Lords Sitting of 18 February 1971

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

NORTHERN IRELAND REFORM PROGRAMME
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, in view of the prolonged confrontation of force in Ulster, they will take urgent action to deal with the basic causes of discontent, including the practice of discrimination against the minority of the population.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, as I stated in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, yesterday, the Northern Ireland Government have been pursuing a full reform programme aimed at eliminating many of the basic causes of discontent.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. I do not want to repeat yesterday's long exchange but in view of the grave situation may I ask him this question? Is it not now time—I will not say that we began to sit back and consider, but that we began to think afresh and constructively about a political solution of these problems in Northern Ireland?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, that is exactly the purpose of the meeting which the Prime Minister and some of his senior colleagues had with the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland at Chequers over the weekend.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether in the discussions these constructive suggestions may be considered: first, that the Race Relations Act of this country should be
700
extended to Northern Ireland to deal with religious discrimination; and, secondly, that the great majority of those in Northern Ireland who are opposed to violence—Catholic churches, Protestant churches, trade unions, women—should be mobilised to effect their opposition to the present violence?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, as I have said on previous occasions, the Government do not believe that the Race Relations Act should be extended to Northern Ireland, or that it could have any useful part to play. But we can agree with the noble Lord that the influence of the moderates of each of the communities in Northern Ireland is extremely important and must be the bedrock for any solution.
LORD BROCKWAY: Yes, my Lords, but will facilities be given for that expression? The strength of feeling is overwhelming, and if the T.V. and Press media were enabled to give expression to it by the organisation of a great united demonstration, it might have a considerable effect in changing the psychology in Northern Ireland.
LORD WINDLESHAM: Yes, my Lords. But the noble Lord must realise that the Northern Ireland Government and Her Majesty's Government are well aware of these and other considerations and have them in mind all the time.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, will the noble Lord give an assurance that the whole programme of reforms which is being carried out by the Stormont Government continues to have the full support of Her Majesty's Government?
LORD WINDLESHAM: Yes, indeed, my Lords. That is certainly so, and substantial progress has been made in the reform programme, particularly in the fields of housing, local government reform and equal employment opportunities.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, is there not another important factor; that is, the very high percentage of unemployed in Northern Ireland? Can Her Majesty's Government and the Ulster Parliament try their utmost to reduce the number of unemployed?—because with that kind of bad economic background there is a ready breeding ground for

701
emotional outbursts by people who will catch on to anything.
LORD WINDLESHAM: Yes, my Lords, that is certainly so. There is a need to try to introduce new industry to the Province in order to build up the level of employment and reduce the dangers to which the noble Lord has rightly referred.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in the light of that Answer, may I congratulate the Government on having reversed their policy and on the fact that industrial grants will now be available in Northern Ireland?
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, can the noble Lord confirm that the unemployment rate in Northern Ireland is connected with the unemployment rate in this country and that he cannot affect the one without affecting the other?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, that is another and wider question. The noble Viscount ought to put it down for another day.

PERSIAN GULF: BRITISH OIL INTERESTS
3.11 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: 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 provision will be made to safeguard British oil interests in the Persian Gulf following the withdrawal of British Forces from that area.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary is at present studying Sir William Luce's report on his recent discussions with the Rulers and hopes to be in a position to make a Statement on future Gulf policy shortly.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I am obliged for that Answer. May I ask whether the noble Marquess is aware that I am apprised of the fact that Sir William Luce is preparing a report; and
702
obviously we must wait for that Report? But is the noble Marquess aware that, although there appears to be unity established among the sheikhs and the sultans in the Persian Gulf, that is very much a façade? Once we withdraw our forces from the Persian Gulf there may be a recurrence of trouble, because there is a revolutionary disposition among those people. Will that be taken note of?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I naturally cannot anticipate what my right honourable friend's Statement is going to contain, but I will undertake to pass on to him the noble Lord's remarks.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this is a matter which may well need to be considered in the light of our debate on Defence next Wednesday. There is one paragraph in the Defence White Paper which is relevant. Will the noble Marquess ask his right honourable friend whether it will be possible for a Statement to be made before Wednesday, or, if that cannot be done, whether it can be made during the course of the debate?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I will certainly undertake to pass on what the noble Lord has said, although naturally he will not expect me to give any specific undertaking in this matter.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Marquess whether he will also convey to his noble friend the Secretary of State for Defence that, if we have decided not to allow ourselves to be naked East of Suez, we might very well consider whether it is wise to be naked in the Persian Gulf?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I have no doubt that my noble friend has heard what the noble Lord has said.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, can the noble Marquess say either now or next Wednesday, on what grounds the State of Iran is opposed to our continued presence in the Persian Gulf?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I think that your Lordships' will have to await the Statement from my noble friend.

IMMIGRATION: ILLEGAL ENTRANTS
LORD WADE: 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 have any statement to make on the recent allegations of illegal entry into Britain of immigrants travelling via West Germany and other European countries.]
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are in continuous contact with the Governments of the countries concerned, and my right honourable friend is in close touch with the police, who have recently reviewed their arrangements for dealing with illegal immigration.
LORD WADE: My Lords, I am obliged for that information. Is the noble Lord aware that the reports of these activities are unfortunately having an adverse effect on community relations in this country and that many members of our immigrant communities, especially those who are doing valuable work in the field of community relations, would be only too pleased to see this international racket stopped? Secondly, is the noble Lord satisfied that Britain is receiving all possible help from other countries, including European countries, in order to seek out the real culprits who are organising this racket?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I recognise the adverse effect that illegal immigration can have on community relations in this country, and I should like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the personal contribution that the noble Lord, Lord Wade, has made in his capacity as chairman of the Yorkshire Committee for Community Relations. The Government agree that the fear that uncontrolled immigration is taking place on a large scale can lead to apprehension and to a possible deterioration in relations between different communities already established here; and I welcome this Question as an occasion to repeat that the Government are concerned with this issue and are taking every possible step under the present law to detect and apprehend anyone attempting to enter this country illegally.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, can the noble Lord give any indication as to the number of illegal immigrants who have been deported over the past year?
LORD WINDLESHAM: Yes, my Lords: 98 illegal immigrants were detected in Great Britain in 1970, and almost all of those will have been deported. Some are retained in order to give evidence in criminal proceedings. Noble Lords will remember the case of the 40 illegal immigrants who were discovered in a cellar in Bradford last summer. The organisers of this conspiracy to contravene the Commonwealth Immigrants Act were subsequently sentenced to terms of imprisonment ranging from 15 months to 7 years.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what happens when such a person makes an application for insurance registration? What investigation takes place as to whether or not he is entitled to register?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord is referring to National Insurance?
LORD PARGITER: Yes.
LORD WINDLESHAM: I must ask the noble Lord to put down another Question on that subject. I could give him an Answer, but this is a technical subject and I think we should discuss it separately.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a further supplementary? He quoted the figure of 98. What proportion does that figure represent of the number of immigrants who are considered to have entered this country illegally?
LORD WINDLESHAM: There is no way of estimating that figure, my Lords.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord how many of the 98 are actually British citizens?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord is caught in a familiar confusion, I fear, between British subjects and citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
LORD BROCKWAY: I am asking about those who are British citizens with British passports who are British Asians from East Africa.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, none of the 98 to whom I have referred would come in that category.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether there is any truth in the article which appeared in the Press recently to the effect that some Pakistanis illegally entered this country by helicopter at night? Is that an extension of illegal immigration—by air instead of by sea?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I would not be able to comment on any Press report without notice.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if the 98 were all illegal immigrants, as the noble Lord described them, would not 100 per cent. of them be subject to deportation proceedings?
LORD WINDLESHAM: Yes, my Lords. What I said was that I do not have the exact figures, but almost all of the persons concerned will have been deported. I know that there have been one or two instances where illegal immigrants have been required as witnesses—the Bradford case, for example, where I think two were required—in subsequent proceedings against the organisers.

ROAD BUILDING: USE OF WASTE MATERIAL
LORD GARNSWORTHY: 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 when they anticipate the Working Party jointly appointed by the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of Housing and Local Government "to consider what further encouragement can be given to use waste as 'fill' for road building" will report.]
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the Working Party have completed their consultations. They are now considering the form of the report and their recommendations. They hope to complete the task in April, or earlier if possible.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, May I ask the noble Lord whether the report will be made public, so that all those interested in this matter may be
706
fully informed as early as possible as to its contents?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I can give no undertaking that we will publish it in full, but we expect to make public the recommendations of the Working Party.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, does not my noble friend agree that this is a matter of wide interest to all local authorities engaged in land reclamation and plans for derelict land, and that therefore the report ought to be published in full, without any holding back at all?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I will pass on to my right honourable friend the noble Lord's comments, but the recommendations are the important part.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, if the question should arise of levying a rate on each ton of this waste material that is moved, will the Working Party consider the advisability of a total waiver of such a rate since it is a deterrent to the use of the material?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I think that what I said was that the Working Party have completed their consultations and are now drawing up their report. I think the noble Lord should await the announcement of their recommendations.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for what he has said about the publication of the Report, may I ask him to do his best to ensure the earliest possible publication? I would ask him also to recall that when I raised this matter in May of last year the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government agreed that an early report would be an outstanding contribution to the European Conservation Year. That year has gone by. I would ask him to do his utmost to ensure every possible speed.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: Yes, my Lords, the Working Party are conscious of the need to get their report completed as soon as possible.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to do his utmost to encourage the full publication

707
of this report; because there is a growing tendency in all Governments on occasions to regard the public, or representatives of the public, as children who should not see all that is published. We need more publication of more facts. There should be no question of reserving some parts of a report. Would he see that as much as possible, even every word on this occasion is published so that intelligent men and women who run this country—and those who do not run it—may know what is being done?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I cannot give an assurance of that; but I will pass on the noble Lord's words.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord when he comes to publish this report to see that it is "leaked two or three days in advance just as most of the other reports published by this Government have been "leaked"?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I must repeat that we are not giving an assurance of publication but merely expecting to announce the recommendations.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, in paying attention to the manifest desire from all sides of this House that this report be published, as I am sure the Government will do, will the Government also specifically bear in mind that if a report is asked to recommend what can be done to encourage something, and if it says that a, b or c can be done and other people think that e, f or g ought also to be done, it is pointless to conceal the Working Party's reasons for rejecting d, e and f?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: Yes, my Lords. As regards the noble Lord's first statement, if he looks back to May, 1970, he will find that my Answer is almost the same as the one he then gave to my noble friend Lord Inglewood.
The Working Party's terms of reference include
"… to review the scope for increased use of mineral waste for road-fill, taking into account, inter alia, amenity, Government policy on derelict land reclamation and to make recommendations."
This will be done.

POST OFFICE WORKERS' DISPUTE
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have already given Private Notice; namely, To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement on the steps they are proposing to take to settle the postal workers' dispute following the Union's decision to continue the strike?
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn will be answering this Question at a suitable moment after 3.30 p.m.

CORNWALL COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
TEESSIDE CORPORATION (GENERAL POWERS) (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and committed to a Select Committee.

CUMBERLAND RIVER AUTHORITY BILL
3.25 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. First, I should like to thank the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees and the authorities of the House, including the Chief Whip, for kindly arranging for the Second Reading debate of this Bill to take place this afternoon. I should like to apologise to noble Lords who may have been inconvenienced when this Bill was set down for Second Reading on January 26, and when I was not present to move the Bill. I was in the House but out of earshot of the Chamber. A very interesting debate was going on, initiated by the Earl of Cromartie, on sites for caravans. I have to confess that, while noble Lords North of Border were speaking, I made the mistake of underestimating the length of their speeches. I shall not do that again.

709
I must also apologise to the Promoters of the Bill, who may have suffered anxiety for the untoward delay in Parliamentary procedure of the current Bill; because they have had to wait a very long time—from 1969—for this Bill due to one thing or the other. I am sorry to have held it up for another two or three weeks. I should declare an interest in this matter for, as President of the National Association of River Authorities, I naturally have a deep interest in the work and progress of all river authorities.
This Private Bill has already received the approval of the House of Commons. I should record that there were two Petitions lodged against it there; but the Cumberland River Authority satisfactorily met all the points raised and so both were withdrawn. The Bill is before the House to-day with no Petitions set down against it. But, nevertheless, there is a good deal of interest in it for obvious reasons. The proposal in the Bill is to carry out works on Lake Bassenthwaite in order to increase public water supply in the River Derwent which flows out of it. I think it would be true to say that there is no area in the country where public opinion is more sensitive to the proposition for development than the Lake District and, indeed, the National Park within it. But the Cumberland River Authority, who are responsible for the management of rivers and lakes in this area, are very conscious of the exceptional amenity considerations of their area and the absolute need to protect them in any water conservation scheme that they may propose.
With this in mind, the River Authority is providing in this Bill three major safeguards which will, I believe, satisfy your Lordships that the amenities and beauties of this area will be preserved. The first major safeguard is the limit of time in the Bill. The powers in the Bill will end on December 31, 1980. Then the works which are proposed in the Bill will have to be removed. In other words, this is no more than an interim measure to provide additional water over the current decade, and the river authority has in hand plans for a major scheme of development which will provide the extra water needed up to the end of the century. Secondly, the design of the works which are proposed on Lake Bassenthwaite is such that they will be
710
substantially out of sight; indeed, they will be completely out of sight for most of the year. When they are visible they will stand only some six inches above the present natural water level of the lake. Thirdly, there is in the Bill a limitation of the amount of draw-down that there may be on the lake which will be limited to no more than 18 inches below the present minimum level of the lake.
These are substantial safeguards to which I will refer later more fully when dealing with the Bill. The second of these safeguards will ensure that there is little or nothing to be seen interfering with the natural beauty of the scene; and the first of them will ensure that after eight years there will be nothing at all, for it will have to be removed. The third important safeguard is that the rim area of the lake, when there is draw-down, will be minimal in order to avoid interference with the beauty of the lake.
I will turn to the contents of the Bill and deal with them under three heads. The first is the need for increased water supplies; the second is the scheme and its method of operation, and the third the safeguards to which I have referred. As regards the need, as your Lordships will know, under the 1963 Act the river authorities now have the responsibility to act, as it were, as the wholesaler of water, to supply the extra water required by water undertakings in their areas. It is in this context that the Cumberland River Authority is responsible for providing the West Cumberland Water Board and other extractors with the extra supplies they require. In this case they come from the water of the River Derwent.
The forecast of the West Cumberland Water Board of increased demand over this decade is as follows. On the domestic supply the Water Board forecast that demand will overtake the existing supply by 1975, and that by 1981 there will be a deficit of 2 million gallons per annum. Secondly, regarding the industrial supply, the Water Board forecast that demand will overtake the existing supply somewhere about 1973–74; and by 1981 there will be a deficit in the industrial supply of 8 million to 10 million gallons per day. This makes a total prospective deficit by 1981 of 10 million to 12 million gallons a day. This deficit could be higher if the established regional policy

711
is successful in attracting more industry to the area. As noble Lords will know, this area has been designated a special development area, the unemployment rate is high, and certainly no one would want industrialists to be deterred from moving industry there by the possibility of a shortage of water. Thirdly, there is a further consideration of need for an increased water supply; that is, in the fresh water flow through the tidal estuary below Yearl Weir. Now this flow sometimes falls below 15 million gallons a day, which is far too low for amenity fishery and public health interests. Indeed, it is desirable that it should be at least three times as great, if that be possible. So there is no doubt about the need. There is a growing need which will become acute within the next four or five years.
My Lords, let me turn secondly to the scheme. As I have mentioned, the River Derwent flows out of the lower end of Lake Bassenthwaite. In essence, the scheme is to draw on Lake Bassenthwaite at times of low flow in the River Derwent, when there is exceptionally dry weather, in order to make a marginal increase in the natural flow of the river. The increase aimed at is an additional 20 million gallons a day on these occasions of low flow, to meet the forecast increase in demand of 15 million gallons a day for extraction. As some noble Lords will know, Lake Bassenthwaite is a very big lake—it is some four miles long and half a mile wide—so even at a time of maximum extraction the effect on the lake will be very small. The engineering work proposed is the construction of a weir at the lower end of the lake. The height of the weir will be only six inches above the normal minimum level of the lake water and its length will be approximately 70 feet; in other words it will extend across the mouth, where the River Derwent runs out at the lower end of the lake. This should be quite unobtrusive, even when visible, but usually it will be submerged, with the lake water running over the top.
A pumping station is incorporated in the scheme. It is proposed to build it in the spinney on the North bank of the River Derwent, where it can be effectively screened. The method of operation will be to pump water from the lake into
712
the down-stream side of the weir to increase the natural flow of the river in dry periods. The pumping will stop when the lake level has fallen to two feet below the crest of the weir; that is to say, 18 inches below the present natural level of the lake. Pumping will be limited to 55 million gallons per day, which, it is estimated, will provide for the net increase of 20 million gallons a day which I have mentioned. The other 35 million gallons a day is the volume which in a dry period would be flowing out naturally at the lower end of the lake and flowing down the River Derwent.
The scheme of this low weir and pumping system to draw off the water has been designed in order to avoid the alternative, which would be a regulated sluice, to be opened according to the volume of water required to be discharged down the river. Of course, any sluice of that kind would require considerable engineering works on top of the weir and would be extremely unsightly; so the engineers have hit upon this ingenious idea of a pumping scheme which will be out of sight and will draw out the water and discharge it off down the river.
The frequency of operation is obviously vital, and the River Authority forecast that in the eight-year period—that is, until the powers run out at the end of this decade—the lake level will be drawn down the sill of the weir on not more than 120 days during the whole period. They also forecast that the longest consecutive period of operation will be 40 to 50 days. Your Lordships will understand—if I have been successful in describing the picture to you—that during the rest of the time the River Derwent will be flowing over the top of the weir and that the weir will not be seen at all; everything will look the same as it does now. In very simple terms, my Lords, the scheme is to use this great Lake Bassenthwaite to a very limited extent, to a total depth of 24 inches, as a regulated storage system, to be drawn on in exceptionally dry weather in order to supplement the natural flow of the River Derwent.
My Lords, the safeguards, which I have already mentioned briefly are, first, that the River Authority will be limited by the duration of the powers in the Bill to December 31, 1980. In the meantime they

713
are preparing a major scheme to take the place of this one. Secondly, the Bill seeks powers to compensate for damage due to altering the level of the lake; this is dealt with in Clause 27. This compensation will work in two ways. It will be for the benefit of those who are affected by the raised level of the lake, as it will, in future, be six inches deeper than before, necessitating increased land drainage works on surrounding fields; or, alternatively, by the reduced level of the lake, necessitating additions or adaptations to landing stages. In either event, my Lords, the River Authority is taking powers to compensate those affected. Thirdly there is the safeguard to amenity. As I have mentioned, the height of the weir is to be six inches over the natural level of the water, and therefore the periods of maximum draw-down it will be showing to the extent of 24 inches. Fourthly, there is the safeguard to limit the draw-down of the lake to 18 inches below the present level. The River Authority have appointed a landscape consultant who will give the best possible advice to make sure that all these works tone in as well as possible with the natural surroundings.
Finally, my Lords, I should like to say a word of thanks to my noble friend Lord Inglewood for the great pains he has taken to cater for the interests and anxieties of the members of the Bassenthwaite Society who, naturally, are deeply concerned with all this. I can assure him that their views are now well understood, and I can give him the two safeguards, or assurances for which he asked from the River Authority. These are, first, that the River Authority will recognise the interests of agriculture, particularly when the lake is raised above natural levels; and secondly, that local interests, and in particular the Bassenthwaite Society, will be kept informed at regular intervals as to the operation and effects of the scheme, and indeed will be adequately consulted. In conclusion, I think I can say with confidence that the Cumberland River Authority is taking every possible care to design this water conservation to provide the urgently needed extra water in a way which will be acceptable in this very beautiful part of the Lake District. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Nugent of Guildford.)
3.41 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I am grateful to try noble friend Nord Nugent for the outline that he has given us of this Bill, and for his generous assurances, which will be greatly welcomed not only by the people living in the immediate neighbourhood of the lake, but by others farther afield. He has told us about the original features of this Bill: and it really is very original, in addition to being ingenious. It could become the pattern for other Water Bills.
I think I can fairly say that it is not quite as simple as my noble friend represented. It certainly is not just a local issue, not least since it has stimulated correspondence in The Times about the difficulties of small communities with small resources making their representations to Parliament, especially when they cannot afford to brief counsel to appear before a Select Committee. It is not generally known, either, that Bassenthwaite is of international biological interest, and is on the provisional list of sites of scientific interest. It is within the Lake District National Park as the noble Lord mentioned, and the late Lord Birkett, eight years ago in a memorable debate, said that
"the enjoyment of the parks should be for all people in all times."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8/2/62; col. 234.]
And here I should like to pay tribute to the Cumberland River Authority, who have gone to endless lengths to deal with every sort of issue that has been raised. May I say, too, that since this Bill, despite its interest, was never debated in another place, it is right for this House to give a few minutes to its discussion. And I would say here that I know of no one who is wishing either to obstruct or to block this Bill, or put difficulties in the way of West Cumberland's needs.
Water Bills are generally part of a long-term plan. This one happens to be the very opposite: it is a stop-gap. We have been told that it is only for 10 years, and further, that the small works which are to be constructed under powers given in this Bill are actually to be demolished at the end. There is no power under the Bill for the Minister to extend by Order—though there have been local rumours that the Water Resources Board would have liked such a provision to be in the Bill. So, on the face of it, this is a short-term measure to meet short-term

715
needs pending decisions about the longer term. That seems innocent enough.
But if anyone thinks that this is not a first step towards more drastic and permanent control of the lake, he has only to read the book: because the Water Resources Board are on record as favouring as a long-term solution the linking of Bassenthwaite and Thirlmere. That would mean more drastic control and, in fact, different works. Since Bassenthwaite Lake is inside the Lake District National Park it really is important for us to get these first steps right and to see that there is a fair balance between the interests involved. If I may quote the late Lord Birkett again, he referred to the Lake District as:
"so small, so lovely and so vulnerable …"(col. 234).
These words are indeed true.
Here I should like to pay tribute to the chairman of the Cumberland River Authority and to his predecessor, both of whom have taken great pains to explain to the county what they are trying do, and why. My noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford has explained what the Bill attempts to do. It is to regulate the flow of this lake down the River Derwent, so making possible limited additional extraction from the lower reaches. That, I think he will agree, depends a little, not just on theoretical calculations, but on Providence and the rainfall. It could be that these possible abstractions will not be as great as some people may hope. Furthermore, there is going to be a welcome improvement in the flow in the River Derwent.
In achieving this, as my noble friend has said, great efforts have been made to meet the amenity, recreational interests and the fishing interests. There is only one interest which comes less well out of this, and that is the farming interest, which is the basic interest of many of those who live round the lake. They come out of it less well because, however slightly the level of the lake is raised, it must make drainage more difficult. This is what is worrying the Bassenthwaite Lake Society.
This Bill has a certain House of Lords flavour about it, because the whole bed of the lake is owned by my noble friend
716
Lord Egremont. It is a great credit to my noble friend and his family that it has remained so unspoilt, and the atmosphere so peaceful: unchanged, one can say, from the time when it inspired Tennyson to write so many of his lovely passages. I have to declare a personal interest, the same as I declared in another context only a short time ago. I am the owner of a narrow strip of very marginal land along one side, and two waterlogged patches, one at each end—waterlogged now, if they were not forty years ago. There is no great cash interest in this, my Lords: the only modest cash interest is a small boat landing which I have let for some years to my noble friend Lord Egremont.
Many local residents and farmers feet that this scheme, if it had to be, has been pitched at the wrong level. If only the engineer could have pitched it a little lower none of the other interests would have been affected and the possible damage to agriculture could have been avoided. The professional surveyor advising the Bassenthwaite Lake Society, considers that an opportunity has been missed, and that there was no need to start by raising the level of the lake. I should like to make this plea. I cannot see that there is any statutory obligation in the Bill for the River Authority to raise the lake to the limits. Surely by experiment they can see whether they cannot achieve their object at a lesser if not the present level. If successful, this would be welcome.
The Society are interested not just in amenity, as many local societies are, but in sailing, agriculture, and all forms of life around the lake. Their chairman wrote to The Times not long ago explaining the difficulties of a small community in making representations to Parliament, especially when they are, as at present, facing two threats, and this is not the bigger one. I hope it is not intruding on your Lordships' time this afternoon if I make their representations to the House. They had hoped to join others in a Petition, but no-one was prepared to follow them on the agriculture and drainage points alone; and they could not "go it alone". They are not opposed to many of the other features of the Bill, and they will be extremely grateful for the assurances which my noble friend has given to-day. I hope that these assurances will lead to

717
a sympathetic administration and a feeling that farming is at least as important as the fish.
In conclusion, I should like to ask my noble friend Lord Sandford two questions, of which I have given him notice, which are relevant to this issue. The first is why West Cumberland—and that is the area around Workington and Whitehaven—has been passed over as a site for an experimental desalination plant: because all the features would seem to be there. The claims of this area would seem to be stronger than those of the Ipswich area, where I believe a start is being made. I hope this is not just because Cumberland is further away from London; that it is not a case of "out of sight out of mind". There is no mention in the Water Resources Board's Report, Water Resources in the North, of desalination.
The second question refers to Scotland. Although the Water Resources Beard sometimes seems to overlook it, the North of England has a common boundary with Scotland and on the North of the Solway there are considerable water resources, with only limited claims on them. The Board's Report completely overlooks the supplies on the North side of the Solway, which an amateur would think might be piped across the estuary to supply the needs of West Cumberland, the surplus then being fed down into the Manchester supply. This would save us in the future from these claims on the Lake District, one after another. As I represented earlier on, I am sure that this is not the last claim. I believe that the Water Resources Board have done an exercise to see whether some of this water could be used to meet the needs of the North-East of England, but none so far as I know has been done to try to meet the needs of the North-West.
My Lords, I think we should all be grateful to the Bassenthwaite Society for bringing some of these points to our attention. The consequences of the scheme could lead to quite unnecessary damage in the National Park. The Society have performed the same sort of service as the noble Lord, Lord Birkett did when he spoke in this House eight years ago, when Ullswater was threatened, though on an entirely different scale. If the Bassenthwaite Society have been less easily satisfied than some of the others
718
who considered petitioning, I think, my Lords, you would agree that they have also helped towards a better final outcome.

POST OFFICE WORKERS' DISPUTE
3.53 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships' House if I now reply to the Private Notice Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. I will, if I may, reply in the words used in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment. He said:
"Since my Statement yesterday, there have been two developments. First, the Executive of the Union of Postal Workers decided yesterday to continue the strike. Secondly, Mr. Jackson came to see me at his request to report his executive's decision. Mr. Jackson and I also had a long discussion in the course of which we reviewed from every angle the dispute and possible courses of action which might help to resolve it. We mutually agreed that, given the wide gap between the firmly held positions of the two sides, which have already been intensively explored in previous discussions, a further attempt to conciliate at this juncture would regrettably not result in progress towards a settlement and might be damaging. Mr. Jackson also made clear that the Union's refusal to go to arbitration remained unchanged. While, therefore, neither of us saw immediate scope for a useful initiative, we promised to keep in close touch with each other."
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and may I offer to him and to the House my apologies for being absent from my place when the noble Lord rose to reply: I overestimated the time in another place. This reply is, as my noble friend Lord Champion said yesterday, distressing and it is becoming increasingly alarming. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is aware that this strike, apart from causing very deep and bitter hardship to those who are in the dispute, is also causing considerable difficulties within our business community. I wonder whether

719
the noble Lord can confirm that the nationalised Boards will need Government assistance in order to meet their continuing costs as a consequence of the fact that bills are not being paid. If this is so for the nationalised Boards, what is it like for the medium-sized companies that are already in difficulties because of the economic situation?
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, stressed yesterday, as he did on other occasions, that the Union should go to arbitration and that the employers continually press for that. A Court of Inquiry is possible. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and his right honourable friend, will carefully consider over the weekend whether a Court of Inquiry should not be set up as a matter of urgency to see whether there is not a real basis on which both sides can come to an agreement.
I must say to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, that, as a consequence of a decision made yesterday, it will be increasingly difficult to persuade the Union either to go to arbitration or to go to a Court of Inquiry. The Central Electricity workers were very reluctant to go to a Court of Inquiry because they had a suspicion that the Court would be loaded against them. I think I can speak on behalf of all noble Lords in praising and congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Wilberforce, and his colleagues, despite tremendous pressures that were put upon them, in producing a Report that was fair, and was regarded as fair by both employers and workers.
I am bound to ask the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, the reasons for the Government decision, which every newspaper and political commentator regards as a political sacking, over Professor Clegg, the Chairman of the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal. This Tribunal is one of the most important bodies of arbitration in this country. It seeks to bridge the gap between the Government, to whom the Civil Service must have loyalty, and the Government as employers. No reason has been given for the dismissal (I do not believe there can be any other word for it) of Professor Clegg. It is suggested—and I hope that the noble Lord will give us some further information—that Professor Clegg has been sacked because he became a member of the Scamp Tribunal. Was it that,
720
or was it as a result of the Report of the Scamp Inquiry? If it was membership, will the noble Lord tell me whether Professor Clegg had been cautioned, or informed, before he actually took part in that Tribunal? We on this side of the House believe that this dismissal has been due to the Report of the Scamp Inquiry.
Regarding the postal dispute, two points need to be dealt with here. First, if there is to be arbitration, or a Court of Inquiry, how do the Government now intend to reassure the workers, and the employers, that those who are appointed will be free and independent persons, able to make the judgment on the facts that are made available? And, unless the noble Lord can clear the issue and show that this was not a political sacking, can he tell me how he and the Government expect to get men of distinction and impartiality to accept membership of such Boards, which this country so desperately needs?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, as before, one can only agree with the noble Lord that the continuance of this dispute is very depressing, and is causing hardship to those in the dispute and difficulties for everyone—not only business communities—outside. The noble Lord went on to ask whether, over the weekend, the Government would consider appointing a Court of Inquiry; and he asked, "Is a Court of Inquiry possible?" My Lords, of course a Court of Inquiry would be possible, but the question is whether it would be wise at the existing juncture. Only last week we had the Report of a Court of Inquiry, and that Report made strong recommendations on two issues which affected not only the electricity supply dispute but also the Post Office. The first was that it deplored the union's failure to carry out its agreement to go to arbitration, and the second was that it stressed the need for relating pay increases to specific productivity measures. A Court of Inquiry goes into the principles, and we must accept that fundamental principles cannot constantly be inquired into; one cannot constantly go on digging into the same ground. That was a Report which had very widespread acceptance, and, that being so, surely it is for those taking part in the postal inquiry to look very carefully indeed at what the Wilberforce Report said.

721
From that, the noble Lord went on to ask about what he at one time called "the sacking" and then modified to "the dismissal" of Professor Clegg. There is no question of the sacking of the Chairman of the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal. His appointment came to an end, and when an appointment comes to an end then it is time to review it. But I must make plain that everyone recognises the services that Professor Clegg has given in the sphere of industrial relations. But, quite aside from personalities, there are appointments which are incompatible, and the Government have taken the view, and the Civil Service Official Side has taken the view, that the acceptance by Professor Clegg of nomination as the union's representative on the Inquiry into the pay of local authority manual workers disqualified him from being reappointed as Chairman of the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in the particular case of the Scamp Inquiry desperate efforts were made by both employees and employers to find a solution, and they came together, without the assistance of the Government, to have a Court of Inquiry. Because Professor Clegg accepted the invitation to sit on that Court of Inquiry, are we to take it that his impartiality as Chairman of the Civil Service Arbitration Tribunal would be in doubt? Is that what the noble Lord is saying? May I ask the noble Lord to reply to the question I put previously: was Professor Clegg informed of the views which the noble Lord expressed before he participated in that Inquiry? When was the decision taken to sack Professor Clegg?
A NOBLE LORD: He was not sacked.
LORD SHEPHERD: I use the word "sacked" or the word "dismissed", whichever you wish. When was the decision taken?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I do not know whether, before Professor Clegg accepted this nomination, he was consulted in any way. I do not know. But, with all respect, the decision was his. We are here concerned with whether in the future somebody who has accepted nomination as a union's representative should or should not hold office as the independent member of the Civil
722
Service Arbitration Tribunal. Because we know perfectly well that on each side there is a staff nomination and there is a management or official nomination. When the time came to reconsider the appointment, when it was coming to an end, the point was simply whether in the circumstances somebody who had accepted nomination as the union's representative ought to be reappointed. If this had happened the other way round—had it been an Official Side nominee, or, in the case of a dispute in industry, the management side's nominee—then exactly the same objections would have been raised.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, if it is any comfort to the Government, may I say that, were I still the Minister of Economic Affairs, I would have done with Professor Clegg exactly what they have done. A chairman of an arbitration tribunal must conduct himself very carefully and properly and stay out of the arguments of either side. Hugh Clegg is a friend of mine. I would have appointed him and used him in many ways. If I may say so, he made a very great mistake in accepting an ex parte invitation to go on that particular Inquiry and, he having done that, I would not have reappointed him when his period of office ran out.
However, having said that much for the comfort of the Government, may I return to what the original Question was about; namely, the Post Office dispute? Here may I say that the Government, or the Post Office (the Government have ways and means of communicating with them, as we all know), are being extraordinarily obdurate. Some form of arbitration—call it what you will—has to be used. Some faces have to be saved. A number of us here have served for a longer or shorter time in diplomacy, and we know how much faces matter. Whether it is a Court of Inquiry or anything else you like to call it, it is needed. When I heard the noble Lord say that his right honourable friend had met with Mr. Tom Jackson and concluded that the issues were too wide, so that there was no point at this moment in his appointing or inventing a Court of Inquiry, I felt very sad. It is when the two sides—if I may speak as a trade union official—are so far apart that they cannot meet that one needs to invent

723
some place, some bridge, some form, where in fact they jolly well have to get together.
I do not know how much longer we have to endure this dispute. Individuals can surmount it we know. Businesses are finding it quite intolerable and impossible. And it is not merely hurting businesses; it is hurting the nation—I recognise the point of the noble Lord's intervention. I therefore ask your Lordships to ask the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, to say to his right honourable friend: "Please, let us stop it. It is a very, very costly exercise. It is costing people their jobs; it is costing industry their earnings; it is costing the nation all that makes us go. So, whatever you call it, can we not invent some exercise whereby Mr. Ryland and Mr. Jackson in fact have to get together and sort it out?"
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, until the noble Lord came to his final question I was thinking of suggesting to your Lordships that perhaps we were in danger of getting into a debate on this matter, which would be undesirable. As to his final question, we should all like to see this dispute stopped, but one has to bear in mind that it is not in the power of the Secretary of State for Employment to stop this dispute, for reasons I have already given. The noble Lord referred to a Court of Inquiry, but I must say again that there is little in this kind of situation that a Court of Inquiry could do that arbitration could not do. And in thanking the right honourable gentleman—I am sorry; the noble Lord was so recently in the other place—
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, I prefer that title, as a matter of fact.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for what he said on this matter, which I think must carry weight with your Lordships as a whole, may I just beg the noble Lord and his noble friends not to try to make out that this particular incident of Professor Clegg is in any way casting doubt on arbitration or on the independence of people taking part in inquiries of this kind. Indeed, my Lords, this is exactly the opposite; this is a case of Caesar's wife: independent arbitrators must be absolutely above reproach.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, nobody will believe that.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I think this is the lesson to be learned, if there is a lesson at all. But I say again that we ought not to make too much of it. Nobody can expect as of right to be reappointed at the end of his period of three years.
4.12 p.m.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, while I much appreciate the suggestion of the noble Lord that not too much should be made of the dismissal of Professor Clegg, I think the noble Lord will be aware that a tremendous lot will be made of this dismissal in the trade unions and other spheres. However, I do not want to discuss that. I want to refer more to the question of the Post Office. I am astonished that the noble Lord will not accept the difference between arbitration and a Court of Inquiry. Many unions in their conciliation machinery reject completely any question of arbitration, but within their conciliation machinery they make provision for various types of Courts of Inquiry, and invariably a decision so reached is accepted. It would be difficult for the noble Lord, or anyone else, to give any alarming figures where trade unions have not accepted the decision of a Court of Inquiry. At the same time those unions reject completely the question of arbitration, because arbitration ties their hands.
Therefore I hope that the noble Lord will approach his right honourable friend with a view to bringing pressure to bear again upon the Post Office, which I understand is now a separate undertaking, to accept the suggestion of the trade unions that a Court of Inquiry should be held. What is there to be lost by so doing—or did I detect in the noble Lord's words that in the light of the findings of the recent Court of Inquiry it is questioned whether it is wise to do so? I thought the noble Lord used some alarming words. Surely, if we want to settle this type of dispute it is necessary to go into the fullest possible details, clear the air and get back again to the good associations that have always prevailed previously in the Post Office. They have never before had a strike in the Post Office, and it shows how keenly these men feel about the

725
situation. Surely the Government should give a lead in accepting the suggestion of an inquiry as distinct from sitting on the fence and saying, "Arbitration".
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, may I ask the direction of the Deputy Leader of the House? Because I think this proceeding is getting totally out of hand.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, may I ask whether the House has resolved under the appropriate Standing Order that there should be a debate on this question?
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I was going to get to my feet as soon as my noble friend had answered the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell. May I suggest to your Lordships that we are indeed getting into a "mini-debate". After all, we are involved in a Private Notice question and I did not detect a great deal of questioning in some of the speeches that have been made from the other side of the House. I hope your Lordships will agree that we have had already a "mini-debate" on this subject and we should hastily proceed with our Business.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I want to ask a question. I agree that the question of Order was quite appropriate, if I may say so without condescension, because it seemed to me that a debate had emerged and that it was inappropriate in the circumstances. I want to ask the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, whether he would not agree with me that one advantage of the Wilberforce Inquiry was that it established the facts, all of which were not available to the general public or even to the Government itself, and would not an inquiry into the Post Office dispute establish facts that are still not available? Are not the two issues just this? One is that the administrators of the Post Office declare that they cannot afford to pay more without increasing charges. On the other hand, the case of the Union is that the wages of the Post Office workers, generally speaking, are far too low, although of course there are variations.
726
Could not those facts be established at a Court of Inquiry, and would not that be of advantage to the general public, and possibly produce a solution to this problem?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I reply first to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell? He has put the question very clearly indeed on the matter of establishing the facts. All I said was that it might not be wise to have another Inquiry so soon after the previous one until both sides had satisfied themselves that they were complying with the general principles laid down—not the specific matters of fact but the general principles which the Wilberforce Inquiry had established. That is what I was saying. I accept, of course, the difference between an arbitration and an inquiry, but the point is that we have just had a Court of Inquiry which in many respects is relevant to this issue, and secondly, there is in the agreement a provision for arbitration which my right honourable friend and the Post Office still think ought to be carried out.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I rise merely to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that we have perhaps moved into a "mini-debate". However, this is an important subject; it is difficult to deal with it in a strict question and answer form and in the light of the events of the week-end I think we shall have to consider whether we should not come back to it in order to be able to conform to the Rules of the House.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, arising out of the last reply made by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, may I ask him one question? He said that it was too soon to have another Court of Inquiry owing to the recent Report of the Wilberforce Committee, but I am tempted to ask him whether Her Majesty's Government do not realise that there is a desperate need for hurry in this matter and a sense of the greatest urgency, in view of the infinite damage it is doing to the country as a whole.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I said it was too soon simply for the reason that I stated: that the fundamental principles have been established in the Wilberforce Report, and I suggested to your Lordships that they should be followed out now.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, I understand—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord?
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: I understand—
LORD ABERDARE: May I please interrupt?
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: I was up first.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order!
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am very sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I really think we have gone too far now. I hope that he can put his question at a later date, if his noble Leader is going to have a debate on this subject.
LORD GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, I understand the problems that all Deputy Leaders have—I had them myself for a long time. I was only going to say that I do not quite share the reluctance to have a debate, although I do think it should be in an orderly way. It was one of your Lordships who actually produced the one positive contribution in the Post Office dispute, which was the idea of a mediator. Would the Government please reconsider the advice they gave to the acting Chairman of the Post Office in order to use that particular form which Mr. Jackson and the Post Office workers were willing to accept?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, it was the Post Office that declined to accept the idea of appointing a mediator because they felt that the difference between the two sides, and the postures that the two sides had taken up, were not amenable to mediation.

CUMBERLAND RIVER AUTHORITY BILL
4.20 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, if the House is ready to return to Cumberland waters—calmer, I am glad to say all sides are agreed—the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, has referred to the views of the Bassenthwaite Society. I think many
728
noble Lords will know that their Petition against the Bill to the House of Commons was withdrawn only by accident, and it is the wish of this very small Society, which is typical of many, that this House should not pass the Bill without scrutiny. They have not asked the House to reject it or to change it but to scrutinise it.
I have, therefore, been casting around in my mind for what source of scrutiny remains to be done after the very full account given by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, and the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. I have only one worry left, which is that of draw-down. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, or possibly the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, to fill in one or two more details. If I understand it aright, the maximum draw-down will be 2 feet below the top of the weir, which is 18 inches below the normal level of the lake now, and that will happen on 120 days in the next eight years. If that were all, that would be extremely favourable as a good prospect, but this is a lake with very shallow shelving shores and a few inches of draw-down may mean a great many feet of mud exposed horizontally. Could the noble Lord give the House a figure of the number of days in the next eight years when there is going to be one foot draw-down below the top of the weir, or 18 inches, or whatever lesser figure is more convenient? The smaller draw-down will happen on more than 120 days. If it were to happen on very many more, I think it is a matter about which there might be legitimate concern. If the noble Lord is able to give some assurance about the number of days on which the draw-down of 12 inches below the top of the weir will occur in the next eight years, it would be a help.
4.23 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, as a nation we are profligate in the use of water, and I am one of those who long for the day when the nation's needs can be met without eroding our heritage in other respects. However, your Lordships will agree that I should not be drawn about what the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, said about supplies of water from Scotland. One thing the noble Lord did was to suggest that this Bill might be a pattern for future Bills of

729
this nature, and, this being so, I feel justified in taking up your Lordships' time for a minute or two. Although I have only limited knowledge of the Bassenthwaite area and the beautiful country which surrounds it, I do know how dear it is to the people who live thereabouts. For these reasons I welcome the speech of my noble friend Lord Nugent of Guildford, and the obviously genuine attempts which have been and are being made by all concerned to safeguard the interests of everybody.
However, being an angler, and having recent experience of the devastating effects of engineering works in a famous river upon riparian interests and upon the efforts of fishermen and angling associations to conserve stocks of fish—I refer to the Upper Clyde—I am not happy about Clause 33(3) as it stands. In parenthesis, it is worth reminding your Lordships that, as Izaak Walton showed, angling is something more than a mere blood sport; it is a precious anodyne to countless folk; and when the fish are swept away the total cost to anglers—and in present transport conditions this includes anglers from far and wide—cannot be measured in terms of money. One devastating happening may take years to rectify in terms of stocking a river. I therefore find fault with Clause 33(3) because I think the wording is so loose that it virtually loads the dice against the fishing folk.
The clause says:
"The River Authority shall take all necessary steps to secure that any water discharged by them under this section shall be as free as may be reasonably practicable…"
My Lords, the words "as may be reasonably practicable" are so wide that I think the clause should be entirely recast. I suggest something on these lines:
"If it is shown that, otherwise than by act of God or for reasons beyond the River Authority's control, solid polluting offensive or injurious matter arising from their works prove injurious to fish or spawn or to spawning beds or food of fish the Authority shall be guilty of an offence."
Sections 46 and 47 of the Water Act 1945 provide safeguards to the Authority—especially Section 46, though I believe that the penalties set out in Section 47 (which are in terms of pounds as of those days) are so low in the terms of the present value of money as not to be the
730
serious penalties they were when they were fixed in 1945.
There is another matter in my mind, which arises from the fact that the neighbourhood is rich in archæological remains, much of them Roman, as might be expected from somewhere behind the left flank of Hadrian's Wall. There is no law in this country making it obligatory for an undertaker to disclose that remains of archeological interest have been uncovered by his workings; and, incidentally, in this respect this country lags behind other no less civilised places. I am the first to admit that this sort of thing cuts both ways, and that delays which may arise from any cessation of operations may prove enormously expensive to operators. I therefore suggest—and I hope that something of the sort can be introduced—that if some protection is included in the Bill it should also be obligatory upon, say, the Bassenthwaite Society, or in general terms the National Trust or the like, to confer upon any discovery with the undertakers with the absolute minimum of delay.
There is only one other small matter that I wish to mention, and it arises out of a frustrating experience that I had on one Commission, which shall be nameless. I refer now to Clause 34(1)(b), which makes the Authority responsible for referring to the National Coal Board if they wish to carry out any borings. The only point I make—and, as I say, it arises out of my experience—is that borings of this nature can often be avoided altogether if the Authority goes first to the National Coal Board. Almost invariably the Board have a good knowledge, combined with knowledge of the geological survey, of what is there, without the necessity for money being expended and trouble being undertaken by boring, to ascertain the nature of the strata beneath the workings.
4.30 p.m.
LORD BIRKETT: My Lords, I am sad to speak more sourly than those noble Lords who preceded me, but it seems to me that while this Bill may be approved it will not be welcomed, for it represents, be it ever so small, yet another erosion of the Lake District. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, has pointed out that there is a danger to agriculture, to farming. There is a danger that in time the landscape may be altered, may be spoiled, even in a very small manner. To

731
the many councils and societies who are dedicated to the preservation of the Lake District, including the Bassenthwaite Society, it must surely be discouraging to think that, like so many of our most closely guarded national treasures, it is most often broken into.
Nevertheless, some welcome must be given to the assurances built into the Bill and to those given us by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, in introducing it. I think it is particularly important that those assurances were given in your Lordships' House. The term of ten years is set upon this Bill, but we are living in an age when all estimates—and I speak quite unpolitically—are conservative estimates. We are only two months into 1971, but already the melancholy industrial news has shown us an instance of forecasts which in the past were not merely optimistic but euphoric. So it behoves us to beware, as the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, also bade us beware. Those who are the guardians of the Lake District should now set their alarms for ten years' time, and I hope that when the bells go off they will go off in this House as well, so that we may be assured on that occasion that the promises and assurances given to-day and contained in the Bill itself have been faithfully carried out.
It would be foolish in this day and age to object to planning. Planning for the future is obviously an essential, and an absence of planning can cause greater disasters and greater despoiling than anything we have known in the past. Nevertheless, I sometimes wish that planning would get its priorities right. It seems always that the economics and the expediences of the future are worked out first; and expediency always appears to be the main issue. Indeed, the Preamble to the Bill is absolutely peppered with the word "expedient". I feel somehow that it would be nice, just for once, if the future were planned with an equal regard to things like the Lake District, things that we are supposed to hold dear and inviolate but which every day are violated. For instance, this Bill is to cater for an expansion programme not only of towns but of industry. This is not a question of bringing water to a thirsty man; this is bringing water to a place that other people may be imported, made thirsty and then satisfied.
732
That may be good economic planning, but I do not think it is fair upon the environment. There must sometime come a stop. There must come a moment when what is supposed to be inviolate is not violated, and when in fact the country says, "Even if it is economic, even if it is expedient, these things must not happen. This countryside must not be touched. Other ways must be found." Other ways may be expensive, and that will never be popular, even if the inflationary spiral should wind itself to a halt, which I doubt. But if it did an expensive programme would never be popular; yet it may have to come.
To-day is clearly not the day to man the barricades. With Cublington and Wing just ahead of us, I dare say there are better barricades going up. But I think that to-day should not pass without this question of other means being considered. I, too, am disappointed that no mention has yet been made of the results of the desalination programme. That will be expensive. But what could possibly be more expensive, and a more disastrous expense, than the erosion of our land itself—something which surely we must be entitled to regard as the only unchanging comfort in an otherwise sadly changing world.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I say that I should not like him to feel that I was not also in favour of the idea of desalination. The words I used were that I longed for the day when water could be rendered available without eroding our heritage.
LORD BIRKETT: My Lords, I can only say that I share the noble Lord's views absolutely and entirely, and meant no other thing in expressing my own.
4.36 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I should like to add a word or two to what has just been said, and to tell the noble Lord who has just resumed his seat how glad I was to hear his speech. As one who followed his illustrious father on that famous occasion when he successfully defended Ullswater, an even more beautiful lake, I was glad to hear the voice of his son raised in defence of Bassenthwaite, which is certainly a fine and beautiful lake. I am not going to ask your Lordships, any more than he

733
did, to divide against this measure; but I should like to echo something of his disquiet. I am sorry to see that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, is no longer in his place. He is really very much of a charmer, and having listened to his siren speech and heard the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, say that he is not going to oppose the Bill, I find it difficult to take an opposition stance in this regard.
But we must remember that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, is putting the case for the Promoters of this Bill. It may well be that if the Petitions against it had been able to go forward, some of these problems, which are very real problems, might have been pursued. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, raised a question which ought to be properly gone into by a Select Committee. Lord Nugent said that the Petitioners were met, or words to that effect. They were not really. What met them was the fact that their bank balances would not have stood up to going on with their Petitions. The weir is certainly a small one, and the letting down of the water is not enormous, but combined together they might have a serious effect. That is the sort of question which the Select Committee, with expert evidence, could have gone into. These Petitions were not withdrawn because the Petitioners were satisfied. As I said a moment ago, it was because their bank balance would not stand up to the very heavy costs. Some of the amenity societies—and I speak as one who has held official positions in most of them—have been pretty well put out of business as a result of opposing Petitions in your Lordships' House.
There was, I remember, a letter in The Times from the chairman of the Bassenthwaite Defence Society (I am not sure whether that is exactly its name) in August of last year, in which he made it perfectly clear that the society would have liked to go on with their Petition against the Bill but they just could not afford it. That situation arises time after time. The famous instance was the one at Brighton, where a very strong case was taken to a public inquiry. The local defence society spent all their money at that inquiry; and when the matter came to your Lordships' House they just could not prosecute their case
734
before the Select Committee. I remember taking the point (and others of your Lordships supported me in this) that in such cases as those, where the national interests are so much at stake, money ought to be made available in order that the matter can be properly inquired into. Matters should not be allowed to go by default simply because the Promoters' case is put forward and nobody is financially strong enough—because amenity societies are seldom financially substantial—to prevent that case from going by default. Money should be provided in cases of this kind, when national interests of great importance and places of obvious beauty are at stake. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Molson, has a Motion down which may eventually enable us to have a proper debate on this subject. It is a very important one which ought to be cleared up.
If this Cumberland River case had gone before a Select Committee of your Lordships' House, these problems of the drawing down of the water could have been considered. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, is quite right in pointing out that although, as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, said, this is a large lake as lakes go in this country, it is a very shallow one, and a comparatively small drawing down of the water could make wide expanses of mud visible to the public at the very time of the year when they are, there for relaxation and to see the beauties of the countryside. Those of your Lordships who have passed by Thirlmere—which was destroyed by the Manchester Water Committee years before the defence of amenity became even regarded as a decent sort of thing to do in England—after two or three weeks of dry weather, will know what the shores of that lake look like, and that is one with comparatively steep banks compared with those of Bassenthwaite, which is a very shallow lake. These are the sort of points which ought to be gone into on the basis of competent and expert evidence given before the Select Committee. That is why the process in your Lordships' House is such a valuable one, which I hope will be maintained. I am sorry that I cannot bring enthusiasm to hear upon the acceptance of this Bill. The really important matter is that it is not to last more than ten years, and it is on that basis that I am prepared to accept it. If it did not

735
have that clause in it I would have asked your Lordships to divide against it.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, may I start by assuring my noble friend Lord Inglewood that the North of England, Cumberland and the Lake District are never out of our minds for a moment in the Department of the Environment. May I then go on to answer his two questions before turning briefly to a few more general points. He asked me about desalination in Cumberland. I think it is more appropriate to select a site for the desalination experiment in a part of the country where the desalination process, if proved, would also be likely to be used. There is little likelihood of desalination being used in the North, and particularly not in this area, purely on the grounds of cost. Perhaps I make that clear if I say that I understand that the scheme in this Bill will produce water at the cost of roughly one old penny per thousand gallons. The cost of water currently in the Ipswich area is running in the order of 30 to 40 old pennies per thousand gallons, and de-salted water is going to be of the order of something over 50 old pennies per thousand gallons. The object of the experiment, of course, is to see whether it can be quickly and easily reduced below that figure. Quite clearly, this will be a competitive and economic proposition in Ipswich before it is economic and competitive in Cumberland.
The noble Lord then asked me about water supplies from further North. I can say—and my noble friend Lord Nugent may or may not wish to say more—that the Water Resources Board looked into the possibility of supplying the needs of the North of England from Scotland, but they ruled it out on economic grounds again, and especially for Cumberland. Further South in the region there are various other options open to meet the needs of the region, and they are, I think, fully set out in the Water Resources Board's report on Water Resources in the North.
May I now turn to some broader points which I think are worth mentioning in the context of the Second Reading of this Bill, and invite your Lordships' attention
736
to the advances that have been made under our predecessors, and are still being made, in dealing with water problems since the occasion in 1967 in your Lordships' House when, in discussion of the Manchester Water Order, fears were expressed, and assurances given, about future demands for water from the Lake District National Park. As my noble friend Lord Nugent said, this is really the most sensitive area in the whole Kingdom from the point of view of reconciling the growing need for water supplies with the desire to preserve the very best of our countryside for the enjoyment of all.
We have before us to-day a Bill promoted by the Cumberland River Authority, who have the general responsibility for managing and augmenting the water resources of their area. It is supported by the Water Resources Board, a national body, who have considered it in the light of their comprehensive study of the water resources of the North. This in itself is a great improvement, I am sure your Lordships will agree, on the piecemeal promotion by individual water undertakers of Bills drawn up in isolation in response to specific demands.
It is a Bill put before your Lordships in the context of long-term plans for water resources in the whole area; and we can consider it in the knowledge that thought is also being given to the possibility of alternative sources of fresh water supply. Noble Lords will have seen that only yesterday my right honourable friend said in another place that he expects to be able to give his decision very shortly on the Water Resources Board's recommendation that an experimental desalination plant should be established at Ipswich, and a further study be undertaken of the feasibility of fresh water storage in the Wash. What is more, my right honourable friend will also be able to consider the findings of the Central Advisory Water Committee on the future organisation of responsibility for water resources and water supply against the general background of the Government's recently published proposals for the re-organisation of local government.
I would say that in the light of all this, and despite the short-term nature of this particular scheme, I doubt if there ever was a time when more was being attempted to draw up long-term, broad

737
overall plans to ensure that our water resources are properly conserved, and that the best use is made of them, and at the same time to safeguard amenity.
There is a further general point I should like to make, and perhaps in some sense it is an answer to the noble Lord, Lord Birkett. These proposals are an illustration of the fact that there is not always necessarily an irreconcilable conflict between amenity considerations and the need to use the natural resources that are often available in landscapes of great beauty. It is the firm policy of my right honourable friend to encourage the positive use, wherever possible, of lakes and reservoirs for recreational purposes combined with water supply, and to encourage the authorities to permit access to those reservoirs which need not be barred to the public; and Bassenthwaite is no exception to this.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, if I may intervene for a moment, embedded in that sentence was the statement that it was his right honourable friend's policy to encourage the use of lakes for water supply. Can that be what the noble Lord really meant?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, lakes and reservoirs; but I am referring particularly to reservoirs which are, at the moment, or have been in the past, barred for recreational purposes.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, would it be the Secretary of State's policy selectively to prefer to turn a lake into a water supply when, for instance, the alternative would be taking it out of the river?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I have been at some pains in my last few sentences to point out that we are now building up the process—and our predecessors started the process, or carried it on—of seeing that the need to conserve water resources is considered in the broadest possible context, and this includes lakes, rivers, and reservoirs of all sorts. Anyway, thanks to these developments I hope that we can look forward more and more to cases such as this Bill where, instead of people with differing interests clashing head on in their demand for the exclusive use of water, their interests can be reconciled and they can come to share and to enjoy
738
water together. For these reasons, I commend this Bill to your Lordships.
4.50 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, by leave of the House may I briefly reply to the points that were put to me? First, may I thank my noble friend Lord Inglewood for his kind remarks about the Promoters for the efforts they made to meet the points which he and others had put? May I also deal with a major point which he raised concerning the farming interests which would have benefited had it been possible, by some means, to set the scheme six inches lower, thus avoiding the raising of the permanent level of the lake? This possibility was investigated by the consultant engineers but was found to be impracticable and, indeed, objectionable on amenity grounds.
I am sure your Lordships will not wish me to go into much detail, but the real difficulty is that where the River Derwent flows out of the lower end of the lake the bed is very flat for some distance, and in order to lower the level of the lake as a whole it would have been necessary to dredge a considerable length of this river—some 600 yards of it—which would undoubtedly have made a very unsightly feature there. At the same time, it would have considerably affected the Ouse bridge just below the bottom of the lake. It was for those reasons that the engineers considered that the present solution was the best one, and that everything should be done to ameliorate the adverse effect which this might have on the farming interest.
To the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, I would say that I entirely agree with him that one of the major problems of amenity in lakes or reservoirs that are being drawn upon is the mud bank. I am sorry to say that the Promoters do not have precise figures of how many days the draw-down might be either 12 or 18 inches. The figure which I gave, of a possibility of 120 days when the draw-down might be as much as two feet—that is the maximum level at the top of the weir—is on the basis of the kind of drought which we have only two or three times in a century. So that it is pretty good odds against our not having a drought of that severity during the seven or eight years which will remain of

739
the period of operation. The probability is that we shall not see anything like that period of three months draw-down, which would of course be pretty offensive. The probability is that throughout this period the lake will be running some six or eight inches deeper than it has normally and naturally been; and that the draw-down will very rarely expose the mud banks. I have, however, asked the Promoters whether their engineers can give some more precise figures to the noble Lord in answer to his question, and if that can be done from the hydrographs they will certainly be provided.
My noble friend Lord Ferrier asked about Clause 3(3)(a) and the fishery aspect. He was doubtful whether Clause 33 was sufficiently strongly drafted. I think it is in fairly common form. One cannot be very precise in talking about the discharge of water in an area where rainfall goes to as much as 100 inches. All kinds of things happen. There are huge volumes of water coming out from the lake, and large quantities of gravel, mud, stones and all the rest come flowing down. So the clause is drafted in terms of the natural conditions which exist there.
But I can give my noble friend this assurance, that if the chairman of the River Authority, Colonel Liddel, has a fault—and I do not think he has many—it is that if ever he is criticised in the world of river authorities it is because he pays too much attention to fishing. He is, in fact, chairman of the Northern Committee of the Salmon and Trout Association, and chairman of the River Authorities Fisheries Committee. I can assure my noble friend that the fishery aspect will get his very closest attention, and that he is quite satisfied that the works contemplated here will be in no way adverse to the very important and valuable fishery interests which would be of special interest to my noble friend Lord Egremont.
With regard to the point which my noble friend Lord Ferrier raised about archæological remains, I am glad to be able to tell him that it is the common practice, if these are discovered at any time by the river authority, that they are sent to the Carlisle Museum, which is of course in the shadow of Hadrian's Wall
740
and is one of the best museums for Roman remains in the country. My noble friend raised a third point on Clause 34, and asked what consultations there had been with the National Coal Board. I am glad to be able to tell him that Clause 34 was drawn up in consultation with the National Coal Board and that they have been kept fully in the picture. Thus any information which they have has already been shared with the River Authority.
To the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, I should like to say only that I much enjoyed his speech; and it is always of special interest to hear his name in connection with the Lake District. I was much touched by his plea when he was talking about expediency always appearing to be allowed to predominate over the æsthetic. But I am sure he is aware that jobs are concerned here; and although we say that "Man does not live by bread alone", the fact is that man has to have bread to live; and jobs are bread. We have to consider the North-West in this total economic picture. But I am sure that my noble friend Lord Sandford will have listened with attention to that plea, which is uttered by more and more people in this country, and somehow the Government must try to keep the balance between those two vitally important aspects of life.
Let me assure the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, that, although I was outside the House when he spoke. I was able to hear what he was saying while I was trying to gather some information to give my reply. I thank him for his implied compliment, and I have noted his word of caution that we should not buy a pig in a poke. I realise that the Bassenthwaite Society would have liked to put in a Petition, but I think my noble friend Lord Inglewood has very effectively represented their interests, and the Promoters have catered for them so far as possible.
With regard to his wider point, as to whether money should be made available for amenity societies in these cases, which was so well ventilated by Sir John Winfrith—an old friend of mine—in The Times, that is a matter for my noble friend Lord Sandford and I do not doubt that he will be giving careful consideration to it. I very much hope that your Lordships will now be willing to give a Second Reading to this Bill.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I say that I am not altogether happy with his reply to my points on Clause 33(3) and the question of archæological remains? What provoked me to make my suggestions was the suggestion by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, that this might be a pattern for future occasions. I am confident that the greatest care will be taken in regard to archæological remains in this area, but there is no law about it; and if this is to be a pattern for other agreements it might well be considered. Perhaps the noble Lord and I can discuss Clause 33(3) later. I feel that it is worded the wrong way round, although it may be all right in this case, where the chairman is interested in fishing. I agree about acts of God and circumstances over which the authority have no control; and, of course, it is impossible to provide against floods and tempests. But I believe that if the undertaker damages the fishing then it should pay. I do not say that that should necessarily apply in the case of this Bill, but perhaps it should apply to future Bills covering less comprehending areas.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I shall be very pleased to consult with my noble friend afterwards on this point.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

MINERAL WORKINGS (OFFSHORE INSTALLATIONS) BILL [H.L.]
5.0 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is primarily a safety Bill designed for the men who may be employed in the hazardous occupation of offshore exploration and production of minerals. It originates from the regrettable accident to the drilling platform "Sea Gem", which had been drilling for petroleum and collapsed in the North Sea on December 27, 1965, with the loss of 13 lives. A public inquiry was held into this accident, and the Tribunal recommended that for such installations
742
there should be a statutory code of safety and requirements to which drilling installations operating under the control of the United Kingdom should be subject, and which should be enforced by appropriate sanctions and penalties if the code is not kept. Two more drilling installations have been lost in the North Sea since the "Sea Gem" accident, one when on site in a storm and another whilst under tow. Very fortunately, through the courage and endeavours of the men manning the helicopter service, the crews of both these installations were all saved. Nevertheless, my Lords, the dangers continue: 24 such installations out of a world total of about 200 have been lost in the last 14 years, and there have been many other dangerous incidents.
As your Lordships well know, the seas around Britain can be very treacherous indeed. Even in the Southern half of the North Sea, where most of the exploration so far has been taking place, the waves and currents can be quite terrifying. The first drilling platform, which was erected no less than 40 feet above the sea when it started work on Boxing Day, 1964, was within a week being hit by tremendous waves and had to be jacked up higher to get it out of reach of the sea. Conditions in the Northern part of the North Sea, and off the North-West of Scotland, where exploration has yet to begin, are even worse. It is probably true to say that among offshore areas being explored throughout the world the environment of the United Kingdom Continental Shelf is one of the most hazardous. Despite the hazards, there has been very great effort put into the exploration of the offshore oil and gas resources, and we have been benefiting for some time from the large gas discoveries. Now oil has been found, and the activity can be expected to continue for a long time to come. The search may well extend later to other minerals; and we must see that the men, from whose efforts there have been such results, are properly protected. In this I feel sure that we can count on the ready cooperation of the drilling operators, who have always taken a very responsible attitude towards matters of safety.
My Lords, at present, safety instructions are issued under petroleum licences. The arrangement has worked well, but it has its limitations and its disadvantages,

743
not the least of which is that the sole penalty available is withdrawal of the licence for any kind of failure to observe safety conditions. There is need for a properly devised scheme which assures uniformity of standards and about which there can be no misunderstanding as to the intention. There is also need to have appropriate penalties for different levels of infringement. Preliminary consultations which we have had with the licensees lead us to believe that the offshore drilling industry will be receptive to our proposals, and we look forward to working out with them the details of an appropriate statutory code. My Lords, I think that we are the first country in the world to bring forward comprehensive safety legislation on this particular subject. Other countries are equally interested in the safety of these work-people, and our North Sea neighbours will no doubt be watching with interest the progress of this draft legislation. We are sure that all countries will welcome moves to provide for the safety of these activities. Indeed, it may well be that the initiative we are taking will spur others to do the same.
This is one of the very few areas of employment where safety is not yet controlled by Statute. There are enactments, for instance, having as their object the protection of people at work in mines and indeed in factories, in the building industry, in offices and in shops; we have legislation to ensure safety control over ships and over aircraft; and certainly we ought to have it for this hazardous offshore occupation. I am bound to say that this Bill has posed some legal problems, because this is a new and developing industry, and the Government have been particularly anxious to adopt a flexible approach towards the problems of it. There are international implications in so far as many of the people who work on these installations come from other countries. The scheme has needed to be set in the right relationship with other areas of safety control, and we have had to frame the legislation with care so as to get the pattern right and to enable it to fit (as one might so describe it) into the jigsaw of other forms of existing legislation. My Lords, what we have in this Bill is the framework for a comprehensive system of safety control which should contribute materially to
744
the protection of the men working in such hazardous conditions. It deals both with the safety of the installation itself and with that of operations which are carried out on or from the installation, thereby safeguarding the men in a double way.
I will not trouble your Lordships with all the detail, but I will try to restrict my remarks to a few general words of explanation of the Bill as a whole. The safety control will apply to all underwater mineral workings from installations which operate off the coasts of the United Kingdom, including territorial waters and all parts of the United Kingdom Continental Shelf which are designated for exploration of mineral resources under the Continental Shelf Act. Internal waters can also be added if necessary. Your Lordships may be aware that there are four main types of offshore installation in use at the present time for oil and gas exploration and production. Firstly, there are platforms which jack themselves up out of the sea on legs which are put down into the sea bed; then there are platforms which float in the sea on huge pontoons; and then there are drilling ships. These three are all used for exploration work. The fourth type is a fixed platform where the legs are actually inserted into the bed of the sea and then concreted in. This is a fixed and permanent installation which is used for drilling commercial production wells and which is used for the commercial extraction of oil and gas. The Bill will deal with all of these types and any others that may be used in the future for working underwater minerals, but it will leave installations which are directly accessible from land to be dealt with under the mines and quarries or factories legislation. The requirements will be applied to ships only in so far as their mineral working activities are not already covered by shipping legislation. Generally, the aim is to ensure that persons on board are safeguarded at all times, whether the installations are being moved to or from sites or whether they are actually on site and in use.
With regard to the controls themselves, my Lords, all the installations will need to be registered as a preliminary to the three main functions of the control. These are, first, the certification of installations as safe places on which to work;

745
secondly, masters will have to be appointed who will be in charge and who will act as a focal point of responsibility for safety; and thirdly, there will be safety regulations which will govern the procedures employed in offshore mineral activities. If one takes the first of these, detailed requirements will be set for certification of installations as fit for use, and those responsible for their use will have a duty to ensure that the requirements are met. If I may give an analogy, as your Lordships are doubtless aware registered ships may not proceed to sea without first having appropriate certificates. Similarly, the movement of these installations to sites and their use there will be prohibited unless these installations are properly certified.
Here I should mention that we envisage that the functions of surveying installations and issuing certificates could usefully be carried out on behalf of the Government by classification societies—for example, Lloyd's Register of Shipping, who are experts in this field and who already deal with certification of many ships. We have had preliminary discussions with several of these societies, and we shall be developing the detailed proposals in consultation with them.
The supervision of actual safety on board each installation will be the responsibility of a master to be appointed by the installation owner. He will be in sole charge of safety matters in the same way as is the manager of a mine. It will be an onerous task, but he will be given suitable authority, and he will be given powers to enable him to carry out his responsibilities. The owner of the installation is to be joined with the master in the general safety responsibilities, and the concession owner (or licensee of the mineral rights) will also be responsible for making suitable provision for safety matters. All persons on board will have to comply with safety regulations and will have to obey the master's orders. In fact, in matters of safety, an installation master will be placed in a position very similar to that of any merchant navy master. We expect that persons appointed as masters of installations will include qualified master mariners who will act when an installation is floating, and experienced drilling engineers who will act when it is fixed.
746
Activities which are carried on from and around the installations will be the subject of safety health and welfare regulations, on the matters described in the Schedule to the Bill. This list ranges from the protection of the installation against hazards in use to the protection of the individual workman when he is operating equipment. It also covers the powers of inspectors who will be appointed to enforce the requirements, and it covers powers to record accidents, inquiries, registration of deaths, and so forth.
My Lords, in this day and age I do not think there is any intention to put forward legislation which would be in any way oppressive. In fact the intention is that there shall be what might be described as benevolent enforcement, in the sense that it will be generally advisory in nature, and the responsible operator should have nothing to fear. Any persistent and deliberate infringement will, of course, bring down the full force of the law. We expect that there will nearly always be automatic compliance with the standards set in the Bill and regulations. Recourse to the processes of law should, we hope, be infrequent; there should be need to deal in this way only with the worst case of backsliding or of negligence. The latter part of the Bill is occupied with the legal framework within which the scheme of statutory control will operate. It includes, for example, the application of law outside the normal area of national jurisdiction, and provision to ensure that breaches of the duties imposed by the Bill or by regulations which give rise to personal injury will be actionable in the civil courts. The detail of these and other matters belongs to a later stage of our deliberations, but I will gladly give any explanation that may be requested on the various provisions which may arise out of noble Lords' remarks.
My Lords, the aim of this Bill is to fill the gap in present safety legislation and provide a suitable framework for protection, so far as is humanly possible, of the men who, at considerable risk to themselves, are at the moment operating on drilling installations. We hope that the Bill will save life and lessen the dangers they experience. I commend it to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Ferrers.)
5.15 p.m.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, we on this side of the House welcome this Bill. It is a very necessary measure and we are grateful to the noble Earl for his very clear explanation of its purpose and of the way it will work. I have, however, a number of points of (shall I say?) misgiving, and I hope for reassurance on these when the noble Earl rises to his feet at the end of this short debate.
The first misgiving arises over the provisions of Clause 4. The noble Earl at one point likened the master of one of these oil rigs to a mine manager. May I say that a mine manager is not only a highly experienced man but a very highly certificated man. There is no provision whatever in Clause 4 for certification. If I were working on an oil rig—which seems unlikely—or if some of my sons were to do so, I should want to see on board somebody who was certificated, a person familiar with the sea and its hazards. Yet it is quite clear that we may expect the man in charge to be an oil rig expert and not an experienced mariner. The noble Earl said also that he "expected" there would be a master mariner on floating rigs. I should have thought it was not a question of expectation but a question of certainty that a ship which happened to be used as a rig would have a master mariner on it as is the case in all other types of ships.
It may be that at this limited stage of our experience of these matters it is a little early to get involved in certification, so I turn to Clauses 2 and 3, which lay down the various types of regulations that the Minister can make in pursuance of the aims of this Bill. I can find nothing in those clauses which enables him to require certification of masters or other members of the crew, the only reference being under Clause 2(2)(g) which refers to "other incidental matters". I cannot imagine that the certification of a master or other members of the crew would come under the heading of "incidental matters". I hope for reassurance on that point.
I turn now to Clause 10, and in particular to subsection (2). There may be an omission here. This clause sets out the conditions to be met before proceedings under the Bill can be taken in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. It makes no mention of Scotland. The assumption is
748
that anybody can take proceedings under this Bill: there is no limitation. It may be that the universally acknowledged superiority of Scottish law has already provided Statutes which govern such points, but I am ignorant of them and I should be happy to be reassured. The third point concerns radio contact with the shore. It may be that I am ignorant of the provisions of other Statutes in this respect, but I should assume the absolute necessity for regulations to exist somewhere that no rig may go to sea without having proper radio contact with the shore. Yet I have searched the Bill and can find no reference to this. I hope that I may also be assured on this point.
May I choose this opportunity to make a more general point which applies to this Bill? Every time I see a Bill with penalty provisions, the thought occurs to me that one day we in Parliament, facing up to the idea that inflation is a very serious matter nowadays, should incorporate in a Bill which involves monetary penalties—or even rewards—a clause gearing up the penalties—or the rewards—in accordance with some index like the national wages index. These penalties all get outdated as time moves on. If we could have automatic adjustment of these, I think it would be beneficial. I shall not ask the noble Lord to reply to that point, and merely take this opportunity of putting it forward.
5.20 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Brown, for his comments on the Bill. He said that he was not inviting me to comment on his last remark, but I cannot refrain from doing so. I think it is certainly a novel suggestion, but if the Government inserted such a provision into this modest Bill it might cause the most fearful political turmoil. However much the noble Lord may feel that what he advocated is desirable, I hope that he will not try to move any Amendment along those lines and that we may achieve what I know is the desire of noble Lords opposite as well as the Government; to see that the safety provisions are put on the Statute Book.
The noble Lord mentioned one or two points about which he was concerned and the first was the fact that masters of installations are not to be certificated.

749
The noble Lord is perfectly right. It is not the intention to give a master of an installation a certificate saying, "You are a master, having gained various qualifications." The reason for this will be appreciated by the noble Lord. This is a growing and developing industry; drilling in the sea has been taking place only over the last 10 or 15 years. We consider that it would be undesirable to specify requirements under which a master would be granted a certificate. It is intended that a person should be designated as a master and be responsible for safety, health and welfare on the installation. When the installation is moving, the requirements of a master will be totally different from when it is fixed and drilling is being carried out. This is the reason why it is considered desirable to leave this matter fairly flexible. The Tribunal which, the noble Lord will remember, was set up to discover why "Sea Gem" collapsed, stated:
"It would not be necessary for the 'master' to be an expert in the engineering and mechanical aspects of his charge. It would only be necessary for him to be a mature and responsible person trained to have a wholesome respect of the sea and knowing what to look for in carrying out his task of keeping everybody up to scratch."
The people who operate these drilling rigs, my Lords, are intensely conscious that the rigs should not be subjected to unnecessary hazards. I think the noble Lord has the same feelings as we have on the subject, but the fact is that a master is not to be given a specific certificate of competence. He will, however, be placed in a position of authority to enable him to be in charge of his rig.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, before the noble Earl leaves that point, may I say that the choice of these men will lie upon the owners. The Government—the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, or whoever it may be—will have no jurisdiction over who shall take charge of these installations. There is no certificate; we are relying totally on owners who could make a mistake and put someone in charge who had no knowledge of the sea at all. I think that is a point which ought to receive a little more consideration.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I do not want to get involved in what might be described as a Committee point. I think the problem is over the understanding of the meaning of the word "master". Under this Bill it is intended that one person should be given the authority to ensure that regulations under which owners can use the installations are carried out. He will see that these regulations are enforced. However, the noble Lord has put the point, and it may be that he will wish to refer to it again later.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brown, was worried that this Bill referred only to England and Wales and not to Scotland. He is right in thinking that Scotland has a very curious set of laws. One would hesitate to comment on them, but perhaps I may put it in layman's language which the noble Lord will accept in the spirit in which it is intended. Many of the people who work on rigs are foreign nationals, but they will be subject to the regulations which this Bill seeks to put forward while they drill on the British Continental Shelf. If a crime is committed on an installation in United Kingdom waters, the facts would have to come before the Director of Public Prosecutions, or the Secretary of State, before proceedings could be instituted against the person concerned, because of the complexities of international law. In Scotland before proceedings can be instituted automatically the matter has to go to the Lord Advocate; and that is the reason why Scotland is not included in the Bill.
The noble Lord also was worried about the fact that there was no provision in the Bill for radio contact between the installation and the shore. That point is covered in paragraph 4(1) of the Schedule which states that provisions may be included in regulations for all forms of safety equipment and facilities. The need to have suitable radio contact would be covered by that paragraph. I do not know whether what I have said satisfies the noble Lord, but I hope that it has provided him with answers to the questions which he rightly raised.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

MERCHANT SHIPPING (OIL POLLUTION) BILL [H.L.]
5.27 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 2 [Exception from liability under Section 1]:
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 26, at end insert ("or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I will, with permission, speak to Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 together. These are similar to the two Amendments which I moved on Committee stage. They differ from the former Amendments in that insurrection does not come in this time. The Bill lays a liability on tanker owners to pay for the pollution which may be caused by accident or wreck. It provides for certain exemptions from that liability; and on the last occasion I moved an Amendment to limit the exemptions, or, in other words, to extend the liability. I proposed that insurrection and what we may briefly call "an act of God" should be excluded from the exemptions; in other words, the tanker owner should be liable in those events. This time I am being merciful in my proposals, and allowing insurrection to remain an exemption from liability.
These two Amendments, then, would say that the shipowner is liable not only in ordinary circumstances but also if there is
"an exceptional, inevitable and irresistable natural phenomenon …"
I take it that this is international language for an act of God. What it means is a violent storm. It is my contention that the owners of mammoth tankers should not be exempt from liability when they ruin our coastline simply because there has been an exceptional storm. I contend that in that event they should be liable, as they are in other events. I do not believe that the insurance markets of the world, especially the London insurance market, would be incapable of covering them for that. I believe that if
752
the owners were so liable—that is, liable for accidents even in heavy weather around the coast of Britain—the increased premium brought about thereby would be very small indeed and would make precious little difference. They ought to cover themselves for that, and ought to be liable.
At the Committee stage I asked the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, if he could let us know at a later stage what was the situation in other Convention countries, and I mentioned specifically the United States and Canada. I appreciate that my Amendment goes beyond the Convention. The Convention liability is limited in the way that it appears in the Bill. I think that it should be unlimited in this country, because we are a country which imports a lot of oil and we have a crowded coastline. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he can now tell us anything about the situation in other Convention countries, especially America and Canada. If he is unable to tell us that they have no intention of dispensing with the act of God intention there, then I think that would be a pretty strong reason for Parliament in this country to go ahead and make shipowners liable, even though it goes beyond the Convention. I beg to move.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, we, as inhabitants of this Island with its long shoreline, have a strong interest in seeing that damage for oil pollution is recoverable wherever possible. This clause gives a series of exemptions. I think it would be quite unreasonable to expect to recover damages where the matter was uncoverable by insurance. The Bill makes great play of insurance further on. I hope that my noble friend can satisfy me either that the insurance market is incapable of covering or is unwilling to cover any of these particular risks (I do not confine myself to (a), but think that (b) and (c) in some respects should be covered), or alternatively that he is pre-prepared to examine it with the insurance interests before the next stage of the Bill.
We are all in this together, and it is only a question of practicability. If we can get any of these things insured against at a premium that is not utterly unreasonable, it is obviously greatly to the advantage of all the inhabitants of this country to do so. The net result would be that they might have to pay a tiny

753
fraction more for their oil, but in the event of one of these disasters ocurring the places affected would be able to recover damages.
5.33 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, in moving this Amendment, the noble Lord has dealt with two Amendments: first of all, the extent to which this particular exception is justifiable on its own merits; and secondly, what happens in other countries. I will try to deal as best as I can with those two points. I really cannot say much more than I said before, but I hope that I may be able to say it a little more persuasively this time so as to carry the noble Lord with me.
As the noble Lord said, the words, "exceptional, inevitable and irresistible natural phenomenom" as a reason for the shipowner escaping from the liabilities in Clause 1 are similar to the defence known as "act of God" in English Law. But, as I said on the last occasion, the meaning of "act of God" has never been clearly established, and it is difficult to translate into other languages and systems of law. The exception is intended to be both clearer and rather more limited: for example, it could hardly apply to a storm of a force normally found in this country, although technically it might be an act of God. I should not have thought that a violent storm and a storm of exceptional violence are necessarily equivalent to an exceptional phenomenon. It seems to me unlikely that, in the case of a storm in the climate of Western Europe, this particular defence will ever be available. It is always, to some extent, true that any exception to strict liability will import some degree of uncertainty in determining whether individual cases come within its scope. But I do not think the exception in this case is unreasonable. What is much more important, I think, is that the conference decided that both the substance and the wording were right and proper in the circumstances.
I do not know whether I made it quite clear in Committee, but before the defence can operate the natural phenomenon in question must satisfy all the criteria mentioned, whether or not one regards one as more important than another. It must be exceptional. We have plenty of storms around our shores, but we do not have tornadoes; and a tornado might be
754
exceptional if it happened here. On the other hand, other parts of the world do have tornadoes, and there they are not exceptional. But this would be a matter for the individual courts to decide, according to the various circumstances, and it would not affect our shores.
Then, it must be inevitable (which my dictionary says means "unavoidable") and it must be irresistible. The effect of being inevitable and irresistible is that it must be such that normal precautions could not have coped with it. The inclusion of this exception, I think I should explain, was part of a compromise agreed at the l3russels Conference in 1969 between those who, like the United Kingdom, preferred liability on the basis of fault and those who favoured strict liability. The form of liability is a central feature of the Convention, and must emphasise that, according to my advice, it would not be possible for the United Kingdom to ratify the Convention if this Amendment were agreed to.
Apart from this consideration, the purpose of the Convention is to unify law internationally in this field. If each country enacted just so much of the Convention as they felt suited them, this purpose would be completely frustrated. I think I should add to that an illustration of the practical difficulties which would arise if the Convention were ratified by various countries with reservations: for example, if we ratified with the reservation of the exclusion of this particular paragraph, even if such a course were possible in international law, which in this particular case I should doubt, because, as I said before, this is a matter so central to the Convention and to the legislation.
The Convention provides for the mutual enforcement by judges of oil pollution damage covered by it—and When I say "mutual enforcement", I mean enforcement in another country for judgment in this country. If a claimant in the United Kingdom obtained a judgment for damages in a case coming within one of the exceptions of the Convention to which we had not given effect, and then tried to enforce that judgment in a Convention country which had given full effect to the Convention, the courts of that country would be faced with the alternatives of enforcing a judgment for a claim which would not be recognised in that

755
country, or of deciding the issue whether or not the case came within the exception, and consequently whether the judgment should be enforced. The latter would obviously be highly inconvenient.
In the same way, other countries might make reservations from the Convention with which we did not agree, and our courts might be faced with a similar difficulty. If there were a multitude of different reservations the whole point of the Convention as an instrument for the unification of the law on this subject would be gone. That is a strong case for sticking to the Convention unless there are the strongest reasons for departing from it. In that case we should either have to make a reservation, or should not be able to ratify the Convention. The main purpose of this legislation is to enable us to ratify the Convention as soon as possible.
I do not want to detain the House too long, but as the noble Lord has asked me about the legislation in the United States and Canada, perhaps he would like me to make some observations on it. It was last year that the Water Quality Improvement Act—a Federal Statute—was passed into law in the United States of America. This is on similar lines, but does not follow precisely the Convention. It provides for strict liability on the owner or operator of any ship—not merely a tanker. The liability is for Federal Government expenditure on clean-up of oil, but not for other claims. It contains exemptions from strict liability which are rather wider than those in the Convention; in particular, any act or omission of a third party is a defence. Provision is made for limitation of liability: the figure per ton, 100 dollars, is lower than that in the Convention, but the overall limit is about the same. Proof of financial responsibility for this liability is required of any ship in United States waters.
In addition to the Federal legislation, there are several States which, under their own legislation go beyond the Convention in the sense that they are stricter. Several of the provisions of the Federal Act are also quite incompatible with the Convention, and all those inconsistencies would have to be eliminated before the United States could ratify the Convention. Federal legislation enabling the
756
United States to ratify the Convention would override the State's legislation where they were in conflict.
In Canada there is a Bill before Parliament which has had its Second Reading and is currently being considered by the Commons Committee on Environmental Pollution. The provisions of this Bill, as at present drafted, include virtually absolute liability on the shipowner, either on his own or jointly with the cargo owner. This is absolute liability for damages and clean-up costs resulting from the discharge of any polluting substance. The only exclusion is contributory negligence on the part of the claimant. In the absence of fault or negligence on the part of the person liable, the same limits of liability are to apply as in the Convention. Provision is also made for evidence of financial responsibility and for an additional claims fund financed by levy on imports. It follows that in some respects—particularly in not permitting the exclusions contemplated by the Convention—the Bill is incompatible with it.
The noble Lord particularly asked in Committee whether anything in American or Canadian legislation might be held to affect the levels of liability later on, and I think he included this matter in the point he made this time. As I have mentioned, the limits of liability are the same in both countries, or slightly lower than those in the Convention, and so could not be taken as a precedent for an increase in shipowners' liability in the future. This is relevant to the clause we are coming to discuss.
Your Lordships will appreciate from the differences appearing in the legislation of these countries that obtaining uniformity in this field is far from easy. Our policy is to proceed by multilateral agreement whenever and wherever possible, and strict adherence to the principles in the Convention is of importance if any degree of uniformity is to be obtained. Furthermore, it would be quite impossible for each State to pass legislation giving effect to its individual ideas on the form that legislation in this field should take and then to ratify, or purport to ratify, the Convention.
My Lords, whether or not the particular wording here, and the particular exception, commends itself to the House, I feel

757
that we are in this difficulty: that if we want to ratify the Convention we would have to accept this wording. I consider that this exception is quite reasonable in the circumstances.
5.45 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, there is one point in what the noble Lord said which is of so much greater importance than ail the others that I should like to press him for a moment upon it, because if the House were to feel that this point overrode everything else and was sufficient, it would be a waste of time to go into any of the other points. It was that his advice had been—and I assume this is advice from the Foreign Office lawyers—that it would not be possible for this country to ratify the Convention if my Amendment were agreed to. That is a very clear statement. It is that no country which wishes to ratify and belong to this Convention may in any smallest respect impose more extensive liabilities than any other country on owners of tankers which have polluted its shores.
I should like the noble Lord to tell us precisely why it is impossible to ratify, and yet to make owners of tankers which pollute the shores of Britain liable, even if there has been an exceptional storm, while taking up no position as to their liability in that eventuality when they pollute the shores of other countries.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I must confess that I do not quite understand the last sentence of the noble Lord. The whole point of the legislation is to ensure that the shores of all Convention countries will be protected under this legislation, if they all pass similar legislation. It applies only to Convention countries; it does not apply to all countries. So far as those signing the Convention are concerned, if they accept the Convention as a whole, then the liability will be placed on the shipowner, with recourse to the insurers, up to the limits in question, and it will be possible for anyone who suffers damage as a result—whether in this country or in another country, or both, if the same occurrence harms both—to recover under the Bill and under their own legislation damages up to the limits specified in the Bill. I hope that is clear—it is rather an involved sentence.
LORD KENNET: I think the noble Lord has made it clear. I do not regard that—I am an amateur; I speak in all humility—and I do not think the House should regard that as a sufficient reason for accepting that this country cannot ratify the Convention if this Amendment is agreed to. I may be sticking my neck out; I may be being foolish, but I simply do not follow this. Let us see what would happen if we pass this Amendment. There is, let us say, a tanker wreck in mid-Channel. Britain and France are both Convention countries, and are both polluted—I give a hypothetical example. A suit is brought in both British and French courts. We have the Amendment, and on the day of the wreck there happened to be exceptionally rough weather. The tanker owner says, in both British and French courts, that conditions were very rough; it was exceptional, inevitable, irresistible, and all the rest of it.
The British court says that that does not matter a bit and that the owner is liable for the damage he did to Britain, because he had no exemption for acts of God. The French court says that they should go into the question of whether or not this storm was truly irresistible, inevitable, et cetera. Let us say that the French court decides that it was. The tanker owner is, therefore, liable for the pollution he caused to the coast of Britain, but not liable for the pollution he caused to the coast of France. My question to the noble Lord in that case is: supposing that is the result in the English and French courts, what infraction of the terms of the Convention, if any, has been committed by Great Britain?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the position, as I understand it, is this. If the shores of the two countries were both affected, then the owner, in order to limit his liability, would deposit his surety, or whatever it was, or pay the money into court, up to the extent of his liability under the Bill. He would choose, I suppose—I do not know—in which of the two countries he would make that deposit. In that country, and in that country only, the proceedings would take place. Arrangements are made between the two courts to see that anybody who makes a claim in this country would have his claim included

759
with the claims made in France, so that it would be the particular case that would be judged as to whether or not the inclusion applied, and it would be judged only once.
It is just possible—let us face it—that a case which was settled in one way in France might have been settled in another way in this country. But it is equally possible that a case settled by one judge in this country might have been settled differently by another judge in this country. I am afraid that that is all part of the law.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, could the noble Lord explain whether it is in the Bill, or is it part of the Convention, that the courts of the two countries agree to follow one another?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I did not say that the two countries agree to follow one another. What I am saying is that the distribution among the claimants is decided in one court. It is for the court in the country in which the money is deposited to decide whether, in the circumstances, there is a liability under Clause 1, and whether the owner is entitled to limit his liability because, chiefly, there was no fault or privity on his part.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, am I to understand, then, that there is a difference in the treatment; if in one country the owner can escape liability under this clause and in the other he cannot, so that he will naturally deposit his money in the country where he can escape liability he will thus escape liability in the other as well? If that is the case, I quite see the force of the noble Lord's argument that it is much better to take the line of the Convention and not try to go beyond it in any way.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am sorry that I am finding difficulty in making this point clear to your Lordships. It is simply this. If the two countries that we are talking about have ratified the Convention the law will be exactly the same. The French wording and the English wording are both authentic, and they seem to me to match
very closely in this particular case. It is just the fact that on the particular facts of the case there might be a different judgment as to whether or not, in the particular case, the exclusion applied. But this would be decided only once, and it would be decided in the court of the country where the owner had decided to lodge his security.
LORD HAWKE: Yes, my Lords. But suppose the clause of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet—
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, I must remind the House that this is a Report stage and noble Lords are entitled to speak only once.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I think I am entitled to ask the Minister to explain a point in his own speech; that is perfectly understandable.
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, the noble Lord has already made two speeches on this Amendment, and I must ask him to abide by the normal customs of the House.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I say that the noble Lord has convinced me that if the scenario I have described were to take place it would indeed be a complicated matter legally, and I think the shipowner concerned would certainly elect to have the matter tried in a French court. That would probably not affect the issue that he was still liable under British law. What the noble Lord has not convinced me of is that the adoption of this Amendment would make it impossible for us to ratify the Treaty. He has adduced no arguments to show that, by going a little further in British law than the Convention says everyone shall go, we debar ourselves from adhering to the Convention. That being so, I think it would be of advantage to test the opinion of the House on this matter.
5.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 34; Not-Contents, 62.

CONTENTS

Amherst, E.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Brockway, L.

Arwyn, L.

Beswick, L.

Brown, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

St. Davids, V.

Chorley, L.

Henley, L.

Segal, L.

Collison, L.

Kennet, L.

Shepherd, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Leatherland, L.

Wade, L.

Diamond, L.

Lindgren, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs. [Teller.]

White, Bs.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Gaitskell, Bs.

Mais, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

Phillips, Bs.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Eccles, V.

Lonsdale, E.

Ampthill, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Merrivale, L.

Ashbourne, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Milverton, L.

Auckland, L.

Falkland, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Audley, Bs.

Ferrers, E.

Belstead, L.

Ferrier, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Birdwood, L.

Glasgow, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Rhyl, L.

Boston, L.

Greenway, L.

Robbins, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Grenfell, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Sandford, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hacking, L.

Somers, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Hanworth, V.

Strang, L.

Conesford, L.

Hatherton, L.

Suffield, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hawke, L.

Swanborough, Bs.

Cottesloe, L.

Hood, V.

Tenby, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Teviot, L.

Daventry, V.

Ilford, L.

Vivian, L.

Davidson, V.

Inchyra, L.

Windlesham, L.

Denham, L.

Inglewood, L.

Wolverton, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Clause 4 [Limitation of liability under Section 1]:
6.0 p.m.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 15, leave out ("2,000 gold francs") and insert ("such amount as may be fixed by the Secretary of State under subsection (1A) below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the Committee stage of the Bill I explained that the purpose of this Amendment was to get rid of the actual sum of the liability, so that it could be varied quickly by the Government by order and thus leave the principle of liability in the Bill. May I say at this point that in the Committee stage Hansard quotes me as saying:
"The effect is to leave the concept of the limitation of liability out of the Bill as it is drafted".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9/2/71; col. 38.]
This is precisely the wrong way round. What I said was:
"The effect is to leave the concept of liability in the Bill as it is drafted but to take out the specific level."
After that the noble Lord explained that he did not want to do that, because the Bill laid liability on the shipowners, and that any future Convention taking the liability up to 30 million dollars in accidents in accordance with the CRISTAL fund which is being set up, when there was national legislation to put that Convention into effect the liability would fall on the cargo owner. I take the point and have reflected about this a good deal, but I should like to ask the Government two questions. Are they quite sure that it might not be convenient, when we are legislating to give effect to a future Convention, to leave all the liability on the shipowner up to 30 million dollars and to let the shipowner collect everything over 13 million dollars from the cargo owner under CRISTAL arrangements. I do not know. The Government obviously cannot say at this stage whether or not they would like to do this, but if that did turn out to be a convenient way of doing it then there would be no need for a new Bill at all. All that would need to be done would be to up the 13 million dollars to 30 million dollars, and that could be done by regulation.
Then there is the point that we live in an age where the value of money seems to go down. It is always our purpose to cause it to go down as slowly as possible, but down it keeps going; and for that sole reason we shall want to increase this liability. Might it not be convenient to be able to do so by order, rather than by bringing in a complete new Bill? I put these points to the Government. If they are not sure that these things may not happen there seems to me still to be an argument for taking the precise level which is appropriate for 1971 out of the Bill and putting it in a regulation. That would be the effect of my Amendment. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am bound to recognise the force of the noble Lord's argument in this case, but once again the trouble is that it is at variance with the Convention. The fact that the amounts are expressed in the Convention in gold francs makes it a little easier, because presumably it would be likely that in the event of devaluation the powers in the Bill to redefine the equivalent of the gold franc could be used. The trouble about this Amendment is that it completely excludes the ceiling on a shipowner's liability in the absence of fault or privity on his part, and doing that would make the ratification of the Convention impossible. It is of course true that there is the prospect of another Convention coming along which, as the noble Lord says, should enable the supplementary payment to be available but there is no certainty about it. The Convention has yet to be agreed.
So far as CRISTAL is concerned, this is entirely a voluntary arrangement, and I see the noble Lord's point in saying that it might be better to leave the whole of the liability on the owner, without any exceptions at all, and let him collect from CRISTAL as well as from the Bill itself. But surely whether that is so or not, that would not be a reason for leaving out of the Bill the limit of the owner's legal liability. I am not quite sure of this, but we should certainly have to consider it. I should be quite willing between now and the next stage, or before the Bill goes to another place, for this aspect of it to be considered. We have two things to consider, whether it would be practicable and would work;
764
and, secondly, whether it is in accordance with the Convention.
The fact is that at the moment the work now going on in IMCO is to try to ensure additional compensation in the case of major disaster that goes beyond the limits—the case of the big tankers. It is agreed that the source of this additional compensation will not be the tanker owners but, directly or indirectly, the oil companies. Therefore, one is putting a different liability elsewhere. The maximum figures in the supplementary fund will be considerably higher than those in the Convention, but they will not affect those figures in the Convention, since tanker owners' liability will remain the liability laid down in the Convention. Therefore, it is appropriate to have the figures as in the Convention, with the possibility of adjusting them in terms of sterling as and when necessary.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, with the leave of the House, it is perfectly clear that though the noble Lord understands perfectly well what I am after, whenever he looks down at his brief it is terrible "corny" old departmental stuff. To accuse me of trying to take a liability out of the Bill so that we cannot sign the Convention is absolute nonsense. All I want to do is to put the level of liability in regulations so that British law will say the liability is 2,000 gold francs, and so on; and of course we can ratify the Convention. But I am much heartened by the noble Lord's statement that he will have one more look at it between now and the next stage, or between now and the House of Commons; and, that being so, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Limitation actions]:
6.13 p.m.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 4, line 38, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a probing Amendment. At the Committee stage I confessed to the noble Lord that I could not understand subsection (4) of Clause 5, and I put this Amendment down in order to give the noble Lord an opportunity, if he would

765
be so good, to explain to the House what the subsection means. It is a fearfully complicated bit of drafting. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, it is not only a complicated bit of drafting but a complicated matter, and, that being so, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to refer to my brief, and I hope he will not find it too "corny". Clause 1 of the Bill imposes on the owner of a tanker a new form of strict liability for oil pollution damage. Clause 3 precludes the bringing of proceedings for that type of damage against that owner under any other head, or against his servants or agents. But there may be other persons concerned with the operation or management of the ship who may incur a liability. For instance, the ship may be under charter, and a negligent master who causes an accident may be the charterer's servant and not the owner's. It will follow, therefore, that the owner may be liable under Clause 1 and entitled to limit his liability to the amount specified under Clause 4; and a charterer or some other person may be liable under the ordinary principles of law and be entitled to limit his liability, which is to £28 per ton, under the existing rules in the Merchant Shipping Acts.
In this case, in drafting the Bill, we have tried to follow two principles: first, that the claimant should be free to pursue his claim against whomever he likes and against whomever he can: and, secondly, that the total liability of the ship—if I may use a loose phrase; the liability is on the owner, of course—should not exceed the limitation figures set out in Clause 4. These are expressed to be the limits of liability. To achieve this result, we have provided in Clause 7 that where a limitation fund is established, proceedings against other persons who are entitled to limit their liability in connection with the ship are to be stayed, and claim ants are to look to the owner's limitation fund. The subsection we are now discussing is designed to cover the position where payments are made to claimants for oil pollution before the owner's limitation fund is established, by allowing persons who have made such payments to claim against the fund.
In fact we now think that this subsection in its present form is too wide in
766
its scope. It enables not only persons concerned in the management or operation of the ship to limit their own liability, but also other persons, such as the owner of another ship which had caused the oil pollution damage by colliding with the tanker from which the oil escaped. It would have been comparatively simple to draft an Amendment to deal with this point but I should like to explain why I have not put one down. The reason is that a further point has been drawn to our attention, namely, that the Bill, and this clause in particular, may not preserve the rights of a tanker owner who has incurred a liability under Clause 1 against a party whose negligence has caused the casualty. This subsection in its present form, if anything, points to the opposite conclusion, and this is not the intention; that is why we are considering the point further. I do not think it would be sensible to put an Amendment before your Lordships until we are reasonably certain that we have something which is right on those points. I would, however, assure your Lordships that we intend to narrow the scope of this subsection, and in those circumstances I would ask the noble Lord not to press his Amendment.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for that full explanation. It seems to confirm my suspicion that when one cannot understand something it may be that it is pointing in two directions at once, which it did seem to me to be doing. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [Compulsory insurance against liability for pollution.]
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 6, line 42, leave out from ("State") to end of line 44.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the last two Amendments that I have put down, to which I wish to speak together, concern the circumstances in which the Secretary of State may give a certificate saying that he believes the ship in question is covered against the liability imposed by the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, explained last time that he

767
wanted the Government to have a certain amount of flexibility in this respect, and I think I am right in saying that the flexibility of which my Amendment would deprive the Government and which they are anxious to retain is as follows. The Secretary of State wants to be able to give a certificate to a ship registered in a non-Convention country but insured in a country which may or may not be a Convention country but is known to him to have an efficient insurance market. That being so, this seems to me a very proper freedom to wish the Secretary of State to have.
Before asking leave to withdraw this Amendment, however, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he can give the House an assurance that the Secretary of State will exercise the power to give the certificate and to make regulations which the House is about to afford to him in such a way as always to provide an incentive to countries to sign the Convention and to shipowners to register their ships in Convention countries. What I am asking is: can the noble Lord say that the Government will use this power with great care, and in such a way as to make life awkward for countries that do not adhere to the Convention and for shipowners who register in non-Convention countries; and also to use it as an incentive to bring countries into the Convention and to get ships registered in those countries and not in others. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the objectives that the noble Lord has mentioned are very desirable objectives, but I should like to consider between now and the next stage (perhaps I might write to him on this) to what extent it would be possible—I am not discussing whether it would be proper, but whether in fact it would be possible—to do this. The main purpose of these arrangements is simply to make sure that the oil tankers carrying substantial amounts of oil that come to or pass our shores are fully covered by insurance; and in order that we may be certain of that we shall insist that when they do come to our shores carrying oil they have certificates indicating that they are fully covered. So far as non-Convention countries are concerned, the question here is to what extent it is possible to ensure that they are properly
768
covered without insisting on their being covered by a certificate from the Secretary of State in this country.
As the clause stands at present, up to this particular subsection, of course there is an obligation on every Convention country to ensure that its ships are covered; and we will of course ensure that all our ships are covered wherever they are in the world. The question is how best to ensure that the ships of non-Convention countries are covered. This will depend on the estimate of the Secretary of State as to how competent the various non-Convention countries in which large tankers are registered are of assessing whether the insurance meets up to the requirements of the Convention. I cannot give a more direct assurance to the noble Lord at the present time than that we will try to steer more and more countries to register, because I am not quite certain how far the certificate arrangements can do that. I should like to look at this point further. But I hope the noble Lord will agree that the arrangements which we are contemplating are the right ones in the circumstances, and that he will wish us well in the difficult task of deciding which countries are capable of doing this job.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, with the leave of the House may I say that I do indeed wish the Government well in this respect. It seems to me that this is a good arrangement for a naughty world, and I hope that it will be used to make the world less naughty. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

PAYMENTS IN AID OF AGRICULTURAL SCHEMES (EXTENSION) ORDER 1971
6.22 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM rose to move, that the Payments in Aid of Agricultural Schemes (Extension) Order 1971 be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Order is to renew the Special Assistance Grant to agricultural schemes in Northern Ireland for a further three years, and to provide that the maximum annual rate of grant shall be £1,900,000. This is a longstanding, arrangement. It began 17 years ago, in 1954, when the current system of

769
agricultural support was introduced in the United Kingdom, and it has been regularly renewed since, then.
Noble Lords who take an interest in agricultural matters will know that what happens is that farmers throughout the United Kingdom receive deficiency payments to make up the difference between the average United Kingdom market prices and the guaranteed prices determined at the Annual Review. This means that when a deficiency payment is made, each farmer receives the same addition to the price he obtains from the market, whatever the actual difference between the price he himself has obtained and the guaranteed price. Northern Ireland market prices tend to be lower than prices in Great Britain for a number of the main agricultural commodities, so that even including the deficiency payments, the total returns to Northern Ireland farmers tend to fall short of the guaranteed prices.
In order to compensate Northern Irish farmers for this disadvantage, which is attributable largely to the cost of sending produce across the Irish Sea, the Government decided in 1954 to make a grant each year to the Government of Northern Ireland for the purpose of assisting agriculture there. The statutory authority for the grant is Section 32 of the Agriculture Act 1957. This provides for the grant to be extended for periods of not more than five years at a time, and for the amount of the grant to be varied at the time of its extension—subject to Parliamentary approval.
The current rate of grant, under the Order which expires on March 31 of this year is £1,750,000. The Order now before your Lordships proposes that the annual rate of grant for the next three years shall be at the rate of £1,900,000. There are two elements in this figure of £1,900,000: first, the basic rate of grant is being continued at its present rate of£1¾ million a year; second, the current grant has been underspent by a total of £450,000, and we propose that this sum should be carried forward into the new grant period, adding £150,000 for each of the three years extension.
770
Thus, what is proposed is a total grant of £1·9 million for the next three years.
My Lords, it seems sensible to fix the rate of grant for three years only on this occasion, and not for five years as in the past, because the major change proposed for the system of support of agriculture—the changeover to a system of import levies—means that it will probably be necessary to look at this whole matter again in about three years' time.
My Lords, before closing let me just say a word or two about the way in which the grant is used. The Ministry of Agriculture in Northern Ireland devise schemes which help farmers there to overcome the disadvantage which they suffer as a result of their remoteness; it is these schemes that are financed out of the grant. Those running at the moment are aimed mainly at encouraging better marketing and better quality production, particularly of livestock, and there are also payments for superior hygenic quality of milk and payments for improvements in seed potatoes.
Further details are contained in a Statement which is laid each year before Parliament. The Statement for 1970–71 was laid yesterday. The schemes which are financed out of the grant are the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture in Northern Ireland, subject to general approval by the agriculture Ministers for the United Kingdom. This general approval is needed because the special assistance grant is part of the total assistance given under the Annual Review system, and it has therefore to be used in ways consistent with the Government's agricultural policy. With this proviso, the devising and administration of the schemes financed out of the grant is a matter for the Northern Ireland Ministry of Agriculture. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Payments in Aid of Agricultural Schemes (Extension) Order 1971 be approved.—(Lord Windlesham.)
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I content myself with thanking the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, for the clarity of the explanation he has placed upon the Record for an Order which we wish well.

AGRICULTURAL AND HORTICULTURAL CO-OPERATION SCHEME 1971
6.29 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that the Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation Scheme 1971, a draft of which was laid before this House on January 28, be approved. Before I describe the effect of the new Scheme I should like to give your Lordships a brief account of what has been done under the present Scheme since it was introduced just over three years ago. The Scheme is administered by the Central Council for Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation, who have succeeded in arousing a good deal of interest among producers in co-operation. In the past three years grants amounting to £2·8 million have been approved, on about 1,000 applications. Grants to co-operatives for buildings and fixed equipment have amounted to about £900,000 of the total. These grants correspond to those given to individuals under the departmental grant schemes. The remaining grants have been for special co-operative purposes, such as the provision of working capital, feasibility studies of new projects, the employment and training of managers and the formation of new co-operatives. The Council have succeeded in developing forms of co-operation suitable for a wide variety of enterprises and commodities, but the main expenditure has been in horticultural marketing, pea vining and silage-making.
Under the existing Scheme the maximum rate of capital grant for co-operatives has been 33⅓ per cent. But individuals currently receive 35 per cent. under the Horticulture Improvement Scheme and 40 per cent. under the Farm Capital Grants Scheme. There is no logical basis for this discrimination between producers acting collectively and producers acting individually. The new Scheme therefore provides a maximum rate of grant of 40 per cent. Eligible co-operatives will in future have parity with individuals; they will receive grants of 35 per cent. for items covered by the Horticulture Improvement Scheme and 40 per cent. for those covered by the Farm Capital Grants Scheme. Secondly, the grants for working capital will be withdrawn. These grants have served the purpose of stimulating
772
interest in co-operation. But there are no corresponding grants to individuals, and it would be wrong to continue to put a premium on co-operation. There has been a danger of creating an inducement to co-operate for the sake of grant. It is undesirable to distort the judgments of producers in this way. They must decide whether co-operation is worth while for its own sake in their particular circumstances. For similar reasons, the special high rate of grant for co-operative projects of a pioneering nature is being withdrawn; there has been little occasion to use it.
The new Scheme continues the remaining special grants for managerial salaries, training, formation expenses, surveys, studies and research. These grants are particularly relevant to the needs of cooperatives. In addition the Council will be able to give particular assistance for encouraging co-operation in marketing where the need for better organisation is paramount. There are other minor changes in the Scheme designed largely to simplify administration. Departments will handle more of the routine work through their existing machinery and this will enable the Council to devote increased resources to their continuing and increasingly important promotional role. The Council support the proposals embodied in the new Scheme, and I should like to take this opportunity to express the Government's thanks to the Chairman, Sir Roger Falk, and to the members of his Council for their services.
Moved, That the Draft Agricultural and Horticultural Co-operation Scheme 1971, laid before the House on January 28, be approved.—(Lord Denham.)
6.33 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Denham, for the way in which he has introduced this Motion, and I welcome what he proposes to do. What I do not welcome is what he proposes not to do. I am bound to say that I did not follow at all the explanation he gave for leaving out the part of the 1967 Scheme which relates to grants for working capital or for pioneering new aspects in co-operation. Why is it wrong to promote co-operation for its own sake? What is the wrong about that? He paid a tribute, and I thought a very pleasant tribute, to the work of the Central Council for Agricultural and

773
Horticultural Co-operation, and I have no doubt that he, like the rest of us, pays a genuine tribute to co-operation in agriculture generally. Why should he, therefore, be so tardy about the possibilities that were in the 1967 Scheme as far as the provision of working capital is concerned and for encouraging pioneering work in this respect?
I understand that one reason given for leaving out this part of the 1967 Scheme about pioneering was that there had been little call for a grant. In that case, as there is no financial obligation and no great central overhead cost involved, why not leave the power there? Even if there had been little call in the last three years, it is possible that in the next three years there may be interest stimulated by the Central Council, and I should have thought it would be a good thing to have a Scheme based more on the 1967 Scheme as far as this part of the Scheme is concerned.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, may I support my noble friend? One of the things that have always been most difficult in agriculture is that the large co-operatives, who do almost all the business, because of their constitutions have problems in raising capital. Their constitutions come under the Friendly Societies Act, which makes the raising of capital very difficult. I always understood that the introduction of this provision some years ago in the 1967 Scheme was to make it easier for them to do so. I think it is a pity to go back on that, just at a time when, under the Mansholt Plan, which is probably going to be adopted, our colleagues with whom we shall soon be competing are bringing in new and important measures to support co-operation. I think this point needs a good deal of explanation.
LORD WOOLLEY: My Lords, I too, think it is rather unfortunate that the pioneering grant should be withdrawn at this time. Most of us would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Denham, that there is a danger that people may embark on schemes because of the attractiveness of the grant facilities. That is something that has to be guarded against, and I think that the Central Council could exercise that restraint by approving or rejecting proposals put before them. But
774
this is a time when one would have thought that there was a good case for looking at this matter fairly baldly, because, as the whole system for agricultural support changes, as the noble Lord has said, so it is becoming increasingly obvious and urgent that farmers should be given every encouragement to organise to the best commercial efficiency. That brings in the whole question of co-operation, and it brings into consideration many possible avenues which have not perhaps been so urgent and so relevant as they may well be from now on.
While welcoming, as the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has welcomed, these proposals, I think it is a mistake to cut back at this time. I would rather have seen this danger—which I recognise, and which I have spoken about on occasion in connection with particular schemes—safeguarded by the vigilance of the Council itself, who have the power to do this, rather than to discourage adventure in a time when adventure is being advocated as the way in which we have to proceed in the future.
6.38 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for the general support he has given to this Scheme, and for his comments on it and those of the other noble Lords. I should like to assure all noble Lords who have spoken that the Government are extremely keen on encouraging co-operation. The withdrawing of the working capital grants is not because we want to discourage co-operation, but because we want to bring home to the people who will take part the benefit of doing it for its own sake, and not just for the purpose of getting a particular grant. It is quite possible that if a number of people form a co-operative because they see the financial advantage of it, they may thereby overlook the very real advantages that the Government want to encourage.
As regards the special grants for pioneering schemes, these have been little used in practice. In most cases where pioneering grants have been given, they have been given within the lower scales which will of course still continue. In the few cases where they have been used they have proved very expensive indeed. The emphasis is now placed on the

775
Central Council concentrating on administrative support for schemes of co-operation, and their administrative expenses will go up by about a quarter. It is on the administrative side that Her Majesty's Government see the most important work being done for the encouragement of schemes of co-operation.

AIR TRANSPORT FARES
6.41 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of increasing consumer dissatisfaction with the structure of international air fares, in particular the effect this has in discriminating arbitrarily between different classes of traveller and between travellers from different countries, and in restricting the choice of fares and services available; and whether they will take steps to ensure that international negotiations on traffic rights (between Governments) and fares (between airlines in IATA) take more account of the consumer interest in air travel.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, there is increasing consumer dissatisfaction with the structure of international air fares, and I should like to tell the House how I came into this. I came into it actively on December 23 last, when I read that inclusive tour fare levels were to remain mainly unchanged and certain new tour-basing prices were to be offered, but that the traveller using normal services was to pay more. Being a person who uses normal services, in common with many other people, I wondered why there should be this discrimination. Apart from the ethics of the matter, increasing fares is obviously no way to increase passenger numbers. But it was the discrimination that rankled.
On December 28, The Times printed a letter from me on this subject, and other correspondence appeared. Since then a good deal of information has come my way, and for much of this I am indebted to three sources. These I should like to acknowledge as Mr. George Smith, research officer of the Consumer Council, which unfortunately goes out of business tomorrow; Mr. A. J. Lucking, a businessman
776
and well-known authority on these matters; and The Times for a most helpful leader on January 7 last. As an example of information that was given to me, I was told that London/Paris yields to B.E.A. only 75 per cent of the published fare. In other words, many of the passengers are carried, for one reason or another, at half-price, and I want to ask the Minister whether that is true. I asked a Question in the House on January 26, and referred to the London/Paris yield as a supplementary point. Obviously, the Minister then replying could not answer without notice, but said he would look at this. I am hoping that when the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, comes to reply this evening he will tell the House whether my information was correct and, if so, whether normal standard fares are pushed up to compensate.
The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, very much wanted to be present in the House to-night for this debate. His authority and knowledge on air matters are. I think, known to everybody in this House and outside. Unfortunately, he is in Australia, and he asked me to express his regret to the House. In his letter to me, the noble Lord said:
"IATA has become too powerful. It is entrenched too firmly."
From another source, my noble Leader, Lord Shackleton, has stated that this is a complicated subject; in fact, a complete jungle. He said that the dissatisfaction is getting so grave, and the bureaucracy involved in the Administration so great, that he felt the whole matter should be looked into fully. The Minister will recall, I am sure, that the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, too, was of the opinion that it was about time we had a hard look at this International Air Transport Association so far as this country is concerned—its powers, administration and relationship with Her Majesty's Government.
This is my objective to-night. It is not a Party political issue, and I should have put down this Question whatever the political complexion of the Government. It would also have been the objective of the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, if he had been here. It is the wish of a great many people connected with air transport, and I hope very much that it will be the decision of the

777
Government. My purpose in raising this matter to-day is twofold: first, to make air transport available at the lowest price; and, secondly, to end discriminatory pricing because it is unfair. Under the official protection of Governments, the airlines have been building up a system of deliberate discrimination between classes of passenger.
A leader in The Times on January 7 went on to say:
"Those who travel for specially chosen periods pay far less than those who go for a shorter or longer period; those who allegedly belong to an affinity group (and have done so for six months) enjoy privileges not available to those who are too honest or too ill-organised to produce the necessary evidence; those whose seats are bought by an inclusive tour operator get them for very much less than those who buy their own. None of these arguments has anything to do with the cost of transporting or handling passengers.
"There is no reason why airlines should not sell wholesale at a different price from retail or give significant discounts to those who book early, or fly when no one else wants to fly, or are prepared to stand by. But what the airlines have been trying to do is to create artificial classes which will generate new traffic at lower fares without allowing regular travellers to enjoy these fares."
This, my Lords, is the heart of the matter.
The House may be aware that the committee of consumer representatives from Britain, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden and Switzerland, set up following the Zurich Air Fares Conference in May, 1970, has written to member Governments of the European Civil Aviation Conference objecting to the present system of fixing air fares in Europe. The committee wants more consultation between consumer organisations and airlines and Governments, and says that the present system keeps fares on scheduled services artificially high. Among its members are Mr. George Smith, of the Consumer Council, and, in his personal capacity, Mr. Lucking. The aim of this committee is to co-ordinate the views of European consumers on air fares, with regard to their respective Governments, in order to ensure that proper attention is given to consumer interests.
It may not generally be realised that Europeans travelling by air pay higher fares than do overseas visitors travelling in Europe. This is because airlines' revenues are diluted by inclusive tour and
778
group tour fares and the IATA 20 per cent. rule, which allows extra mileage to be travelled for the same fare. This means that, in effect, Americans can stop over in London and travel to the Continent free. One result is that European airline revenues have been reduced, in particular for B.E.A., on infra-European routes. The result of this is that regular scheduled air fares from London to the Continent are 20 per cent. higher than the average for the whole of Europe, and much higher than in the United States. Another result is that the European fares offered to travel agents arranging holidays through the airlines are not as low as they could be. The committee mentioned earlier wants Governments to ask their airlines to drop the practice of using intra-European trips as "loss leaders" for Americans.
Another factor which I wish to bring to the attention of the Minister is discrimination between standard fares and what I may call "creative" fares. Scheduled airlines have introduced a wide range of low fares in Europe to compete against charter services. These creative fares are set, at what appear to be uneconomic levels which can be supported only by maintaining standard fares at arbitrarily high levels. This is not just a figment of my imagination, my Lords. I was very interested to see, in the Financial Times on Tuesday of this week, February 16, that there was an inset on, "U.S. Travel and Tourism", and on page 18 their aerospace correspondent, Michael Donne, when speaking of load factors and variations, had this to say so far as the United States is concerned:
"This situation is important for the schedule-service passenger in two ways. First, it encourages the schedule airlines to try to reduce their fares in the winter months to stimulate travel. But, at the same time, it creates an overall economic problem for those airlines that results in depressed revenues and perhaps also losses, which in turn oblige them to seek higher scheduled fares at other times of the year".
So it would seem to be the same position in Europe and in the United States of America.
The Committee I have been talking about proposes that Governments should require carriers to prove that creative fares do not penalise standard fare travellers. My Lords, as I expect the House will know, the range of choice of fares

779
and services in Europe is very limited. In particular, the availability of lower fares is severely restricted. Perhaps I may just cite the three broad categories of tariff. First, we have the scheduled services linking major political and commercial centres and some holiday destinations. Standard fares, first and economy class, are normally charged on these services. Their advantage to consumers is that they operate at average load factors of under 60 per cent. so that seats are available at short notice—and I would ask the House to note those words, "so that seats are available at short notice".
Secondly, we have charter flights operated by non-scheduled airlines in connection with the provision of package holidays which meet the demand for holiday travel at relatively low cost because they offer a specialised service which allows low costs and high load factors. These are available to most of the holiday destinations in Europe. Thirdly, we have the scheduled airlines which have set out to compete in this market through special "creative" fares such as their inclusive tour (ITX) fares on some scheduled flights, generally to holiday destinations. These ITX fares are not published: they are made available to travel agents providing associated food and board. Also in this category of fares are the night fares, the excursion fares and the weekend discounted fares made available by scheduled airlines on a limited range of flights.
What I want to stress to the Minister, if he does not know it already, is that from the consumers' point of view the first major gap in the range of services is the lack of cheaper fares available direct to the public without strings on the main routes served by scheduled airlines. The committee of consumer representatives proposes that Governments should either require scheduled IATA airlines to offer lower public fares on scheduled services or license more non-scheduled airlines to operate low-cost services on major trunk routes. I wonder whether the Minister, when he winds up, will tell us if it is correct that the IATA cartel prohibits price competition on scheduled flights. The fundamental need is for our Government to become identified with the consumer interest, which is the public interest: we are all consumers. Public opinion,
780
as realised and publicised by this Government, can be effective, and public opinion thinks that something should be done.
As The Times makes clear, airlines work together to achieve a common position in the International Air Transport Association, IATA, while regulation must come from individual Governments working singly. It is not surprising that the most effective protector of the international public interest has been the American Civil Aeronautics Board. This is an agency whose Government do not own airlines and which dominates so large a sector of world aviation as to be able from time to time to impose its will. I hope very much that when my noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge comes to speak later in this debate he will tell us more about this particular aspect.
My Lords, on world fares the time has come for a major reappraisal: a political effort from Governments—and I am now, in conclusion, coming back to unfairness concerning the traveller paying standard fares. I think everyone in the House will agree with me that there is nothing so infuriating as being treated unfairly. To quote from the Financial Times of January 28 last:
"A further impact on the tour business by B.E.A. is expected later this year when new IATA regulations come into effect to allow tour passengers to travel on scheduled flights at substantial discounts. Under this rule B.E.A. will be able to sell otherwise empty seats to tour operators for as much as a 50 per cent. discount."
I have made inquiries, and I have several questions to ask. As I understand the position, the B.E.A. move, called the "top-up" system, will offer package-tour operators blocks of 10 seats or more on scheduled flights at rates that will be competitive with any rates the non-scheduled charter airlines can offer, and in any case "substantially less" than the normal scheduled fares. I was told that in some cases the cuts could range up to as much as 50 per cent. or more, which corresponds with the Financial Times figure. The tour operators will be expected to pass on the benefits of these cheaper seats to their customers in the form of cheaper package holidays. The cheaper seats will not be sold directly o the public by the airline. I should like to say quite clearly, in case it is thought

781
otherwise, that I am not trying to stop or curtail charter flights or package holidays. What I am trying to stop, because I think it unfair, is that passengers in the same scheduled flight should pay, for that flight, varying fares. The fact that the fares will vary very substantially makes matters even more unfair, but it does not affect the principle.
I have three related questions here, arising out of the new IATA regulations. When do B.E.A. decide that seats are empty, and how far in advance of a scheduled flight are those seats allocated to tour operators? What is normally the latest date a passenger can book a flight on a scheduled service, important for business as well as for holidays? Just let us suppose that individual businessmen discover suddenly that they have to be somewhere in Europe, and quickly. They know that seats are available at short notice on scheduled flights, which is why they pay standard fares. I want to ask the Minister: are they told, or will they be told under these regulations, that no seats are available because a block has been allocated to a tour operator some time ago at a greatly reduced price? I do not know whether your Lordships noticed, in the Financial Times last Saturday, the 13th, a letter which stated, among other points:
"Surely the time has come for a return to first principles on the question of air fares. For the ordinary traveller, business or private, the fares go up and up. For sellers and consumers of holiday package tours larger reductions and of wider scope are continually being announced.
"Air traffic is a public utility and State airlines ought to observe the equities of public utilities.
"The lines may be expected to say that the conditions of booking—length of advance notice, timing of flights and numbers travelling together, justify the difference. No data seems to have been offered to justify such wide differences and in any case booking conditions could perfectly well be built into a general differentiated air structure."
My Lords, in connection with these last three questions, I want to repeat what I said earlier about the first broad category of tariff available. Scheduled services link major commercial and political centres and some holiday destinations. Standard fares—first and economy class—are normally charged on these services. Their advantage to consumers is that they operate at average load
782
factors of under 60 per cent. so that seats are available at short notice.
A debate on an Unstarred Question in your Lordships' House means that the Minister has the final word, so I want to be sure that my questions are clearly stated. Will the scheduled services just mentioned, with their standard fares compensating for seats being available at short notice, be affected by the B.E.A. "Top Up" system and if so in what way? Is it correct that the tour operators know now which blocks of seats will be available to them; and, if not, how far in advance of the actual flights concerned will they know? Presumably they will not be informed on the day of the flights that 10, 20 or 25 seats have suddenly become available and that they can have them. As I said before, when are seats empty? I should like to ask the Minister whether, under this system with the new IATA regulations, it will be made clear, at B.E.A. reservation offices that for a certain pre-flight period of x hours, x days, or x weeks—and I should like to know the period—although there may be some 20 seats empty on aircraft, these are only for special passengers paying less fare, maybe some 50 per cent., and are not on offer to standard fare-paying passengers? Is this really what the new IATA regulations say shall be done; and is it accepted that B.E.A. shall treat its standard fare-paying passengers in this way?
I am not a spoilsport, and I do not wish to curtail lower fare opportunities for travellers. I just think that these should be available to everyone. To revert to part of The Times leader:
"There is no reason why airlines should not sell wholesale at different prices from retail or give significant discounts to those who book early, or fly when no one else wants to fly, or are prepared to stand by."
That I accept completely. But I have here an advertisement from the Financial Times of February 5 last. It says:
"BEA 'DriveAbout' holidays are the newest idea in real all-in, go-anywhere tours.
"Your 'DriveAbout' package includes:
"Flights (whenever you like) to and from any of eight principal destinations in Spain: …"
and many other things. It is an excellent bargain at a wonderful price. If intending travellers write now they will get full details. In this advertisement, prices are quoted up to March 31 and up to July

783
15; so presumably the scheme is in operation now. Could we be told if this is so? Is this the IATA Regulations in advance? And is this supposed to be the dead winter season? Obviously, the flight times and dates are known and, equally obviously, one assumes this package holiday is by scheduled flights. It must be if flights can be "whenever you like". Will the Minister comment on these and also on the reason advanced for standard fares being higher than package ones; namely, that seats are available at short notice? How can they be available at short notice under these conditions?
I feel that membership of IATA means that the Government have responsibility for everything that I have been talking about to-night. The Minister must be aware of the increasing consumer dissatisfaction with the structure of international air fares. I think he must be aware of the effect this has in discriminating arbitrarily between different classes of traveller and between travellers from different countries and in restricting the choice of fares and services available. The purpose of this debate is to ask the Government
"whether they will take steps to ensure that international negotiations on traffic rights (between Governments) and fares (between airlines in IATA) take more account of the consumer interest in air travel."
7.6 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, for raising this very important topic on the future structure of the international air fares and, indeed, routes; and for introducing the subject with her usual courtesy, charm, forthrightness and thoroughness. She showed herself to be something of a master of her subject. It is a very difficult subject, and I would congratulate her on the case she put. The noble Baroness's Question primarily refers to the increasing consumer dissatisfaction at the numerous discriminating classes of fares available on the international routes, and asks whether Her Majesty's Government will see to it that in future the IATA agreements will take more account of the consumer interest. As the noble Baroness said, the problem is becoming more acute mainly because the charter industry is
784
increasing very rapidly—at something like 30 per cent. a year.
As a consumer myself, I know only too well that when one contemplates going abroad on holiday, one of the main features of air traffic at the moment is whether or not one has been able to choose the best terms; whether one has become a legal member of one of the affinity groups; whether one has taken advantage of the package tour under the IATA agreements; or whether or not, at the worst, one is simply on a scheduled service.
One can trace the history of the structure of charter fares back to the 1960 Civil Aviation Act, under which the Government introduced two sets of regulations, first in 1960 and then in 1964. In those days, the charter services and package tours were in their infancy and one assumes that the policy of the Government of the day was to encourage their growth. It was then that the various categories were distinguished, notably the charter affinity groups and the policy of the separate fare concept. The reasoning and equity behind why a chartered affinity group was to be allowed special privileges over a non-affinity group is something about which many people have been mystified for years. I hope that my noble friend will take the opportunity to-night to explain the philosophy behind it. These groups have become prominent in recent years in such incidents as bogus affinity groups being stopped at the last minute at airports. Many innocent people have been stranded, not realising that membership, to be effective, must be of at least six months' duration. I hope that my noble friend will be able to tell us something of the policy of Her Majesty's Government on the future of these affinity groups.
The Edwards Committee Report on Air Transport in 1969 went into the question of air fares and traffic regulations in some detail. I believe that the Committee made very wise observations. In the first place, they pointed out that the rapid growth of the non-scheduled services as distinct from the scheduled services, and the manner in which charter operators had exploited their opportunities, had rendered the distinction between the charter and non-charter (which had been formalised in international agreements and domestic legislation) very

785
largely irrelevant. Moreover, since chartered flights had increasingly begun to operate to schedules every bit as regular and systematic as their counterpart, one could almost say that the use of such terms as "scheduled" and "nonscheduled" services had become ineffective and misleading.
The distinction of the scheduled services arises from the common carrier legislation imposed on all scheduled operators who are required to provide a regular, continuous and reasonable capacity for all those who wish to use their service. In other words, my Lords, the scheduled operator caters for all passenger needs and the passengers expect the service to be available when it suits them. The scheduled operators have a very important part to play. The Edwards Committee, as the House will recall, made a number of specific proposals. The first was that the regulatory policy should be directed towards defining those routes which required protection for reasons of public policy, and should limit the quantity and price of inclusive tours on those routes to the extent necessary to preserve scheduled services; in other words, it was a question of the difficulty of striking the balance between protection for the scheduled services and over-protection.
I should like to draw to the attention of the House the second observation of the Committee:
"On other routes where the public policy arguments for the preservation of scheduled services are less powerful, a freer policy should be pursued in the inclusive tour field. We recommend that the regular authority should select certain popular holiday areas where for at least an experimental period all minimum prices for inclusive tours should be abolished."
Thirdly, the Edwards Committee recommended that the A.T.L.B. and the Board of Trade powers of international fare regulation should be combined. As we know, the A.T.L.B. at present deal only with domestic fares. It would be of general interest, I believe, if my noble friend could say how far his Department has got in considering these recommendations.
Finally, my Lords, I should like to refer to one aspect of the noble Baroness's Question; that is, the situation facing many of the airline operators. With competitive rates and fares coming down, while everything else seems to be
786
going up, there must come a limit beyond which the quality of service cannot be maintained. I believe there is a need for recognition of the fact that the quality of the product cannot be maintained unless the price bears a sensible relationship to the cost of providing it. The danger of allowing charter fare rates to go below a certain level must in the end be something which could affect the public interest and not just the airline and tour operators.
The two specific dangers to which I would draw the attention of my noble friend are, first, that where margins are small, should there be a contraction of growth in the industry, a number of tour operators would be in serious financial trouble; indeed we have had cases of this. Secondly, there is the obvious need for airline operators to maintain their financial stability and operational integrity. There should never be any reason for cutting corners and so reducing safety and reliability?
My Lords, these, I believe, are problems about which the industry is generally worried. They could prove to be against the consumer interests to which the noble Baroness has so rightly drawn attention, and I hope that my noble friend will be able to give us some assurance on these points.
7.15 p.m.
EARL AMHERST: My Lords, I would agree with what has been said about the way in which the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, has presented the picture, and the immense trouble she has taken to get a lot of facts straight. I am dismayed that she should tell us that the Consumer Council is going out of business to-morrow, as I had one or two suggestions to make whereby perhaps it would have been able to make its views better known. But there may be successive organisations to represent the consumer. If the Consumer Council is not in future to represent the general public, it will be just a question of what the public that flies now wants. I agree with the noble Baroness that we all should like to fly free, or with the cheapest ticket we can get. No one wants to pay a penny more than he has to, and many people do not wish to spend a penny at all. The question is how to achieve that.

787
I think, my Lords, that we should look at the different classes of passengers. There are those passengers who, for social, business, prestige or personal reasons wish to fly first-class and can afford to do so. There are those who want to fly on the regular scheduled services, paying regular fares, because they want a choice of service and a choice of the day and the time when they travel. They do not want a hotel thrown in; they want to make their own reservations. There are those who would be happy to go at a less convenient time of day, or during mid-week, and travel in a group, and have all the difficulties regarding passports, foreign currency, tips and so forth taken care of. They would like to be accommodated in a hotel not of their choosing, but probably a very good hotel. There are also those who are quite happy to travel as a group in the middle of the night, because that is the most economical way for them to travel; and they are interested only in getting to their destination as cheaply as possible. The requirements of all these passengers are different. I am sure that the noble Baroness did not, for a second, mean to imply that one class of traveller should be subsidised and another class penalised, or that one class of traveller should travel at the expense of another class. The requirements of all of them must be considered.
We should also look at the different classes of air operators. A big State company that runs a regular scheduled airline for 365 days of the year may provide 10 services or more a day, and they operate, load or no load. It is in a very different category regarding equipment, finance and everything else from companies which can pick their time and fly chartered or special flights, with possibly a 90 per cent. load, and which if they do not get that load do not fly. I should like to quote from one of the papers from the Consumer Council sent to me by the noble Baroness, as it makes a very important point:
"Bear in mind the travelling public have an interest in the continuing viability of both forms of air transport."
that is to say, the charter airline and the regular scheduled airline. That is really the nub of the matter—continued viability; that is what we are talking
788
about. If a State airline goes on reducing fares to the point when it is not meeting its costs and has to go to the Treasury and ask for a subsidy, it means that the general public are required to subsidise the air-travelling public. A private airline which did the same would go bankrupt. There is a limit below which one cannot go, and these points require careful examination.
We have heard about special weekend fares, middle-of-the-night fares, weekend fares, off-peak fares, special promotion fares, and so forth. Those are mostly engaged by the regular operator as fill-up traffic—the noble Baroness is quite right—and without them the operator's total revenues would not reach the level they do. Operators fill up accommodation that is not sold, and in that way increase their revenue. Without that revenue, they will not be able to reduce fares: indeed, they will probably increase them, which is something nobody wants. This aspect needs to be looked at carefully.
It has also been suggested that the Government should license more airlines. I wonder. In the United States, where the airline business is in far from a happy state, they have a unique territory—it is unlike that of any other country in the world. For example, an airline can fly from New York to Honolulu-6,000 miles—and not cross a single frontier or engage in a single cent's worth of foreign exchange; it does not need to have any rights or to come to agreements with foreign operators. Even so, airline operators are in trouble. I am told the indication is that they will have fewer airlines and that there will be mergers, because the fact is that at the moment there are too few passengers chasing too many seats. With the exception of the two British State operators, who have made quite considerable figures in the black, I do not know of a single operator in Europe who is making a profit at the moment.
I want to come now to the question of IATA. There has been a suggestion that IATA is a wicked cartel organised by the airlines to keep up the fares and discriminate against the public. This needs to be looked at carefully. In the international business of transport, whatever form that transport takes, you must have some organisation whereby you can deal

789
with your foreign opposite numbers and come to some sort of agreement; otherwise there is chaos. The Post Office have it—I think it is called the Postal Union; the shipping people have it; and the airlines have it, in IATA. Like everything else, IATA is certainly not perfect, but it is the only organisation that we have. And if we did not have it, there would be utter chaos: cut rates; people all over the world would be charging anything they like; and there would be a lowering of standards which eventually would result in accidents.
It has been said that the A.R.B. takes care of regulations to prevent accidents. It does, in this country; and the C.A.B. does the same in America. But these are not international bodies. If we got a situation where all operators charged what they liked, and cut rates all over the place, we should have a lot of naughty boys who were not keeping up the standards; and we might even get in the air that awful thing known as the flag of convenience, which I am sure nobody wants. Therefore I think that IATA needs to be looked at. It could be that in Europe by itself the improvement of IATA, or entry into the Common Market, would put us in a much better position to stablise it in Europe. But that is not the whole world.
Another thing I would point out about IATA is that without agreement on fares passengers will never be able to file a through-fare. I am sure that no noble Lord wishing to go to Beirut via Paris, Rome and Athens, would like to find that he could buy a ticket only from London to Paris, and that he would have to buy another ticket to Rome, and another to Athens—all at different rates of exchange. Passengers want a through rate. That is possible only so long as fares are more or less stabilised. And they are stabilised, twice a year, by IATA.
It must also be remembered that you have to take care price-wise with many filings. An operator cannot just go flying into France and doing what he likes; he has to pay attention to what the French want. So, whatever he agrees in IATA has to be agreed to by his opposite number. The only time Governments are brought in is when there is disagreement. I noticed that the noble Baroness said that Governments ought to be brought in
790
for questioning when fares are settled. But I suggest that if we mix the business of rights—the right to fly to a foreign country, which is the business of Government to Government—and the question of fares and rates—which is the business of airlines—we shall get into a serious muddle.
Of course there are anomalies in the present position. I can think of a very good one. Not so long ago, for various reasons, B.E.A. filed a very cheap fare to Malta. It was quickly found that it was cheaper to take this fare, to go from London to Malta and then double back from Malta to Rome, than to buy a ticket direct from London to Rome. You may say that that undercuts the regular service. But it does not really, because it takes much longer; and, of course, inter-lines and transit lines in Malta are not very convenient. But there is a case for trying it. If you choose to run around the manuals of fares and rates you can find all sorts of anomalies.
I think that, by and large, as the noble Baroness said, IATA wants looking at; but what is important is that the consumers should make their views known through international operators in IATA when they are fixing these fares and rates. If the Consumer Council had been continued I would have suggested that a way of doing this would be to make close liaison with the commercial directors of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A., at any rate as a start, as those gentlemen and those staffs probably know more about the vexed question of international fares than anybody else in this country. If the consumer interests could get close to them, they could get their views expressed through IATA. They might not get international agreement, but they could get their views expressed. I do not know what is going to happen now that there is no Consumer Council, but perhaps somebody else could take it up. As a second long-stop, the same representations might be made to the Air Transport Licensing Board or, if that is taken up by the new Civil Aviation Authority, then to them. That, I think, is as far as I can go to-night.
7.27 p.m.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend has raised this difficult point, and I am also glad that the noble Earl has given a little boost to my dying

791
Consumer Council. He made it clear that we should be having a much more constructive discussion to-day if we had not already been murdered. But I will not go into that; I said my piece sometime ago. The noble Lord opposite knows what I think about him and his doings, and I will say no more.
The noble Baroness has dealt in great detail with this subject, but I want to talk in a slightly more general sense. I am not an expert on air fares, though I regard myself as somewhat of an expert on consumer complaints. The thing which consumers on the whole have disliked most, among many other things they have disliked, is the nonsense about affinity rules. I think the Government's rather uncertain commitment to free competition seems to waver rather between several extremes, but certainly it is not at the moment a very clear commitment. I think they should move towards more active criticism of what is going on here. I do not think they should allow restrictions in restraint of trade of the most blatant kind to be enforced by IATA. I think we must make better agreements if we are to get away with cutting rates, even with a dirigiste Government; but; if you have a Government which claims to be one that believes in free competition, it is really laughable. We have to pretend that we belong to some ridiculous group wishing to go and investigate ruins somewhere in order to charter an aeroplane at a reduced rate. The whole thing has got completely out of hand. It was bad enough when the previous Government tolerated this situation. I really think that this Government are making it simply ridiculous, and I do not think this can be said too strongly.
My noble friend said that I would say something about the Civil Aeronautics Board. Mr. Secor Browne, its chairman, takes a very liberal line about this, and quite different from anything that has been said here. When he briefed the United States member airlines in IATA in preparation for the recent fares conference in Honolulu, he said that he was in favour of the simplification of the present IATA structure, which he described as "chaotic". He reminded the airlines of the increasing pressures on them from Congress, and from the consumer protection interests, and warned them not to try to cover their loses on promotional fares
792
by increasing ordinary fares—a point which has been made by every speaker. He said that it may be a very hot summer for IATA.
Earlier, the C.A.B. put forward proposals for relaxing the rules governing charter flights, with the aim of encouraging the major airlines to offer more charter facilities. In particular, they have proposed the abolition of the affinity rules. This is a very much more forthright position than the British position, either under the late Government, or now. The late Government were moving towards proper behaviour here, and I hope that this Government will do the same. The last Government said, in the November, 1969, White Paper, that they would take a more active role in regard to IATA pricing policies. May we assume that the present Government will stand by that pledge? A more active role does not, I should like to point out, mean doing nothing. Do the Government approve (and I hope they do not) of the package fares agreement at the Honolulu Conference? The worst feature of this package was that it tried to rule out various progressive schemes, one of which was the B.O.A.C. "Earlybird" scheme. I felt very strongly about that, because I went to Bermuda on that scheme last year. The only rule is that you have to book three months ahead, and you cannot cancel the booking. I went very cheaply and had a very agreeable visit.
I do not want to be too consumer-minded about this. There is another side to this problem, I know. Over-production—and I know this from agriculture—with very keen competition, can lead to bankruptcy. Although why this Government should mind, I question; it seems to me to be their direct policy that over-production should lead to bankruptcy. I do not want to make too much of a Party point of this. In an industry where safety is such an important factor, it is obviously reasonable to have some artificial restraints to prevent the pressures growing so fierce that the safety margin is eroded. From the consumer's point of view, however, the present restrictions are not acceptable, and I think that the present Government will have to soil their fingers a little and interfere. I know that they do not like interfering with anything which is going on, but this time they really will have to do so.

793
I should not speak for the Consumer Council, because one speaks in this House as an individual, but to-night, as it is my last opportunity to do so, I will speak for the Consumer Council, with the permission of my Front Bench, who have often complained about it before. We want to see this concept of fare competition accepted all round, and used to enable the airlines to increase competition in the same market for cheap air travel and, at the same time, we are determined to see these affinity rules relaxed, and restrictions on competition reduced so that proper competition can emerge. For example, we should like to see higher fares charged for better service, and lower fares charged for services which are not in that category. Higher fares could well be charged for modern aircraft flying between main centres on coordinated timetables—higher still, perhaps, for supersonic flights. Meanwhile, at the other end, lower fares should be charged on trunk routes, using older planes and less accessible airports. The point about competition is that if it is properly done it works. If it is made a complete muddle—as it is now—it does not work, and the time comes when somebody has to do something about it.
In our evidence to the Edwards Committee, we suggested that IATA's inflexible attitude to scheduled air fares restricted demand, and prevented full exploitation of the increased productivity of the big jets. That is a very important point. It also inhibits competition and the quality of service provided. You are not allowed to give two eggs in a meal to passengers if the other airlines give only one, and so on. This is not acceptable at all. We thought that some experiments could well be made to encourage competition in scheduled flights on a limited number of international routes, subject to certain conditions, the main one being that the airlines are reasonably evenly balanced, otherwise you run straight away into State support, which we do not want.
My Lords, I do not want to say any more, because the detail has been admirably put by the noble Baroness. My noble friend Lord Beswick must be very glad that this Question has come at this time, and not eight months ago, because some of the questions she asked were formidable, and I look forward with fascination to the answers we shall get. From
794
the point of view of the Consumer Council, we want to see more competition. We believe that competition is healthy. We do not believe that competition need lead to danger, if there is proper supervision centrally. If it does lead to danger, it is not the fault of the competitors, it is the fault of the Government. With that thought, I wait to hear what the noble Lord will say to the noble Baroness.
7.36 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to everything that has been said this evening, including the speech from the Chairman of the Consumer Council. I take this opportunity of saying that I hope he will make many more speeches in a similar capacity. I want, too, to congratulate my noble friend Lady Burton for bringing this subject forward in the way that she has done. I only wish that I was capable of offering congratulations in as charming a manner as that displayed by the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. But what he said, I mean.
Undoubtedly the noble Baroness has touched upon a very sensitive area in air transport economics. She has asked some cogent questions and, like my noble friend Lord Donaldson, I look forward with interest to the answers that we are expecting. I think also we should be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, for putting for us very clearly the fact that there is another aspect to this point of view. It is not quite so uncomplicated as some may care to think. It is not all black and white, and we have to bear in mind some of the other implications of the problem. In particular, I was pleased to hear the tribute which the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, paid to the clearing house facilities of IATA. Without any doubt, that is a great service to the air transport industry.
My noble friend referred to discriminatory fares, and certainly this is a term which arouses certain emotions. If we refer to them as "promotional" or "creative" fares, they do not sound quite so offensive. It is a fact, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said, that these fares have undoubtedly assisted the expansion of the industry and, in consequence, have made possible a better service to travellers generally, including that category of traveller in which my noble friend places herself; and, if I may say so, I should like to put myself as a fellow traveller

795
of hers in that connection. Nothing that I say here ought to be taken as an endeavour to lessen the impact of what she has said. She has put a very powerful case, and it deserves a careful reply. I listened to what my noble friend Lord Donaldson said about the affinity group. Here is a matter that ought to be looked at with a degree of urgency. The situation has become absolutely farcical, and to me there was some doubt about the economics of the matter right from the beginning.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord how far the previous Government got in looking at this problem?
LORD BESWICK: Let us not deal with this in a Party spirit. If we did not do enough, then I criticise the previous Government. I am not interested in looking at it in a Party way. I was going on to say that the Civil Aeronautics Board in the United States have tackled the problem, and to me this emphasises the fact that in this country we need a similar body, equally authoritative and equally active as the C.A.B. in the United States. I wanted to see that brought forward in the lifetime of the last Parliament. We were not able to see the necessary legislation on the Statute Book. The last time I had the pleasure of dealing with this matter and the noble Lord opposite answered me. I asked him when we could expect legislation. I tried to help him and his Department by saying that the legislation ought to have a degree of priority.
My own view is that all the details and all the problems that have been brought forward by my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry ought really to be considered by a professional organisation such as the C.A.B. It is much better to discuss them there, in detail, than here. So the sooner we have the Civil Aeronautics Authority established in this country, the better. I was dismayed when the noble Lord was unable to give me any indication of when the legislation is coming forward, and I hope, my Lords, that he can give us a rather better reply this evening.
7.41 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am sure we are all extremely grateful
796
to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, for introducing this subject, which is of immense importance to a great many people in this country and in other countries. We have had a very varied debate, and a very good tempered debate. I have been interested that it was from the Liberal Benches that the Establishment position was put forward: and I think the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, put it forward very well indeed. It is well that we should keep our feet on the ground in considering these matters, and pre-eminently he did that.
May I deal with the question of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick? It is, as he knows, quite unusual to give a specific date when legislation is going to be brought forward. He also knows that legislation is not particularly easy in the course of this year owing to certain Bills before another place. It may be difficult to get the legislation which he wants through this year, but we are still hopeful that it may be possible to do it. I cannot say more than that, but hope that that will be some comfort to him.
The interesting thing about the noble Baroness's Question is that there is a slight change of emphasis at a given point between different classes of travellers and the consumer interest. The consumer interest is notoriously difficult to define. Some people may try to sort it out from time to time, but can never be sure they have got it right. In actual fact, the number of consumers involved and the width of their interest in the question of air travel is exceedingly great, and it would be difficult to say exactly where the consumer interest lies.
However, may I suggest that what consumers may require of air travel is this. First of all, they are accustomed to, and seem to want, regular services in accordance with published schedules of times and fares, offering the consumer the maximum flexibility of arrangements, as the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, said, in accordance with individual needs and choice. Secondly, at the other extreme, there are bulk travel arrangements requiring fixed bookings long in advance.
May I say a word there about affinity, because one of the difficulties of bulk travel is the difficulty of deciding who is entitled to bulk travel terms; and all

797
these questions of definition are obviously difficult. Noble Lords were quite right to draw attention to this problem. We have to recognise that the existing rules are unsatisfactory in a number of respects, and we should like to see something done about them, but time and again in replying to this debate I am bound to say that it is necessary for Governments to move in concert with each other in this matter. We are interested in the recent C.A.B. proposed rule-making, which reflects the kind of thinking embodied in B.O.A.C.s "Earlybird" fares, to which the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, referred and which he seems to have found satisfactory. We shall be examining the proposal very carefully. Time and again we shall, of course, be putting forward suggestions which may or may not be accepted in IATA.
The third broad band here of what consumers require of air travel is the inbetween—the excursion arrangements with limited, defined options. Obviously, it has been generally recognised that, however much competition we may like to stimulate, all air travel requires regulation if only for safety reasons, which form an outstanding requirement; and international air travel requires regulation because, as the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, made very clear, agreement between the country of origin and the country of destination is needed. Airlines are there to provide for the needs of the consumer and it is their aim as well as their function to meet the needs of the consumer within the limits imposed by the need for the airlines themselves to continue in business—that is, to make ends meet. I need not go into the details of this, because we have already discussed it at different times, but it is very long-term planning which makes progress in this sphere inevitably slow; we would all accept that.
It is, of course, true that any large enterprise may be so taken up with its own problems of daily administration and even survival, that it may tend to subordinate to its own convenience the interests of those whom it exists to serve. This is true of anything from, let us say, nursery schools to great institutions. The justification is often that the main interest of those whom it serves is economy, and what is best administered is best. But
798
what I sense the noble Baroness really wants is that the Government will always be both watchful and active to see that constant efforts are made to meet the ever-changing and infinitely varying needs of consumers as they arise. There is really no definable consumer interest. There are so many interests of millions of divers users. I hope to be able to convince her that the Government are watchful and active in this respect, and I trust she will not lose patience while I am referring, as I must, to the limitations within which they are bound to work in dealing with international air travel.
It is bound to seem odd that one person should be able to go, say, from London to Barcelona and have a fortnight's holiday on the coast of Spain for less than another pays for the return journey. Possibly it is even more odd that two people travelling on the same aeroplane, of the same age, are paying different fares, quite apart from class. But the fact is that they are really only shopping in different markets. They are buying two quite different sets of services. Unquestionably there is a need (as, again, the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, said) for international scheduled services. Wherever there is such a need fares are necessarily fixed, because in most cases they have to be internationally agreed. That is not to say that there is only one fare applicable between two places. It means that if the traveller wants to keep all his options open, including stopover at intermediate points, date of return and all the rest, he may pay the full fixed fare decided on by the appropriate traffic conference of IATA. Apart from that, there are tourist excursion fares, night excursion fares, reduced return fares fixed for a minimum period or a maximum period, or both, and so on.
The noble Baroness asked me, as she asked my noble friend, about the out-turn of Paris fares. The noble Baroness said, if I understood her correctly, that the total of Paris fares amounts to only 75 per cent. of the normal economy fare. This is the yield of published fares, and she went on to say that if that is so, it must mean that normal fares must be pushed up to compensate. I cannot vouch for that exact figure, but I suppose she means the average net yield per passenger works out at 75 per cent. of the normal economy fare.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I thought I had made it perfectly clear. I never mentioned economy. I said that the London-Paris yield to B.E.A. was 75 per cent. of the published fare, and I said that if this was correct it must mean that more than half the passengers, for one reason or another, were carried at less than half fare, and that other fares were pushed up to compensate.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I was trying to establish what fares the noble Baroness meant. Of course there are first-class and second-class fares.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I beg your pardon. I said the London-Paris yield, which I thought was inclusive.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, it is of course a little more difficult to establish the exact proportion in that case. I think the answer is that this is not really as alarming a state of affairs as the noble Baroness imagines, for in fixing the fares the airlines calculate their revenues on a net, rather than a gross, basis, and the difference between the normal fare and the average net yield is no doubt accounted for by, first of all, the payment of commission to retail travel agents, the fact that children are travelling at half price, the night excursion fares, and other discounts and reductions of that kind. I do not see that it follows from that fact in any way that any fares are being pushed up in order to accommodate these discounts of one kind or another.
The general purpose of excursion fares and the like is to encourage travel and to meet the needs of would-be travellers. In effect, the noble Baroness asked whether there could not be further experiments with fares to encourage travel; and further experiments are being made. The demand for scheduled services varies with the season, the time of day and the day of the week. As the noble Baroness said, the average passenger load factor throughout the year is around 60 per cent., which means that two out of five seats are unoccupied; but reducing the fare would not necessarily fill enough of them to make the reduction worth while. I think that was the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Amherst. In theory,
800
given the obligation to provide a scheduled service with all the options open, which means a degree of spare capacity, the operator can either make all or part of the seats available for this purpose. If he makes only part of them available he may still be making enough available to meet the demand at that particular season, time of the week or time of the day.
This is the sort of arrangement that is under contemplation at the present time in the T.O.P. fare scheme. If scheduled services on holiday routes cannot compete in the wholesale market they may cease to be viable, and their withdrawal would be detrimental to the interests of individual travellers. The availability of T.O.P. fares is limited to 30 per cent. of the seats on the flight, or 40 seats, whichever is the lower. This will leave ample seats available, on average, for individual bookings at short notice. T.O.P. fares are on a contract basis with a non-returnable deposit payable up to four months in advance, the balance also being payable, I believe, one month in advance.
My Lords, I was also asked about whether these fares had come into operation, or when they would come into operation.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I am sorry to keep on being a nuisance—I am not being troublesome: but I am still not quite clear.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I have not yet finished on that point.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: I know, my Lords, but we are not dealing with the same thing. I asked about the "top-up" fares, of which I gave notice to the noble Lord. What I should like to know is what period of the year these are in operation.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords. I think in fact we are talking about the same thing: "T.O.P." stands for "tour operators". I have forgotten what the "p" stands for, but I think they are loosely called "top-up" fares. I think we are talking about exactly the same thing. On home services I do not know whether the B.E.A. are operating these at the present time, but there were such things, as the noble Baroness herself mentioned, as standby fares and the like. But this

801
has nothing to do with what I am referring to.
The B.E.A. "drive about" holidays are not based on T.O.P. fares, which do not come into operation until October 16. I do not know exactly on what fares they are based, but presumably they must, in order to conform with obligations, be based on existing I.T.X. fares.
If there is anything further I can add to that for the noble Baroness I will certainly write to her, but this is the information I am able to give her at the present time. If I may say so, she shot so many questions at me so fast that I was not able to note nearly all of them, and if I may I will write to her.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I did give the noble Lord notice of a good many of my questions.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I had two or three paragraphs typed for me of the notice that the noble Baroness gave, and we are trying to answer all the questions that she indicated. But what I saw was a very small summary in comparison with the enormous number of questions that she fired at me in the course of her speech. But I will do my best.
Perhaps I might say this. There has been no reference, apart from the "Early Bird" service, to the B.O.A.C. services to which they referred in their report, when they said this:
"Special fares were introduced"—
this was for 1969–70—
"which provided an incentive to agents and tour operators to buy seats in bulk, thus giving B.O.A.C. access to the highly competitive bulk travel market. Fares used with biggest effect were the contract bulk inclusive tour and the special group inclusive tour".
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, who has now fled the House, referred to the Honolulu conference. I think I should say that we have not yet approved the North Atlantic fares agreed in Honolulu last autumn, and that will give me an opportunity to say that all IATA agreements have to be approved by the Governments affected, and before approving the Honolulu North Atlantic fares we shall want to see what other countries do, especially the C.A.B. We are sorry that IATA has not wished to persevere with the fares I have just
802
referred to, or to adopt the "Early Bird" concept; but the North Atlantic fares agreed in Honolulu are for one year only, and no doubt the argument will go on. I think I should make it clear also (I do not think the noble Earl, Lord Amherst, mentioned this) that all IATA passenger tariff agreements are concluded by unanimous vote of all member airlines. But, as I said, they are subject to the approval of the airlines concerned and the Governments concerned. So Governments are not without influence in these matters, and I can assure the noble Baroness that the British Government seek to use their influence in an enlightened way from the point of view of the consumer.
The real problem that the noble Baroness has indicated is partly due to the fact that the costs of travel are constantly rising, whereas experiments with charter flights and competition in tour operation often brings lower charges at the opposite end of the scale. But those rising costs must be met somehow or another, and the problem is to be able to maintain the necessary scheduled services in operation while at the same time giving the maximum freedom to the charter operators, consistent with safety and consistent with the survival of the scheduled flights.
It is easy to criticise this from the outside and to take what we used to call in the Services a "worm's eye view". I use that expression with no kind of offence intended, but it is very difficult for the individual consumer to judge the requirements in this sort of sphere. I would say that the Government envisage that the new Civil Aviation Authority will consult representatives about air fares, but it is not practicable for consumer bodies, as the noble Earl, Lord Amherst said, to take part in IATA negotiations. IATA, after all, is a trade association of schedule airlines.
EARL AMHERST: My Lords, if I may mention one point on the subject of inreased costs which may be of interest, the new oil arrangement for the Arabian Gulf, I am told, will increase B.E.A.'s costs this year by £2 million.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am grateful for that information; I myself had not yet obtained it. I think it is important to make this clear. The

803
demand for scheduled services is relatively inelastic. It is growing, although obviously more slowly than for nonscheduled. There is little indication that it is being eroded by charter services and inclusive tours on most routes, or that a reduction in fares on scheduled services would result in a commensurate increase in their use.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord has just touched on the core of the matter. What it boils down to is this: should not we create extra traffic or promote extra traffic if we experimented with the idea of reducing a little for all rather than a lot for the few? Can the noble Lord say on what he bases his last statement; that there is no indication that a reduction in fares would help scheduled services?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am afraid I cannot give the noble Lord the basis for it. May I write to him about that? People who want to keep all their options open may grumble about the price they have to pay for doing so, but this is part of the package they are buying. It is quite wrong to equate the package that they are buying with the package
804
that somebody is buying when they buy a place on an inclusive tour for a specified time, having to pay the money in advance and having to make up their minds a very long time in advance. The fact is that the number who pay this price continues to grow year by year. I recognise that there is dissatisfaction, although I am well aware that some of those who feel dissatisfied have been active in making their dissatisfaction known to others.
The facts are—and this is the core of it—first, that airlines have to pay their way; secondly, that it is in their interests to encourage the maximum use of the very expensive aircraft they have to provide; thirdly, that in the sphere of international scheduled services there is no alternative to proceeding by way of an international agreement; and fourthly, that Her Majesty's Government are conscious of the interests of the travelling public and are constantly doing all they can to encourage progress, though not necessarily always along the lines the noble Baroness or any other individual or group would prefer.
House adjourned at four minutes past eight o'clock.