achieved, notwithstanding the point which I have made. How-ever, it is, of course, our duty to see that the legislation is adapted to keep pace with the changing needs of an industry in which there are currently some 300,000 men employed.
My Lords, when I moved the First Reading of this Bill in your Lordships' House a noble Lord—I think it was the noble Earl, Lord St. Aldwyn—expressed to my noble friend the Leader of the House gratification that this particular piece of legislation was beginning its career in your Lordships' House; and perhaps it is appropriate to recall that a great landmark in the history of the development of safety in the mining industry was the Act of 1850. which like-wise began in your Lordships' House.
588
That was an Act which provided for the appointment of experts to make inspections, both above and below ground, to provide for the notification of all accidents, and for the maintenance of accurate plans of workings. But I think perhaps a more direct ancestor of the present piece of legislation was the Coal Mines Regulation Act of 1887, which began the practice to which I have referred, of treating the manager of the mine as solely and personally responsible for its safe operation.
The Act of 1911 continued this process and worked well so long as the industry was effectively in the hands of working proprietors and small private companies, but by the time the Royal Commission on Safety in Coal Mines, under the chairman-ship of Lord Rockley, reported in 1938 it had become evident that the Act of 1911 was not designed to deal with the large-scale industrial organisations which were then in being. Because of the war, the recommendations of the 1938 Royal Commission were not reflected in legislation until the Mines and Quarries Act of 1954. That Act came into operation in 1957, and by that time, of course, the coal mines had been nationalised for a period of ten years.
Following the comments made by Lord Cooper in a case arising out of the Knockshinnoch disaster in 1950, that "everybody's business was nobody's business", the 1954 Act was a good deal more specific about the allocation of duties than the earlier Act had been. Indeed, that Act placed specific duties on a mine manager, but at the same time strengthened his authority against that of officials superior to him by confirming his position as the captain of the ship and giving him the right to refuse to carry out instructions by an owner or his representative unless they were given to him in writing by a properly qualified person.
In the last ten years the emphasis has been changing again. There are fewer mines, but on average they are nearly twice as big as they were ten years ago, producing nearly half a million tons of coal a year each; and indeed 27 of them produce over a million tons. These are large industrial undertakings, by any standard which one cares to apply. At the same time the National Coal Board

589
organisation has been radically changed —changed from a five-tier structure to a three-tier structure, which has tended to make the individual pit rather than the area or the division the effective centre of mining operations. Also within the pits themselves there have been important changes. Faces are fewer but more highly mechanised; mining methods are more sophisticated and more capital intensive. The rate of advance is much greater—a single face may produce 4,000 tons of coal a day or 21,000 tons in a week, which is more than the output of a large colliery ten years or so ago. The number of high production faces has trebled in the past three years and it has now reached a figure well over 100.
To put the matter in another way, the percentage of output from mechanised faces is three times what it was ten years ago. Eighty per cent. of the coal now mined comes from mechanised faces with powered supports, compared with only 3 per cent. some twelve years ago. The equipment of a modern face costs some £250,000, and for economic working plant must, to an increasing degree, be worked on two or even three shifts a day. Naturally, all these changes have placed greater burdens on the individual mine manager, and in the larger units it is now virtually impossible for him to deal personally and unaided with all the matters for which the Mines and Quarries Acts and the Regulations make him responsible.
High outputs and a rapid rate of face advance create their own safety and management problems, and it follows that provision is needed to permit of adequate supervision by men with the requisite standing and qualifications. The experts in the subject—the National Coal Board mining engineers and Her Majesty's Inspectors of Mines—are convinced that many faces require constant supervision on a shift basis by men who have the qualifications and the authority of an under-manager.
I think it may be said that the 1954 Act solved the problems created by the existence of a hierarchy superior to the manager. The Bill now before your Lordships is designed to deal with the new situation within a colliery. It does so quite simply: first, by recognising that a manager needs assistants to help him
590
to carry out his statutory duties, and that in accordance with the tradition and practice of the industry these assistants them-selves need statutory responsibilities if. they are to be effective in a hierarchy where authority and criminal responsibility go hand in hand. Secondly, the Bill recognises that if an under-manager is to work on a shift basis and so to share the responsibility for the whole or a part of the mine with other managers, he must not be held criminally responsible for contraventions of the Acts that occur when he is not on duty, always of course provided that no act or omission of his, showing its effect after he has gone off duty, caused or contributed to the offence.
I think your Lordships will agree that the Bill contains adequate safeguards for all concerned. The position and responsibilities of the mine manager as captain of the ship are unimpaired; certain statutory duties are expressly reserved to him personally; the qualifications of the manager's assistants are to be prescribed by the Minister, and so on. Instructions to managers' assistants and to under-managers need to be in writing if they are to be effective, and thus the principle is preserved that statutory duties and responsibilities should be clearly allocated. The changes which the Bill seeks to make are designed to meet effectively the need which present circumstances create. They have been asked for by the National Coal Board and by the professional bodies who represent managers in the coal industry. I believe the proposals also have the sup-port of the unions representing those who work in the industry, and I trust that they will commend themselves to your Lord-ships. I beg to move.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Delacourt- Smith.)
4.49 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, for an extremely interesting speech and a very clear exposition of the Bill—a short Bill, but nevertheless an important one in the development of the authority in the mines. The noble Lord has given us a good background to the Bill and I am only sorry that there were not more people here to listen to it. I had rather expected that we might have had a long,

591
if not really relevant, debate on coal-mining in general, but I see that the ranks that tower above the Bishops are rather empty this afternoon, and one can guess the reason—because of the day of the week.
For my part, although I had coal mines in my constituency and at least know what the inside of a mine looks like and feels like, I cannot claim any technical knowledge of mining. To laymen like myself it probably comes as a surprise that legislative authority is necessary to enable persons to be appointed to assist a mine manager. But on reading the Mines and Quarries Act 1954, which I am sure I have not looked at since 1954, but which every miner soon almost comes to know by heart, I realise the immense importance attached to the placing of responsibility on particular individuals, not only the owner and mine manager but every other official. This responsibility reflects in no uncertain manner the ever present risks of mining and the need for a clear-cut system of control and a chain of responsibility in mining. Safety and health are and must always be the dominant considerations. Your Lord-ships will have been very glad indeed to hear the good news of the declining rate in accidents and deaths per 100,000 man shifts. That is a very remarkable improvement over the years, and I am sure that we all very much welcome it.
I think we all recognise, in the light of what the noble Lord has said, the need for this rather rigid framework to enable a mine manager to appoint assistants responsible to himself with special responsibilities. As I understand it, at present under Section 6 of the 1954 Act he can appoint one or more under-managers; and if there are more than 30 employees below ground he must appoint one unless an inspector notifies him that he need not, and he may have to appoint one although there are fewer than 30 employees below ground if an inspector notifies him that he should. The section lays down that the jurisdiction of an under-manager may be limited to part of a mine, but that, except where the appointment of an under-manager is not required by law, every part of the mine must be within the jurisdiction of an under-manager; that is to say, responsibility for different parts or districts of
592
the mine may be divided between different under-managers but each under-manager has responsibility for all operations carried out in the part of the mine assigned to him, and has them, if I understand the section correctly, for 24 hours in the day.
As I understand it, the purpose of Clause 1 is to enable mine managers to appoint a deputy manager with statutory responsibility for all underground operations for 24 hours a day, to whom the under-managers would be responsible. It would also enable mine managers to appoint a chief technical officer or chief engineer to whom the specialist officers, such as mechanical engineers or electrical engineers, appointed under Section 13 of the 1954 Act, would be responsible. The section would allow the Minister to prescribe by regulation appropriate qualifications for holders of such appointments.
This seems a sensible change, bearing in mind, as the noble Lord indicated, the immense growth in mechanisation and in powered support installations. I understand that whereas only 20 per cent. of the National Coal Board output came from mechanised faces in 1958, 93 per cent. came from such faces in 1968– 69. The noble Lord referred to the output from major long-wall mechanised faces with powered support installations and indicated the very remarkable in-crease from 3 per cent. in 1958 to 80 per cent. at the present time. At the same time, the average size of collieries in terms of output has risen substantially, and I have a figure here of 15 per cent. of the collieries producing over half a million tons in 1958, and well over one-third producing over half a million tons in 1968-69. With so much coal to handle the work and the responsibility of the mine managers have been very greatly increased, and it seems reasonable to allow them to appoint assistants responsible to them of the kind envisaged, and I am sure others as well.
As to Clause 2, this will enable under-managers to be appointed with responsibility for particular shifts, as I under-stand it, as well as for particular parts of the mine. At present, I am told, only overmen can be appointed for particular shifts in a particular part of the mine and the under-manager in charge of that part remains responsible for 24

593
hours a day. According to the statistics that the National Coal Board have kindly provided me with, the number of coal faces being worked in 1968–69 on a three-shift basis was no less than 315, whereas in 1958 there were only nine. That is a very remarkable change, and obviously it means that there is a quite unjustifiable burden on under-managers who have to carry that responsibility for the three shifts over 24 hours in the day.
This is not the occasion to have a general debate on coal mining, and I have confined my remarks to the proposals in the Bill and the reasons for them, as I understand them. I believe these proposals will commend themselves to the House as sensible and practical in view of the developments in coal mining that have taken place since the 1954 Act, and I hope that the Bill will have a speedy passage through your Lordships' House.
4.57 p.m.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I had not intended to speak on this Bill, but as both noble Lords have emphasised and indeed confined their remarks to the coal mining industry, I want to ask one or two questions. The geological environment of this country is such that it is quite possible that very large-scale opencast non-ferrous mines could be found in the future. That would call for the shifting of, say, 20 to 30 million tons of earth a year to extract the low grade ore, on the same sort of scale as in America, Africa and other places, and I notice that there is a reference in the Bill to not giving the statutory responsibility to contractors. One of the ways of dealing with a very large-scale open-cast mine— I am not saying that it is the best way, but it is one way—is to sub-contract the actual earth shifting part of the operation to people well skilled in that kind of operation.
While I do not want to press the Minister to-night, I should like to ask if at some time he would say whether this Bill will be appropriate to those conditions, if a very large-scale, low-grade non-ferrous mine were discovered in this country. Because it is a possibility—I am not saying it is a probability—and it seems to me that somebody might want to look again at this aspect of the problem which deals with contractors.
4.59 p.m.
LORD DELACOURT-SMITH: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly reply to the point the noble Lord, Lord Byers, has raised. May I begin by expressing appreciation to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for the contribution which he made and for the welcome he gave to the Bill. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Byers, was also expressing a welcome to the Bill, and I appreciate, too, the point that he has made. The general position is that the intention of the Bill, which is applicable to mines, is to give the Minister power to make regulations. It is to be expected that initially the regulations will in fact be applicable in practice only to mines which are run by the National Coal Board, owned and administered by the National Coal Board, and indeed only to the larger mines within that category. But in form the Bill gives power, in the event of changes in circumstances, for the Minister to make regulations under the Bill which may extend more widely than the category to which we foresee the Bill being initially applied. I think that answers the point which the noble Lord, Lord Byers, had in mind.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EXPLOSIVES (AGE OF PURCHASE) BILL [H.L.]
5.0 p.m.
BARONESS; SEROTA: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is of course the second occasion this week when the subject of fireworks has been before us. On Tuesday, noble Lords will recall, my noble friend Lord St. Davids introduced a Private Member's Bill designed to impose severe restrictions on the sale and the use of fireworks. That Bill failed to receive a Second Reading. When advising the House to decline to give a Second Reading to my noble friend's Bill I reminded your Lordships that I had already introduced a Bill to raise the minimum age for purchasing fireworks from 13 to 16. It is this Bill that is before the House this afternoon.
Under the Exposives Act 1875 as it stands at present, as all noble Lords who

595
participated in the earlier debate this week are aware, it is an offence to sell explosives, including fireworks, to a child appearing to be under the age of 13. The object of this provision in relation to fire-works is clear. It is designed to ensure that young children who cannot reason-ably be expected to be fully aware of the need to handle and let off fireworks with care do not have direct access to them. But despite this provision, as the statistics reveal only too clearly, there are, un-fortunately, more accidents from fire-works occurring to children under the age of 13 each year, during the Guy Fawkes season, than to any other age group.
In 1969, about 1,000 children under the age of 13 were treated in hospital for fireworks injuries—most of them, fortunately, minor injuries; and over 300 children aged 13 to 15 were also injured. It is true that a number of those injuries occurred when families arranged their own private firework parties for which, in most cases, the fireworks were bought by parents and relatives. And on these occasions, presumably, a proper degree of supervision of young children is exercised. Nevertheless, the figures also show that a number of accidents occur to children who have bought fireworks directly. The particular object of this Bill is to protect those children.
I know that, despite the law, a number of children under 13 still in fact go into shops and buy their own fireworks. The reason most frequently given by shopkeepers is that it is extremely difficult —and this is a factor which I think we all appreciate—to decide whether a child who comes into their shop is over 13. I am sure your Lordships will appreciate that there is often a difficulty in judging a person's age merely by his or her appearance. If the age is raised to 16, as proposed in this Bill, we believe that some young children who now manage to deceive shopkeepers as to their age, will be unable to do so; and I believe, there-fore, that the Bill will make a useful contribution towards keeping fireworks out of the hands of young children, and thereby preventing accidents.
During our debate on Tuesday I explained briefly why Her Majesty's Government have decided to propose 16 as
596
the new age limit. There may be some feeling that the new limit should be raised to 18, to keep it in line with the new age of majority. The age for the purchase of firearms and ammunition is 17, and in our view the age for the purchase of fire-works could not reasonably be higher than this. As between 16 and 17 for fire-works, a shopkeeper may, of course, sell tobacco to a person of 16; and at 16 one may ride a motor-cycle, or marry, with parental consent. I do not think that the purchase of fireworks can be said to be more dangerous than those other activities which a young person of 16 is now allowed to undertake.
My Lords, the Bill has the commend-able merit of brevity, and I do not think I need take up your Lordships' time with a lengthy explanation of its two clauses. I submit it to the House today as a simple and straightforward Bill, the aim of which was wholeheartedly supported from all parts of the House in our debate on Tuesday, and with every confidence that it will commend itself to your Lordships. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.— (Baroness Serota.)
5.6 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Baroness will be astonished that I rise to support Her Majesty's Government. I think that they have been right in choosing the age of 16. I should like to say why I think so. What-ever age you choose, some people below that age will creep in because they look older, even if the retailer or shopkeeper does his best not to sell to people under age. With the present age at 13, undoubtedly some 12- and 11-year-olds who look a little older are sold fireworks. In my view, 13 is too young.
There is a certain pressure, which will continue during the passage of this Bill through Parliament and which I hope Her Majesty's Government will resist on practical grounds, to raise the age to 17 or 18. The reason why I think 16 is the better age is that, on the whole, it is easier nowadays to tell a 16-year old from a 13-year old than a 16-year old from an 18-year old. The 16-year old is a working man and is almost grown up. He may not be reliable; but then some of us are not

597
reliable when we are 60. And if a per-son has not begun to be reliable when he is 16, I do not think that, in these modern times, he is going to be much more re-liable when he is 18. When one is 16 one is not really grown up, but one is more or less out in the world. For that reason, I believe the Government have chosen wisely the age of 16. My spies tell me (I was not told this by Her Majesty's Government) that at a recent conference at the Home Office, at which all kinds of people attended—manufacturers, accident prevention organisations and so on—by and large, nobody had a great objection to the age of 16. My remarks about recognising one's age at 16 of course referred to boys. Nobody has ever at-tempted to recognise the age of an 11, a 14 or a 40-year-old girl; but that cannot be helped.
I hope that your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading. There is one small point which perhaps the noble Baroness will consider before a later stage in the Bill: I refer to the wording of Clause 1, which says that the Explosives Act 1875
"prohibits the sale to young children of explosives, including fireworks."
In fact, that Act prohibits the sale to children under the age of 13 of explosives and fireworks. I suggest that we might consider taking out the word "young" when we are dealing with those aged 16. I think that to be called a "young child" at 16 is rather offensive. Perhaps in due course the noble Baroness would look at that point.
5.9 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, the Government can take some solace from the fact that at least two noble Lords on these Benches support them whole-heartedly in this wise Bill. As I declared the other day, I am a Vice-President of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. So far as I know, that Society has raised no objection to this Bill. It is always difficult to determine an age when one is thinking in terms of safety, but as my noble friend has pointed out, at 16 young people are now at work. Then there is always the danger which I pointed out in regard to the Bill introduced by the noble Viscount, Lord St. Davids, of youths who will pass fireworks on to their kid brother, and their kid brother will let them off; and no Government can
598
reasonably be expected to legislate against that.
The only question which it occurs to me to put to the Minister of State is what is the legal situation if a youngster under the age of 16 is caught trying to purchase fireworks or explosives? Presumably the retailer is liable to prosecution, but will the offending child also be liable to prosecution? Because now that the age is to be raised, presumably it can be established that the person buying the fireworks is a more responsible person than he would have been when he was 13. It is just a question here as to whether, in the case of a prosecution, both the seller of the fireworks and the buyer are considered equally guilty. With those comments and with that slight reservation, I warmly welcome the Bill.
5.12 p.m.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, I suppose I must to some extent welcome this Bill. It makes matters a little better, but very little. As your Lordships know, I preferred a much tighter restriction on fireworks. To begin with, I see no mention in this Bill—and I think that there should be a considerable mention—of some method of producing a safety code and getting it into people's hands. There are a great many accidents in the home. As the noble Baroness on the Front Bench has already stated, these firework accidents occur where there is a party which is presumably controlled by an adult. The Bill does absolutely nothing to reduce the number of those accidents, although statistically they are by far the most numerous causes of injury to children, and indeed to grown-ups.
On that line alone I think that the Bill is seriously deficient, and perhaps some way can be found at a later stage to ensure that a safety code is compulsorily sold with all fireworks to the purchasers. There will not be the licence that I was hoping would be necessary for the purchase of fireworks, but at least there would be, if my suggestion is adopted, a safety code packaged with the fireworks and handed to every purchaser. I believe that that would be a great advance, because we know that these parents are fond of their children and would do everything in their power to protect them. The trouble is that frequently they do not know what they ought to do. I have

599
heard case after case of parents, including some of your Lordships, who have had accidents at their fireworks parties because, in spite of taking all the precautions that they knew of, they did not know what precautions they ought to take. If it is possible to get it within the bounds of this Bill, I suggest that such a clause be added.
Apart from that, I think this is a poor little Bill. I am sorry that the Government could not go a great deal further. Aside from the private party, we know that the second greatest cause of accidents is the firework discharged in the street. As everybody knows, and as I said on Tuesday last, all these
accidents in the street are caused by illegal actions, because it is illegal to discharge fireworks in the street. This Bill will take fireworks out of the hands of some of the youngest of the children, and that is an advantage, and for that reason alone I will support the Bill. However, it does not take the fireworks out of the hands of many of the worst offenders. Last year I was going along the Regent's Canal and there was a 10-year-old girl sitting in the boat. A young man tossed his firework over a bridge, it landed in her lap, and she bent down to see what had landed in her lap and it blew up in her face. That young man I happen to know was at that time of an age to purchase fireworks even under the present Government Bill, and it is that sort of person I should like to see prevented from handling any such things.
My Bill on Tuesday died. I am told by some of my noble friends on the Front Bench that their Bill was put down directly because of mine. If that is so, never has such a beautiful mother died giving birth to such a weak little infant. However, there it is. We have got something out of this, and I suppose we must vote for that something and see what we can do about making it better in Committee.
5.16 p.m.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, I agree with all the previous speakers about the raising of the age from 13 to 16. However, that does not go far enough; it does not go to the fundamental principle of how we are going to prevent accidents. In my speech
600
on the other Fireworks Bill I said that fireworks should not be allowed to be bought. I should like to revise that and say that they should not be allowed to be bought by private individuals, what-ever age they are. However, I think there is nothing against a public body, or some other institution, having a fireworks display and obtaining from their local council a licence for the display of fireworks. Therefore I am not urging the entire abolition of fire-works, and I hope the vested interests in the fireworks industry will accept that. But I am against any private individual being allowed to buy fire-works and cause an accident, because all the vested interests are not worth one accident to a child. I will support this Bill, but I shall bring in an Amendment at the Committee stage.
5.18 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, may I thank all noble Lords who have welcomed this Bill, some rather more warmly than others? I have been asked one or two questions to which I shall try to reply, and I will also, of course, take note of all the points that have been raised. I have no doubt that we shall have time to explore them at Committee stage.
The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, asked about the position of children and young people (if I may put it in that way) under the age of 16 purchasing fireworks if this Bill were to pass into law. He asked whether they would be committing an offence, and what the penalties would be. My Lords, the penalties would not be on the child or the young person, but on the shopkeeper who illegally sold the fireworks. Noble Lords may be aware that the maximum fine for this offence under the Explosives Act was raised from £5 to £20 in the Criminal Justice Act 1967.
I am sorry that, in spite of our debate on Tuesday, my noble friend Lord St. Davids still feels that insufficient is done to alert people to the dangers of the use of fireworks. On that occasion several noble Lords referred to the kind of activity which takes place in this field, and I believe I reminded the House of the considerable efforts that are made each year by the Home Office, by local authorities, by firework manufacturers' associations and by the Royal Society for

601
the Prevention of Accidents to ensure that fireworks are safely handled, in accordance with the manufacturers' instructions. Measures are taken against parents allowing their children to handle fireworks except under careful supervision, and there is also information emphasising the need to consider old people in the neighbourhood, and reminding people of the dangers and illegality of home-made fireworks, which can be particularly dangerous.
In asking for a Safety Code my noble friend also asked about the labelling of fireworks. He asked that pamphlets should be produced when fireworks are sold. But, of course, we already have a situation where each box of fireworks sold has a leaflet or a label describing the safety precautions to be observed, and the fireworks themselves carry appropriate warnings. In addition to these special measures, there has been reference to posters, pamphlets, films, television and talks at schools. If my noble friend wishes to pursue this matter, I ask him to tell us in rather more detail at Committee stage just what he has in mind, in addition to all the other precautions which are already taken, and I think rightly, both in advance of the great day for fireworks and also in respect of the sale of fireworks in boxes and individually.
I think those are the main points that have been raised on Second Reading this afternoon. I hope that we shall see this Bill quickly through its various stages, so that we can get it to another place, as we are all anxious to see it made law as soon as possible.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

GOVERNMENT'S "PROGRESSIVE" MOVES
5.23 p.m.
LORD SOMERS LORD SOMERS rose to ask Her Majesty's Government: Whether they are aware that their "progressive" moves are not according to the will of the people or to the advantage of the country. The noble Lord said: My Lords, as I have been told that my Question will be answered by the noble Lord the Leader of the House, I am confident that I shall
602
have a very fair and clear answer, and I can tell the noble Lord that I am perfectly prepared to receive it. During the term of office of Her Majesty's Government we have had a good many Bills and regulations introduced which we have been told were in the cause of progress. The purpose of my Question
to-night is to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the fact that it is quite possible to progress in the wrong direction. Some of these moves have not been in the interests of the majority of the population, and since it is the majority of the population who put the Government into office I feel that the Government should pay some attention to them. I am not sure whether I have all the various items in their chronological order, but if I have not I hope your Lordships will forgive me.
I think it all started with the 24-hour clock. This is no very great evil, but it is an infernal nuisance. I have now become quite adept and it does not take me more than two or three minutes to work out what time my train leaves—or perhaps, in these days of nationalised inefficiency, I should say what time it should leave. But there is no doubt that it is an extreme nuisance, and to have to put all those zeros in places where there might be a figure seems to me rather absurd. Why do we have to say that a train leaves at 09.03 hours, instead of at 9.3? I hardly think that that is a saving of time, or that it makes the position any clearer. The sad thing is that even the railway staff do not seem to understand it, because over the loudspeaker at Victoria Station I have frequently heard a train announced as leaving platform so-and-so at "17 hundred" hours. Well, my Lords, 24 hours I can take, but not 1700. I think that is going a little far.
I now come to the all-figure telephone numbers. These are even more of a nuisance. One can remember names (although even that I sometimes find a little difficult), but to remember only numbers is out of my reach altogether. I find it very difficult to remember that the Whitehall exchange, which was once very familiar to me as WHI, is now 930. In fact, I was once mixed up even over that: I made it 390, which is very easy to do. That change, again, is an infernal nuisance to the average citizen. I believe that when it was introduced it was said

603
that it was to bring us into line with the Continent. It may be very convenient to that handful of businessmen who are constantly making Continental calls, but for the remaining 99 per cent. of the population it is an extreme nuisance.
The next move was the introduction of British Standard Time, which is rather more serious. That is more than a nuisance, and it can be positively dangerous. In the winter, when we may, if we are working, have to drive off before 8 a.m., British Standard Time can be extremely dangerous where roads are concerned. If we have had rain during the previous day and then a hard frost at night, the road the next morning is an unbroken sheet of ice, and not even the white heat of modern technology can melt it.
I have had some figures from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents apropos this change. Apparently, in the winter of 1967–68, before British Standard Time was introduced, from November to February there were 3,795 fatal and serious accidents. During the next winter, after British Standard Time had been introduced, there were during the same period 4,665 accidents—an increase of 870, or approximately 22·9 per cent. That is not a matter to pass over lightly. I sincerely hope that Her Majesty's Government will have serious thoughts about ending this measure, because it is more than the average member of the public can cope with.
We come next to the Concorde. My Lords, the Concorde is a very fine achievement, but its production has wasted an enormous amount of the country's money which might well have been spent on other things. And who will benefit?—a handful of businessmen who presumably find it convenient to reach New York in four hours instead of six, or whatever the figures may be. And what percentage of the population do they represent?
The next progressive move was natural gas, or North Sea gas. This, again, is a marvellous feat of engineering and science, but the trouble is that it was foisted on to the public before the scientists and the engineers had really experimented sufficiently with it to find out
604
whether it was safe. There have already been some extremely serious accidents. I know that in my own area, Epsom, we are threatened with natural gas very shortly. I do not know how soon it is going to come: I only know that when it does come I shall most certainly go over to either electricity or oil. I am not going to run the risk of having my house blown up.
Now we come to the crowning glory of all, my Lords—decimal coinage. I believe that there is actually still time for Her Majesty's Government to retract on this, but I think it highly unlikely that they will, despite the fact that I have not heard a good word for it from anybody to whom I have spoken and that there is a great campaign against it. What good is decimalisation going to do, and who will benefit? So far as tables for conversion to foreign currencies are concerned, it will make no earthly difference, because you must always have a conversion table between any two currencies, even though they are both decimal, because the unit is not of the same value. I cannot see how we are going to benefit from this at all.
Then, of course, we are threatened in the near future with the metrication of weights and measures. This will be the last straw. If it is to come, let the Government be really logical and introduce a 10-month year, a 20-hour day and a 10-day week. Surely that would be possible. It might be necessary to slow down the revolutions of the earth slightly, but I am sure that, with the great advance of modern science, it should be perfectly possible, and the gain in having decimalised time would be enormous.
I have no doubt that before many years have passed we shall see a movement to introduce driving on the right instead of the left, again to bring us into line with other countries. Why? Why do we have to be like everybody else? Does it follow that we are the better for it? Incidentally, the change from left to right will cost an absolute fortune. Every single traffic sign, every traffic light, every road construction will have to be altered, and it will involve an immense amount of time and money. I suggest that during the transitional period, while the changeover is going on, it might not be a bad plan to allow drivers to drive on whichever side they choose. This, of course,

605
would have the great benefit of reducing the number of cars on the road and also of reducing the number of the population, which at present is becoming rather a problem. My Lords, those are my complaints on "progress", and I sincerely hope that we shall soon begin to progress in the right direction.
5.35 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, before I reply I wonder if the noble Lord would inform your Lordships whether his speech is meant seriously. I admit that the last bit was rather light-hearted, but was he serious about the rest of it?
LORD SOMERS: Indeed, my Lords, yes.
LORD SHACKLETON: It is only that I was not quite sure whether to reply at all. I have taken part in a number of odd debates in this House, but this is certainly the oddest of them all. If I have one or two slightly hard things to say to the noble Lord, any wrath I may feel is mitigated by the fact that ho is practically always here; and is a constant and courteous attender of your Lordships' House. For that I have an affection; but I should have had more affection if I had had the slightest idea what this debate was about.
I thought, when the noble Lord talked about "progressive" measures, he was going to refer to a number of social reforms—homosexual reform laws, obscenity and so on—so I collected a lot of material on those matters and satisfied myself that a very large number of them had started in your Lordships' House and had been passed by an over-whelming majority. The noble Lord will not mind if I say to him that he has been somewhat incommunicado lately because either he has been in Malta or his sailing ship, in which no doubt he was returning in preference to one of these modern gadgets, was becalmed in the Bay of Biscay; and it was not until to-day that, with great courtesy, he sup-plied us with a list of the subjects that he was proposing to raise.
I am bound to say—and I hope the noble Lord will accept it—that the recital of a series of personal and subjective views on matters, nearly all of which have already been debated in both Houses of
606
Parliament, can hardly be said to make for an objective debate. I do not complain that he made it into an Unstarred Question, because I appreciate that he has had this subject on the Order Paper for quite a long while and had been unsuccessful in persuading his colleagues to arrange for it to be taken as a regular Motion. But, again, it is a very odd Unstarred Question. I really think, though, that when we debate some-thing in this House we ought to have some idea in advance what it is going to be; and, as I say, were it not for the regard in which he is held, I think others would be saying some rather hard things
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, may I apologise to the noble Lord the Leader of the House? I quite realise the position, and I accept his rebuke. I did in fact tell the Chief Whip's secretary (I think it was last night, or was it this morning? I cannot remember) what I was going to speak about, but as I arrived home only on Tuesday night I was not able to do more.
LORD SHACKLETON: I agree that I did know, and this great wodge of papers which I produced for what I thought was going to be raised in this debate is all wasted. None the less, I have acquired some useful information, including, as I say, the amount of interesting, progressive material of a different kind which your Lordships were responsible for starting.
But I think I am bound to say that in this House we should feel free to debate anything. We should not shrink from either constructive or, occasionally, destructive debates or criticisms of the Government, But at least I think we should have a reasonably clear objective in view, and I repeat that the noble Lord has covered a very wide range of subjects. I was in some slight hesitation as to whether I should answer them at all; but I think that I must make some reference to them.
I am a little surprised that such a distinguished musician as the noble Lord is so frightened of numbers. I always thought that musicians were particularly good at numbers; and I make no offensive point when I say that the noble Lord clearly cannot have been in the Army, the Navy or the Air Force during the Second World War, because if it had taken him three minutes each time to

607
work out the 24-hour clock then I think he would have been in very great danger of not being in time for the battle—unless he had a good N.C.O. to read the 24-hour clock for him. I must say that it is not Her Majesty's Government who are responsible for this progressive move, one which might have come many years ago: it is British Rail; and I must resent his highly partisan remark about a nationalised industry in this matter. I must say that I personally prefer the 24-hour clock. I find it more intelligible and more reliable. Anyone who learned to use it in the war is, I think, accustomed to it.
I do not know, but I think that this ties in a little with the noble Lord's concern about British Standard Time. I feel that he is finding himself disorientated in this more progressive age. I should think, for instance, that he would suffer greatly if he spent a winter in the Arctic. There we set our clocks to the radio programmes, and sometimes to the moon, during the winter night; and some-times according to whether we were hungry or not. Man is fairly adaptable to these things. But British Standard Time was introduced as an experiment; and it was debated and approved in your Lordships' House, after repeated recommendations by a large number of bodies that the experiment should be introduced. We have debated this, and I do not think that we can debate it again to-night. There will be opportunities to do so; the Government are bound to report on this, and there is a proper inquiry. I shall be interested to hear what the citizens generally think of it. I know a great many who welcome it. Of course, accident statistics will need to be taken into account. Although some are available, I should prefer at this stage not to comment on them.
Then we move on to all-figure telephone numbers. This was very fully explained in this House. The truth of the matter is that we are running out of letters that are appropriate. Perhaps the noble Lord does not want subscriber trunk dialling as a universal practice; he may not wish to be able to dial home when he is in Malta. But it is no use relying on letters if we are to dial across Continental boundaries. As I say, this change was explained fully in this House. Obviously the noble Lord was not satisfied, but I am afraid that this is inevitable.
608
What he should be complaining about really is the invention of the telephone. Many noble Lords object to the telephone and I agree that it is regarded as a most baleful instrument. But it has now gone too far. Would that the noble Lord could turn the clock back on this occasion! But I am afraid that we are advancing inevitably toward all-figure telephones. Of course I should say again, on the subject of all-figure telephones, that this is, I realise, all part of the 100 years of Tory and Liberal misrule. But the telephones and British Standard Time, which was welcomed in this House, are subjects that we have debated.
Now we come to the next subject, which I think was the Concorde. We shall not debate it again. That project was started by the Conservative Government. It was started in 1962, and God bless them! —well we do not know whether to bless them or not; although a lot do not —they gave us no option in the agreement but to go on with it. I should not want now to start attacking this highly interesting and technical advance; but it was not part of the progressive moves of this Government.
Then the noble Lord referred to North Sea Gas. I think that really his conflict in this matter is with God, and not with Her Majesty's Government. But the agent of God, the baleful agent of God, was of course again the Tory Government, who introduced the Continental Shelf Bill and a number of other things and under whose red-hot, burning technology, exploration of the North Sea was started; and we saw the example of other forms of gas being used in other countries. I really do not think it is our fault. I am very, very sorry about it, but I hope that it will be all right— although I am interested to hear that the noble Lord would himself be happy to go back to oil lamps. I suggest that he leaves out electricity.
Now we turn to decimal coinage. The noble Lord obviously—I am sure he is a student of Trollope—would have been in trouble with the Duke of Omnium on this matter; he had a great dream on the subject of decimal coinage. I happen to dislike decimal coinage because personally I am a duodecimalist; but un-fortunately I am not able to impose my will. I think that decimal coinage had

609
been discussed at great length and it arose, if I remember rightly, out of a Committee set up by Mr. Selwyn Lloyd. So I think that the Government are exonerated even on this. Let us take some of the credit; but the Tories can have the blame on that one.
Aonther subject, I think, was metrication. Metrication, in one form or another, has been a fact for about a hundred years. I honestly do not think that that subject is one which it would be right to pursue on this occasion. I have a lot of further notes, but I think that the noble Lord's damning attack on the Government falls to the ground. I admit that he did it in a kindly way and urged us in fact to reform ourselves. But what worries me is that the noble Lord is himself a very dangerous radical. I am surprised that during the hundred years of Tory misrule we ever saw abolition of the red flag in front of motor cars. That was a most retrograde step! That stage coaches should give place to the fiery monster of the steam locomotive and then, alas! the disappearance of the steam locomotive and the arrival of the diesel, electricity, and perhaps even the Hovercraft!
I am not sure whether the noble Lord is a Member of the Conservative Party: but I think he ought to go on to the Cross Benches, for he cannot afford, to belong either to the Conservative Party or to the Liberal Party. What wicked things they have done! They abolished patronage. The terrible days of Lord Linoleum are now gone. One can no longer purchase commissions. But the greatest crime of all—and this is really what makes my heart bleed and for which I condemn the Opposition—was the introduction of Life Peers!

NOTTINGHAM CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.