Lords Sitting of 26 January 1971

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The EARL OF LISTOWEL on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chester.
The Viscount Leverhulme—Took the Oath.

BUILDING SOCIETIES AND COMMONWEALTH INVESTMENT
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will take the necessary steps to add the Commonwealth Development Corporation to the list of investments in which British building societies may, if they so desire, invest a portion of their liquid funds and also whether they will take the necessary steps to permit British building societies to enter into joint projects with the Commonwealth Development Corporation in the development of building societies in those parts of the Commonwealth where the Commonwealth Development Corporation is entitled to operate.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, the noble Lord's suggestions would seem to require an order made under Section 58 of the Building Societies Act 1962 by the Chief Registrar of Friendly Societies, with the consent of the Treasury. At their request the building societies have discussed this possibility with the Chief Registrar. These discussions are still at a preliminary stage, and no definite proposals have been made. I am sure that the Chief Registrar and the Treasury would give careful consideration to any specific request by the societies for additional powers of the kind which the noble Lord proposes.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for that Answer, may I ask him, first, whether he is aware that the building societies have assets of over £10,500 million and that those assets are rising rapidly? Secondly, may I ask him whether he is aware of the splendid work which the Commonwealth Development Corporation has done in developing housing societies in the Commonwealth without any help from building societies in this country, because building societies have not been able to assist the Commonwealth Development Corporation in this important work?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, the answer to both of the noble Lord's questions is, Yes. But there are a great number of considerations and, possibly, difficulties, both legal and technical, involved. Whether or not they can be resolved, we must await definite proposals put by the building societies to the Chief Registrar. They have not been put up to the present.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Earl said that the Chief Registrar and the Treasury would give careful consideration to a proposal. May we take it that there would be sympathetic consideration if an approach were made by the building societies, bearing in mind the urgent need for housing within the Commonwealth?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I can certainly assure the noble Lord that the reception of the approach would be sympathetic. Whether the results would be sympathetic would of course depend upon the approach.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, does the noble Earl remember that when what is now the Building Societies Act was passing through Parliament in 1962, some of us in another place moved an Amendment along exactly these lines, and that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor (as he now is), resisted it with exactly the same arguments as the noble Earl is now using?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I always have very great respect for my noble friend's argumentative powers, but I must confess, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Royle, that I was not aware of that particular incident in history. I shall

813
immediately look it up and try to produce some new arguments, if necessary. But I am not resisting this proposal and the Government are not resisting it; we are awaiting definite proposals.

MENTALLY HANDICAPPED: HOSTEL PROVISION IN NEW TOWNS
2.38 p.m.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consider giving directions to the development corporation of any future New Town that hostels for the mentally handicapped should be incorporated in the initial plans of the New Town.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, the provision of community services for the mentally handicapped in New Towns is a statutory duty of the local authority in whose area the New Town is being built, not the responsibility of the New Town development corporation. But local authorities are consulted by the development corporation in the initial stages of the preparation of the master plan which provides the basis for the development of the New Town. This plan makes provision for major land uses such as schools and hospitals; and the siting of buildings for other services, to which my noble friend referred, such as the care of the mentally handicapped is worked out subsequently in the more detailed planning of districts and neighbourhoods.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, may I ask him one supplementary question? Is he aware that, sadly, there is still a prejudice among many of the public against having hostels adjacent to their homes? Would not directions of the type referred to in my original Question ensure not only that hostels could be built without undue delay, but that after they were built the minds of the public could be set at rest as to the
814
behaviour of the mentally handicapped who were admitted to those hostels?
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, my Lords, My right honourable friend is aware of difficulties of this sort over establishments of this kind. But he is not satisfied that my noble friend's proposal would necessarily solve the problem in the way that he hopes.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will consider even more carefully what has been said?—because the development of so-called "halfway houses" is dependent so much on voluntary action. May I therefore ask him, not to bring pressure but to continue the education and, perhaps, to stimulate both the development corporations and the other authorities to consider this matter further?
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, certainly, my Lords.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, will the Minister state how many New Towns have land available for the development of these hostels, as requested by local authorities up and down the country?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I can answer that question to some extent, but not perhaps to the full extent which the noble Lord would like. Local authorities overall have plans to provide additional places for 2,400 adults and for 500 children within the next three years. I can write to the noble Lord and tell him how many of those local authorities are in the New Towns.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Grenfell, is not suitable in the circumstances described 'by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, how is it intended to get over planning difficulties and avoid carrying a great deal of unnecessary trouble to voluntary bodies, who sometimes spend years acquiring property and are then unable to use it because they cannot get planning permission?
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that the overall figure of 2,000-odd which he has given is very small considering the demand for this kind of accommodation?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, it may well be insufficient, but the Government

815
have already stated that they are comitting an extra £110 million for the health and welfare services over the next four years. Part of this sum will be devoted to improving services for the mentally handicapped.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, how can the noble Lord reconcile this very small figure with the statutory responsibility which I believe was incorporated in the Mental Health Act? Surely this is evading their responsibilities.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I would not agree that this is a small figure. It is a very considerable increase.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, does the noble Lord intend to reply to my noble friend Lord Stonham?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am as aware as the noble Lord is of the difficulty of providing half-way hostels of all kinds—for prisoners, after-care, gipsies, mental patients and so on—but I am not satisfied, nor is my right honourable friend, that transferring responsibility from the local authorities to the development corporation is the best way of solving these problems.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, will the noble Lord say what is the best way to get over a difficulty which we are agreed affects thousands of people?
LORD SANDFORD: The best way, my Lords, is to persevere along the way we are now going.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that your Lordships are likely to encourage his own perseverance in this matter?

AIR TRANSPORT FARES
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: 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 are aware of increasing consumer dissatisfaction at the exclusion of regular travellers from the financial benefits of new air traffic at lower fares and whether, within the
816
International Air Transport Association, they will take steps to ensure that some encouragement is offered to travellers using normal services.]
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, as the noble Barones knows, air fares on scheduled services may vary in accordance with such factors as the season, the time of the flight or the length of stay, and special rates are offered for inclusive tours and other forms of bulk travel where higher passenger load factors can be achieved. While the Edwards Committee of Inquiry into Civil Air Transport recommended that there should be a different approach towards the regulation of inclusive tour prices in relation to public fares on scheduled services, any such approach has to take into account differences in the quality of air travel, including comfort, convenience and any restriction on the choice of flights.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I have no wish to be offensive, but the noble Lord will realise that that did not add much to my knowledge. I wonder if I might ask him whether he is aware that consumers take the view that airlines are selling lower non-public fares in an attempt to meet charter competition?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I would say, in fact, that airlines are selling fares lower in off-peak times, et cetera, in order to make the airlines pay.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one other question? Is he aware that the London/Paris yields to B.E.A., on average, only 75 per cent. of the published fares, and that if this is so then it must mean that normal fares are pushed up to compensate? Would the noble Lord have a look at that information and see if it is correct?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I will certainly have a look at that information.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, arising out of the Question and Answer, may I ask my noble friend whether Her Majesty's Government do not think that it is about time we had a hard look at this International Air Transport Association—its powers, administration and relationship with Her Majesty's Government—so far as this country is concerned?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, no doubt my right honourable friend will consider what my noble friend has to say, but I would draw to his attention that there is an Unstarred Question down in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, on very much the same point, slightly wider than that which she has raised to-day, and perhaps this is one point which can emerge from that debate.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, should I be in order in asking, through the Minister, whether the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, would do me the great pleasure of being in the House on February 18 and taking part in the debate?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I am advised that the noble Baroness would not be in order.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether, since this is a complicated subject—it is in fact a complete jungle, and the dissatisfaction is getting so grave and the bureaucracy that is involved in administering all this is getting so great—he will now go very fully into it himself, so that when he comes to reply he will perhaps be able to give a rather more encouraging answer than he has yet been able to give?
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, if I am to answer the debate I shall certainly go into it very fully indeed. But whether the noble Lord will be encouraged by my answer is a different matter.

NORTHERN IRELAND AND UNION WITH EIRE
2.48 p.m.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: 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 cost of Northern Ireland to the United Kingdom of over £300 million per annum, it would not be profitable to the United Kingdom for them to promote the union of Northern Ireland with Eire.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, it is far from the case that Northern Ireland costs the United Kingdom over £300 million a year. Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom, and the greater part of the money paid from the United Kingdom Consolidated Fund to the Northern Ireland Exchequer represents the yield of taxes paid by the inhabitants of Northern Ireland itself. As for the remainder, there are other parts of the United Kingdom where the yield of taxation does not fully meet the cost of the services. Nor is this a matter of finance. Section 1 of the Government of Ireland Act 1949 affirms that in no event will Northern Ireland or any part thereof cease to be part of the United Kingdom without the consent of the Parliament of Northern Ireland. Her Majesty's Government have reaffirmed on a number of occasions that this issue is solely a matter for the people of Northern Ireland themselves.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his Answer, may I ask him whether he is aware that those of us who were hoping for a shilling off income tax and at the same time to teach Dublin to laugh in church will be somewhat disappointed? Is the noble Lord also aware that on November 18 I got from his noble Leader some figures in a rather complicated document in answer to a Written Question? Would the noble Lord not agree that if both the Republic and this country enter the Common Market we shall in effect be back to square one? If so, would it not be efficacious, a good idea, a wise precaution or whatever you like to call it, to hand the responsibility over to Dublin before that takes place; otherwise, we shall be saddled with the expense and tribal warfare for ever?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, we cannot speculate in that way on what might happen if the United Kingdom or Eire acceded to the Treaty of Rome.
LORD O'NEILL OF THE MAINE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware what satisfaction Her Majesty's Government's reply will give in Northern Ireland? May I further add that I feel that this Question is a little unfortunate at the present time; for is the noble

819
Lord aware that the implication behind it is that the Army should be withdrawn? But for the presence and involvement of the troops in Northern Ireland to-day we should have something aproaching a civil war, and then the Government in Dublin—the moderate, sensible Government in Dublin—would fall and the extremists would take over in Northern Ireland.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the Question referred to the cost of services provided in Northern Ireland; but I think that all noble Lords in this House would like to support what is done by the Armed Forces in Northern Ireland. They are to be visited shortly by my noble friend the Secretary of State for Defence.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that if we go into the Common Market, in spite of what was said just now, any dispute between the Northern section and the Southern section of our neighbouring island would become increasingly meaningless? Would he not also agree that if we go into the Common Market any burden on this country to support the rather weak economy in Northern Ireland, in Ulster, will certainly be able to become, to some extent, the responsibility of the Community?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I did say that we should not speculate on the future. What the noble Lord has said will be borne in mind, but it goes outside the Question.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, leaving aside the somewhat squalid, sordid and irrelevant subject of the Common Market, may I ask the noble Lord this question? Does anybody—including the noble Lord and his colleagues—believe that what Parnell, Gladstone, Arthur Balfour, Asquith and Lloyd George failed to achieve is within the capability of Ted Heath? Has he not enough trouble?
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, are the Government aware that if the pubs in Ulster were closed on Saturday nights Northern Ireland would become an asset and not a liability?
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, will the noble Lord answer my question?
LORD REA: My Lords, could the noble Lord explain the difference between the Unionist Party and the Conservative Party? Most Members on the other side have the letter "U" before their names. What union does that refer to?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I do not know what Question noble Lords have in front of them. I feared that the Question on the Paper would provoke a general debate on Ireland—and it has.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, a far more patent reason for the ending of partition is the already ardent desire for it of the great majority of the Irish people—and it will become the desire of the majority in Northern Ireland as the Catholic proportion inexorably rises.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I should like to repeat what the Prime Minister said in answer to a Written Question in another place on November 10:
"The status of Northern Ireland as part of the United Kingdom will remain unchanged unless and until the people of Northern Ireland themselves want to change it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, col. 129; 10/11/70.]
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that a large majority of citizens of Northern Ireland do not want it to be changed; that they want to stay with us?

UGANDA: SAFETY OF BRITISH NATIONALS
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask a Question of which I have already given Private Notice. The Question is as follows:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on the safety of British nationals in Uganda."
EARL. ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Lothian will be answering this Question at a convenient moment after 3.30.
After this statement on Uganda, my noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a Statement on the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR AND JUDICIAL BUSINESS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, your Lordships will have noticed that two Consolidation Bills which were down for consideration to-day in the name of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor are not now on the Order Paper and have been deferred unlit Tuesday, February 2. My noble and learned friend has asked me to explain to your Lordships why this has been done and why he has not been able to make the explanation himself. Yesterday my noble and learned friend found that an urgent appeal to your Lordships' House in its Judicial capacity, an adoption matter, would have to be postponed, with consequent hardship to the parties involved, because one of the noble and learned Lords of Appeal in Ordinary was indisposed. He has therefore decided to sit in the Appellate Committee himself so that the appeal may be heard without delay; and this hearing is now taking place. He has asked me to apologise to the House on his behalf for his absence from the Woolsack until the conclusion of the hearing of the appeal, which I gather is likely to be some time next week.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will sympathise with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in his difficulties. All Lord Chancellors are pressed by their colleagues from time to time to spare a judge for something, such as to take the chair at a Committee or a Tribunal, as in the case of the electricity workers' dispute. I do not think that our colleagues always realise the difficulties that this creates. I have not forgotten that I spared Mr. Justice Scarman to take the chair at a Tribunal in Belfast which I understood from the Northern Ireland Government would take about three weeks. This was in August of the year before last; and the Tribunal is still sitting.

ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORITY BILL
2.57 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORT-FOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Your Lordships will recognise this Bill as being almost identical with the one which was introduced by the previous Government into this House on April 14 last year. That Bill completed its passage through this House but was lost on the Dissolution of Parliament. Since the Bill is already familiar, I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I do not explain its provisions in great detail. I shall confine myself in the main to developments that have taken place since the last Bill was before the House. Even that will take a little time, but I hope it will help to expedite the later stages of the Bill.
The Bill provides for the transfer of the nuclear fuel and radio-isotope trading business of the Atomic Energy Authority to two companies to be set up under the Companies Acts. This business has been carried on by the Trading Fund of the Authority since April 1, 1965; and the Bill represents a further step in putting these activities on to a fully commercial basis.
The radio-isotope business at the Radiochemical Centre at Amersham will be transferred to the Radiochemical Centre Limited. The Radiochemical Centre was first established in 1946 to provide radioactive substances for medical, industrial and research use. The amount of business has steadily grown. In the last full year, 1969–70, net sales of radioactive products increased by 22·6 per cent. to £4 million of which £2·4 million—60 per cent.—was exported. The Centre employs over 600 people, most of whom are non-industrial.
The nuclear fuel services business carried out by the Production Group of the Authority will be transferred to British Nuclear Fuels Limited. This business is carried on at Springfields, Capenhurst and Windscale in the North-West. It embraces not only the manufacture of fuel elements from uranium ore but also services at intermediate stages of the nuclear fuel cycle; for example: conversion of uranium ore into uranium hexafluoride at Springfields, which can

823
then be passed through enrichment plants; the enrichment process carried on at Capenhurst; and the reprocessing of irradiated fuel elements at Windscale. The reactors at Calder Hall and Chapel-cross which generate electricity for sale to the Generating Boards will also be transferred to the fuel company. The total numbers employed are about 8,800.
The turnover in sales of nuclear fuel services and electricity in 1969–70 amounted to £37·8 million of which £4·4 million was in exports. The value of sales of nuclear fuel services has increased by about 50 per cent. since the first financial year of the Trading Fund in 1965–66, as also has that of radio-isotopes. In the last financial year the overall surplus on trading before deduction of interest, tax and development expenditure was £9·3 million. This represented a return of 23 per cent. on trading capital of about £40 million. A target rate of return of 13 per cent. is specified for trading in nuclear fuel services with the home generating boards. In 1969–70 the return was 12·9 per cent. Combined with a slightly higher return in the previous financial year, this gives an average return in line with the target.
Your Lordships will no doubt wonder what is the value of the assets to be transferred to the companies. The assets have, of course, been subject to appropriate annual rates of depreciation and the accounts have been examined in the usual way by the Comptroller and Auditor General. In their accounts for the year 1969–70, the Authority wrote up the value of the fixed assets at Windscale because they considered that the six-year depreciation period which they had adopted was unnecessarily conservative. Windscale was transferred to the Trading Fund on April 1, 1970, and is not therefore shown in the balance sheet of the Trading Fund as at March 31, 1970. Taking account of the transfer of Windscale, on a rough estimate, the value of the net assets to be transferred to the nuclear fuel company is in the region of £50 million. The value of the net assets to be transferred to the Radiochemical Centre Limited, is about £4 million. Loan liabilities to be transferred will include about £36 million in the case of the fuel company and £3 million in that of the Radiochemical Centre Limited.
824
These figures for the value of the net assets refer, of course, to the value as shown in the books and not to a commercial valuation, which is an essential pre-requisite for private participation. About that I shall have something to say later.
Clause 24 of the Bill empowers the Secretary of State to appoint, by order made by Statutory Instrument, the day or days on which the transfers of the appropriate parts of the Atomic Energy Authority's undertaking shall take place; and it is intended that the appointed days for both the fuel and the radiochemical companies should be April 1. It is therefore appropriate that both companies should be registered in the near future. This will be done after the Bill has been considered in Committee in this House. The draft memoranda and articles are available for inspection in the Library. At least, they have been placed in the Library.
I should also comment briefly on one or two differences between this Bill and its predecessor. It will be recalled that there was some debate previously about the original provision that a majority shareholding should be retained by the Authority or the Government, and particularly about the precise words in which this was expressed. The Government have come to the view that, primarily because of the strategic importance of the fuel company, it is sensible to provide for retention of a majority public shareholding in it. Having reached that view, the Government felt it would make the transfer to both companies easier if they were treated alike. The opportunity has been taken however to improve the wording of Clause 11.
The Bill provides not only for transfer of certain Atomic Energy Authority establishments and assets, but also for transfer of the employees who are at present doing the work. As was appreciated in another place recently, these employees are themselves the principal asset of the two businesses; and both the previous and also the present Government, and the Authority, have gone to very considerable lengths to ensure that the conditions on which the employees are to be transferred are fair and reasonable. The staffing clauses are identical with those in the previous Bill but for

825
changes in the references to clauses. But there has also been a great deal of consultation, both before and since the change of Government; and the extensive staffing safeguards in the Bill are now supplemented by a number of assurances and clarifications. Some of these assurances and clarifications have been given by the Authority, on behalf of the prospective managements of the companies; others, by the Government.
As I say, Clauses 8 and 9 are identical with the corresponding clauses in the earlier Bill. Clause 8 provides that immediately after their transfer to the companies staff are to be employed on terms and conditions appropriate to them immediately after transfer, and that means terms and conditions which correspond as nearly as the circumstances permit to those which they enjoyed in the Authority immediately before the transfer. Clause 9 then lays an obligation on the companies to establish negotiating machinery in consultation with representatives of the staff; and the clause goes on to lay down that the terms and conditions of employment to be negotiated in substitution for those deemed to be in force under Clause 8 shall conform with the principle that, taken as a whole, they are to be no less favourable than the terms and conditions which staff enjoyed immediately before the date of transfer.
The clause also provides for arbitration on the question whether this principle is adhered to. There is thus an interim period between the transfer and the adoption, in consultation and by agreement, of new terms and conditions of service. The staff have been concerned about this interim period. Assurances have accordingly been given that, for a period of up to two years from the appointed days, any Authority pay increases that would have applied to the staff concerned, had they remained in the Authority, would automatically be applied to them as members of the staff of the companies, from the same effective date, except to the extent that the managements and staff representatives may agree otherwise. This overlap of up to two years should be amply sufficient for setting up company negotiating and arbitration machinery and for negotiating most if not all the company terms and conditions of service.
826
My Lords, as pension schemes give rise to transitional problems of a special character, the Bill deals separately with pensions. Clause 20 permits both staff transferred to the companies and also new recruits to the companies to be members of a pension scheme maintained by the Authority. If and when the companies set up their own pension schemes, the clause lays a duty on the Secretary of State to satisfy himself that the provisions of the company scheme are no less favourable, taken as a whole, than the Authority scheme. Supplementary assurances have been given that the Secretary of State will pay particular regard to the provisions relating to transferability of pensions to and from a company scheme; that the Government will consult representatives of the employees so dial: the Secretary of State, would be willing to consider seeking independent, authoritative and expert advice; and that, although the decision as to whom to turn to for advice must rest with the Secretary of State, he would take account of any firm views that the representatives of the staff had on this.
As was pointed out in the Committee stage of the previous Bill by the noble Lord, Lord Delacourt-Smith, who was the Government spokesman on the Bill, there are obvious objections to subjecting individual items of a superannuation code to arbitration; and what matters is the acceptability of the schemes as a whole. A pension fund scheme is, after all, a very complex and finely balanced set of provisions. The Government believe that the interests of the staff will be best safeguarded by the provisions in the Bill, together with the assurances which I have mentioned, and which will apply in the event that the companies decide to set up their own pension schemes.
Under Clause 7 of the Bill the companies will issue shares to the Authority in consideration of the property, rights, liabilities and obligations transferred to them. Your Lordships will except me to say a word about the Government's policy on private participation in the companies. Subject to the retention of a public majority shareholding, as now provided for in Clause 11, the Government favour private participation in both companies, as the Bill, like its predecessor, allows; provided that satisfactory agreements on the terms and on the price of shares can

827
be reached. The Government are commissioning a merchant bank to advise on this question in relation to the nuclear fuel company; and a similar policy will be followed for the radiochemical company.
In pursuing this policy the Government have two financial aims: first, the maximum realisation from the public investment in the nuclear fuel business, and second, the maximum contribution by private interests to the future financing of the business. The matters on which the Government and the Atomic Energy Authority are seeking advice from a merchant bank can be broken down into four elements. First, the possible approaches to valuation and determination of a price for the shares. Second, the desirable capital structure of the company and form of private participation, bearing in mind the need on the one hand for further substantial investment and on the other for the maximum incentive to increase the profitability of the fuel company. Third, the extent and nature of the interest in participation in the fuel company. Fourth, the amount of finance likely to be forthcoming from private participation, both initially and subsequently. The possibility of a public issue of shares at some stage is not ruled out. The merchant bank will have available an assessment of the financial performance of the Trading Fund by a firm of accountants. Before final decisions are reached on the basis of expert advice, Parliament will be given an opportunity to consider the Government's intentions.
I should draw attention to the fact that, compared with the previous Bill, the limits in Clause 13 for the aggregate of the issue of loans to the fuel company and purchase of further shares issued by the company are reduced. The change reflects the Government's belief that the fuel company can expect to raise a substantial proportion of its capital requirements from the private sector. The limit, which is still very substantial at the maximum figure of £75 million, is not expected to impose any restriction on the company's investment during the first five years of its life.
A new clause, Clause 19, has been included in order that the Government can implement the security annex to the
828
Gas Centrifuge Agreement with the Netherlands and Germany which was signed by the previous Government in March last year. The clause permits certain of the security provisions of the Schedule to the Bill to be applied to any international company registered in the United Kingdom and established pursuant to the Centrifuge Agreement. The Government will be tabling a simple Amendment to this clause to improve security in one particular respect.
In connection with the Gas Centrifuge Agreement with the Netherlands and Germany, I should mention that before the Government can ratify the agreement, Clause 17 of this Bill must become law. The Agreement needs to be ratified within one year of its signature, which took place on March 4, 1970. I hope therefore that your Lordships will agree to give the Bill a fair wind. As matters stand now, only the Atomic Energy Authority may carry out enrichment of uranium or reprocessing of nuclear fuel elements for a purpose other than research and development—that is as a production business. The Amendment in Clause 17 will enable the nuclear fuel company or other bodies to carry out enrichment or reprocessing subject to licensing and safety controls. One of these other bodies will in due course be the Enrichment Organisation to be set up under the Gas Centrifuge Agreement. This organisation, in which the nuclear fuel company will have a one-third shareholding, will initially operate two enrichment plants—one at Capenhurst and one in the Netherlands.
In this introduction of the Bill I have not attempted to deal comprehensively with all its provisions. I know that there is some apprehension amongst the staff who will be transferred to the companies under the Bill. They will be leaving the Authority as their parent body and will be moving out into the private sector. But while it is natural that there should be some apprehension, I believe there is no real justification for it. The Radiochemical Centre and the Production Group have over the years established a firm base from which to exploit the rapidly growing markets both at home and overseas. I believe that the staff, as well as the management, will value the greater freedom and opportunities that the new status of companies set up under

829
the Companies Acts will provide. I have been impressed by what I have seen of the achievements of the people who have built up the isotope and fuel business, and I see no reason why they should not look forward to continued expansion and profitability. In moving the Second Reading of the Bill, I would wish them that continued expansion and continued profitability, and every success. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
3.15 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I can certainly respond to the noble Lord's request for a fair wind by giving him an affirmative answer straight away. Certainly all of us on this side of your Lordships' House would wish to see this much-discussed Bill turned into an Act of Parliament as soon as may be convenient to your Lordships. I want first to thank the noble Lord for having explained the recent developments and having added to our knowledge of this matter, and also to congratulate once more all those concerned in the Authority for having achieved what is undoubtedly a great success story. What they have achieved in terms of increased sales, in terms of increased exports—in terms of increased proportion of exports, as I understand it, as well as merely increasing the absolute figure—in terms of having achieved their target and the 23 per cent. figure mentioned by the noble Lord: all these make up a real success story. Indeed they immediately pose the question: if everything is going so well, why not leave well alone? I should like to spend just a moment or two of your Lordships' time in explaining the attitude of those of us on this side of the House about that question.
One could, of course, have taken the view that this business was going very well indeed: that here was an example of an organisation which was suitably constituted and able to make great headway, in terms both nationally and internationally—because I have referred to the increase in the proportional exports. One could have taken the view that if there are certain skills or certain needs which are not available to a body constituted as the Authority is at the moment, those skills could be hired. One could have appointed agents; one could have
830
consulted: in short, one could have left the constitution of the Trading Fund and the circumstances in which it operated exactly as they are at present.
It will be more in your Lordships' recollection than mine that this Bill has already come before your Lordships' House, put forward by the previous Government, and we on this side of the House—I hope I may be thought to be entirely non-contentious when I say this—took the completely undogmatic approach of saying that although this was a great success story, even more could be done; even more freedom could be made available to the enterprise in a commercial way if it were to take the form not merely of a public enterprise but of a partnership betwen public and private enterprise. That is, in fact, what is happening. Without wishing to draw too many conclusions, or indeed to preach to your Lordships—I should be incapable of doing that—I would suggest that this should be borne in mind in any sensible approach to developments, which ought to be looked at objectively in terms of what is to the benefit of the nation as a whole rather than in terms of preconceived and somewhat narrow dogma. That is what we have done; and if in due course we in your Lordships' House are to debate certain attitudes which seem to be developing with regard to public corporations as a whole, certain contrasts may appropriately be drawn.
Suffice it to say that I welcome this Bill. I welcome the development that is taking place. I am sure that it will be for the added advantage of all concerned and, indeed, for the welfare of the nation as a whole. I welcome, also, if I may be particular, the re-inclusion of Clause 11(3). That is perhaps the most moderate way of describing that subsection. I think that the arguments for its reintroduction were very solid indeed. As the Minister has explained, it is essential for strategic reasons. I should have thought it was also essential, having regard to the very sensitive technology involved; I should have thought it was also necessary, having regard to the promises originally made to the staff at A.E.A., and I should have thought that it was also essential in order to secure an effective, permanent, partnership. It is also wise as a recognition of a decade and a half of public enterprise.

831
But there may have been, and there may still be, those who have an anxiety that the retention of a majority shareholding would result in Government interference in the day-to-day affairs of the two new companies. If that were so, then I agree that this would be not merely an unwise but a disastrous result. There is nothing which is so opposed and hostile to the healthy development of commercial enterprise of the kind that is needed to add to the Government enterprise and national enterprise which is already taking place, as people breathing over the shoulders of those who have a commercial task to perform, reporting on their day-to-day actions, either to this House or to another House. Therefore I wish to say straight away that we on this side entirely support the view that freedom from day-to-day interference in management is essential for the health of these two newly-constituted companies. If that freedom were not to be achieved there would be no point at all in the change which is taking up your Lordships' time.
As to the history of this clause I will not say any more than that there will be special joy in Heaven. I recognise that in your Lordships' House there are others who are much better equipped to describe what is going on in Heaven than I am, but there will be more joy in Heaven over the restoration of this clause than in relation to the nine-and-ninety just men behind me. There were two points that the Minister mentioned which I should like to underline. First, there is the question of the share valuation. He was careful to point out that the figures he gave to us indicated the order of magnitude of the book value of the assets. Naturally we are all extremely interested in the processes of valuation and the final recommendation—because I understand that it will be no more than a recommendation when it reaches us again. So we shall all be very interested in the processes of valuation and the recommendation of the final figure, which is to be a fair figure as between the contribution by private enterprise and the contribution by public enterprise.
We must not forget, and I am sure your Lordships will not forget, that as taxpayers (making assumptions that there are some taxpayers in your Lordships' House) we have all contributed, through public expenditure, considerable sums to
832
the development of this body over the past 15 or 16 years, and it is right that there should be a full recognition not only of the past achievement of the Trading Fund but also of the future profitability of these two companies, when the valuation and the structure of the share capital are considered. I imagine that the Minister had it in mind to put before your Lordships' House not only suggestions as to valuation of the shares but also suggestions as to the gearing and general structure of the capital proposed, which would obviously affect the situation.
There are a number of minor points on which I do not wish to delay your Lordships to-day. The Minister was good enough to refer to discussions which are going on with the staff associations; I hope that by the time we reach the Committee stage it will not be necessary to deal with them in any detail. If not, we can raise those detailed points at that time, and we shall then want to be satisfied particularly about the superannuation provisions. A further point which the Minister may wish to delay referring to until that stage—although I should be happy if he could find it convenient to include it in his reply later to-day—is the future of the A.E.A. itself. I do not know yet whether he is able to tell your Lordships what proposal he has for that body, which will now, in terms of staff, be, I suppose, something of the order of two-thirds the present size. That is really all I want to say. We are grateful to the Minister for having explained the matter. I entirely support what he says in wishing a peaceful and profitable development to these two companies in their attempt to achieve the best that public and private enterprise can jointly contribute.
3.26 p.m.
VISCOUNT THURSO: My Lords, may I first of all associate those of us on these Benches with what the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, has said? We wish this Bill a fair wind, and I will confine the puffs of wind which I hope to give it now to being short and sharp. I should begin by declaring an interest: in the first place a local interest, in that atomic energy is by far the largest employer of labour in the town of Thurso. Atomic energy has trebled the size of the town in ten years, and is a very important part of the whole economy of the Northern Highlands of

833
Scotland. I must also declare a personal interest in that, by a curious turn of circumstances, I happen to be, through the chairmanship of a small family company, the Atomic Energy Authority's landlord for its pensions office. Perhaps I may tell your Lordships a little more about that later.
In associating myself with the good wishes to this Bill, I have three points to make. It is interesting that in passing on the assets of Windscale in particular to the new fuel company, the Atomic Energy Authority will continue to be a tenant of those assets. As I read the Bill (and I should be grateful for clarification on this point later on), it is going to sit there rent free. I am not at all sure that I am happy about the idea of the Atomic Energy Authority sitting rent free.
The object of the Bill is to set up a commercial enterprise to handle the commercial side of atomic development in this country and to handle the selling of what we have developed and tested. If that is so, then relationships between the Atomic Energy Authority and the new companies should be on a commercial basis. I should like to be sure that the new companies will, where facilities and space are available on other atomic energy sites, commercially hire these facilities, if that is thought wise and desirable.
If I may deal for a moment with the Atomic Energy Authority pensions scheme, something has been said in this House, and much has been said in another place, about the desire to achieve a pensions scheme for the new companies which will be every bit as good as the scheme which employees of the Atomic Energy Authority already enjoy. In the early stages of the Atomic Energy Authority, pensions were handled individually at individual sites. But the then member of personnel on the Board of the Atomic Energy Authority, Sir Donald Perrott, looked at his organisation and thought to himself that, to strengthen the community which was dependent on atomic energy employment in the North—in other words, Dounreay—he could put together his pension schemes from all his different sites and locate them in one office in Thurso.
834
This is the most imaginative dispersal of office accommodation that has ever been tried, and it has worked. The Authority is rightly proud at the way it has worked; at the way in which the building in Thurso is able to service the pension schemes of all its different plants throughout the country. I would hope that this imaginative scheme would not be weakened by splitting up the pension schemes as between the Atomic Energy Authority and the new companies. I would hope that the new companies would be able to have their pension schemes, if it is desired to make them different from those of the Atomic Energy Authority, administered in Thurso in the existing Atomic Energy Authority superannuation office. As I say, this is where I have to declare an interest, because the building in which this work is carried out was provided by us because no Government funds were available at the time, and in order to have an office located in the North we built the building and the Authority are our tenants. But this is a small matter compared with the job opportunities which it gives to the wives and daughters of people employed in atomic energy in Thurso, and we would not want to see these job opportunities diminished.
The third point that I should like to make, about which I should like to seek some assurances from Her Majesty's Government, relates to the structure of the new companies. As I read the Bill, the intention is in the first instance to set up shell companies, while an examination and a valuation is made of the assets and while consultation is undertaken with merchant banks to find how best to value the shares in the new companies. But I would hope that at the earliest possible opportunity, there would be a further public participation than merely to allocate blocks of shares to existing large firms who are interested in atomic energy. I feel that to construct a company which is solely answerable to the boards of other companies who have an interest in the work being done, and to the Board of the Atomic Energy Authority, is to remove the operations of these important new companies one stage further from direct accountability.
I feel also that if there is to be an object in setting up these new companies it must not only be, as the noble Lord,

835
Lord Diamond, said, freedom from interference in day-to-day management, but also be to draw from the market, from business in general, the know-how on commercial matters that is available—to draw know-how in business accountancy, in salesmanship and so forth. This is not the sole prerogative of the public companies who will participate in the formation of the initial atomic energy companies; this is also the prerogative of the market. It is a good discipline that a public company should be accountable to shareholders and that it should be questioned by people who have knowledge of salesmanship and of accountancy.
May I close my words on this Bill, my Lords, by associating myself again with the praise that has been given on both sides of your Lordships' House to the Atomic Energy Authority? The Atomic Energy Authority is an Authority of which all who have worked in it, all who have been associated in establishing it, and the whole country, can be justly proud. It is one of the few areas in which Britain is still the greatest—in the words of Cassius Clay, "We are beautiful!" At Dounreay we have still the most exciting atomic energy plant in the world, to which the Russians come, to which the Americans come, the Japanese and the whole world come, to see the new generation of fast reactors. And I think we can congratulate all those who were associated with the Atomic Energy Authority, in setting it up, in managing it, in working it. Finally, may I say that if the new companies are able to do one fraction as well in the commercial field as the Atomic Energy Authority has done in the development and research field, we shall look forward to a very profitable era, which will be profitable to all of the country and will make worth while the investment which we put into the research.

UGANDA: SAFETY OF BRITISH NATIONALS
3.37 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I wonder whether I might intervene at this point to answer the Private Notice Question put down by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in which he asked whether Her Majesty's Government will make a Statement regarding the safety of British nationals in Uganda.
836
My Lords, there has been no report of any injury to United Kingdom citizens or of damage to British property. The High Commissioner continues to be in touch with the British community.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Marquess for replying to that Private Notice Question. We must all have heard with very great concern and sympathy of the unfortunate events in Uganda during the last 48 hours. I think it would be wrong at this stage to press the Government any further as to any future action they may have in mind as a consequence of these events. Our immediate concern, and that of the Government, must be the safety of some 8,000 British nationals in Uganda. If I may say so to the noble Marquess, in anything said or done in relation to East Africa, in particular, and Africa as a whole, we must have in mind the safety of our people in Uganda.
I hope the noble Marquess will take careful note that, apart from the numbers of the business community in Uganda, there are many young people—nurses, teachers—who may need particular, special advice and perhaps encouragement in these difficult times. I have no doubt that the High Commission, and the High Commissioner in particular, have this in mind, and that we can rest confident that all that can be done will be done. But I hope that the Government will keep us informed of the safety and well-being of our people in Uganda during these difficult times.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether Her Majesty's Government will also take into consideration the many British citizens who are in Uganda—people who may not be British nationals but Asians—and who are already in difficult circumstances but have been promised all the rights of British citizenship?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Yes, my Lords. I will certainly bear in mind what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said; and I completely endorse his remarks, and also those of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. I will, of course, undertake to keep the House informed if there are any further serious developments. At the moment the indications are that life is returning to normal.

COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE: PRIME MINISTER'S VISITS
3.40 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should like, with permission, to repeat a Statement which my right honourable friend the Prime Minister is making in another place. This is the Statement:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a Statement.
"I left London on the 6th of January to travel to the Conference of Commonwealth Heads of Government in Singapore, stopping on my way in Cyprus, Pakistan, India and Malaysia.
"In Cyprus, I visited the British Forces in the Sovereign Base Areas. I should like to tell the House how greatly I was impressed by the outstanding services being rendered by the Army and the R.A.F. I also took the opportunity to have discussions with the President of the Republic and to call on the Vice President. I also met the commander of the United Nations force in Cyprus and the Secretary General's representative.
"In Pakistan I had discussions with President Yahya Khan and Pakistani Ministers.
"During my three days in Delhi I had meetings with Mrs. Gandhi and Her Ministers; I also had an opportunity of speaking to the Indian Council of World Affairs.
"In my visit to Kuala Lumpur, I had discussions with the Prime Minister of Malaysia, and members of his Government. Here, as also in Pakistan, I was greatly touched by the gratitude expressed to me for the contributions which the British Government and people had made to the relief of the distress caused by the recent floods.
"Both in Singapore where I visited units of Her Majesty's Forces, and in Malaysia, I found a warm welcome for our decision to keep a continuing British presence in the area, as part of the five-power arrangements which are shortly to be concluded.
"In all these countries, I took the opportunity of meeting members of the British communities and representatives of British business and other interests.
838
I was much impressed by the British investment and aid contribution to economic development in the area.
"I am glad to be able to report to the House that bilateral relations between Britain and each of these countries are now close and will, I hope, become more and more fruitful.
"The Heads of Government of the Commonwealth met in Singapore from the 14th to the 22nd of January, under the chairmanship of the Prime Minister of Singapore. My right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary was present with me throughout the Conference. I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the texts of the Communiqué and the declaration agreed by the Heads of Government.
"In addition to the normal reviews of the international, political and economic scene, the agenda included items on the implications for the Commonwealth of the United Kingdom regotiations for entry to the E.E.C.; on the future of the Commonwealth in the next decade; on the situation in Southern Africa; on the security of the Indian Ocean; on comparative techniques of government; on various items connected with schemes of technical co-operation and the Commonwealth Foundation; and the Secretary-General's report.
"The problems of Southern Africa overshadowed the Conference and dominated the discussion. But, important though those problems are, there are many other questions, concerning other continents, both in the political and the economic spheres as well as in the whole field of Commonwealth cooperation, to which we could usefully and constructively have given more time.
"In the discussion of Southern Africa I took the opportunity of explaining why we think that there is a threat from growing Soviet naval power in the Indian Ocean, as elsewhere. I explained why we thought that the issues of apartheid, which, with the other Heads of Government, we condemned, and the sale of arms were two separate questions. And I explained why we considered it necessary to retain our right to use the facilities granted us under the Simonstown Agreements, and therefore to discharge our own obligations under

839
those Agreements. I set out fully the grounds on which, for reasons of practical common sense and straightforward dealing, it has seemed to us that it would be in the spirit of these joint arrangements, which remain valid and relevant, and which no Commonwealth Government asked us to abandon, to continue to supply the limited categories of equipment needed to enable South Africa to play her part.
"I also made clear the nature of our legal obligations under the Simonstown Agreements. These obligations arise under the Agreement for the Defence of the Sea Routes round Southern Africa. I am advised that the obligation is to permit the export of equipment and spare parts required to keep operationally efficient the vessels purchased under the terms of that Agreement. The obligation extends to licensing the purchase of Westland Wasp helicopters to equip three anti-submarine frigates that were purchased under the Agreement and were, with our agreement and assistance, converted to carry helicopters. My right honourable and learned friend the Attorney General proposes to advise Parliament on these legal obligations in a White Paper to be published shortly.
"I explained clearly the views of Her Majesty's Government; I listened carefully to the views of other Commonwealth Heads of Government on these matters; and I undertook to convey all those views to my colleagues.
"One of the anxieties expressed by Commonwealth leaders concerned the future intentions of the South African Government towards them. To allay these anxieties I informed the Conference of the assurances we have had from the South African Government that they will not use any items of maritime equipment which we may supply to them, for purposes other than the protection of the sea routes. I made it clear that I did not expect the South African Government to breach this assurance, but that, if they did, we should at once refuse any further supplies of equipment or spares.
"I accepted the proposal for a group to study the defence of the trade routes in the Indian Ocean and South Atlantic, since this clearly expressed the importance
840
which many Commonwealth countries attached to the trade routes in those areas. We will play our part in the work of this study group. At the same time I have fully reserved the right of the British Government to take such action as it thinks necessary in defence of British interests. These words mean what they say, no more no less. Our position is quite clear and straightforward, and there are no secret understandings.
"It was on the same basis that we were concerned to ensure that the declaration of principles explicitly recognised that each country is responsible for its own policies.
"This was not an easy meeting. For the first time there were 31 Commonwealth countries represented including three new members from the Pacific. Inevitably much of the old intimacy of discussion has disappeared. Regrettably, the public release of statements seems to have become a regular practice, so detracting from the freedom and frankness of the discussions. I think that all the Heads of Government were aware of this weakness and we shall be giving thought to this and other problems connected with our Commonwealth discussions in the 'seventies and beyond. I was deeply impressed by the strength of feeling, which this Government fully share, that the Commonwealth, with its distinctive tradition and procedures, if they can be preserved, has a vital role to play in helping to promote better relations and closer understanding between the nations of the world."
That, my Lords, concludes the Prime Minister's Statement.
Following are the texts of the Final Communiqué referred to by Lord Jellicoe and, at the end, the Commonwealth Declaration:

FINAL COMMUNIQUÉ
Commonwealth Heads of Government met in Singapore from January 14 to 22. All Commonwealth countries were represented, seven by their Presidents, seventeen by their Prime Ministers, one by the Vice-President, and six by senior Ministers. The Prime Minister of Singapore was in the Chair.
2. This was the first Heads' of Government Meeting to be held in Asia. Heads of Government welcomed this and expressed gratitude to

841
the Government of Singapore for the hospitality it had provided.
3. The Meeting expresseed a warm greeting to the Prime Ministers of Tonga, Western Samoa and Fiji whose countries had become members of the Commonwealth during 1970, and particularly welcomed their membership as it brought to Commonwealth consultations additional views of the peoples of the south-west Pacific.
Commonwealth Declaration
4. Heads of Government approved unanimously and issued a Commonwealth Declaration.
International Affairs
5. Heads of Government reviewed the world political situation and trends. Views were exchanged on: East—West relations; Chinese representation in the United Nations; the steps required to end the conflict in Indo-China; the neutralisation of south-east Asia; the conditions necessary for achieving a durable settlement in the Middle East; the violation of the security and sovereignty of the Republic of Guinea by the military and naval forces of Portugal in conjunction with other elements; the need for general and complete disarmament under effective international control, the cessation of the nuclear arms race and the conclusion of collateral measures with particular attention to nuclear disarmament until general and complete disarmament is achieved; the staging of nuclear weapons tests and the dumping of chemical weapons in the peaceful south-west Pacific area; and the complementary role of regional organisations and such trans-regional groupings as the Commonwealth.
Southern Africa
6. The Meeting reviewed major developments in southern Africa, including in particular those in South Africa and Namibia (South-West Africa), the Portuguese colonies and Rhodesia, and noted that tensions in that region were likely to increase rather than decrease unless there were fundamental changes in the conditions now prevailing. Earlier discussions on N.I.B.M.R. were recalled. There was unanimous reaffirmation of the importance of the principle that any proposals for settlement must be acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole.
7. The Meeting had before it the report of the Commonwealth Sanctions Committee which reviewed the working of economic sanctions over the last two years. Heads of Government authorised the Committee to continue to review the situation.
8. Heads of Government discussed fully the question of the sale of arms to South Africa.
9. Heads of Government considered the factors affecting the security of maritime trade routes in the South Atlantic and Indian Oceans, which are of vital importance for a large number of Commonwealth countries. They decided to set up a Study Group, consisting of representatives of Australia, Britain, Canada, India, Jamaica, Kenya, Malaysia and Nigeria, with instructions to consider the question
842
further and report to them through the Secretary-General as soon as possible.
10. Certain Heads of Government stipulated the understandings on which they agreed to support the proposal to set up the Study Group.
The Security of the Indian Ocean
11. In their discussion of a paper presented by the Prime Minister of Ceylon on the security of the Indian Ocean, Heads of Government agreed on the desirability of ensuring that it remains an area of peace and stability.
Economic Affairs
12. Heads of Government held a full and frank discussion on the world economic situation and broadly reviewed recent developments and trends. Among the items discussed were: liberalisation of trade and access to markets; the special problems relating to exports of developing countries; the generalised preferences system and the problems connected with it; international commodity problems; high freight rates, inflation and its consequences; debt servicing problems of developing countries; targets for the transfer of resources to developing countries; terms and conditions of assistance, including the untying of aid; supplementary financing; the possibility of a link between Special Drawing Rights and development finance; and, the lending policies of international financial institutions.
13. Heads of Government expressed their satisfaction that agreement was reached on the International Development Strategy for the Second Development Decade at the United Nations General Assembly. They reaffirmed their Governments' resolve to take the measures to translate into reality the goals and objectives of the Decade. In summarising their discussions, they also reaffirmed their conviction that fulfilment of the economic and social aspirations of the peoples of the developing countries was a matter of vital concern not only to the developing nations but to the world at large.
Possible British Entry into the E.E.C.
14 Heads of Government discussed Britain's possible entry into the European Economic Community and the implications of this for other Commonwealth members. Among the matters discussed were the questions of: the effect of the Common Agricultural Policy on the exports of Britain's traditional supplies; the need for any enlarged Community to be outward looking; standstill arrangements for those countries which desired or may be offered association or other trading arrangements with an enlarged Community; reverse preferences and their impact on international trading arrangements; the potential advantage and disadvantages for the Commonwealth in the event of Britain's accession; and methods of consultation during negotiations. They welcomed the resolve of the British Government to continue to press during the negotiations for measures to safeguard the interests of Commonwealth countries.
Commonwealth Co-operation for Development
15. Heads of Government welcomed the establishment of the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Co-operation and noted that the way was now open for it to be made operational.
16. Heads of Government discussed the recommenqdations embodied in a study on Commonwealth Export Market Development. They decided that these recommendations should be given further consideration at an early meeting of trade and finance officials.
Commonwealth Information Programme
17. Heads of Government agreed in principle on the proposals submitted to them for a Commonwealth Information Programme.
Commonwealth Co-operation on Youth Questions
18. Heads of Government noted with approval the Secretariat's activities in the youth field and agreed that such activities be expanded. They noted that a number of related matters would be discussed at the forthcoming Commonwealth Education Conference in Canberra. They decided that a meeting of Ministers concerned with Youth matters be convened as early as possible.
Commonwealth Book Development and Gift Voucher Scheme
19. Heads of Government approved in principle the establishment of a Commonwealth Book Voucher Scheme.
Special Commonwealth Programme for Assisting the Education of Rhodesian Africans
20. Heads of Government took note of the development of the programme and supported its continuation.
Commonwealth Foundation
21. Heads of Government noted the progress of the Commonwealth Foundation and agreed to its proposed expansion.
Comparative Techniques of Government
22. The Conference agreed that the item on "Comparative Techniques of Government", which was introduced by the Prime Minister of Canada, should be the subject of further discussion at the next meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government. It was proposed that the Secretary-General should facilitate such discussion by arranging for preliminary study of the subject by appropriate officials.
Report of the Commonwealth Secretary-General
23. Heads of Government took note of the Third Report of the Commonwealth Secretary-General.

COMMONWEALTH DECLARATION
The Commonwealth of Nations is a voluntary association of independent sovereign states, each responsible for its own policies, consulting and co-operating in the common
844
interests of their peoples and in the promotion of international understanding and world peace.
Members of the Commonwealth come from territories in the six continents and five oceans, include peoples of different races, languages and religions, and display every stage of economic development from poor developing nations to wealthy industrialised nations. They encompass a rich variety of cultures, traditions and institutions. Membership of the Commonwealth is compatible with the freedom of member governments to be non-aligned or to belong to any other grouping, association or alliance.
Within this diversity all members of the Commonwealth hold certain principles in common. It is by pursuing these principles that the Commonwealth can continue to influence international society for the benefit of mankind.
WE BELIEVE that international peace and order are essential to the security and prosperity of mankind; we therefore support the United Nations and seek to strengthen its influence for peace in the world, and its efforts to remove the causes of tension between nations.
WE BELIEVE in the liberty of the individual, in equal rights for all citizens regardless of race, colour, creed or political belief, and in their inalienable right to participate by means of free and democratic political processes in framing the society in which they live. We therefore strive to promote in each of our countries those representative institutions and guarantees for personal freedom under the law that are our common heritage.
WE RECOGNISE racial prejudice as a dangerous sickness threatening the healthy development of the human race and racial discrimination as an unmitigated evil of society. Each of us will vigorously combat this evil within our own nation. No country will afford to regimes which practise racial discrimination assistance which is its own judgment directly contributes to the pursuit or consolidation of this evil policy. We oppose all forms of colonial domination and racial oppression and are committed to the principles of human dignity and equality. We will therefore use all our efforts to foster human equality and dignity everywhere and to further the principles of self-determination and non-racialism.
WE BELIEVE that the wide disparities in wealth now existing between different sections of mankind are too great to be tolerated; they also create world tensions; our aim is their progressive removal; we therefore seek to use our efforts to overcome poverty, ignorance and disease, in raising standards of life and achieving a more equitable international society. To this end our aim is to achieve the freest possible flow of international trade on terms fair and equitable to all, taking into account the special requirements of the developing countries, and to encourage the flow of adequate resources, including governmental and private resources, to the developing countries, bearing in mind the importance of doing this

845
in a true spirit of partnership and of establishing for this purpose in the developing countries conditions which are conducive to sustained investment and growth.
WE BELIEVE that international co-operation is essential to remove the causes of war, promote tolerance, combat injustice and secure development amongst the peoples of the world; we are convinced that the Commonwealth is one of the most fruitful associations for these purposes.
In pursuing these principles the members of the Commonwealth believe that they can provide a constructive example of the multinational approach which is vital to peace and progress in the modern world. The association is based on consultation, discussion and co-operation. In rejecting coercion as an instrument of policy they recognise that the security of each member state from external aggression is a matter of concern to all members. It provides many channels for continuing exchanges of knowledge and views on professional, cultural, economic, legal and political issues among member states. These relationships we intend to foster and extend for we believe that our multi-national association can expand human understanding and understanding among nations, assist in the elimination of discrimination based on differences of race, colour or creed, maintain and strengthen person liberty, contribute to the enrichment of life for all, and provide a powerful influence for peace among nations.
3.48 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, we thank the noble Earl for repeating that Statement, and I am bound to say, in agreeing with the last part of it, referring to the importance and the strength of feeling of the Commonwealth, that it is indeed evidence of its strength that it has so far withstood the efforts of the Prime Minister.
First, however, I should like to say a word of congratulation personally to the Prime Minister on surviving his very arduous journey. I think we ought not to underestimate the strain that was placed upon him. But, I am afraid, having said that, that most of my congratulatory remarks come to an end, except in regard to the entirely proper tribute to the work of British troops, with which I am sure the whole House will agree.
It is always difficult to read such a Statement when it is thrust into one's hand at the last moment, and the noble Earl got through it very well. But I should like to make two or three short comments and to ask one question. Although we may be misled, I am inclined to receive this Statement with some relief.
LORD SHEPHERD: Hear, hear!
LORD SHACKLETON: It appears that while the Prime Minister is reserving the position of the Government—and we all accept that the independence of the British Government is a matter for the British Government and the British people—it seems as if there is perhaps some re-thinking, and it may well be almost better to say nothing about it but to let the process go on. None the less, there are one or two points that I would raise.
I agree with the Prime Minister when he points out the difference between the old Commonwealth Conference and the new, and the regrettable tendency to release public statements. I am bound to say that the Prime Minister seems to have matched it fairly well by a great deal of private briefing of his own opinions on some of these statements. I cannot say that that has contributed to good Commonwealth feeling. Of course, the crucial issue is what the decision is going to be on arms for South Africa, and it now appears that the gap between what appeared to be the Government's interpretation of the Simonstown Agreement and that which we were advised was the correct interpretation when we were in office is not so great as we at one time feared.
I should like to ask the noble Earl when in fact we shall have this White paper from the Attorney General. In this connection it would have helped us all, and would still help us, if we had some idea in rather more precise terms as to the type of arms that the Government were contemplating, or are still contemplating, or hesitating about, exporting to South Africa. The Statement talks about "replacement", and I take it that this will exclude Nimrod aircraft, and will exclude presumably new frigates, so that it really comes down to the question of helicopters. The noble Earl will be aware that the previous Government did in fact say in 1969 that they were not going to export helicopters, and this led not to a demand that we fulfil the Simonstown Agreement but that the Simonstown Agreement in this respect might be renegotiated. It may be that we shall be getting some clarification of this matter. It would be helpful to know when we are to have the White Paper.

847
I would also ask the noble Earl whether he is contemplating—and we should discuss this through the usual channels—an early debate on the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth Conference. It is, of course, tragic that so much of the time of the Conference was devoted to this problem of South African arms. I would also ask the noble Earl whether the Prime Minister succeeded in convincing anybody else of the dangers which he foresees in the Indian Ocean, as opposed to the dangers which most of the Commonwealth, the United States of America and others, foresee from the export of arms to South Africa and the threat to the peace of Africa as a result.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, as we have had quite a long supplementary statement from the noble Lord, may I answer it straight away? I must say that I am grateful to him for his expression of sympathy with the Prime Minister and his pleasant references to the great physical strain of a very long trip of this nature and such an arduous Conference. I should also like to express gratitude to him for the words he has spoken, and which I am sure we all endorse in your Lordships' House, about the contribution which our Armed Forces are making worldwide, be it in Cyprus, which the Prime Minister visited, or in South-East Asia.
In answer to the noble Lord's specific questions, all I can say about the White Paper is that it will be published shortly. I understand "shortly" to mean in the near future, and that will be a matter of days, I think, rather than weeks. I cannot go further than that. I think the White Paper, which deals with complex legal and political issues, should be allowed to speak for itself and should thereafter be debated. I would not wish to be led on to the ground of the White Paper, and I think it would be quite wrong to debate it by way of exchanges across the Floor of your Lordships' House.
So far as the supply of helicopters is concerned, I would only remind the noble Lord opposite that it was in March. 1965, that a senior official of the Foreign Office, Sir Geoffrey Harrison, writing on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, confirmed that Her Majesty's Government were prepared to supply additional Wasp
848
helicopters to meet South African naval requirements, and explained their decision by reference to the Simonstown Agreement; and in fact four further helicopters were supplied in 1965; that is, in the lifetime of the last Administration.
Having said that, I should like to say straight away in reply to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that if there is a general demand and a feeling that this and the wider issues involved could usefully be debated at an early date in your Lordships' House, I am quite certain that suitable arrangements can be made through the usual channels. I should have thought that the ventilation of these great issues would be desirable, if that is indeed the feeling of your Lordships' House as a whole.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I should like to endorse the suggestion that has been made that we should debate this matter at a suitable opportunity, if only to find out how many more skeletons there are in the cupboard that the House should know about. May I associate myself with the views expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton? One must sympathise with the Prime Minister in having to go to a conference which was conducted very largely by Press handout. I should like to ask whether the Government are going to take the initiative in suggesting to the Commonwealth Secretariat that a lot of deep thought should go into the way in which these Conferences are conducted in the future. If they continue to be conducted in this way, the Conference system in the Commonwealth is bound to break down.
There are many of us who feel that Commonwealth relations have been bedevilled by the error of judgment by the Government, immediately after the Election, announcing the sale of arms to South Africa. Even at this stage, may I make an appeal to the Government to make it clear that we cannot go on bedevilling Commonwealth relations month after month in this way. If the Indian Ocean and the South Atlantic are in jeopardy, it is not a matter for the British Government and the South African Government; it is a matter for the West as a whole. I would plead with the Government that they get rid of this haunting fear in the Commonwealth that we are going to sell arms to an apartheid Government.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should like straight away to say that I find myself in very considerable agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Byers, said in the first part of his statement. I believe that, given the size of the Commonwealth—31 independent countries were represented at Singapore—a great deal of attention is needed to the organisation of Commonwealth affairs, and specifically a conference of this sort. I am sure that this will be a matter which will engage the attention, not only of Her Majesty's Government and the Commonwealth Secretariat but also the other Commonwealth countries, as the feelings the noble Lord expressed were not only the feeling of the British delegation at Singapore but those of a great many other Commonwealth countries represented there.
I do not think the noble Lord would expect me to endorse all the sentiments which he expressed in the last part of the questions which he addressed to me. All I would say is that the fact is that eight Powers have agreed to join the Study Group on the question of the Indian Ocean, and this is surely in itself a recognition of the fact that the problems of that area are thought to be problems by countries other than Her Majesty's Government.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that most people in this country are particularly grateful to the Prime Minister for the combined moderation and firmness with which he has upheld British interests at this Conference, with patient consistency on land and, so far as one can judge from Press photographs, with every kind of gallantry at sea? Since the question of skeletons has been raised, may I ask my noble friend whether he does not think that perhaps a useful by-product of these Conferences may be that they afford the subjects of a tyrannical ruler who really does practise racial oppression an opportunity to get rid of him during his absence?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I find myself in considerable sympathy with what the noble Earl has said, at least in all save that I should not wish to comment on his last sentence or two. I feel that he was speaking for, I suspect, a majority of the people of this country in
850
the tribute which he has just paid to my right honourable friend the Prime Minister.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl a question which I think has an important bearing on this whole subject; namely, is it, or is it not, the fact that the French have sold 70 Mirage-Milan aircraft to the South African Republic during the last few days?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am not certain of the precise quantities, but it is certainly a fact that the French are in the process of supplying large quantities of arms to South Africa.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask whether, with a view to saving the Commonwealth, Her Majesty's Government would agree to postpone any decision regarding the sale of arms to South Africa until there has been a Report from the Committee which has been established at Singapore to consider the security of the trade routes in the Indian Ocean?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I will, of course, take careful note of what the noble Lord has said, but it would be quite wrong for me to go beyond the terms of the Prime Minister's Statement which I have just repeated, and which made it clear that, if requested, Her Majesty's Government would feel themselves to be under a legal obligation to supply at least certain categories of arms.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask the Leader of the House whether, in view of the fact that the recent happenings in Uganda represent the beginning of a further penetration of Russian influence down the Nile Valley into the centre of Africa, the Study Group on the defence of the Indian Ocean will include a study of the strategic needs of Central Africa and of Commonwealth countries in that part of the world?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, my noble friend has put to me an interesting question. I am afraid that I do not know the answer to it, but I will try to find out whether the Study Group's terms of reference do extend as far as that, and will communicate with my noble friend.
THE EARL OF DUDLEY: My Lords, following upon the question of the noble Lord, Lord Boothby, may I ask whether the noble Earl can say whether the French Government have given any undertaking to their own people or to the African States that the Mirage jets will not be used by the South African Government to support anti-apartheid policies or to promote racialist policies; and secondly, whether there have been any representations or protests from African States associated with the French Government as a result of the sale of jets?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, here again I take note of what my noble Friend has said. I am not aware of the precise position here and, because this is delicate ground, it would be only right for me not to "chance my arm". But I will find out what is the answer to my noble friend's question and will communicate with him.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, will the Leader of the House do his utmost to expedite the issue of the White Paper? I am sure he will agree that it will be difficult to debate the matter intelligently unless we can distinguish clearly between the policy of Her Majesty's Government in relation to aid and succour to the South African Government and what they consider to be a legal obligation, which of course is quite contrary to the advice given to those of us who had the honour to be members of the last Administration.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I have considerable sympathy with the point which the noble Baroness has just put to me. I will certainly see that her representations are passed on to those concerned.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would the noble Earl not agree that the letter to which he referred, written to my noble friend Lord Chalfont in 1955, was sent prior to the passing of a resolution at the United Nations on which the previous Administration's decision was made not to supply arms to South Africa? Secondly, would the noble Earl not agree that as a consequence of the Prime Ministers' Conference there are two issues which the House would, I think, like to consider, perhaps in isolation. First, there is the question of arms to South Africa—and here I would agree that perhaps that
852
would be better left until the White Paper has been issued, although, if I may express a personal view, it is a debate that I hope we shall never have to embark upon. But there is a perhaps wider and even more important question, as to what is the future of the Commonwealth. What have the Government in mind in regard to the future of the Commonwealth? This may be a subject that this House would wish to debate as a separate issue, perhaps at an early date.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, so far as the letter from Sir Geoffrey Harrison is concerned, the noble Lord may be right. I would only point out that that letter was written after the 1963 and 1964 Security Council resolutions had been passed, on which our representative at the United Nations was most careful to reserve our position, reserving the right of Her Majesty's Government to sell those arms to South Africa which we held to be necessary for her own external defence. The exact context of the debate, if we are going to have a debate on the wider or the narrower issue here, is a matter which I think could usefully be pursued and that this could be done straight away through the usual channels.
LORD KILBRACKEN: My Lords, can the noble Earl explain how helicopters can be of any use whatever in keeping open the trade routes in the Indian Ocean against large, heavily armed Russian men-o'-war?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, this is not a Defence debate, and I therefore do not wish to give a lecture on Defence matters. All I should wish to point out to the noble Lord is that the helicopter is universally held to be one of the most important weapons of anti-submarine defence in the armoury of any Navy in the world to-day.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, may I ask one question, namely, is not one of the main lessons to be learned from this Conference the fact that member States of the Commonwealth must expect, and must receive, the absolute right to manage their own policies in their own way? That was what was envisaged by the 1926 Resolution. If member States insist on interfering in the affairs of other member States, the Commonwealth cannot, in my view, survive.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, those are entirely my views. I think that one of the most important achievements of this Commonwealth Conference is that that has been recognised, not only for the other members of the Commonwealth themselves but also for Her Majesty's Government.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend one question regarding the survey of the Indian Ocean trade routes? Can he say whether the Malagasy Republic will be consulted during this survey, in view of the strategic position of Madagascar and also of the fact that Diego-Suarez, in North Madagascar, is one of the finest natural ports in that area?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I entirely take my noble friend's point about Diego-Suarez. These are early days yet, and I am quite certain that the Study Group have yet to decide how they will carry out their studies; but I will see that the noble Lord's remarks on this matter are fully represented to Her Majesty's Government.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, a simple question. May I ask the noble Earl whether, when the Government issue their White Paper, there will be incorporated in it the text of the Simonstown Agreement? Is he aware that when I read the text of that Agreement I observed that it required us to provide 20 vessels and that the South Africans were to pay £18 million for them? Furthermore, is it not a fact that we did provide those 20 vessels, and were paid the £18 million? And did not that conclude the contract?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, if it were as simple as that it might not be necessary to issue a White Paper. However, I think the Simonstown Agreement is freely available. It is a perfectly public document, and I should have thought it was not necessary to lengthen what I suspect may already be a fairly lengthy White Paper by attaching a document whose contents are already well known. I will certainly pass on the noble Lord's suggestion, but that is my off-the-cuff reaction.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, could the noble Earl pursue that a little further? It was a Command Paper issued
854
in 1955. Is he certain that it is still in print?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I am not certain that it is still in print, but I have said I will look into it, and that is one of the points I will look into.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I press the noble Earl to publish the text of the Simonstown Agreement, if only because two separate sets of Law Officers, advising two separate Governments, have given two separate interpretations as to what the Agreement means?
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, would not the noble Earl agree that, while taking British interests always into account, one thing that has not emerged from the Commonwealth Conference is that the whole of the Commonwealth have a fear and terror about apartheid? Surely this is one of the things that also should have emerged from the Conference?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I must confess that I do not entirely agree with the noble Baroness. I should have thought that the fears about apartheid and the views that are entertained about it, were made crystal clear at the Singapore Conference. The views of Her Majesty's Government in condemning apartheid have of course been made crystal clear on many occasions, including the Singapore Conference.

ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORITY BILL
4.13 p.m.
Debate on Second Reading resumed.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is glad to return to the relative clarity of the Atomic Energy Authority Bill after the discussions on the Commonwealth. In most essentials, this Bill is the same as that discussed by your Lordships last May, and which was I think passed last May. I have first to make the same objection that I made then by proxy (the proxy being no less than the able and very formidable noble Lord, Lord Conesford), when I objected to the first line, which uses the word "fuels" in what I consider to be an entirely incorrect and inappropriate way.

855
A fuel is something which is combustible, and which supplies energy by the process of combustion, and that is exactly what is not done by the nuclear, so-called fuels. Therefore, it is quite incorrect to use the term "fuel", and I only wish that the present Government will be prepared to go a step further than the last Government and use a better nomenclature and refer to this as a "nuclear source" rather than as a "nuclear fuel", which it is not. The first word of the second line, "Limited", in connection with nuclear energy is a little odd too, though it may be appropriate for a company. But to refer to nuclear energy as "limited" seems the reverse of the truth.
This Bill is undoubtedly one which has the approval of this House, as was shown last May, and I personally am not prepared to speak against the Bill now. I think that in essence it is a good Bill. There is, however, one point which was brought out yesterday in the Guardian in an article by Anthony Tucker which refers to safety precautions. I think this is something which we want to take vary seriously, and I hope that the noble Lord in his reply will be able to tell us something about it, and tell us what the Government propose to do. At the present time, when any construction of a nuclear station takes place the contractor has available, and in fact must use, the advice of the Atomic Energy Authority. The Atomic Energy Authority has an extremely capable group of people in its Hazards and Safety Branch. It has built up, over a number of years, an immense amount of expertise on the subject of safety and security. In consequence of this, most of our reactors have really worked extremely well, but there have been, even with all the precautions that have been introduced at the design stage, occasions when trouble has arisen.
There was the very well known case of the Windscale accident, which occurred on October 10, 1957. A Court of Inquiry was set up with the late Lord Fleck as its chairman in order to inquire into the reason for that near-disaster. It was a very serious accident. It occurred through over-heating inside the pile. This overheating was due to certain peculiar circumstances at Windscale. Oddly enough, I think it was due primarily to the fact that the temperature of the pile was lower
856
than the temperature at which the piles are run nowadays, and consequently, by an odd paradox, this allowed overheating because of the release of energy by means of what is called a Wigner release in the pile. This caused overheating, which they then tried to control. The physicist in charge at the time apparently had not available the complete manual of instructions, and consequently steps were taken which, in his view, were quite reasonable, but which resulted in causing further over-heating. A very dangerous situation arose. Some of the elements were damaged inside the pile, uranium became oxydised, and a very serious disaster could have occurred.
LORD SHERFIELD: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that this accident took place 15 years ago in the first air-cooled atomic pile; that technology has made tremendous strides since then, and that the accident is not really relevant to the present situation?
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord. I was not quoting this incident to suggest that a similar accident would occur to-day. As he has quite rightly said, technology has advanced so much that this particular accident is almost impossible to-day. What I was trying to point out was, first of all, that we nearly had an accident of a major magnitude. Actually, even at that time one reason why the results were not worse was, I believe, because the late Sir John Cockcroft insisted on the installation at Windscale of filters which were more efficient than were generally thought to be necessary. It was those highly efficient filters which prevented a great deal of radioactive contamination from being spread around the country. I believe that we were saved then by the prescience of Sir John Cockcroft.
The point that I am trying to make is that at the present time we have, in the Atomic Energy Authority, a branch which is highly competent in this whole field, and which ought to be brought in to advise in the early stages of design. One might say that full provision is made for ensuring that everything will be looked after, but if one looks at the Bill one finds that the actual proposal is really for an inspectorate which can only inspect after the installations have been

857
designed. It could then see whether something had not been done correctly. I believe that errors have recently been found at the Hartlepools station. In spite of the fact that we are 15 years on, as the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, said, there have been errors in design which have been noted by the inspectorate.
What we have to realise is that, although we have a great deal of experience in the design of reactors, new ideas are coming forward all the time and new reactors are being proposed. At the present time we have the advanced gas-cooled reactor, but we can move on from that—and we shall indeed do so. The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, referred to Dounreay, where we have an entirely different type of reactor. Unless we have the highest possible expertise on the safety side of the design of new reactors, we could have a disaster which would set back the whole development of atomic energy in this country. That would be appalling and the Government should ensure that we take every conceivable precaution to make certain that such accidents cannot occur.
I should like, therefore, to ask whether the Government are prepared to ensure that the present team which deals with hazards at the Atomic Energy Authority should be officially brought in at the early stages of design of all new reactors. I am not certain how far that can be covered by the Radiological Protection Act which was passed last year. In looking at that Act, I noticed that the responsibility for advising the board and telling them how they are to work and how they are to define their terms of reference is in the hands of the Secretary of State for Social Services. That will mean that what I am asking for cannot be done directly through the Secretary of State, who is responsible for the nuclear energy installations, and I wonder whether the Government can find a suitable way of ensuring that the services of this expert group of people will be used in order to make certain that the design is done correctly.
If I may make an aside on the matter of design, in recent years we have seen some very serious explosions in large tankers. I have a feeling—I cannot put it any higher than that—that those explosions were avoidable. I think that they could have been avoided, if knowledge on
858
explosions of hydrocarbons, which was available at places such as the Royal Aircraft Establishment at Farnborough, had been adequately known by the people operating the tankers. In other words, the explosions in the tankers could have been avoided not by new research, but by the use of existing knowledge. What I am anxious to see is that in this field of atomic energy, which will be of vital importance to this country, we do not run the risk of any dangerous hazard, and that we make certain that we use our best existing knowledge.
4.25 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government I should like to thank those who have spoken for the way in which they have received this Bill. It was a pleasure to have the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, for once marching arm in arm with me, because one is accustomed to being at the opposite end of his rapier. I do not think I need comment (I hope he will agree) on anything he said, with which I found myself in complete agreement, but I should like to clarify one point that I made. We were talking about the availability of information to the House on any proposals for the disposal of shares. What I said was that before final decisions are reached on the basis of expert advice Parliament would be given an opportunity to consider the Government's intentions. Technically, I do not think the Government would be making recommendations to Parliament, because it will be within the power of the Government, once this Bill is on the Statute Book, to decide such issues.
The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, was good enough to give me notice of some of the questions that he proposed to raise. He asked, first, whether the Atomic Energy Authority would be sitting rent-free in those research and development enclaves within the establishments to be transferred to the Nuclear Fuels Company. He seemed to be under the impression that this is some kind of bonanza for the A.E.A.; but that is not so. I can assure him that all transactions between the A.E.A. and the fuel company will be on a commercial basis as soon as this Bill comes into operation.
The point about these research and development enclaves within the Nuclear Fuels Company's establishments is really

859
covered by subsection (3) of Clause 4. That subsection provides that the Authority will not be required to pay the Nuclear Fuels Company any rent in respect of the lands or premises which it occupies at Springfields and Windscale. That is because the lands and premises concerned were provided out of Vote funds, and under Clause 1 they are to be transferred to the Nuclear Fuels Company solely for administrative convenience; that is, to keep the whole site under one landlord. Of course the Authority is not relieved of paying other running costs, such as rates, maintenance, gas, electricity and so on. It is purely a matter of convenience that the premises go over for the continuing use of the Authority; and at the present time there is no consideration that has to be paid and therefore no rent.
VISCOUNT THURSO: My Lords, I am not concerned only with the question of rents; I am concerned also with the full use of their other establishments. I should not want establishments which were technically owned by a company to be used by the Atomic Energy Authority if the Authority had appropriate premises elsewhere.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I quite sympathise with that point of view. I can only say that I have found from personal experience—as I have no doubt the noble Viscount has found—that between the Production Group and the research and development establishments there is the closest co-operation. They live literally cheek by jowl, and every kind of contact is encouraged. On research and development there will be a tremendous amount to be done. As the last Report of the Atomic Energy Authority showed, research has become more and more product-orientated and I am quite certain that there will be no tendency whatsoever to under-use the capacity of the Atomic Energy Authority. In addition to this very close contact which exists, there will of course be every advantage for the fuel company itself to get all possible advice from the research and development facilities within its area. For example, research and development at Springfields is concerned very largely with problems of production at Springfields. I do not think the noble
860
Viscount need fear that any difficulty will arise here.
As to the noble Viscount's concern with rent, if I may revert to that subject for a moment, I am rather relieved that Dounreay is not being passed over to the fuel company, because if it were I do not know how one would disentangle this business of the premises that he built for the pension group up there. That brings me to the pension group point. The noble Viscount expressed the hope that the new companies would have their schemes administered in the Atomic Energy Authority office at Thurso. I am not sure that I can give any guarantee that this will be likely to happen. As he will realise, it is not definitely decided whether there will be separate pension schemes for the fuel company and the radiochemical company employees; but even if there were, I am advised that the effect on the numbers of employed at Dounreay would be very small indeed. So there again I think I can give the noble Viscount some consolation, at any rate.
VISCOUNT THURSO: My Lords, the effect on the women and girls at Thurso will be considerable.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am sorry; I am talking about the employees at Thurso. As the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said, it is a fact that more than two-thirds of the total employees will in any case be maintained in the Atomic Energy Authority employment and will therefore remain under the Authority's scheme. Knowing how the control of these schemes works, I am sure the noble Viscount will see that the mere addition of another 10,000 or so, or the taking away of 10,000 employees from that scheme, will not make a very substantial difference in the numbers employed at what I think is called the pension centre at Thurso, at the perimeter.
The noble Viscount then asked about the structure of the new companies and drew attention to the desirability of having a public shareholding in them at the earliest possible moment. This will, I think, be a matter for the merchant banks to consider, and I am certain that they will take account of what the noble Viscount has said in this regard. The general conception of participation is

861
twofold. In the first instance, there will be a two-way process of advantage between the companies on the one hand, and the participants on the other. Each will be joining together to further some interest of their own by participation. One would expect that those outside companies who had a common interest of some kind would be the first to participate. As I said in my opening remarks, though, this certainly does not rule out public participation, either later or indeed from the outset. Circumstances may differ as between the two different companies; but, as I also said, we aim for the maximum participation so long always as there is a majority holding on the part of the public.
The noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, raised the very important question of health and safety. I had already seen the article in the Guardian. Perhaps the best I can say about this subject is that there is no intention whatever of permitting any relaxation in safety standards. I was not certain whether the noble Lord was recommending a general tightening up of existing safety standards or just wanted an assurance that there would not be a relaxation of the existing ones. Does the noble Lord want to intervene?
LORD WYNNE-JONES: Only on that particular point, my Lords. I was concerned with not merely the maintenance of existing standards, but with the assurance that in the design stage the expertise from the Atomic Energy Authority should be brought in.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, perhaps the first answer to that must be the obvious one: that, so far as the Nuclear Fuels Company is concerned, their headquarters will be alongside where the health and safety division are housed at Risley, and one would expect the closest possible contact there. I know this is not by any means the whole answer, but it gives an indication. Since in any matter affecting the reactor the fuel company will have to provide the fuel for it, one would expect, both from the point of view of its own production interest and from the point of view of its own customers, who will be the
862
C.E.G.B. and the S.S.E.B., that there would be the closest examination of design from the very start.
I should add, however, that the new companies, like all other operators in the nuclear industry, will have to satisfy the Inspectorate of Nuclear Installations, which is a part of the Department of Trade and Industry, as to the safety of their plants. The Inspectorate, under the powers contained in Section 4 of the 1965 Nuclear Installations Act, make completely independent safety assessments throughout all stages of design, construction and operation of commercial nuclear installations; not just after the design has been completed, and certainly not just when the construction starts on the ground. The section ensures that the licensee of a nuclear site complies with all the conditions that the Secretary of State considers necessary or desirable in the interests of safety. The Authority's Health and Safety Branch has made an important contribution to nuclear safety in this country, and it is expected that the nuclear fuel and radiochemical companies will continue to have recourse to the branch for independent advice on safety aspects of the design of new plant.
But this is not a matter which needs to be dealt with, or indeed that it would be appropriate to deal with, by legislation. I know that the noble Lord did not suggest that this should be included in the Bill, but I think he rather suggested that there should be some form of direction. Whether this would be appropriate or not is not really a matter for the Bill. All I am saying to the noble Lord is that there has been the closest contact in the past. Of course, as always with experts, you may get differing opinions from time to time, but there has been the closest contact; and since the companies will be subject to the licensing and inspection of the Inspectorate, they will have every incentive to get the most thorough and soundly-based advice at all stages. I hope that will satisfy the noble Lord, and I would once again thank the House for the reception it has given to this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CARAVAN TOURING: PUBLIC HEALTH AND AMENITY
4.39 p.m.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE THE EARL OF CROMARTIE rose to call attention to the serious difficulties being faced by local authorities caused by the ever-increasing number of touring caravans during the summer and to consider how best to finance the urgently needed services in the interests of public health, amenity, and the caravanners themselves; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg leave to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I should like to thank the Government for having given time for a debate on this subject, which is an extremely important one for all of us who dwell in the country, and indeed for everybody else. Its importance is shown by the number of speakers who have decided to put their names down, and I am delighted to see that practically all of them have some connection with, or some considerable knowledge of, the effects which the tremendous increase in the number of caravans is having on the whole countryside.
My Lords, caravans bring joy to a great many people, but no-one would be likely to describe them as things of beauty that enhance the amenity of, in some areas, our fast disappearing countryside. Having said that, I wish to make it abundantly clear that my Motion is not directed against the ever-increasing number of caravanners—at least, not against those who, like most members of the Caravan Club, have a sense of responsibility and duty to the countryside and to the regions of the country that they visit. It is self-evident that families, especially if they have a quiver-full of children, who want to visit the open country but cannot face the high charges of hotels—themselves burdened with rising costs, and often S.E.T. as well—see the answer in the caravan. No, my Lords: this Motion is put down in an endeavour to make the Government aware that, without some constructive participation by them, local authorities who have to cope with the problems raised by the summer invasions will be faced with a situation which they cannot handle.
The areas of maximum beauty, and the areas which attract the greatest number of tourists of all kinds, are those which almost always have the smallest rateable population and the most extensive areas of empty or nearly empty space. The people of these places are already very heavily rated and would find it an intolerable burden if they were called upon to meet, in addition, the growing drain on local finance during two or three months every year for the provision of amenities—water supply, lavatories, Elsan closet waste collection; and, last but not least, the collection of the vast amount of litter left behind. This is difficult enough when sites are organised and controlled, but it becomes more so when we take into consideration the huge increase in roadside litter, mainly due to tourists, particularly caravanners and campers, taking meals by the roadside and residing there overnight.
It may not surprise some noble Lords who have to deal with these matters on a local government basis, as I do, that we have here a very real health hazard, and I do not suppose that there is a single person, be he caravanner or camper, who wants to add to the risk of an outbreak of typhoid. I do not wish to go into unpleasant and sometimes unmentionable details, but I will give just one example of what may result from lack of facilities and the money to provide them. Two summers ago, there was a phenomenal increase in the number of caravans arriving at a certain seaside fishing village. The authorised caravan park was soon filled and new arrivals had to spread out into the most unsuitable places. Toilet facilities did not exist, and it was found at the end of the season that fish boxes had been taken into service.
I am not blaming the caravanners for all of this: there were campers, and others, who added to the unsavoury situation. But this kind of thing could be avoided if the necessary finance was available. Here I should like to draw the attention of the Minister who will be answering to a particularly "cock-eyed" bit of ill-digested legislation. On every approved caravan site the number of caravans is legally limited by the lavatory accommodation available for that site. Yet any number of campers residing in tents can pack themselves in

865
or near the site without either let or hindrance—hence a midden can, and often does, result. Would the Government look into this very dangerous omission; and, indeed, into all the scrappy and ineffective legislation on this whole matter? I wonder how many noble Lords have any idea of the cost of providing latrines in out-of-the-way places solely for tourist use. It is usually a figure of between £3,000 and £4,000; but not seldom it reaches the great sum of £8,000 which, despite welcome help from the Countryside Commission, places a very heavy load on county rates.
Let us now consider how matters could be improved. To suggest a tax on caravans would, of course, raise a howl of protest—do they not already pay a heavy road and petrol tax? Yes, my Lords, they do. But this does not benefit the local authority, so far as providing amenities is concerned, nor has it over the years, so far as the Highlands are concerned, provided one first-class motorway to the North. Much of the A9, our one road link, is a disgrace and a constant source of danger and delay to road users during the summer months. From the use of the authorised caravan parks the local authority rates do benefit to a minimal degree. Outside these parks, however—and in the case of my own county the great majority of the areas used are both unauthorised and unsuitable—the rates do not benefit; indeed, the ratepayer is a heavy loser.
Why then are there not more authorised caravan parks, large and small? Because, my Lords—and I speak from personal knowledge and experience—to construct them requires considerable capital; and, although it may be news to some of your Lordships, capital for many of us is in short supply. Even so, there is a steady growth in the provision of authorised sites in my county, and I am sure that the same is so in others. I do not intend to co into figures that would illustrate the difficulties faced by my own county, which I am sure would be echoed by every other county in the Highlands and possibly everywhere else; but I should like to put before the Government certain suggestions.
The Government might well carry out a study of how these matters are handled in Western Europe, and in Scandinavia where, in my opinion, the whole position
866
is dealt with in a far more efficient way, to the benefit of caravans, the local population and the country as a whole. In Switzerland, the Development Society, a local body independent of the municipality deals with all matters concerning hotels, chalets, shopkeepers and so on, and levies a small tourist tax calculated on a daily basis of approximately one shilling per adult and half that sum for children in the 5 to 15 years age group. The tax covers not only caravanners, but campers and hotel guests, while chalet owners pay a lump sum. In return, the Society is responsibile for a wide range of amenities. The French, through their Tourist Organisation and their local authority taxe de séjour, also seem to manage better. But if we are going to follow their example—and we might do worse—our tourist boards will have to be run by full-time professionals, and not, as often happens, by well-paid, part-time retired and semi-retired individuals appointed under the "Old Pals Act."
I would press the Government to take a long, hard look at what is becoming a very serious problem and a threat to some of the loveliest parts of Great Britain. Local authorities, through their planning and other departments, should be given statutory powers to deal with the location of all caravan sites, large and small; with the way these sites are laid out, and with matters of access ant so on. I should welcome some assurance by the Minister that this possibility will be considered. No doubt someone will say that local authorities already have these powers; but this is not true, as their powers do not cover all the points that I have raised—and too often when there is legislation it is indefinite, and anything but clear.
My Lords, there are many other problems which I have not mentioned, such as the hazards and obstruction caused by caravanners to other road users on roads which are often single track with passing places; but I will leave this aspect of the problem to be dealt with by other noble Lords. Finally, my Lords, how is the cleaning up of the Augean stables to be financed? I have put out some feelers and await with interest the suggestions which the wisdom of your Lordships may bring forth. I beg to move for Papers.
4.50 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, may I first congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie, on giving us the opportunity to debate this vexed but fascinating subject of touring caravans and, if I may say so, to do so in a speech which, because of its lurid details, perhaps brought home to us in a better way what are the very real problems that confront this country. It was thought that as there are a large number of speakers taking part, it may be convenient if I spoke first; and of course my noble friend will reply on behalf of the Department of the Environment.
Having several personal friends and relatives who are ardent owners of caravans, and having been a very keen camper myself, I share with the noble Earl his understanding of the great attractions of this type of holiday, particularly for children. As my noble friend has been a former Convenor of Ross and Cromarty County Council and is now Vice-Convenor, he certainly understands the problems of caravanning from personal knowledge. It is difficult to estimate the exact number of caravanners, but including children as well as adults, there are probably about 1 million in Britain to-day, and the number is likely to increase steadily.
This afternoon we are not talking about those caravans which, although mobile, are left in one place for the whole summer and are let to a succession of tenants. The subject of this debate is the touring caravan which is towed behind a family car to one or more sites during the course of a holiday; and "touring" includes staying overnight on the way to and from a main holiday area. When sites are used primarily for this purpose they are described technically as "transit sites". One of the problems about catering for touring caravans is that, by the nature of things, they cannot supply the site operators with guaranteed rents for the whole season; and it is often this uncertainty in demand which results in too few licensed sites to meet everybody's needs. When there is a shortage of sites, as my noble friend has told us, people are driven to park illegally in road lay-bys or in fields. In Scotland we call this "wild" caravanning. If it is done
868
on any scale, this, of course, is where the public health and amenity hazards lie.
However, I think we should be fair and concede that there are many caravanners and campers who take great care of their surroundings and clear their litter, and have hygienic facilities of their own. For what is, I admit, a minority of campers and caravanners, the whole point of going off on this kind of holiday is to get away from it all to the wild places. But nevertheless, the bulk of those who enjoy this kind of holiday want the facilities which have been described. The public health problems of touring caravans and camping, to which my noble friends referred, have been under study by the Camping Working Party under the Department of the Environment and it should report shortly. We shall then consider any recommendations as they could or should apply to Scotland; and of course we shall consult all the local authorities and the organisations concerned.
The statutory provisions concerning caravans in Scotland differ in one major respect from those in England and Wales. The main Act, the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, applies also to Scotland, but an important way in which its application has been modified is in relation to the crofting counties. Schedule 1 to the Act allows up to three caravans to be placed for up to 28 days a year on land holdings of five acres or more in size without any requirement to obtain a licence. This concession has been extended by Order to any period during the six summer months and reduces the size of the qualifying land holding from five acres to two acres for the crofting counties. This means that many crofters can rent sites on their holdings to three touring caravans at a time and can get some economic benefit from tourists to supplement the proceeds of the croft.
There is now a wide variety of finance available in Scotland for providing and improving caravan and camping sites. Local authority finance and countryside grants are given to local authorities on the advice of the Countryside Commission. The Scottish Tourist Board and the Highlands and Islands Development Board give both grants and loans to private developers. The Small Industries Council

869
for Rural Areas of Scotland can give loans and, lastly, there is the purely private investment.
At the weekend I was fortunate to have the opportunity of staying in the Borders with my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood, and we went together to see a private investment project at Lilliardsedge Park, at Jedburgh. It is extremely well laid out, both for touring caravans and also for campers. I was particularly interested in the charges, which are 10s. a night for caravans, and 3s. for each person in a tent, the minimum charge per tent being 8s. a night. We seem to have had a tradition in Scotland that a great many local authority sites should charge only 2s. 6d. a night. I should have thought that the 10s. charge was very reasonable indeed, considering the facilities provided. The great thing about this site was that it acted as an information centre for tourism for the Borders as a whole.
In Scotland I think that we have been fortunate, in that many local authorities have provided caravan sites with many pitches reserved for tourists. It is sometimes said that caravans are of no economic benefit because they are completely self-contained in their requirements; but in fact the caravanners buy a good deal of food locally and quite a lot of petrol. They also buy presents and other things which take their fancy. A recent calculation showed that touring caravans in Scotland alone bring in a total revenue of £1·5 million a year. Therefore local authorities who have established sites have received far more general benefits because of them than simply the revenue from charges.
My noble friend Lord Cromartie asked whether it was a fact that there were sufficient and good statutory controls on the location or licensing of sites. All the necessary controls for licensing are given in Section 1 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, and planning permission must be obtained for all sites. Therefore, I think one can say that, so far as we can see at the moment, the legislation is sufficient. There has also been a steady increase in the number of touring pitches provided by private enterprise. If you take both the local authority and the private enterprise sources together, there will be an increase of 1,500 pitches in Scotland in the coming
870
season compared with the number available last season.
As my noble friend has recalled, the Countryside Commission for Scotland who advise the Secretary of State on the payment of countryside grants at a rate of 75 per cent., have already recommended that nearly £100,000 worth of grants should be offered over the next three years for the provision or improvement of caravan sites. As noble Lords may know, the Scottish Tourist Board publishes a very good publication called Scotland for Caravan Holidays which is a very handy guide to the facilities which are available. The Board has done what it can to improve standards and increase the number of pitches. In 1970 it mounted a survey to discover the number and distribution of touring caravans, including the extent of "wild" caravanning. I understand that the Board also hopes to supplement this information by inquiring into the attitude and characteristics of caravanners and campers—which, I should think, will be a long and absorbing study. Both the Countryside Commission for Scotland and also the H.I.D.B. have helped to finance the survey and most of the detailed work is being undertaken by Edinburgh University. All the data is now being analysed at the University and interim reports have been made to the Tourist Board. The Board is starting to consider the policy implications. The complete Report will be ready for publication later this year. I do not think I can usefully say much about it as it is not entirely complete as yet, but there are some clear results. One interesting preliminary indication is that there were some 70,000 touring caravans on Scottish roads at some time during the 15 summer weeks, and that 60 per cent. of these came from South of the Border or overseas.
When the Tourist Board is ready to consider what action it should take, it will be able to use part of the £300,000 that it has been allocated to assist tourist projects in any part of the Scottish development area. This special allocation of funds will be an annual feature of the Board's project within their Great Britain total of £1 million. As noble Lords know, the H.I.D.B. has power to make grants or loans to hotels and privately-owned caravan sites provided that they satisfy the Board's criterion that

871
they are viable and that they will make a contribution towards local employment.
To date the Board has centred its tourist grants and tourist promotion on improving hotels and other holiday facilities. But it is now starting research to find out the best methods by which it can assist touring caravans and those who go camping. The Small Industries Council for Rural Areas of Scotland is 100 per cent. grant-aided from development funds, and it operates in the rural parts of Scotland which are outside the area of the Highland Board. Unlike the Board, it has no power to make grants, but only loans. Until recently its work for tourists was confined to offering loans to small hotels and boarding houses that were too small to meet the Tourist Board's criteria for grant assistance other than hotel development and associate schemes, but it is now prepared to offer loans for development of private caravan sites catering for touring caravans. As noble Lords will know, there is one group of touring caravanners who will have all their needs pretty well looked after, and they are those who are members of the Caravan Club. The Club is spending a good deal of money and is expanding steadily every year.
The noble Earl, Lord Cromartie, was good enough to let me know that he was going to raise the question of a tax on caravans, and indeed several people in the Highlands, who have suffered from being behind a large caravan for a long time on a narrow road, have said to me: "Why not tax the caravan as well as the car which pulls it?" I think one must say, in the caravanner's defence, that many of these touring caravans are probably only used for about two or three weeks in the year. It is true, however, that there are arrangements for taxes of this nature in some countries, such as France and Germany, where there are special taxes, like road taxes, on caravans. Most other countries, however, have a composite tourist tax on each night's stay, which of course would cover hotels, chalets and also caravanners. We have not, as we all know, thought fit either to have a tourist tax or a tax on caravans as yet in this country, and I feel that it is not up to me to suggest or to speculate on what might be in the mind of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. But it is a
872
question which is of great interest, and I shall listen carefully to see whether this particular point is pursued by other noble Lords in this debate.
The main point which the noble Earl sought to raise was that many caravanners want to go to the most beautiful parts of Scotland, and in many cases these are in the most remote areas and therefore areas which are of low rateable value. This is why the specific countryside grant is a way of redressing the balance in favour of local authorities with limited resources of their own as against those which have greater wealth at their disposal. As I said earlier, I think that all site owners could consider raising their nightly charge for caravans. Countryside grants are, of course, only paid where we consider that the charges are fixed at a reasonable level and where there will still be a loss on the cost of providing essential facilities. I should have thought that a higher site charge was certainly one way of getting increased revenue.
To sum up, my Lords, there already seem to be enough agencies in being who are interested in providing for the needs of touring caravans and of campers, and I think that they work very well together. I think that until we get the Working Party's Report the legislation is sufficient. There are also various sources of finance. I think that we shall be in a much better position to consider the priorities when these surveys are received. I agree with my noble friend that there is a great deal yet to do, because without doubt this is a great leisure industry. It is growing very fast, and we must ensure that better provision is made, not only for the comfort of touring caravanners themselves but to preserve what I certainly claim are some of the most incomparable and beautiful parts of our country.
5.7 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, I should like to start off by thanking the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie, for having raised this interesting subject this afternoon. I wish straight away to express to the noble Earl my apology that, as the debate has come on much later than I think either he or I anticipated, it will not be possible for me to stay until the end; but I give him the promise that I

873
will read everything that is said after I leave. I cannot say that share with the noble Baroness any experience of caravanning, nor can I say that I was ever an enthusiastic camper—they are both pursuits which I am quite willing to allow other people to undertake so long as I am not myself compelled to take part in them. But, like the noble Baroness and the noble Earl, I have a number of friends who are enthusiastic followers of both forms of holiday-making, and I am willing to concede that they cannot all be wrong in thinking that there is something worth while in doing this.
It is obvious that the problems to which the noble Earl has directed our attention this afternoon will grow in number rather than diminish, because all the indications are that every year produces more people who purchase caravans and who follow camping holidays. I think he is right in emphasising the point that, whatever the difficulties that land on the shoulders of the Government or comparatively poor local authorities at the present time, they are going to be even greater in the future. One of the consequences of so many people taking holidays abroad is that some who would never have thought of having a camping holiday see some of the very desirable camping sites and caravanning sites abroad and come back thinking that they can get exactly the same here. The fact is, of course, as the noble Earl has said, that so far they cannot, except to a limited extent. Some of your Lordships will probably have seen some of the best of the caravan sites. One which was opened about two years ago in East Lothian, where they take a most enlightened view of their responsibilities to this type of holidaymaker, will, I think, bear comparison with anything that is provided on the Continent.
But the noble Earl's main concern, I think, was directed not to the well-organised official sites but to the problems which arise from their inadequacy, and from the overflowing of holidaymakers into sites that may be perfectly beautiful in prospect but are not so beautiful after they have been visited. I am not at all certain that what is provided under the legislation will necessarily be completely satisfactory from the point of view of the local authorities.
874
Having said that, I would add that I doubt whether any Government will be in a position to provide local authorities, particularly those in the North of Scotland, with finances which would be satisfactory from their point of view. I well remember that when we were discussing the Countryside Bill, and the grants available for this and other purposes were set at a limit of 75 per cent., instead of the local authorities saying, "How good and generous the Government are to give us 75 per cent.," they screamed their heads off because they were not getting 100 per cent. I am quite certain that if we had offered them 100 per cent. some local authorities would have wanted to make a profit out of the transaction, and would have asked why the grant was not to be 125 per cent. So I do not expect that there will ever be satisfaction.
Even so, I am not quite certain that what may be available to local authorities to help them deal with this extra problem of keeping the unofficial sites tidy will be adequate. So far as I can remember from my own recollection, and from what the noble Baroness has said, probably the only resource available to the local authorities under that heading is what they may get under rate-support grant, in so far as that expenditure is counted as a reckonable expenditure. The poorest authorities are the ones who get most under rate-support grant. Some of them get a very large percentage indeed of their finance from that source, so it cannot be said that it is completely inadequate. Surely the right answer must be that we should step up as much as possible the provision of official sites. Charges—even the higher charge which the noble Baroness mentioned—cannot be regarded as unreasonable. I believe that the vast majority of people would prefer to go to a good site rather than make do with a bad one. As the noble Earl said, the resources of local authorities are limited. They cannot do all that they would like to do. Sometimes they cannot even do as much as they are prepared to do, because, as the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie, said, capital is restricted. It may not always be the case that the Government will give the necessary borrowing consent for all the things that the authorities want to do at a particular time. As always, it must be a matter of priorities.

875
One of the advantages of sitting on this side of the House is that I have a better view of those occupants of the Official Box than I had when my back was towards them. Seeing who are sitting over there, I have a strong suspicion that if I had been sitting on the other side of the House the speech which I should have made would not have differed very much from the one which we have heard from the noble Baroness this afternoon. I find it, therefore, not surprising that for the third time I find it impossible, in speaking after the noble Baroness, to disagree with her, particularly as most of the benefits flowing from Government to which she referred all accrued from action taken in the past five and a half years. So it would not be appropriate for me to disagree with her.
However, there was one point on which I thought she was perhaps a little optimistic—I hope that she does not get into trouble under the Trade Descriptions Act. Although her second reference to the point I am thinking of modified the first one, she talked rather optimistically about the six summer months; and later in her speech she spoke of the 15 summer weeks. If this is an advertisement for Scottish holidays, then I wish to encourage it, but I do not wish necessarily to guarantee that the noble Baroness's arithmetic will be backed up by the weather clerk. However, it is the fact that the season up North tends to be growing longer. One of the difficulties of providing holidays was that everybody wanted to go North in July or August. People are now beginning to come up in May, and are still coming up in September, although whether they reckon that May is a summer month, and also September, I do not know. As the season lengthens, and the number of people using these facilities grow, obviously the problems will become greater.
I hope that when the Report to which the noble Baroness has referred comes out it will provide some of the answers to the problems to which the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie, has directed the attention of your Lordships' House. If it produces answers, I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer wil make it
876
possible for something to be done about it. Having said that, I must admit right away that I am no enthusiast for any new tax for this purpose. A previous Secretary of State for Scotland (not unknown to the noble Baroness) had the idea of levying a tax of sixpence a night on tourists; but that suggestion fell by the wayside before the proposals were finally discussed. I doubt very much whether it would be any more popular to-day than it proved to be then. In any event, it does not seem to me to be any part of the present Government's remit to create new taxes; I thought their job was to try to get rid of some of the existing ones, including selective employment tax, which was referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie.
There was one remark by the noble Earl that I did not like. He appeared to criticise some of the existing Boards. He said that this job ought not to be done by well-paid, part-time people, but that professionals should be doing it. I thought that was a little less than kind. Perhaps he did not mean it to sound exactly as it came over, particularly when he made reference to the "Old Pals Act". I have noticed in recent months that the present Government have not rescinded the "Old Pals Act". The Government themselves in this country might be regarded as consisting of well-paid amateurs doing the job backed by professionals. That is the way Boards work. I do not want to refer to the Highlands and Islands Development Board. because we shall be discussing that to-morrow, but what is taking place in the Highlands, and in other parts of the country, in the Boards which have been set up shows that using interested people, prepared to give their time to a job, backed up by fully qualified and, I hope, well-paid professional servants, if not entirely civil servants, is a good way of doing the job.
The Tourist Boards have made a good start; the Countryside Commission have made a good start; the Highlands Board have made a good start in dealing with these problems. Given the necessary working together of local authorities and Central Government, and the not unsympathetic approach which the noble Baroness has given to the problem, I feel that if we have another debate on this subject in two or three years' time

877
the noble Earl may be able to say, "I accomplished something by raising this debate in 1971".
5.17 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I am glad that my noble friend Lord Cromartie has raised this subject, I promised him several weeks ago that I would support him in a debate, which I am delighted to do, but I have little to add to what has already been said. Therefore, I do not intend to take up more than a minute or two of the Parliamentary time which my noble friend has been lucky enough to secure. I want to hear what other speakers are going to say, particularly, if I may say so, my noble friend the Duke of Atholl. He has represented views, which I and others hold on this subject of caravans, on deputations to the Secretary of State. He has done this far more effectively than I could have done, and with far greater knowledge than I possess. So far as I am concerned my noble friend the Duke of Atholl is my top "pin-up" caravan authority.
There are three interests involved. There are, first, the interests of the holiday makers. Thousands of people—and in future it may be a great many more—can, by using a caravan, have a good holiday at a price which they can afford, whereas they would not have been able to have a good holiday in any other way. That is an important interest. Next there is the interest of the locality in which they have their camping or caravan holiday. It may be against the interests of the locality if they make a mess, but it is very much in the interest of the locality that they should spend their holiday there because they are bringing money into the locality, and are increasing the tourist trade. Thirdly, there is the general public interest, because it is a national interest that we should encourage urban and suburban dwellers to get as close as they can to nature, if they wish to do so, on their holidays. We need not go so far as the people in Stephen Leacock's book, who, anxious to get back to nature, threw off their clothes and plunged into the forest uttering savage growls. But we want them in a civilised way, if they like nature, to get close to it at a price which they can afford. That
878
is to the benefit both of the country and of the town.
My noble friend has quite rightly said that caravans ought to be controlled to prevent them from being a nuisance because that, as he said, is in the interests of the caravanners themselves; it is to their interest that they should be reasonably popular in the locality where they want to spend a holiday. He has asked us to give him any suggestions we had on how to clean out what he referred to as the Augean stables. I remember one method, a year or two ago, by a big sheep farmer. Caravan campers had been making rather a nuisance of themselves in a certain area of his grounds, and he put up a huge notice-board on which was written, "Beware of adders". When the caravanners came the next time and saw the notice they hurriedly departed elsewhere full of apprehension that they might be attacked by savage, venomous snakes, although in fact I do not think there was an adder within fifty miles of the place. There must, of course, be controls.
My noble friend's other point was that of finance. That is something one always has to be careful about. You must not spend public money to subsidise holidaymakers unless it can be justified clearly in the public interest. I do not want to be at all didactic about this. There is only one point that I want to ask to be considered, and I do not want a reply to be given to me now. I think my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie said that, if there were only three caravans, they could camp without a licence and they do not have to have any sanitary buildings. That is quite reasonable because, after all, if there are not more than three, and if the people are reasonably careful and civilised human beings, they ought to manage without desecrating the territory round about them without any built-in sanitary equipment. If, on the other hand, there is a camp of 50, 100 or 150 caravans, then, of course, they have to have large sanitary installations built in. But with so many caravans, when the cost of this is spread out it does not come to a great deal for each caravan, and the campers can afford the charges which will cover it.

879
However, supposing there is a site with five or six caravans, or ten or a dozen. In my own experience, the cost of erecting lavatories and other sanitary buildings which are probably necessary, although not as great in actual figures as a building for a huge site, is far more expensive in relation to each caravan, and the holidaymakers could not afford to pay enough charges to cover it. I do not know what the right answer is. It may be that the best plan is to leave things alone and have only either very big sites or very small, unorganised ones of not more than three caravans. But this would mean neglecting and wasting a great many good and beautiful sites which might prevent overcrowding in some areas and spread the thing out more evenly. Provided proper precautions are taken about tidiness, and so on, that would probably be a good thing. As I say, I do not want an answer now, but I suggest to the Government that it may be justifiable.
My noble friend Lord Cromartie said that these things were done much better in Sweden. I have no doubt they are. They always seem to manage things so much better in Sweden, including trade unions, I have been told. But he did not say whether any contribution was made towards the cost from public funds. That is something I just do not know. But it seems to me that if it is possible, if it is justifiable, to make any kind of public contribution, it should probably be concentrated on the expense of building expensive public lavatories which may be necessary on the caravan sites, and it should probably be mostly concentrated on the very small sites of half-a-dozen or ten caravans, where the occupants can-not afford to pay their share of the charges for these buildings.
5.26 p.m.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, I have been looking forward to this debate and I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Cromartie for introducing it. I should also like to thank my noble friend Lord Dundee for the kind things he said about me, and assure him that my practical experience of caravanning is absolutely nil. My experience of camping was as a Wolf Cub in somewhat distant days, when one's object was to light a rather wet bundle of twigs
880
with two matches, rather than to use a smart modern primus stove, with which I think all campers are equipped nowadays. So I feel that my interest in caravanning and camping must be said to be theoretical rather than practical.
I have, of course, another interest which I feel I must declare, and that is that I am starting a caravan site on my land which I hope will be open this summer. Although my plea is for financial assistance for certain kinds of site in certain places, I do not think mine would qualify. I want to put in a plea for assistance for small sites—and mine is going to have 200 pitches—in remote places. And I think that, with the best will in the world, it would be hard to say that within 100 yards of the main Perth-Inverness Road was a remote place.
I believe my noble friend Lord Dundee has rather underestimated the cost of setting up a caravan site of this size, because there are, under the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, many regulations one has to obey in order to obtain a site licence; and in order to obey all these regulations the cost per caravan pitch is something like £300. I believe that two or three years ago the National Trust worked the cost out as between £200 and £250; but one would be very clever if one did it from a virgin site for a sum of money of that kind nowadays.
My major plea is going to be that there should be some financial assistance for private people who wish to start small caravan sites in remote areas. I consider that these sites are nearly always better run by private people than by local authorities, because besides looking after their caravan site private people usually have some other occupation, such as a market garden or small farm. But the snag at the moment is that it is almost impossible for them to obtain any form of financial assistance. I thought my noble friend the Minister of State said that a wide source of finance was available to people who wished to start caravan sites, and she quoted various sources, the first of which was the Small Industries Council for Rural Areas of Scotland. My noble friend is quite right: they will make loans—but at so near the "going rate" at which one can probably borrow from one's bank that it is really hardly worth while borrowing from them, unless, of course, your bank does not

881
consider you a sufficiently good risk. In this case, I think that they, too, may be rather doubtful about your status or the viability of your project and so be reluctant to lend you money. Moreover, in remote areas, and on a small scale, it would be impossible to make a site pay. It simply would not be filled up for a large enough part of the year, and all the overheads could not possibly be covered.
As the speaker for the Scottish Landowners' Federation, I had a letter on this subject dated July 16, 1970, from the Scottish Development Department, because I had inquired into this question of finance. Having referred to the Small Industries Council for Rural Areas for Scotland, the Scottish Development Department then go on to say:
"The Secretary of State may make grants under the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967 to local authorities for the improvement or development of municipal sites. The Countryside Commission for Scotland have power under section 7 of that Act to make grants or loans to persons other than public bodies for projects of a countryside nature. But the resources the Commission have available for this purpose are limited and they have not so far felt able to use them to assist commercial projects such as caravan site developments."
So that would seem to deal with that source of finance that my noble friend was suggesting the potential caravan site developer might have.
The third source she suggested was the Scottish Tourist Board. Indeed they have power under Section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act 1969 to give grants for more or less the same purposes as the Countryside Commission, but again they have only limited funds, and again the Board has not yet decided how to settle priorities for giving assistance of this sort. So far as I know, the Board still has not given any assistance of this kind.
The letter then goes on to say:
"There is virtually no prospect of assistance from the Ministry of Technology under the Local Employment Acts."
Those are no more, so now there is not only virtually no prospect; there is absolutely no prospect of any assistance. So, my Lords, I cannot see where anyone who wants to develop a small caravan site in a remote area can turn to for the sort of grant which would make such a project viable, and only in this way shall we start to get over the problem—unless, of course, one happens to be lucky
882
enough to live in one of the six crofting counties. Then one may be able to get money from the Highlands and Islands Development Board. But, my Lords, that is only six counties out of the 31 in Scotland.
If grants for small sites in remote areas were given, one of the conditions should be that those sites should be used only for touring caravans and not for static caravans. One of the troubles is that the few existing sites are often full of state caravans which are used largely as week-end cottages, when they should, for the benefit of Scotland, be available for touring caravans. I would just point out that allowances will not really help in these cases, because it is unlikely that a site operator will make a profit, and in order to get benefit from investment allowances one has to make a profit in the first place. But for the large sites in the less remote areas obviously it would be an advantage if the caravan site operator were able to obtain the same allowances as all other industries receive.
I think, too, that in certain remote areas sites should be allowed which do not quite come up to the model standards of the Caravan Sites Act 1960. A survey was carried out by the Scottish Tourist Board and its results were published in 1969. This showed that many caravanners wanted only simple, basic sites. In fact the Caravan Club representative on the Scottish Tourist Board Committee is quoted as maintaining the point of view that the extent of the amenities laid down in the model standards of the Caravan Sites Act is unnecessarily high, and he represents 70,000 touring caravans. So surely what we want is plenty of sites with varying standards of amenities, well landscaped—and this is very important, because so often a caravan site is an eyesore for everyone else although it may be a marvellous site for the people in the caravans on that site. Local planning authorities are quite right to insist on high landscaping standards when they give a licence to a caravan site, and in the interests of all, including caravanners, I am convinced that we want a ban on caravans other than in authorised sites which are properly licensed. We are not anywhere near being able to achieve that at the moment, because there are not enough sites for all the caravans that are on the road in the summer.

883
I would just point out that from the sanitary point of view campers are probably more of a problem than caravanners. People in caravans usually have their own lavatory which they can carry around until they come to a suitable disposal point; campers do not, and this is a point which should not be forgotten. It is surprising to me that the legislation, such as it is, is more restrictive so far as caravans are concerned than it is in regard to campers.
Other noble Lords have covered various other points that I should have liked to mention, but there is one quite important point upon which I feel I must touch. It is on a somewhat different subject, and that is the difficulty of getting planning permission, not from the local authority, who on the whole are usually only to keen for people to start caravan sites, but from what was the Ministry of Transport or the Scottish Trunk Roads Department. I believe that the Trunk Roads Department in England is now part of the Ministry of the Environment, and in Scotland it is no doubt still the Scottish Trunk Roads Department. They appear to want to make it as difficult as possible for anyone to have a caravan site within reasonable distance of a main road. I think they might be told that in the interests of getting caravans off the road and on to proper sites they must be a little more reasonable in their standards, because many of the roads in Scotland simply do not have a long enough straight stretch anywhere on them to be able to satisfy the planners in the Scottish Development Department, with their insistence upon having 800 feet of straight road (400 feet on each side) on your way in and out of the site. In many cases there is not a stretch of road that comes up to these standards, and I hope this will be brought to their attention. My Lords, I think we have had an interesting debate, and I look forward to hearing all the other speakers.
5.39 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, the noble Earl, to whom we are greatly indebted for initiating this debate, has not put any geographical limitation upon his question and therefore I think it might be appropriate if we have a voice from Wales. So far all the contributions have
884
been from North of the Border, but we in Wales, of course, have problems every bit as acute, if not more so, as those which have been described with such experience and knowledge by the noble Lords who have already spoken.
Our Welsh coastline is some of the most beautiful in the Kingdom, and in the proposals made by the Countryside Commission for heritage coastal areas one-third of those proposed are in the Principality. Also, we are much nearer to the great industrial areas, both in South Wales and in the North to Merseyside and the Potteries, and in mid-Wales to the Midlands. Therefore, we are suffering most acutely in the peak summer periods from congestion of every kind, both on the roads and on the caravan sites themselves. I can speak from close experience, because for some time I was a Minister in the Welsh Office, concerned with these matters, and I think most of us in Wales would agree that we have already reached saturation point with static caravans in most of the coastal areas. Therefore, there is no room left unless we show great pertinacity and ingenuity in planning for the tourist or transit caravans which are the particular subject of this debate.
I have the greatest sympathy for the touring caravan family, because I think they are much more enterprising than those who go and sit down or sleep in the static caravan camps, although they pose very great problems. I have, for example, evidence which has been sent round to all the statutory and voluntary authorities concerned by the Glamorgan County Council, which is a very dedicated local authority where planning is concerned, about the danger they see in the Gower Peninsula, which is one of the most exquisite areas in Wales and which is being very seriously threatened. They say that visitors are still coming in, despite the lack of facilities. There is a tidal wave of day visitors from the industrial areas of South Wales. The Council reckon that, in addition to the static caravans on Gower, at a peak weekend in the summer there are some 1,000 touring caravans trying to find places to rest overnight. They say that there are very few small approved touring caravan sites, and as these clubs come in at the weekend the existing site operators and farmers have been opening up other unauthorised

885
sites. Caravans have been parked on commons, verges and other open land, with all the attendant problems of visual intrusion, public health, traffic congestion, and in some areas ecological damage. So this is a very acute problem to all of us in Wales. Parts of the Gower Peninsula near the coast, certainly also Pembrokeshire and Anglesey, have very few trees and screening is very difficult. Therefore, any further sites which are authorised, however well managed or built, will be extremely intrusive on the landscape. It seems to me that we need a strategy in this matter.
One of our problems in Wales is that so often the territory which is just inland from the coast is also very beautiful and ought not to be spoiled. I am told that one of our major camping organisations are particularly gratified with the efforts made in Cornwall by the county council. But with the greatest respect to Cornwall, while their coastal scenery is superb, my own view is that a great deal of the inland scenery is not all that distinguished and is not very much spoiled if you have more caravan sites there. Where I live in Montgomeryshire, the beautiful Dovey Valley, the fact that you are ten miles from the coast would not be of any help if you had a badly sited caravan camp. There are some very sensitive areas, and very careful planning is needed if we are to provide what is absolutely right and proper accommodation for the touring caravans without spoiling the scenery for everybody else.
The distinction between the static caravans and touring caravans was, of course, marked in the legislation, the Countryside Act 1968. As we know, England and Wales have a different Countryside Act from Scotland, and we have a separate Countryside Commission. But under Section 34 of the English and Welsh Act provision was made for special grants to be available for transit caravan sites, as opposed to static, in an effort to deal with this problem, but the Act has not been in operation long enough to see how it is going to work. I understand, from inquiries that I have made, that for England and Wales there have been 75 applications so far from local authorities and private developers, about one-third from private developers. It seems to me—and I think the position is also the
886
same in Scotland—that the Countryside Commission is a little hesitant as to disposition of its limited funds, and I do not think that any actual grants have so far been made under this section. But the powers are there, and I think all of us who are taking part in this debate will hope very much that they will be used, and that they will be used intelligently.
I also hope—although I admit that in many places this is bolting the door after the horse has gone—that planning authorities, in giving consent for any further static sites, will insist as a condition of the consent that there shall be provision also for touring caravans. I think it is a great pity that more was not done on these lines after the 1960 Caravans Act, when planning authorities could have used their powers to greater effect. But I am advised that they did not all wake up to this fact, and a number of opportunities have been lost of using planning consent as a way of ensuring that provision was made for the touring caravan as well as the static ones.
I think we have to look at further possible ways of mitigating the very great difficulties which face those in this country who want to take their caravans on tour. I may perhaps mention from our Welsh experience one or two directions in which we are making a little progress. I do not want to make too high a claim for it. I think one noble Lord earlier did mention information centres. It is very important that one should try as far as possible to make sure that those who are coming with the intention of camping should have some knowledge of where they may stay without breaking the law. In Pembrokeshire, with the assistance of the South Wales Tourist Council and the local authority, we have set up an information centre, and I am told this has proved invaluable in controlling the influx of tourists, by making known caravan sites which were formerly not always fully used and relieving the congestion in some areas, around Tenby in particular, which were becoming more than saturated. This seems to me an excellent idea.
It has been suggested that we should have strategic transit sites on the Borders as visitors are moving into Wales, so that they can spend the first night of their journey in satisfactory conditions. I was very much interested to see that

887
the Countryside Commission and the British Tourist Authority have suggested that racecourses would be ideal for this purpose, because they are used only at certain periods of the year, there is quite a large area vacant, which is not by any means unsuitable for touring caravans, and water supply and toilet facilities are laid on. So far as I can see, we could have on our Welsh Border, starting in the North, Chester, Shrewsbury, Ludlow, Chepstow, which would provide the first helpful line of racecourse transit sites.
Then it is suggested that other purpose-built transit sites could be provided. At the moment, the local authority have a short-stay site at Cardiff, but suggestions have been made that Severn Bridge, Brecon and Llangollen would make good strategic transit or short-stay sites. I think they would be excellent, because it would mean that people coming into South, Mid, and North Wales respectively could find proper accommodation at the outset. In Pembrokeshire, too, the Countryside Commission and the local authority have used a disused airfield to provide 50 pitches for touring caravans. These are not taking up all the site, and there is room for expansion. I am sure that in other parts of the country there are still disused airfields which could be used for this purpose and which already have some of the basic facilities, though they may need some money spent on them. There is also hard standing. This is a way in which we might try to tackle this particularly difficult problem of finding places for touring caravans. I hope that any experience that we in Wales have had in this pioneering direction will be entirely at the disposal of people in other parts of the United Kingdom who wish to see what can be done.
I think one has to face the fact that provision for touring caravans is not as remunerative as it is for static caravans, and unless something is done by way of public inducement, by public pressure and planning and so on, we shall not get rid of this position which is so unsatisfactory for everybody concerned, including the innocent caravanner who comes into an area, peaceably hoping to have a wonderful time, but finds the place so crowded that he does not know where to turn. Thus we get all the
888
troubles which have been described, of camping on verges and all the nasty mess that is sometimes left behind.
We need to do all that we can, because as a tourist country we are not by any means at the top of the league in this respect. Noble Lords have mentioned experience abroad. I was looking up information upon this point. It leaves one somewhat disquieted when one compares the small effort that we are making, not only for our own domestic holidaymakers but to attract tourists from overseas who are used to far better conditions on the Continent than at the moment they can normally find in this country. To me, this is most regrettable.
I am told that in the five years since the British Travel Association obtained the approval of the Ministry of Transport to issue signs for approved camping sites which reach international standards, there have been applications on behalf of only 172 sites. Of those, 140 applications have been granted to sites considered to be up to standard and the proprietors have been told that they may display the signs; but of that number only 102 have more than 20 pitches. This compares with more than 1,000 sites in France which are municipally operated and which always provide for tourist caravans, and some 3,000 privately operated sites. Of course in other countries, such as Italy, Switzerland and so on, there are large numbers of caravan sites.
We compare extremely badly with the Continent, both in the number and in the standards of our sites for touring caravans. It seems to me a great pity that this should be so. I know that there is in existence a Working Party in the Department of the Environment which is concerned with this matter. There is also the Working Party of the Countryside Commission whose report is now being circulated to various interested bodies. I fully appreciate that recent legislation on the countryside has not had much time in which to be operative, but I hope that the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, who I understand is the most expert camper in the House and who is to reply to the debate, will feel that we are all greatly interested and concerned in this matter, and that, where necessary, they will exert pressure on their colleagues to see that we make further progress.
5.54 p.m.
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, I shall be very brief because most of the things I wanted to say have already been said. In thanking the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie, for introducing this debate, I want to try to impress both on the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, and on Lord Hughes, on the Opposition side of the House, that, in my opinion, unless something is done, we shall not in the future be able to cope with the problem of caravans and camping in the Highlands. There have been a certain number of generalities in the opinions expressed. I shall confine my remarks to a study group, of which I am chairman, in the County of Inverness, where for years we have been seriously perturbed over the problem of preserving the countryside and, of course, all the problems that go with litter, sanitation and camping by tourists.
In general terms, the tourist industry is one of the great assets in the North. The tourist industry in the United Kingdom brings in a total figure of £1,000 million, of which, on the most recent figures available, Scotland can claim about £97 million. The county of Inverness, which is the largest county and the most thinly populated in the North, stands to gain about £3½ million out of the total spent by tourists. In this county, which I know well, the trade brought in by caravanners and campers is about 10 per cent. of that total. May I say, here and now, that we welcome caravans and their occupants. On putting statistics through a computer we found that they spend more per head of the party, the family group, and stay about one and a half days longer, as well as being extremely well-behaved. So that in every sense they are welcome people. But we simply have not the facilities to deal with them.
This problem, my Lords, is going to get worse, because we also find that they are increasing in number at the rate of 15 per cent. per annum. This is a formidable and, I think, impressive increase. And with the roads improving (as I hope one day they will) this trend is going to continue, because we know that the desire "to get away from it all" is one that is found not only in Great Britain but in every part of the world. People cannot afford hotels, least of all bad ones.
890
Frankly, there are not many good hotels in the Highlands, with their short season, S.E.T. and the rest. If anything, they are on a slippery slope. They are not going forward in their development, whereas the camper most certainly is.
An earlier speaker this afternoon said that we cannot build permanent sites. This is perfectly true, because the average person has not the capital to invest in a large site. There is also the fact that the season is very short. Despite what has been said by speakers on the Front Bench, I think the season for camping is a good deal less than six months or 15 weeks. If you are going to borrow, you will not get the interest on your money. If you have to "fit in" on a capital outlay of, say, £25,000, you are not going to get your interest rates on what I consider to be a three-months season. In the far North I put the season at 12 weeks. I think I am perfectly right in saying this because I am an interested party: I have a caravan site of my own.
I have just one more figure for the noble Baroness to digest. We took a census in the county of Inverness in the month of August. This was not a particularly good month, and we did not consider that the figures were unduly high. But shortly before the grouse shooting began it was found that on 817 miles of road in the county of Inverness there were 1,187 caravans and campers. That number was over and above the total on the authorised sites, which on the same day amounted to 5,884 people. These figures may not sound very big to people living in the Home Counties. But when one considers that in the landward area of the county of Inverness there are only 17,000 ratepayers, some of whom live in the Islands, one can readily understand that the tourist population greatly exceeds the number of local inhabitants.
On the Road to the Isles—the one immortalised in the song—in Lochaber on that particular evening for every mile of the road there were 3·3 caravans parked in lay-bys in places where they should not be. I think the chorus of that song runs:
"You've never smelt the tangle of the Isles".
But if you were wandering that way on a hot summer's day there would be a good deal more than "the tangle o' the Isles" coming from the Skerries and the "loos" if you had a good nose to cope

891
with what was left behind. This is a serious matter, because if this calculation of a rise of 15 per cent. is a correct one—and I think it is—we are going to have something like 10,000 caravans on the Highland roads by 1974.
I suggest that we must seek practical ways and means of financing all that goes with preserving the beauty of the Highlands. This is our greatest asset, and it must be preserved. I should like to pay the highest tribute to one of our newest bodies, the Countryside Commission. They have done a great deal to provide sanitation. Very few lavatories existed—I can assure you of that. Only last week in the County Council we discussed the cost of putting something into Glen Nevis where winter climbers are sometimes in search of relief, in more than one sense of the word. I think there are four lavatories there which cost £8,000. This is something which no county can afford, especially if, as in Inverness-shire, a penny rate brings in only a few hundred pounds. How can one cope with this problem with the funds available, any more than the Countryside Commission, with £100,000 to spend, can provide sanitation?
There are very few public lavatories outside the villages. Certainly, although the big caravan sites are well equipped, there will not be enough space for things to come. I hope that the noble Baroness will bear this fact in mind. I felt that her speech tried to justify what was going on now—and perhaps it does. But it certainly will not cope with the future situation; and the ratepayers in the Highlands cannot do it. To my mind, it is rather unfair that the Countryside Commission should use all their money in providing toilet facilities in areas such as National Parks—which will be coming along soon; and I welcome them—when one thinks of the situation that arises from the opening up of the countryside and the provision of car parks and so on.
I have two practical suggestions. The first is that the static sites should be phased out, so far as possible, and that travelling caravans should take their place. This would provide ample space for parking and the right facilities, which already exist on static sites. Secondly, immediate steps should be taken to prevent parking in lay-bys. This is a shocking
892
practice, and it should become a statutory offence to park in lay-bys. I hope that, if there is one message that I have succeeded in putting across this evening this is the one to be noted for our narrow country roads.
6.4 p.m.
VISCOUNT THURSO: My Lords, I must apologise to your Lordships for speaking twice in one Sitting, but I do so on what are indeed two important subjects, especially to the Highlands of Scotland. I hope, therefore, your Lordships will forgive me, and I promise to be as brief as I can. I share the gratitude of other noble Lords that the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie, has brought this discussion before us. I only wish that he had made his Motion include nomadic tourists, because it is my experience that tourists with tents and with Dormobiles are increasing more rapidly than those with caravans. I think we are seeing this trend, and we have to cope with it, because the needs and requirements of a tented site are not always exactly the same as those of a caravan site. There-for one must keep the layout of sites flexible, so that one can deal with the trade as the trade is, and cope with the change as the change comes.
I should be all against the taxation of caravans—let me say that to the noble Baroness right away. I always have been against taxing the tourist. We try hard enough to "milk" the tourist, and if we milk the tourist properly then those who drink the milk will be able to afford to pay the taxes; but I do not think we should tax the tourist first. I believe we should tax those who, we hope, make profits out of the tourist. Therefore, I should be against taxing caravans. I think it would be extremely difficult, for instance, to tax tents, and Dormobiles are already taxed as vehicles. I do not know that it would be fair to put an extra tax on them in view of the small period of time in which they can be used as Dormobiles. Therefore, I would come down against taxation. I think that an important thing we should consider is an examination by the Scottish Tourist Board and the Highlands and Islands Development Board into what is the requirement in the way of sites. As the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, has pointed out, we have not enough sites for the caravans that are with us now; we have not enough sites

893
for the tents that are touring our Highlands now; and it is quite clear that the number of tents, Dormobiles, and caravans is growing with each year that passes.
I may tell your Lordships that in the municipal caravan site in Thurso the return from rents for pitches has increased in the last ten years eight and a half times. In cash it has gone up from about £165 a year to something over £1,400. This is a steady growth rate each year, with the exception of a slightly extra growth in particularly good summer seasons. We are convinced that this growth will continue. It represents a growth in the use of sites mostly during the months of July and August. We feel that it is important to provide facilities—especially for tents and Dormobiles, which have not so much space as caravans—for people to enjoy themselves in wet weather—places where they can watch television, play ping pong, wash their clothes, and that sort of thing, which they cannot do in a tent or a Dormobile.
It was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that the season is getting longer. That is not our experience in the Highlands. There is a small peak around Whitsun, but nearly all the tourist trade in the Highlands is still being carried on from the middle of July to the end of August, during the school summer holidays. If we are to expand our season, we must look to markets other than the home market. We have to think in terms of the touring caravan, the camper from the Continent and elsewhere, who is expecting better facilities. If we are to increase the length of our season we must try to increase the facilities, and the standards of the facilities, so that it is just as much fun and pleasure to camp and caravan in April, May and June as it is in July, August and early September.
The point has been made by more than one noble Lord that small sites should be helped. I am doubtful about it. I believe that in the Highlands a croft site of two acres or more could have up to three caravans without the standards of the large sites being applied to it. That is good for the crofter, for the touring caravanner and for the camper, because facilities for spending the night can readily be found, and at such
894
sites there is usually sanitation at the croft house, where the needs of the caravanner or camper can be met.
But to encourage by grant sites that are admitted to be uneconomic before they start is a rather doubtful proposition. Also, even with marginal cases there would be a proliferation of sites, making the problem of landscaping and preserving the amenity in scenic areas more difficult. If you allow one person to have a site you will have to allow everybody to have a site. If you allow one person a grant, you will have to allow everybody a grant. So I should prefer that assistance be given to the large caravan sites, particularly municipal caravan and camping sites where full amenities are intended to be laid on, and municipal sites which have shown themselves to be efficient, liked by tourists and growing. The person who is providing a facility which is required should receive assistance to go on doing a good job. An examination by the Scottish Tourist Board and the Highlands and Islands Development Board might confirm this.
I could not agree more with the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, and the noble Baroness, Lady White, in disliking static caravans. I should like to see static caravans turned into well-designed chalets. They are a masquerade. They are wolves in sheep's clothing. They are not the real thing. Their wheels are rusted solid and there is no point in having those ugly objects polluting the view. So the phasing out of static caravans could be a very good tool in helping us to provide a number of extra sites for touring caravans. I promised to be as brief as possible and I have spoken long enough. I should like to end by asking the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, and the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, whether the Government will consider siting some racecourses in the Highlands of Scotland, so that we can turn them into caravan sites, because we have no racecourses at the moment.
6.14 p.m.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, I am sure there is no need for the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, to apologise for addressing your Lordships' House a second time. He is both knowledgeable and direct, and he speaks with such charm that we are delighted to hear

895
him. In fact, we wonder whether he will consider addressing your Lordships' House a third time in the next debate.
We are indeed most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie, for initiating this debate which will bring light to bear upon a problem which has not been fully appreciated nationally, though it is known by those who are devotees of touring caravanning. I am not going to follow the discussion, which has been so exhaustively taken up, on the question of sites, their drainage and their sanitary facilities. I have never in my life been to a caravan site, nor have I any wish to go to one. I stand confessed before your Lordships as an unrepentant "wild" caravanner. I started caravanning with my family over forty years ago and I have never pitched a caravan on a recognised site during those years.
I must confess to the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie, that after the war I penetrated with a caravan into the wilds of Wester Ross in places where no caravan had ever been before, and several times pioneered where one could say one was the first who ever burst into that silent sea. The noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, talked about milking the tourist caravanner. Perhaps I may relate the subject of milk and caravans in those early days. We used to go for milk to the croft or farm where we were parked for the night, and on more than one occasion payment for the milk was refused. They were surprised that we should offer payment, because it was a natural refreshment to give to the visitor in those parts. The reverse process seems now to be taking place.
What I have to say has been covered by implication, though not directly, by several speakers. I wish to stress first, the great social virtue of the caravan. It keeps the family together on holiday, which is of very great value at the present time when the tendency is for the family to splinter off at a very young age. As one noble Lord has said, caravanning develops the initiative and self-reliance of a family. The second virtue which I would emphasise, which is allied to the first, is that it is the cheapest possible form of family holiday.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, has pointed out, caravans contribute very substantially to
896
Scotland's economy, and the English caravans represent a major proportion of the tourist traffic. To put the noble Baroness's argument slightly differently, I understand it is estimated that the average family of four in a caravan in Scotland spends around £40 a week, excluding site fees at the caravan park. If they did not caravan, most of these families from England would not come to Scotland for their holidays; they would go elsewhere. Caravans are to my mind, therefore, a very important part of this section of our economy; and their possibilities can be easily extended. Scotland, my Lords, can do with more caravans. Better facilities for touring caravans will generate more money in Scotland, more employment and, most importantly of all, more happy families.
6.21 p.m.
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, as a somewhat lonely Sassenach in this debate to-day, I feel rather like the chap who finds himself in a club of which he is not a member. However, I appreciate the problems of Scotland because before now I have stayed with the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie, in his part of the world. My purpose this afternoon is to bring to your Lordships' attention the fact that even in the depths of darkest Devon we suffer from this problem of the increasing number of caravans, their high concentration in some areas and the inadequate approach roads. In the November before last I drew your Lordships' attention, in a debate on the South-West, to the prolems of our approach roads. Who, coming to our part of the world (especially in the summer months, but almost at any time), has not been frustrated by finding himself behind a slow-moving queue with either a milk tanker or a caravan at the front? Eventually, somebody loses patience, he overtakes where he should not, there is an accident and the slow-winding snake comes to a halt.
The answer to part of that problem will come (but oh how slowly!) when the M.5 is extended to Exeter and the dual carriageway extension of the M.3, all of which we have been promised, is brought to that part of the world. We have also been promised dual carriageways on what are now the main roads. The trouble is that this merely gets the caravans and

897
the other holidaymakers to their destinations quicker, and thereby aggravates the "in situ" problem, which is causing alarm and despondency in many areas at the moment. With us, the touring caravan is a problem along with motor caravans and tenting holidaymakers. Even so, the number of touring caravans coming to Devon is growing prodigiously. At the time of the survey last summer, there were 2,200 (and this does not include, naturally, those on the way in or on the way out, or hidden in farmyards or on parts of the Moor), whereas in 1960, when we had a survey at the same time of the year, there were 1,300. The annual increase is now running at 16½ per cent. plus, which I think is a little more than was quoted for Inverness. Another bit of information to show the trend is that during 1968 and 1969 112,000 new caravans were put on the road for the home market.
The problems arising, so far as we are concerned, are fairly obvious, and are the same, I think, as are experienced elsewhere, but I think we suffer from greater concentration. We have meetings between the planning authorities and the local authorities, and so on, but it does not really seem to get us anywhere; nor have we found an answer to the problem. I feel that one of the first things we ought to do is to have a system whereby, on their way down or into a specific area, holidaymakers could make contact to find out where there are vacancies. We had an awful experience last year, when the Torbay area was absolutely crowded and people had to be sent away.
To my mind we must have new caravan parks. Torbay and other seaside areas say that they are all full up, but I think there is scope for more caravans on Dartmoor. However, here we are up against a lot of what I call bureaucratic or institutional obstacles. There are parts of Dartmoor which are boggy and are probably known by only one person in a million. If we were permitted to build there nicely landscaped reservoirs with attendant caravan sites, boating facilities, et cetera, we could kill many of our problem birds with the same stone. We could save good land and homes elsewhere, supply badly needed water and take off the narrow roads 1,000 caravans which only block the local traffic. In the case of this particular site I am thinking
898
of, every summer the roads are jammed with visitors and all they can do is sit and gawk at Princetown Prison. But somebody "nobbled" that Committee, so we lost that possibility.
The caravans are mainly congregated on the coastal areas, where they are too thick on the ground already for aesthetic comfort. If I may quote a case of my own, I have a field by a river not far from the coast which had been a council rubbish dump. My tenant cannot plough it, therefore, without bringing up tin cans. I applied for permission to build a caravan site. It has a nice hedge around three sides, and on the other it is down. I said to the planning officer, "I propose to build that hedge up so that it has high trees all around." As an example of the sort of difficulties one has when one tries to do these things, he said, "You cannot do anything until you have grown this hedge up", which I myself had proposed. Yet at the same time, on a hill not 500 yards away there is a permanent caravan park around which all the trees and hedges have been cut down. It stands out like the warts on Cromwell's nose; and for the next two years the land in between will be a mud bath, anyway, while they construct the Chudleigh by-pass. There are far too many examples of that sort of hindrance to our trying to catch up with this terrific increase in the number of caravans.
Caravanners, both mobile and static, spend, so we are told, only half as much on their holidays in Devon as do those who go to hotels and boarding houses. For that reason they are not the most popular element in the tourist set-up. For that and other reasons, the touring caravanner cannot really expect to have the front row of the stalls for "standing room only" prices. Local residents, who have paid and are paying considerable prices for their selected places, cannot have their interests ignored; and as a local resident I feel that I should be on the local residents' side. Club sites operated under paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Caravan Act are the sites generally most acceptable both to the planning authority and to the caravan clubs. As almost every speaker to-day has said, the grants which are available are generally thought to be inadequate.
I should like to make one or two suggestions. The problem of the site

899
operator ought to be given a little more consideration. The nomad (I use that term for want of a better word), cannot stand too much of the frustration of being turned away—and there was a lot of that last year. Perhaps the law could be made a little less fierce in this respect, especially in the so-called "explosive" period when there really are too many caravans. If the operator were allowed a small extra number of caravans for that period, or if he were allowed to take on a little ground next door, it would save a great deal of disappointment—especially if the park and other facilities are available. This might help to solve that problem. It was because of the danger to public health, arising from the fact that the roving caravan has no set place to go to, that I applied for a caravan site licence. Last year I found four caravans parked in a very narrow lane. It meant that nobody else could get by; and my woods were being used as their lavatory and as a dumping ground.
It seems to me that at the end of every season the planning authorities must get together with the holiday trade and make sure they have learned the lessons of that season so as to cope with the problems of the next. At present, these protective policies are, I think, a little too inflexible and imprecise. If we could have more sites allied to maintenance areas, say on the M.5 and approach roads, we could devise a way of channelling the visiting caravanner to places where there are vacancies by connecting these sites by telephone to sites in various parts of the county, thus avoiding the trouble that we had last year. This would be of special importance in these explosive periods.
The only other thing I would suggest in that respect is that, in addition to having telephonic communication, there should be approved site directions for caravans. If we could get this sort of communication, the right sort of approach roads and the right sort of overnight halts close to those roads, we might be able to avoid a great many problems in the future. A very large proportion of the million and a half holidaymakers who come to Devon every year either arrive in caravans or stay in them during their holiday period. I shall be more than interested to hear what the noble
900
Lord who is to answer for the Government has to say in respect of the various problems that noble Lords have raised this afternoon.
6.35 p.m.
THE EARL OF DUNDONALD: My Lords, we are all grateful to my noble friend Lord Cromartie for introducing this debate to-day. For a few moments I should like to focus our attention away from Devon back to Scotland. Tourism in Scotland is becoming more and more important. We have plenty of open space where the urban dweller can learn to love and enjoy the countryside. But, to reiterate what many noble Lords have said, the caravanner and the camper who tows a trailer—not to be confused with the camper who camps in the open countryside—are producing a very real problem.
I have listened attentively this afternoon (and my noble friend the Duke of Atholl "shot down" various forms of financial assistance to the local authority and caravanners) but I have not heard a word about what the Highlands and Islands Development Board have done. It would be helpful to me, and I am sure also to our county council in Argyll, to know what the Highlands and Islands Development Board have done or are able to do in helping the caravan camper. I will amplify that point in a moment.
In our part of Argyll the caravan camp is, on the whole, extremely well regulated. But having observed the situation over several years—and I have no personal interest in the caravan camps at all—I have come to the conclusion that they are too small in area and that it is important that the local authority (under the powers which I believe they have available under Section 49 of the Countryside (Scotland) Act) should have the funds to be able to enlarge these camps. We should not then have, as at present, numbers of permanently parked or touring caravans ranged in long rows inland or facing the sea in cooped-up situations where the children, were it to rain for six or seven days, have no recreational facilities of any kind. I think that further financial assistance should enable the sites to include recreational or amenity areas part of which, if possible, should be on a hill.

901
Now we come to the other subject of camps—and I exclude the open camper, the man who camps well off the main roads and does not mind if he pitches his tent on the top of Ben Nevis. He is the real camper. My noble friend Lord Cromartie referred to those who come in Dormobiles or who have trailers carrying their camping equipment. It would appear to us in Argyll, and I think also to others, that they are allowed to park in large numbers practically anywhere—and without proper sanitary facilities. I am not talking about crofters and smallholders who can park within their acreage two or three caravans or tents. My noble friend Lord Lovat referred to this arrangement, which works extremely well. What we are concerned with is the Dormobile individual, the Dormobile species, or the man in the car with a trailer: it appears that he is able to park more or less anywhere without proper sanitary facilities.
I have listened carefully to what was said on the subject of taxes on caravans; and I feel that the caravanner would not object to a limited tax (I should not like to specify a figure) payable by day or by night, or by week or by fortnight, for the facilities of a proper, licensed caravan camp. It has already been said this afternoon that this situation exists in other countries where there is a sort of residence tax. I have no objection to caravanners, although, as I said, I have no personal interest in caravans. I have talked to a great many caravanners, and I do not think they would object to such a tax if the facilities of caravan camps could as a result be improved. Could not such a tax be collected by the licensed caravan camp and paid direct to the council in whose area the camp is situated, the money to be applied directly to the improvement of caravanning, rather than be collected by the central authority in the way that S.E.T. is collected? The caravan operator or owner would have to make a return to the Inland Revenue, and so would have to keep proper books; and each night, or each week, the money could be paid to the council. I would suggest a tax of say, £1; and I think this is something that the Government should consider.
My noble friends Lord Cromartie and Lord Lovat know the problem of the roads better than I do, but in our part
902
of Scotland passing places on the roads are obstructed by caravanners who cannot get their vehicles off the road. Such a tax as I have suggested might be used by local councils to improve and enlarge licensed caravan camps, which would help to relieve the congestion on the roads. Possibly the Highlands and Islands Development Board might be able to help with road improvements. I am in favour of allowing the present situation to continue in respect of the siting of caravans on crofting land, where the croft provides lavatory facilities and there are no drainage or water problems. Help should be given to the larger caravan camps. Sites where there are only 10, 12 or 15 caravans should not be considered, since they are not economic.
6.43 p.m.
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, as the second Englishman to take part in this debate, I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Cromartie for providing this opportunity for me to address your Lordships. I come from a part of the County of Worcester, in the Midlands, about half-way between the Borders and Devonshire and on the M.5 which has already been referred to. The reason I am speaking in this debate is that our county has recently been awarded a Civic Trust Award for the design of a camp site. I feel that this is the sort of thing on which other local authorities might employ their expertise.
We had a derelict Army camp and no one knew what to do with it. It was full of weeds and a source of interest to hooligans. It belonged to the local authority and it was cleared, very much on the lines described by the noble Baroness, Lady White. It was not an airfield but an Army camp, and the facilities included hard standings which have been put to excellent use. The opportunity to improve this site was taken by Worcester County Council. There may be similar sites in our county and in other parts of England, Scotland and Wales. Our needs in England are precisely those which my noble friend the Duke of Atholl mentioned earlier. We need plenty of sites of varying standards which are well landscaped.
My Lords, it is the landscaping to which I should like to address myself particularly; it was referred to by my

903
noble friend Lord Dundonald. Landscaping should provide two things, concealment and amenity. By "amenity" I mean amenity from the point of view of the outside observer, and also that the camp site should provide much more than is available on camp sites in this country at present. Camp sites should be fun. Given imagination and a will to make them so, this could be achieved.
So far as concealment is concerned, I would make a plea, not to the Government but to the caravan manufacturers: is there not another colour which caravans could be painted, other than cream or green? Equally, are there not substances which could be applied to the paint to give a matt effect, or provide slightly serrated or nobbled surfaces, so that the sunlight would not reflect from it? Is it not possible to construct camp sites in such a way that they are "dug in", rather along the lines adopted by Hampshire County Council? There they have used the gun-pit principle for their car parks by providing bunkers which are an amenity in themselves and provide a degree of privacy for the caravanner and would-be camper.
There are other ways in which amenities could be provided, but I do not wish to take up further time by discussing them. I would mention the opportunity which there is for the exchange of information among Government Departments. Now the Forestry Commission has very much enlightened views about State forests compared with the early attempts made after the First World War, when trees of only one variety were planted in rectangular slabs. As the Forestry Commission has now opened the door a chink, it might be persuaded to open it a little wider and consider planting more varieties, with a view not only to the final crop being profitable but also to landscaping as a national amenity.
Another Government Department which has a stake in this regard is the Ministry of Defence. I will not mention any particular camp site or area of derelict land which might well be disposed of in the forthcoming re-allocation of land, because I think it would be unfair to refer to a particular site which many of us might know. But undoubtedly such
904
national resources which are in many cases along our coast line are awaiting Government action, and the caravanning community has a call upon them. Finally, my Lords, the Ministry of Transport comes into this. There are enormous areas of disused railway land, and also stations, which could be turned into places for caravan camps, and there sites could be established with great benefit.
6.48 p.m.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, I regret that there appears to have been some slip-up in the "usual channels", and my name has been omitted from the list of speakers. I make no secret of the fact that I find camping an extremely uncomfortable way to spend a holiday. Far from it keeping the family together, as was said by my noble friend Lord Balerno, whenever my family go off camping I certainly do not go with them. But I know that there are people who desire this sort of holiday, and I fully appreciate the position.
I am sure that we are all most grateful to my noble friend Lord Cromartie for initiating this debate about what is definitely a growing problem. To my mind, the main reason why it is a growing problem is because of the existence of the iniquitous selective employment tax which, by increasing the charges, has driven many people from the hotels. However, we hope that before many months the Government will implement their promise to do away with this tax. As the noble Lord, Lord Lovat, said, during the last two years the Inverness County Council has made a survey of campers. In 1970 the survey showed that there were 6,000 units which were almost equally divided between caravans and tents. Counting other units hidden away in remote glens, probably 11,000 persons were using this source of accommodation during that period in the Inverness area alone.
Perhaps one of the biggest problems resulting from caravans, as the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, has said, is the obstruction caused to our vital communications by week-end and holiday drivers trying to weave their way over our narrow roads towing a trailer, a practice which becomes blatantly evident if for any reason they have to try to reverse.

905
Owners of commercial lorries and trailers, usually driven by experienced and careful drivers, have to pay heavy road fund taxes for using our roads, but for some reason or other a caravan can be taken on our roads without any tax. It may be that our draftsmen have had difficulty in deciding "when is a caravan not a caravan". There are, indeed, problems, such as into which category a Dormobile would fall, or one of those tent-type contraptions which fall down into a trailer. But I am confident that if someone were to put their mind to it these problems should not be insuperable. On the other hand, one has to be careful that one does not drive more people out of caravan camping into tent camping. There can be little doubt that the caravan is a good method of providing the additional holiday accommodation required.
I have tried to establish three different camping sites in three different places in Scotland, and the first, and perhaps biggest, hurdle that one has to surmount is to try to satisfy the planners. I think, as other noble Lords, and particularly my noble friend the Duke of Athol], have said, this is most important. The planners desire a site to be out of sight of the main road, and yet they do not like advance direction signs as they are unsightly also. If one overcomes these two problems, one then has to surmount other problems about which some noble Lords have complained bitterly, such as the difficulty of getting over the trunk roads problem, where frequently we are told that we cannot have access.
Many speakers have emphasised the difficulty with capital in the setting up of these sites. It is probable that one cannot build a toilet block, even for a small site, for less than £1,000. The place from where the money should come is from the campers themselves. When a tourist tax was suggested, I was not greatly enamoured with the idea and I am afraid that I disagree with my noble friend Lord Dundonald in his suggestion that there should be such a tax. Presumably, this would have to apply also to hotels and would make them more expensive. It would make camping sites more expensive, and would definitely encourage a marked increase in indiscriminate camping so as to escape both site charges and tax.
906
What is required is new legislation firmly to ban indiscriminate camping, as applies in many Continental countries. This ban is strongly enforced behind the Iron Curtain, and France applies it very strictly. The indiscriminate camper, apart from failing to provide revenue for the development of camping sites by the installation of such things as hot water, laundry facilities and the like, leaves litter and excreta, and the site becomes a general eyesore, fouling up the very scenery which people have come to see.
Urgent action must be taken to stop camping in lay-bys, woods, and even in one's arable fields and up one's private drives. As the law stands at the moment, I believe that the responsibility for preventing indiscriminate camping falls upon the occupier or owner of the ground; and indeed, the owner or occupier could be held liable for permitting camping in unauthorised places. I feel that this is grossly unfair, as the wretched owner has very little power to remove a camper, let alone someone obstructing one's roads, as I found to my cost. The Inverness County survey showed that in August, 1970, of the units found, 21 per cent. of caravans, 30 per cent. of motor caravans and 18 per cent. of tents were outwith licensed sites, and most of these were therefore polluting the countryside. I say this with due deference to my noble friend Lord Balerno; I do not know whether he was one of them.
I hope that I may digress slightly on to the question of tents, although the Motion specifies caravans. As my noble friend the Duke of Atholl has said, in the past there has been legislation for controlling caravanning, but the far greater problem of camping in tents seems to be ignored: indeed, if I may say so, I think my noble friend in putting down his Motion may have overlooked this point. Tent camping is far more likely to lead to a litter problem. Unlike many caravans, tents have no toilets, and tent campers are far more likely to make open fires. Indeed, the tents—multi-coloured monstrosities—frequently with a pair of underpants drying on the guy-ropes, are a far greater problem than caravans.
I know that if one tries to restrict camping there will be an outcry from mountaineers, asking why they cannot pitch their bivouacs in the remote areas.

907
Perhaps there would also be an outcry from certain noble Lords. Whatever may be the position, it might be possible to permit a certain amount of camping by some form of special permit. If there is to be legislation, it is frequently the case that the few have to suffer for the benefit of the majority. So far as this particular piece of legislation is concerned, there can be no doubt that it is essential.
My noble friend Lord Cromartie was picked up by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, on the question of the organisation by amateurs of tourist concerns. I think my noble friend probably had in mind a specific case—and I fully agree with him—when an amateur organiser very nearly wrecked a very large company of tourists in Wester Ross last year. With respect, I think that there should be some proper professional control.
Finally, may I digress on to a Highland problem which may well not be popular, but which has already been mentioned by my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir and my noble friend Lord Thurso, on the special terms for crofters. I am afraid that I cannot agree that this is a good thing. I think it was probably felt that a caravan or two should be permitted near a croft house as additional accommodation to the house; but this is not in fact what transpires. Crofters have established small camping sites, frequently on their common grazings, where a number of crofters can combine, and you have a good number of caravans together in a completely unlicensed site without anyone able to control them. They are not subject to planning permission, and there are hardly ever any toilet facilities provided. Crofters are in a special category where they can secure grants which are not available to anyone else, and therefore there seems to be less excuse for them to have this dispensation than anyone else.
I therefore regret that I must disagree with my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir when she says that no new legislation is required. I hope that, having listened to this debate, she will have heard from a number of noble Lords that there are certain aspects which do require legislation. Apart from substantial camping outwith licensed sites, particularly during the peak periods, almost every site in
908
Inverness-shire is substantially overcrowded. It is therefore to be hoped that the Government will shortly introduce a camping Bill to cover the many problems discussed to-day and at the same time to stop the particular loopholes of indiscriminate camping.
6.59 p.m.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, I should like to express the utter sense of shock with which I have listened to the speech of the noble Lord who has just sat down, and I wish here and now to begin the public outcry which he confidently and quite rightly anticipated. As economic advance continues, I believe it is more and more generally accepted that we should do more than we have done in the past to improve the quality of life. That means enabling people to get out and enjoy the natural beauties of this lovely country. While I am second to none in my admiration for Scotland, which I visit as often as I can, I should now like to say a word about good old England, because we have the most lovely countryside, but it is getting rather hard to enjoy it. I am greatly concerned at present trends. For instance, hotel prices are becoming inordinately expensive. If you want to stay in a nice hotel in England, Scotland or Wales, and if you take some of your children, you pay an astronomical price. I do not know how people manage to pay for the holidays that they like to enjoy. This, I believe, is retrogressive.
There is little doubt that the caravan and, for that matter, the tent, represents an excellent solution. It is good for young people to live fairly hard—I do not believe it does the old ones much harm either—and there is a great deal to be said for encouraging our countrymen to get out, get themselves fit, and enjoy nature in the way in which you can live closest to it. But the present trend is to restrict facilities. I have noticed on my peregrinations round this country that it is getting increasingly difficult to find anywhere to pitch a tent or lodge a caravan. The various municipal and rural authorities like to stick us into camp sites and to restrict us to camp sites which are mostly in the neighbourhood of towns. Personally, I like going out into the real country, but it is increasingly difficult to find a good site

909
for a tent or caravan there. Of course, many local authorities are dominated by the local commercial and hotel-owning interests, and this has some influence on the situation. I do not want to impute unworthy motives to the local authorities, because I think they try very hard. Some of the camp sites I have visited have been beautiful, well organised and a credit to the locality.
The next point I want to make is that the National Trust property is getting more and more extensive, and covers more and more of our ranges of hills, with magnificent views and beautiful coastline round the United Kingdom. Unfortunately the National Trust property, with the exception of a few sites, is not available to tenters and caravanners. It is not a matter of whether you are an extremely clean tenter or caravanner, as I claim to be: there are no sites. That is a shame. These beautiful areas should not be closed to people who want to go and stay there, provided that they behave properly. It is a great pity from the point of view of all our countrymen that it is getting harder to visit these places. Personally, I would favour opening more camp sites. I strongly endorse the preference for the travelling caravan rather than the static one, which has been mentioned so much in this debate, and there should perhaps be a little more care taken about sanitation and lack of noise. Generally speaking, we want more facilities, not fewer.
One other matter, although it is only partially relevant to this debate, is that it seems to me, in my part of the country at any rate, South East of London, that much National Trust property is beginning to get overgrown with gorse and hawthorn bushes and unkempt bushes of all sorts. This is not altogether the fault of the National Trust, because they do not have the money to look after these places. It really is a shame when beautiful places, like Toys Hill for instance, get so grown over that although they have been given to the National Trust so that everybody may enjoy the magnificent view, yet unless you are able to climb a high tree and look out from it you cannot see what the view might be. If somebody could encourage the National Trust to look after these areas and restore their original amenities, it would be of great benefit.
910
I should like to give another example of what is happening and which I believe is retrogressive. One of the most beautiful bays in the South of England is Cuckmere Haven, near Seaford. For a great many years, to my certain knowledge—because I have been there often—there has been a camp and caravan site, with water laid on and toilet facilities; and a beautiful place it is. Complaints have been raised in the neighbourhood because the caravans can be seen from some angles, and the caravan and camping site is going to be closed entirely in a few years, by order of the local authority. Let me make it perfectly clear that the local authority have the legal right to do this. I am not saying that they have done anything that they have not the right to do; all I am saying is that it is an attitude which is as dead as the dodo.
They have given orders not only to close, the site in a few years' time but also to destroy the toilet facilities. My Lords, this is a place which hundreds of people visit almost every day of the year. Now this beautiful place is going to be fouled—nothing else can happen. This matter is under consideration at the present time, and I hope that some arrangement will be made to continue the camping, caravan and toilet facilities, particularly if suitable landscaping arrangements can be made. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, who is going to reply, knows all about this subject, because we have discussed it. He has been most helpful, and I greatly appreciate what he has done. It is important that in cases like this we should not encourage or help the local authorities to adopt what is really a retrogressive attitude in destroying the availability of the beauties of our countryside for the people that want to visit there.
THE DUKE OF ATHOLL: My Lords, before the noble Lord moves away from the National Trust, it is only fair to say that the National Trust, to my certain knowledge, have made several excellent caravan and camping sites in the Lake District. The National Trust for Scotland spend a great deal of money on both camping and caravan sites at nearly all their properties. If they had more money, I promise the noble Lord that they would do a great deal more. So I think he is being a little unfair.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, I think I mentioned that there were exceptions, and I warmly endorse the remarks of the noble Duke, for they are entirely right. But what is wanted is more of them. There are not enough of these facilities, and I have said that it is not entirely the fault of the National Trust because they do not have enough money. I hope that they will be able to get more money to do this work.
My Lords, to conclude, I would say that improved facilities are really important in improving the quality of life. It is customary nowadays to say a great deal about the environment and pray for the survival of the insects. I should like to pray for the survival of the human race. I think it is important that we should be able to get out and enjoy our beautiful country, and that goes for all parts of it.
7.10 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the Department of the Environment stretches far and wide, but its responsibilities do not normally extend to Scotland and Wales. It is, therefore, a particular pleasure for me to be taking part to-day in this debate, which has ranged from Ross and Cromarty down to the Gower Peninsula, and all over England, as well as Scotland.
I suppose that, as a Minister, one ought not to have any interests to declare, but the fact of the matter is that I have been a camper and a caravanner for some time. I am a member of both the Camping and Caravan Clubs, of which I will say more in a moment. It is quite wrong to suppose that I have any of the particular expertise with which the noble Baroness, Lady White, credited me. Furthermore, I have very scant first-hand knowledge of the ways things are run in Scotland. But I am consoled by the fact that if I omit one or two details about the workings of the Highlands and Islands Development Board Scottish Peers who are present will have the chance of another go to-morrow. I will, nevertheless, do my best to cover the ground.
It is one of the broad policy aims of the Department for which I speak that the beauty of the countryside should be safeguarded. This is a policy which is, of course, shared by my right honourable friends the Secretaries of State for Wales
912
and for Scotland. But this protection is not just for those whose enjoyment of the countryside is secure, but in order that the greatest number of other people may share that enjoyment when they are on holiday; and share it to the full. I particularly welcome the theme which has recurred over and over again in this debate and which indicates how many of your Lorships share that policy and that aim, and in fact are taking practical steps to give effect to it.
Touring the country by car with a caravan in tow, or with camping gear on board, is proving an excellent way of enjoying the countryside, as more and more families are finding year by year. It is a sensible choice and we want to do nothing unnecessary to restrain the trend. But the speed and the strength of this very popular movement demand careful planning, careful management of sites and a great deal of consideration about legislation and other matters. For this reason this debate, initiated by my noble friend Lord Cromartie, is particularly welcome. The Motion refers to the "ever-increasing number" of touring caravans. The Caravan Club, who have considerable expertise in this field, can endorse that. I am indebted to them for a number of statistics, but one of the most telling is that their membership last year increased by 14,000—an increase of 20 per cent. in one year. Similar statistics could have been provided, if we were discussing the subject, by the Camping Club and many others whose main interest is recreation in the open air.
Faced with this situation, this buoyancy of demand, on the one hand, and a supply of plentiful, beautiful countryside all over the Highlands, on the other, and also the need in the Highlands for economic development, I should have thought it ought not to be our first concern to turn to methods of taxation and possibilities of grant-aid, but rather to look round for an expert entrepreneur to bring this demand and that supply together. In fact, we can turn to the Caravan Club and the Camping Club, and others like them, and find such entrepreneurs active and busy in the field. The Caravan Club (I refer to them because we are talking about touring caravans) are expending £200,000 annually on opening new sites and developing and improving existing ones. That sum, £200,000, is one-third of the

913
total funds made available on the recommendation of the Countryside Commissions of England, Wales and Scotland for all countryside facilities—not just camping sites—over the period of a year. It is a sizeable sum and we ought to salute the Caravan Club for such vigorous activity.
This is the best possible way of bringing this demand and supply together and financing these schemes; it is better than taxing the caravanners and better than some of the grant-aid schemes which have been mooted, although I agree there is scope for grant-aid as well.
LORD BURTON: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that the trouble mainly arises from those who are not members of these clubs? I am afraid that a large percentage of campers are not.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, that is perfectly true, but perhaps it is not for me to advocate from this Box an increase of the membership of the Caravan Club. No doubt that is a point which will be noted.
It is clubs like these who know what their members want. They know the scale of the demand; they know where the sites are most needed; they know the problems of establishing sites and how to solve those problems; they know the problems of running the sites, and they are able to recruit wardens and others to overcome them and to raise the standards. That is not to say that the local authorities do not have a role—of course they have. They must control, and control carefully, the choice of places and development of the larger licensed sites. They must curb (several noble Lords mentioned this) unlicensed camping and caravanning and enforce the law. They must be able to influence and plan the provisions of all sites. It must be for the local authority to look after the landscape and the possible adaptation of derelict sites, which is an excellent idea. This is not to say that independent site operators do not have a role to play as well in providing and running large sites, particularly in appropriate places, for static caravans, which meet a demand for holiday-making of a different kind. But I believe that the main agents for the provision of what the touring caravanner needs, and the best agents for financing measures to meet these needs, are bodies
914
such as the Caravan Club and, for the campers, the Camping Club.
There has been a good deal of talk during the debate of special dispensation for crofters in the crofting counties of the Highlands—most of the remote areas of Scotland. I can say that this is a matter which is being looked into, and all the points that noble Lords have made will be considered with great care in this connection. A plan is being prepared which may help to improve the situation here. I do not wish to make a judgment on the valuable points that have been made, first because this is really outside the scope of my Department, but mainly because the matter is under active consideration.
Several noble Lords, rightly and properly, raised the question of transit sites required by those people who are making their way to their holiday in distant parts of the Kingdom—the Pembroke coast, the Highlands and Islands, the far ends of the Cornish Peninsula, and so on. There is indeed a need for proper transit sites to meet their requirements. The noble Baroness, Lady White, sketched the nature of the problem, and her remarks will be heeded with great care. The British Tourist Association made a study as far back as 1965 and something has been done to implement the findings. There is also a further transit tourist study group now in session, initiated by the Countryside Commission, as the noble Baroness said. In addition to that, there is a movement, which she also mentioned, in the direction of using racecourses, when they are not required for racing, for temporary, seasonal caravan and camping sites. I am glad to pay tribute to the pioneering work that was done by the racecourse at Chepstow and also by the racecourse at Ayr. I think it is true to say that this is one racecourse in Scotland in which experiments of this kind have been conducted, but one has yet to be established in the Highlands.
Here again, there are considerable possibilities, but it does not follow immediately that because there are toilet facilities and catering facilities on the sites of racecourses they are necessarily suitable and ideal for caravanners, or that a racecourse is in the right place for a caravan transit site. But it is certainly

915
something that needs looking into, and a development which is very welcome. Once again, I think the more that the Caravan Club and the Camping Club are drawn into the selection of these sites, and their detailed management, the better it will be for all concerned; and I am assured by the Racecourse Association that they are fully alive to the advantages of keeping in touch with these bodies.
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord for one moment, I hope that he has not forgotten the point I made about parking on lay-bys. It would be a great help to the Caravan Club and to everybody else if this was made illegal.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I have certainly not forgotten, but I am leaving the legislative matters to the end. A good deal was said, and I very much welcome it, about the relative merits of touring caravans and static caravans. I think there is a place for the static caravan site, and I would not want to go too far in running them down, but I agree that in the choicest areas, in the National Parks for example, it would be wrong to allow people to establish second homes, week-end cottages, by sleight of hand. It certainly would never be countenanced if planning permission was applied for in a straightforward way. If we allow too many of these static caravans in the National Parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, and choice parts of the coast, we shall in fact be doing exactly this. It is most important, and I am most grateful to noble Lords who have mentioned it, that proper scope for touring caravans should be provided for on caravan sites in these choice areas. I understand, for example, that the Peak Park Planning Board normally require at least a third of the pitches in the Park to be reserved for touring caravans. I welcome this approach in trying to cater for the touring caravan.
I come now to the point made by my noble friend Lord Lovat, about parking on lay-bys and roadside verges. I think everybody will agree with him that this is undesirable and reprehensible, but there are considerable difficulties because, of course, parking—just parking—in a lay-by is not an offence. That is what
916
a lay-by is for. On the other hand, it is true that over-night parking could conceivably be regarded as unreasonable, and technically as an obstruction under the Highways Act; but given this rather precise and narrow legal distinction, I think the noble Lord will agree that enforcement in any area would be difficult, and in the remote areas of the Highlands it would be almost impossible. I believe, therefore, that a more promising line would be to encourage the education of the caravanning public in the appropriate code of behaviour when they are caravanning—and the Caravan Club and the Camping Club of course are well fitted to assist in that—rather than to look for legislative remedies. But I agree with the noble Lord that here is a nuisance and a difficulty which ought to be dealt with in some way if at all possible.
Finally, my Lords, I turn to a number of legislative matters, not to go over them all in detail, but to assure noble Lords that a special Working Party is in session. It was initiated by our predecessors and is looking into the whole business of camping and caravanning legislation: the possibility of closing a number of loopholes in the legislation which have been mentioned this evening, bringing the legislation for camping and caravanning into closer harmony, and enabling local authorities to exercise the control which they want to exercise and which is so necessary. That Working Party is nearing the end of its work and will be reporting very shortly. Similarly, I have now ended my speech, my Lords, and I should like to thank all those who have taken part, and the noble Earl in particular.
THE EARL OF CROMARTIE: My Lords, I am not going to keep your Lordships long, because it is getting late, but before I say anything I should like to correct a slight mistake made by my noble friend Lord Burton. When I was referring to the Board of Management, I was referring to them quite generally and to no person in particular.
Having said that, I should like to thank all those, from all sides of the House, who have taken part in this debate. I am sure that it has done a great deal of good. It has shed a great deal of light on the considerable difficulties, which are going to get worse, and I only hope that

917
it will be appreciated by the Front Bench and the Government, as I am sure it will be. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

SUSPENDED SENTENCES
7.28 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government how the system of suspended sentences brought into being by the Criminal Justice Act 1967 is working. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the suspended sentence system has now been in operation for three full years, which means that a very large number of suspended sentences have been passed, and I think the time has obviously come when there should be a provisional review of the working of those sections of the Criminal Justice Act which brought this system into operation. In fact from the beginning the system has been very much under fire, and the weight of the artillery blast has, increased with recent months.
Your Lordships may have seen in the last edition of the Sunday Times two articles, one, very much of a journalistic character, by a Mr. Lewis Chester, headed "The Law Reform that Went Wrong". The appendant article to that was by the distinguished head of the Institute of Criminology at Cambridge, Professor Radzinowicz. I cannot say that I thought much of the journalism, which was superficial and one-sided, and it seems to me unfortunate that a responsible weekly paper like the Sunday Times should publish superficial and one-sided material of this type. I would exempt from these strictures Professor Radzinowicz, whom I have known for a long time, but I think that even his article merits some criticism. Possibly he did not choose the heading to his article, "Foreseeable Failure", but it seems to me quite absurd to write off an experiment of this kind as a failure after as short a period as two years.
I do not wish to go into the arguments adduced by Professor Radzinowicz. The main one seems to be that the system was introduced from the Continent, which would seem to be, coming from Professor
918
Radzinowicz, a rather peculiar argument. He goes on to say that it has failed all over the Continent. I am quite sure that a substantial number of criminologists would not accept that view. Only yesterday I was talking to three well-known criminologists, among whom was the Reader in Criminology in the University of London, who disagreed very much with Professor Radzinowicz's view. And even from Professor Radzinowicz's own article it appears that those Continental countries which first adopted this system of suspended sentence realised that it was more appropriate as just one more weapon in an armoury of penology. They took the course of making it that, since when it has done rather better. Nor is it true to say that in no other part of the world has it succeeded. I am told that in Israel, where it has been working for some years, it is an unqualified success, and the Israeli Government is very satisfied with it.
I mention this article, my Lords, because it is symptomatic of the attacks which are being made on the suspended sentence, and it seems to me most unfortunate that a responsible head of an Institute of Criminology should condemn a system because it has not worked perfectly from the word "go". It is a new and complicated system, and at the best, even if it had been given as good a send-off as I think it deserved, there would undoubtedly have been serious teething troubles. I am not so pessimistic as to its future as Professor Radzinowicz is.
Mrs. Shirley Williams, at the time she was at the Home Office, in May of last year, addressing a meeting of probation officers, said that during the two years following the introduction of the system the number of suspended sentences meted out had been some 64,000, and that during that period only 13,000 defendants had been convicted again leading to the removal of the suspension. Of course, many of that total of 64,000 had not then come to the end of their periods. The Answer given to my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger only last week, when the Minister gave an estimate of 36 per cent. as being the likely proportion of failures in cases of suspended sentence, is obviously a rather more serious figure than the one given by Mrs. Shirley Williams. It is an estimate; but even

919
if correct it shows, in my submission, a considerable amount of success for the system, because it means that something like two-thirds of the people given suspended sentences may be expected to keep out of further trouble. Anybody who has had practical experience of dealing with criminals will know that that is a pretty good proportion. These men, instead of being in prison, are at work and adding something to the economic prosperity of the community.
My optimism is certainly a qualified one. I am not for a moment suggesting to your Lordships that all is completely well with the suspended sentence system. How far it is not well hardly anybody outside the Home Office is in a position to judge. The Home Office, with its admirable statistical department, which has added so much to our criminological knowledge over the last few years, is the only institution that is in a position to give us an unbiased opinion about the working of the system and to give us, in effect, an authoritative and scientific survey of the whole situation. That is really the origin of my Question, because I think it is very important indeed, with so much half-baked criticism being published in the Press, that we should have from the Home Office a really authoritative review of the position. Therefore, my Question is intended more to elicit information than for the purpose of making a critical attack.
I told the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham when he asked me to indicate the main points of my speech, that I was not going to initiate the sort of mini-debate which has been referred to once or twice by the Procedure Committee. But the more I have been working on this speech the more it has tended to lead into something in the nature of a mini-debate, because I have for a long time been an adherent to the school of the suspended sentence, and I have been very much interested both in getting it on to the Statute Book and in the way in which it has been working since it got there. But so far as I make an attack it will not be an attack on the present Government, who really have not had time to operate the new system. If anything, it would be more an attack on my own friends in the late Administration, who I think might have done better
920
in the Statute. But my arguments about that will appear later in my speech. I should perhaps note at this point that, in answer to the noble Lord's letter, I sent him a number of questions which I hoped he would be in a position to answer, because it was my view that if we could have the answers to those questions they would throw a good deal of light on the whole situation.
I suppose that in introducing this subject I ought to remind your Lordships of the main features of the suspended sentence, although I am sure that all those who have stayed to this late hour, to take part in or to listen to this discussion, will be familiar with them. So I shall not take more than a few minutes over this part of the matter. The suspended sentence was of course introduced—although there were inklings of it in the Criminal Justice Act of 1948—by the Criminal Justice Act 1967, in which there are three sections dealing with the matter.
Section 39 establishes the suspended sentence. It says that in cases where a sentence of imprisonment of not more than two years is meted out by the court the court shall have the power to suspend the operation of that sentence for a period of not more than three years and not less than one year. But that suspension is on the condition that during that period of suspension the prisoner does not commit a further offence of a serious character; that is to say, an offence which carries with it a sentence of imprisonment. If he does so, then the original sentence becomes reactivated, and the court which deals with the new offence must effect the reactivation. That is done in different ways, which I need not go into in detail: mostly it is by simply ordering that the suspension be removed and that the original sentence shall become operative, but there are other possibilities. And any new punishment which the second court feels is required because of the second crime will be added. That is the important point, because it means that the deterrent aspect of the suspended sentence is underlined by this provision of the Act.
My Lords, this is the gist, what one might call the theory, of the suspended sentence. But its operation, as provided for in the later subsections of Section 39,

921
have to be looked at, because those subsections throw light on other very important provisions of the system. It is here, I think, that the difficulties which the system has encountered so far are to be found.
Section 39 is a long and complicated section, taking up no less than two full pages of the official Statute. It is essential to examine at any rate part of Section 39, because it is the section which establishes the conditions under which it appears to me that, to some extent, the system has gone wrong. I think the gravamen of the whole matter is the fact that this section removes from the court its discretion to send a man to prison at once in a case where the sentence is within the six months to which of course magistrates' courts are limited in their powers of punishment. That means that this business of six months is aimed at magistrates' courts.
This ukase, as it has been called, means that in the ordinary case which comes before a magistrates' court, if the magistrates want to impose a term of imprisonment at all, the only way they can do so is to give a suspended sentence; in other words, by means of this six months ukase the Act creates a strait waistcoat. The reaction against this decision was strong from the very beginning, both on magistrates' benches and indeed in. Parliament. That this was going to fetter magistrates in the exercise of their duties and deprive them of a discretion which they had had in the past, was perfectly clear; and when this Bill was before your Lordships the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, moved an Amendment to delete this particular provision.
I moved another Amendment which was intended to provide the Government with an alternative which I thought they could accept with advantage to themselves and which would remove this difficulty. I was strongly supported by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, and also by my noble friend Lord Royle. But the Government would not accede to this solution. Had they done so, I think there would have been no difficulty. Lord Brooke's Amendment was accepted here, but when the Bill went back to another place the decision was reversed.
It became quite clear from Lord Stonham's reply for the Government to
922
these Amendments, that the Home Office were greatly concerned with the problem of the prison population. I think the noble Lord made it very clear that one of the main considerations that the Government had in mind in taking away this discretion from magistrates was the large number of short sentences that were clogging up the prisons. This was a quite understandable point of view, but it seemed to me quite wrong that such a new and important penological method should be introduced for a side purpose of that kind. The Lord Chief Justice indicated in his speech that he thought it quite essential that the prison population should be reduced. It can therefore be said that there was a case for adopting this fundamental principle of the Act as it was passed; but in my view it has to some extent led to its going wrong.
Reaction among magistrates up and down the country has been continuously against this provision. They find that it hampers them greatly. At the last Annual General Meeting of the Magistrates' Association in October of last year, a resolution was passed calling on the Government to restore their full discretion in cases of this kind. In my view, most of the teething troubles which have befallen the system flow from this particular defect.
I wish to say just a few words about some of these defects which appear to me to be important. The natural inference which benches would draw from this command, from headquarters, so to speak, from the very Government themselves and from Parliament at Westminster—this command that in all the cases which came before them meriting imprisonment they were to apply the suspended sentence—was that they should apply it lavishly. The figure of 64,000 in two years which Mrs. Shirley Williams mentioned, and which was also given by the Home Secretary himself, I think, in answer to a Question in another place in May of last year, is a very large number, a much larger number than I and most of those supporting this new method ever expected to see imposed. It is that, I think, which has really run away with the system. To some extent it has got out of control as a result of the tremendously large number of suspended sentences which have been handed down.
The result has been perfectly clear, that suspended sentences have been awarded in a large number of cases in which they ought not to have been awarded. This has been reflected in the substantial falling off which I understand has taken place in the number of fines imposed in place of suspended sentences. The number of probation orders made over this period has been reduced substantially, too. This is most unfortunate, because the probation order is one of our great contributions to penology. That this provision should have led to such a decrease is most unfortunate. I am not sure, but I think there has also been a falling off in the number of conditional discharges. I should be grateful if, in due course, the Minister could give us the figures in all these matters. At first sight a conditional discharge has something of the appearance of a suspended sentence, but it is really altogether different when looked at more carefully. It is much more flexible, and it does not actually impose imprisonment. A suspended sentence does. Therefore, as a result of this ukase, I think the system got off to a bad start and it has not really effectively recovered.
Another result which was prophesied by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and indeed by myself, has been that magistrates' benches, when they have had to deal with cases where obviously an immediate prison sentence was called for, have been either committing defendants for trial or sending them forward for sentence, thus incurring a great waste of time and expenditure of money. It was obvious that this would happen. I think it is happening a great deal. If the Minister has any material on this aspect I should be grateful if he would let us have it.
In an interesting speech made in 1969 at the Annual General Meeting of the Magistrates' Association, Mr. Crossley, the magistrates' clerk at Uxbridge, gave a number of interesting examples of the sort of thing that happens in this connection. His court covers Heathrow, where all sorts of offences are committed—such as thefts from passengers and the bringing in of children who are not entitled to come in under the Immigration Acts. How are you to deal with these
924
people if you cannot send them to prison? As Mr. Crossley said, the result has been that after a few months of feeling that they were dealing with an impossible situation, the magistrates, quite naturally and sensibly, began to send these cases forward to quarter sessions. Mr. Crossley, when he was making this speech to the Magistrates' Association, said that it had a salutary effect.
This brings me to the exceptions to the ukase. The Act does not lay it down that in every single case the suspended sentence should be applied by the magisstrates. There are a number of important types of case, such as assault, threats of violence, indecency cases, and some others, where the magistrates are still free to send a man to prison at once. I think it would be better to remove the fetters altogether, but if the Government do not feel like going as far as that, they could effect a very substantial improvement in the situation by considerably increasing the number of crimes in regard to which the discretion is not removed.
There is an interesting article in the current number of The Magistrate, which is the Magistrates' Association official journal, by Mr. Brian Leighton, who has been in the forefront of the movement for suspended sentences ever since the beginning. He points out that there are several of the motoring offences, some of which indeed I instanced in my speech at the Committee stage on this Bill in your Lordships' House—for example where a man whose licence has been taken away from him or suspended is found driving a motor car—and he asks: what can the magistrates do with him effectively except send him to prison and at once? However, under the law as it now stands, you cannot do that. Moreover, the terribly severe sentences which we were discussing here the other day for drug offences are going to be applied in all these cases because as the law stands at the present time a magistrates' court has to give a suspended sentence of, say, six months for being found with cannabis. In a number of cases it might be quite a venial offence. And yet what court in a case of this sort, which is so much in the newspapers, is going to content itself with giving a sentence of six months and suspending it, as it is now required to do? This sort of instance could be multiplied a great deal.
This situation should be looked at, and I should have thought that it would be wise to give the Home Secretary the right, subject possibly to Negative Resolution procedure, to add to the number of cases, because it is very difficult to foresee all the types of case where an exception is called for. Obviously the draftsman of the Act thought he was dealing with all the most important cases. In fact, he was not. Although some of us suggested cases which have, as I understand it, proved to be important, the Government were not prepared to make the necessary alterations.
Quite a number of cases where suspended sentences have been applied by the magistrates' court have been reviewed in the Court of Appeal. I could spend a long while on this subject, but I will not take up your Lordships' time. I think it is enough to say that the Court of Appeal evidently feel that a large number of benches lack a clear idea of the basic purpose of the system and how to go about using it. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice—I wish he could have been here to advise us to-night—on a number of occasions has indicated the way that benches ought to go about using the suspended sentence.
I would ask the Minister whether the Home Office has ever drawn these matters to the attention of benches. Very often when a new Act of Parliament comes out, especially if it is of a complicated character requiring a good deal of knowledge and thought on the part of the people who are to administer it, the Department concerned issues guidelines. They are not legally compulsive but they are of very great help. I must say that I feel that magistrates' benches very much lack this sort of guidance on the suspended sentence. So far as I know, nothing ever came from the Home Office to help them, nor, so far as I know, have these statements from the Court of Appeal ever been brought to the notice of the benches. Of course, the good clerk of a bench reads about them and brings them to the notice of his magistrates, but there are a large number of benches in the country, and some clerks are better than others. I would ask your Lordships to remember that the suspended sentence system is a very complicated one, which is completely new to the part-time magistrates
926
who administer the criminal law of this country.
Another point, which I shall only mention briefly but which I think is worth notice, is that the suspended sentence system has resulted in a tendency on the part of benches to give longer sentences, because they hope that the deterrent effect will be operative. That comes out in the article in the Sunday Times. I think it is correct, from what I have heard from much more authoritative sources, that a bench which would perhaps give three months in the old days, will now say, "We will give him six months, and that will teach him not to get into trouble again". That is a natural result, but it is not a good one. The result has been, in a rather interesting phrase of Mr. Crossley's in his address, "to fix a minimum limit for unsuspended sentences".
These are the main points in relation to the sections. I am not going to deal with the position which arises when the new offence is committed and the man comes up before the second bench. There are a number of interesting, and some of them important, points which could be raised. I hope I have said enough—although I rather doubt it because Parliamentary time is difficult to come by—to persuade the Government to introduce the short amending Act which I am sure is required. If, by any chance, they were to come to that decision, then obviously they must give careful consideration to the recent Report by the Committee under the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, on non-custodial and quasi-custodial sentences. The Wootton Report raises the question of the advisability of probation orders being made in these cases of suspended sentences.
At this stage I ought to point out—perhaps I ought to have done it earlier in this speech—that at present the law prevents a probation order from being made at the same time as a sentence of imprisonment is awarded, whether it is an ordinary sentence of imprisonment or a suspended sentence. Obviously, in the case of an ordinary sentence of imprisonment the point does not arise, but in the case of the suspended sentence there is an argument for giving the man the help and encouragement of a probation officer. But the framers of the Act deliberately did not take that course. On the whole, I think they were right, and I would still

927
argue, and will argue in a minute or two, that in the great majority of cases, at any rate, that is right.
The Wootton Committee (and obviously great attention must be given to what they say) think there is need for "compulsory supervision" in these cases of suspended sentences—compulsory supervision not necessarily through the Probation Service—and I think that is a point which ought to be noticed. I should be very loath to see the Probation Service having this enormous new amount of work put upon it. It is seriously stretched at the present time. I am not now actively engaged in magisterial work, but I am sure that the position is worse to-day than it was when I was active, not so long ago; and a new caseload of this kind might easily break the back of the Probation Service. The Secretary of State should certainly not decide to bring in probation orders in connection with suspended sentences without full consultation with, at any rate, the senior officers of the Probation Service.
But quite apart from this extremely important practical argument, a majority of those of us who have been protagonists of the suspended sentence have always considered that it should be meted out only to candidates who were quite clearly suitable for it. The candidate who is suitable for a probation order is ex hypothesi not the person who should go to prison; certainly not at that stage in his career. So that if a probation order is the right order to make, then it ought to be made and a sentence of imprisonment should not be given. That is why I regard the falling off in the making of probation orders since the Act came into force as possibly the most unfortunate part of the whole business.
The sort of persons to whom I successfully meted out suspended sentences on a number of occasions as a chairman of quarter sessions (I have already told your Lordships in the past that the Court of Appeal stopped me and other chairmen of quarter sessions by saying that we had no power to do it) were men who were obviously not suitable for probation orders: they were rather middle-aged or even elderly men, who were in employment, and with whom the threat of being called back and put into prison
928
at a later stage worked very powerfully indeed. I do not think we ever did it without its succeeding.
I would not say that that was the only type of case to which a suspended sentence should properly be applicable. The man's personality, the sort of career he had, the work he was doing—all these things have to be looked at. It might well be that even a comparatively young man in a white-collar occupation, where freedom from gaol meant a tremendous lot, would be much better put on a suspended sentence than another type of man of the same age who was engaged in a very different type of work. We have always felt that the suspended sentence could be effectively applied to a rather small number of types. If I had to analyse them, I would say that they should satisfy two requirements. First, they should be people who because of their age or career, or other matters, were not so likely to benefit from the assistance and advice of a probation officer as the ordinary first offender; and, secondly, they should be people who were likely to be susceptible to the deterrent of an imposed sentence.
Obviously, the fact that you have been sentenced and will be put into gaol if you go wrong again will operate much more powerfully on some people than on others, and the suspended sentence ought to be reserved for those it will deter. However, I am sure that even some of those could be helped by support from a wise adviser. In my time I have had many friends who were prison visitors, and it is people such as these who might very easily help a man of that sort. If some scheme could be devised to keep such support out of the Probation Service, it would be a very valuable contribution. Obviously, if the Government take the steps which I have suggested, this unexpected growth of suspended sentencing will be very much diminished and it should become much more feasible to operate the system in a reasonable way.
If the Government are not prepared to do that and a tremendously large number of people, especially young people, are going to be given suspended sentences, then there is quite a strong case for the proposal of the Wootton Committee, to enable the court in a large number of cases to make a probation

929
order at the same time as it imposes a suspended sentence. As I understand it, a suspended sentence plus a probation order has worked very well in Israel—I do not have much detailed information, but I am assured by a knowledgeable friend that that is so. So it may wall be that if we are to continue on our present lines, the advice of the Wootton Committee and the possible bringing in of the Probation Service might be very valuable.
My Lords, I think I have covered all the points that I wished to bring to the attention of the Minister. While I have not, perhaps, specifically asked him for answers to all the nine or ten questions which I sent to him, I hope that during the course of his speech he will be able to satisfy me.
8.6 p.m.
LORD WADE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has performed a very useful service in asking this Question on suspended sentences, and I should like to add a few words in his support. After the three years which have elapsed since the passing of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, I think we are able to make some assessment of its operation with particular reference to suspended sentences, and I propose to devote my few comments to magistrates' courts.
I certainly do not wish to attack suspended sentences. Their concept is sound, and that should be stressed. The suspended sentence is intended to act as a deterrent, and it was hoped that it would lead to a reduction in the prison population. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, will be able to tell us to what extent that hope has been fulfilled. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, used the expression "qualified optimism" and I think that the word "qualified" is right. There are a number of reasons for that. First, there are a certain number of cases where the deterrent is not effective and the result of the suspended sentence is simply to put off the day when the convicted person has to go to prison. This is piling up trouble for the future, so far as the prison population is concerned. If the suspended sentence fails, it adds to the potential number of those who will ultimately serve a prison sentence. As I think the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, pointed out, a suspended sentence may
930
be longer than the sentence which would have been given if there had been immediate imprisonment. If that is so, it will unfortunately, in the long run, tend to increase the prison population rather than otherwise.
But apart from the cases of failures, there are other considerations which are relevant to this Question. A court may be inclined—I am thinking of the magistrates' courts—to impose a suspended sentence as an alternative to a conditional discharge. There is a very great difference between the two and it is most important that the distinction should be maintained. The correct approach of the court in sentencing—and no doubt everyone will agree with me—is to eliminate all available remedies other than imprisonment. I should be the first to admit that the number and scope of penalties available are limited. The noble Lord referred to serious motoring offences, and I do not think we have yet found the right answer for dealing with them. In many cases a fine is not adequate; yet I am not satisfied that imprisonment is the right way to deal with the motorist who commits a serious motoring offence. That is a problem which has still to be solved, but I should be straying rather far from the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, if I were to pursue that.
What I was proposing to say was that the court must first eliminate all other available remedies and then decide, if it is to be imprisonment, whether it should be immediate or suspended. But here one comes to the question of the freedom of discretion in a magistrates' court. Of course there are circumstances when it is right and proper for the legislators to lay down some limitations on what a court may or may not do when sentencing, but as a general principle I think it is right that the magistrates' courts should have an unfettered discretion. The magistrates know the circumstances of a particular case, and that is of great importance in deciding whether or not there should be a suspended sentence, in deciding whether in a particular case the suspended sentence will act as a deterrent to further offences. It seems to me that the objections which have been made—and they are fairly widespread objections to the Act as it is at present—are that the mandatory suspended sentence

931
is too limiting on the freedom of a magistrates' court to exercise its discretion.
I am advised by others who have had much greater experience of magistrates' courts in recent years than I have that there are other anomalies which have arisen. Owing to this limitation on the power of the court to impose an immediate sentence, there is a tendency to commit to quarter sessions for sentence. I think that point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. Then there are problems arising where there are two offenders, one of whom, by reason of a greater degree of complicity, is deserving of a more serious penalty, the other, on account of a lesser degree of culpability, deserving of more lenient treatment. In the one case, the court may impose a suspended sentence and in the other a fine. The suspended sentence should be regarded as the more serious penalty, but I am advised that there is a tendency to regard that as getting off and the other as not getting off, which is in fact the wrong way round. Then there is the case of the older and the younger persons who have been convicted. In the case of the older person a suspended sentence may be decided upon by the court, and in the other case the younger person (it might be a man or a woman), might be sent to a detention centre. The one who is sent to a detention centre will regard himself, and will be regarded by some of his fellows, as having received the more serious penalty than the one who is given a suspended sentence.
The important point is not to increase the number of prison sentences. I would be the last to wish to see the prison population increased, but it seems to me that the value of suspended sentences depends on selectivity in its application, and the mandatory provisions tend to remove that element of selectivity. If there is to be any amending legislation. I hope that this point will be kept in mind.
8.15 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, as a member of the Government who introduced the Criminal Justice Act 1967 and who are therefore responsible if something has gone wrong here, I am personally grateful to my noble friend Lord Chorley for asking this Question this evening. I
932
thought then, and I still think, that it is a useful power for a court to have to be able to suspend a sentence. I was then doubtful of the wisdom of the mandatory provisions, and I am rather more doubtful now. There have lately been a number of articles in various legal papers as to whether this system is working properly or not—in the Justice of the Peace of January 16, in the New Law Journal series and in an article in the Sunday Times. As to the latter, I am thinking not so much of the part written by Professor Radzinowicz as the main article written by Mr. Lewis Chester. Headed, "Prisons: The reform that went wrong", it says:
"Thousands of people are now in jail because of a liberal reform designed to keep them out. The introduction in 1967 of suspended sentences has had the extraordinary effect of increasing the prison population".
My Lords, in the issue of the New Law Journal of December 10, in an article headed, "The Suspended Sentence—What has gone wrong?", there are more detailed facts than I have seen elsewhere or, I expect, than are outside the Home Office. It is an article by Mr. Sherlock, of the University of Kent. His figures—and the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, can no doubt tell us whether they are right—show that if one takes the cases in the magistrates' courts in the two years before the beginning of the Act (that is, 1966 and 1967) and compares them with the cases in 1968 and 1969, one finds that the proportion dealt with by a prison sentence was, in 1966, 8 per cent. and in 1967, 7 per cent.; and if one includes the sentences suspended, the proportion has now gone up to 12 per cent. in 1968 and 15 per cent. in 1969. So far as fines are concerned, before the Act 50 per cent. of the cases used to be met by fines. That proportion fell in 1968 to 46 per cent., though there has been a rise since then. So far as probation is concerned, in both the two years preceding the Act the percentage of cases dealt with by probation was 17 per cent., in 1968 it fell to 15 per cent., and in 1969 to 10 per cent. That is a drop of nearly 50 per cent. in the number of cases dealt with by probation.
In this context a lot has been said about the justices, but I think it should be made plain that the higher courts appear to have reacted in the same way. In the higher courts, in the two years

933
before the Act came into force the proportion of offences met by a prison sentence was 42 per cent. and 41 per cent.; since the Act, it has increased to 52 per cent. and 54 per cent. Fines have decreased. In each of the two years before the Act, 20 per cent. of the cases were met by fines, and this proportion fell in both 1968 and 1969 to 13 per cent. Probation, again, which was 16 per cent. and 17 per cent. before the Act, has now fallen to 15 per cent., and last year to 13 per cent. So there can be no doubt at all that suspended prison sentences have been used where previously men would not have gone to prison at all, because they would have been either fined or put on probation.
I think one can understand the reason for this. A suspended sentence is a simple thing. Justices know that too high a proportion of fines are not collected; they have great regard for their probation officers, and do not want to overload them; and a suspended sentence means that, after all, a man is not going to leave court to go to prison. It is a very easy thing to pass a suspended sentence, but I think there is a considerable body of evidence that it is being used in the wrong cases. So far as probation officers are concerned, I have been told by justices that their probation officers have spoken to them regretting very much that probation cannot be combined with a suspended sentence, so the person concerned does not get any support.
What the writer of this article, who dug out all the facts, says is:
"Many probation officers and justices' clerks believe that it is the suspended sentence itself that is the trouble. Wrongly applied, it can have the reverse effect of that intended and send people to gaol for offences that would not normally carry imprisonment. The effect is not only to increase the numbers sent into custody, but to increase the average length of sentences—giving a cumulative rise in the average prison population.…
"Where things have gone wrong, it would seem, is that the courts (both the higher courts and the magistrates' courts) have looked upon the suspended sentence as a new weapon in their armoury, instead of a modification of an old one. It is clear, from the wording of s. 39(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1967, that a suspended sentence is simply a prison sentence whose operation is held over on certain inscribed conditions.
"However, many courts use the suspended sentence as an admonition without being realistic about the chances of the sentence being brought into operation. It is now all too easy
934
for a person to find himself in prison for committing two minor offences which previously would not have attracted prison sentences. A person convicted of a petty theft, for example, might be given a sentence of three or perhaps six months imprisonment suspended for a period of two years. The suspended sentence almost certainly predetermines the passing of a prison sentence for a second offence within the period, even though a petty one. This is all the more so since the second offence would probably be tried in a different court from the first."
My Lords, I do not want to take up more of the time of the House. If something has gone wrong it ought to be put right. It is the sort of thing that can be put right by a one-clause Bill; but the Home Office know so much more about all the facts that I await with great interest what the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, is going to say. There is one other fact stated here: namely, that in 1969
"when the activation of suspended sentences imposed in the previous year would influence the statistics, the number received into prison with sentences over six months and under three years increased by 3,750 compared with 1968. There has never previously been a rise in a particular group comparable with this, and it is precisely in this area that one would expect to find the activated suspended sentence in operation."
I express no final view, my Lords, I doubt whether anybody outside the Home Office at present has the full facts. We shall be grateful if the Government can assist us, by telling us, first, what is their view of the facts, and, secondly, what course they propose to take.
8.24 p.m.
LORD MORRIS OF KENWOOD: My Lords, it is now possible to assess, to some extent at least, the practical workings of the suspended sentences incorporated in the Criminal Justice Act 1967. Two important points have emerged. First, the type of person who is given a suspended sentence is often an inadequate person and, even more often, one who is at risk. Nevertheless, there is no provision for any supervision during this period of suspension of the prison sentence or any portion of it. Granted that someone who is already on probation can continue to be supervised; but this does not deal with those who are not already on probation. The one who really needs help so that he will not commit another offence is left without any guidance at all. Courts can impose a fine at the same time as the suspended sentence. Often they do this solely so that the defendant

935
shall not think that he has got away with his offence. Secondly, it is reasonably clear that a suspended sentence should be discretionary and not mandatory, which it has to be unless the offence is one of violence or the defendant has already been in custody for a previous offence.
One of the purposes of the suspended sentence was to avoid sending to prison a first offender or one who would be sent into custody for the first time, often for a short period; in other words, to keep out of prison those who can be saved from such a punishment and also in order that our gaols, which are already grossly overcrowded, should not be asked to look after prisoners for such a short period as four months—the six months sentence less remission—during which it is impossible to give them proper training and rehabilitation.
It is interesting to see what has happened. Of suspended sentences passed by magistrates, one in four has been activated; that is, those convicted have gone to prison for committing another offence punishable by imprisonment during the period of the suspension. Of sentences passed by the higher courts, one in two have been activated. It may appear surprising to some that the judgment of the magistrates appears to be better than the judgment of the higher courts. However, as a magistrate I should in fairness say that the more hardened criminals appear in the higher courts and therefore are more likely to commit other offences. While speaking of the higher courts, may I say that one of the drawbacks in their sentencing may be that on some occasions they do not have a social report to consider before passing sentence. I have proof of this. Thus, they punish someone for an offence and do not deal with the offender. I hope that this matter can be drawn to the attention of the Lord Chief Justice, as a social report on the offender's background, character and personality is surely a basic need for fair sentencing.
There are some offenders who are affected by heavy fines and others who are not. The record shows this. None the less, suspended sentences, where applicable, are mandatory. I want to refer again to defendants who have the
936
idea that with a suspended sentence they have got off. This is another failure of the mandatory sentence. If courts had the option to impose a sentence, it would have a much stronger effect if the offender was not aware that the sentence of imprisonment which could be passed would automatically have to be suspended. This is something which the benches could make clear at the time they imposed such sentences.
We know that magistrates should not make suspended sentences unless they decide they would have made an immediate sentence of imprisonment. But magistrates are human; on occasions they must surely use the suspended sentence as an alternative to some other form of non-custodial sentence. Then the next court before which the offender appears on an offence punishable by imprisonment is bound to activate the sentence, except where the very limited reasons for not doing so allow the court not to activate it. The curbing of the discretion results in persons being sent to prison who might otherwise be at liberty. These are some of the reasons why I believe that the law should be amended and I hope that steps will be taken speedily in this direction.
8.29 p.m.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, we have heard this afternoon a debate in which practically every speaker, indeed every speaker, has taken the view that something must be done in order that an unsatisfactory position, which has arisen in respect of suspended sentences, might be remedied. It is true that we do not have before us the final figures which will be available of the criminal statistics to be presented later on, but I am sure that the Government will be able to supply the necessary evidence either one way or the other of how the system is working.
The Act was introduced with the best of intentions by a very humane person—I refer of course to Mr. Roy Jenkins—who had considerations of humanity and understanding in mind and hoped that the step he was taking would produce satisfactory results. I am quite satisfied that he, and all of us who supported the Bill at that time, felt that the introduction of this system would be a useful addition to the prevention of crime and would help

937
to limit the prison population. From the evidence which has been produced from various sources, it appears that it has not worked in that way.
The article to which my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner referred was very interesting. What impressed me most about the article in the Sunday Times was a history which was given as follows:
"Just under a year ago a young man was convicted of fraudulently attempting to withdraw money from the Post Office. As the sums involved were small and he was penitent, the courts adopted what seemed a humane policy.
Had there been no alternative to imprisonment he would probably have been sent down for a sharp salutary six months. However, as a result of the Criminal Justice Act of 1967 which introduced the suspended sentence, there was a beguiling alternative.
The young man was given a suspended sentence of a year. He left court a free man and with every prospect of staying that way, provided he kept out of trouble during the three year 'operational' period. He was happy. His defence lawyer was happy. The court felt it had been merciful.
A few months later the same young man momentarily 'forgot himself'. After having a bit too much to drink he had a row in a betting shop over the value of a bet. He lashed out angrily and broke a pane of glass over the counter. Its value was £4 10s.
Back before another court as a man with a 'record', he was naturally treated with a little more severity than would have been normal for such an offence. He was jailed for two months for malicious damage and, in accordance with the provisions of the 1967 Act, the 12-month suspended sentence was activated.
He is currently serving 14 months for what he feels was an isolated loss of temper. He burns with a sense of outrage, and it is easy to see why. Had the question of suspension never arisen he would most likely be at liberty having served six months for the original offence and perhaps a month for the second.
On the other hand, he was treated at every stage with elaborate fairness by the courts and they, in the end, only did what they had to do."
And in many ways what we would expect them to do.
My Lords, a case of that sort indicates clearly that there is something wrong, that something has gone awry. Although I would not be prepared, as my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner also was not prepared, to say offhand what exactly should be done, in the circumstances it seems to me that we should be given particulars of what the situation is like now; and that the points that have been raised,
938
particularly about the position in magistrates' courts, should be considered. After all, magistrates are accustomed to deal with cases, and now they have to take a course of training in order to be able to understand what are the duties of a magistrate. They deal with 98 per cent. of the criminal cases in this country. They have the experience and intelligence to understand and be able to weigh up the circumstances of each case which comes before them. I believe that the suspended sentence should be available, but I think that magistrates should be given a discretion in these matters so as to be able to decide whether a suspended sentence is an alternative to all the other possibilities before them and not be compelled to give such a sentence.
I do not entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Chorley in one respect. I believe, and I think that magistrates believe, that, together with the suspended sentence, some form of supervision, such as putting the person concerned on probation, would be effective. I have not been a magistrate but I have practised in the courts. I have found that magistrates are people of understanding and I think they ought to be given that discretion. I am quite certain that those who introduced the Act in the first instance would be prepared to consider the position with regard to suspended sentences anew, particularly in view of the fact that their idea of what the result of introducing it would be may now have been disproved. I hope that will be given extremely careful consideration and that the Government may suggest what provisions they have in mind for dealing with the matter.
8.38 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I should like to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, for not having been in my place when he began his speech. His Question was called a little earlier than had been anticipated. None the less, the hour is fairly late and I think it is unfortunate that such an important and well-informed debate on a subject of considerable topical relevance should come at the end of a rather long day's proceedings. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, was good enough to give me advance notice of some of the points he intended to raise and I will do my best to answer these and the other questions

939
which have been asked during the debate, on the basis of the information available to me.
One advantage of such a well-informed debate is that there is no need for me to include very much explanatory material in my reply to the questions asked this evening. So I shall omit any description of the form of the sections of the Criminal Justice Act 1967 which deal with suspended sentences. They were described by Lord Chorley and referred to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner.
The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, discussed the aim of the Government of that day in introducing the suspended sentence; and he referred particularly to the practical consideration of reducing the pressure on prison accommodation. From what I have read of the debates, that undoubtedly seems to have been one of the reasons. But I think we should be wrong to overlook the words, chosen I think with some care, of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, when he referred in his Second Reading speech on the Criminal Justice Bill, to this part of the Bill. He referred to his belief that
"the shock of appearance and trial before a court, and the infliction of a sentence, albeit suspended, will restore many offenders to rectitude without recourse to prison".—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 10/5/67, col. 1437.]
Thus it was hoped, in cases where the protection of the public did not make it imperative, to relieve the offender of the social hardships inseparable from actual imprisonment—loss of employment, disruption of family life, exposure to a criminal environment and problems of settlement on release. A further consideration, no doubt, was that short prison sentences are costly to the community. The cost works out at approximately £24 per week—more than £1,000 per year. Then there is the additional cost of supporting the family while the breadwinner is serving a term of imprisonment.
The use that has been made by the courts of the suspended sentence has, I think, exceeded the expectations of many people. In each of the first two years of operation, that is to say, January 1, 1968 to December 31, 1969 (and all that I have to say will refer to those two years), about 32,000 persons were given
940
a suspended sentence of imprisonment; and about three-quarters of these sentences were imposed by magistrates' courts. The figure of approximately 32,000 persons per year receiving a suspended sentence compares with just over 34,000 persons given an unsuspended sentence of imprisonment, and just over 31,000 put on probation. The number of persons fined, of course, was much larger than that.
The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and others who have taken part in the debate, have referred to the criticism of the mandatory provision when the Bill was under consideration in this House, in another place and subsequently. I should like to thank the noble Lord for the compliment that he paid to the Home Office Statistical Division, but to couple it, I am afraid, with the comment that the statistical information that we have available does not enable us to give a full answer to all the noble Lord's questions. I can answer a good many of them, and I can throw some light on the others; but I cannot claim that we can give him a complete answer to each of the fairly long and very relevant questions to which he has referred in his speech. I can say, however, that the number of offenders received into prison for the first time, or with no previous conviction, was substantially lower in 1968 and 1969 than in the years immediately preceding, and part at least of this welcome fall in reception figures is likely to be due to the introduction of the suspended sentence.
Among those who serve both in the higher courts, as has been pointed out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and in magistrates' courts there seems to be a fairly widespread view that the mandatory provision has hampered their work and, so far from being extended, should be abolished. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary recognises the strength of this view, which has been put to him by both the Lord Chief Justice and representatives of the Magistrates' Association.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and the noble Lord, Lord Janner, have asked what prospect there is of legislation if there are indications that the scheme has not worked out in the way its original supporters had hoped. There are a number of considerations to take into account. First of all, there

941
is the need to look at the facts very carefully indeed and to weigh up the evidence. We have only two years' figures available at the moment, but we shall have the 1970 figures—the third full year—in the coming months. Then we have to keep in mind (and this has been referred to already) the possibility of other changes which are being currently considered. The most topical of these is the whole range of non-custodial penalties, or semi-custodial penalties, which were proposed by Baroness Wootton's Sub-Committee of the Advisory Council on the Penal System.
Next, there is the perennial argument (the noble and learned former Lord Chancellor must have come up against it many times while he was on the Woolsack) for and against legislating item by item, or alternatively, grouping changes together into a more comprehensive measure. Noble Lords will not expect me to be able to make any definite commitment tonight as to the Government's intentions. But what I can do is to repeat a recent Answer, given in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, to a Question on November 5, 1970. My right honourable friend referred to the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act, 1967, which, as he said,
"with certain exceptions require magistrates' courts to suspend sentences of imprisonment on first offenders and offenders in certain other categories. I am keeping under review these and other provisions relating to the suspension of sentences of imprisonment with a view to possible future criminal justice legislation".
As regards the effect of the suspended sentence on sentencing practice, there seems little doubt that there has been a significant increase in the use by the courts of imprisonment, if both immediate and ended sentences are taken together The percentage of convicted offenders given a prison sentence rose from 2·5 of all convicted offenders in 1967 to 4·1 in 1969. It has been calculated that, of the offenders given a suspended sentence in 1968 and 1969, only something between two-fifths and three-fifths would, but for the suspended sentence, have received a prison sentence.
It is clear that many suspended sentences have replaced non-custodial penalties. The figures (as the noble and learned Lord pointed out when he was quoting from the article in the New Law
942
Journal, which I have seen and studied) show a reduction both in the number of those placed on probation and in the proportion of convicted persons dealt with by means of a fine. The use of the suspended sentence in this way is not what the framers of the Act intended. This has been said several times in the debate. Perhaps I might put on record that the first of these consequences—the falling off in the use of probation—was forecast in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton of Dalzell, who speaks with considerable experience on matters concerning magistrates' courts and the Probation Service, when the Criminal Justice Bill was being debated on Second Reading in this House in 1967. It is clear from the wording of Section 39 that the court is expected first to pass a sentence of imprisonment, when merited, and then, but only then, to consider whether or not it should be suspended. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice has emphasised that the court should treat the suspended sentence not as a "soft option" but as a prison sentence, not to be imposed until all other possible alternatives, in particular probation, have been considered and eliminated.
I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, in his very full opening speech, about guidance to magistrates. The statement of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice (this was in the case of Regina v. O'Keefe) was widely publicised in the national Press, in the legal journals, and it was repeated again by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Chief Justice outside the court. It has been referred to by my colleague the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office as recently as last week in discussing this subject with a group of magistrates in the North of England. As regards the Home Office giving formal advice to magistrates on this subject, this raises some difficulties. The Secretary of State has no power to direct courts on the sentences that they should impose. This must be a matter for the judiciary and for magistrates, and not for the Executive. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, knows very well the limit of the Home Secretary's responsibility here, which is to make sure that the magistrates are properly and fully informed as to the content of the law. I can confirm

943
that the Home Office circulated in the normal way an Explanatory Memorandum about the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act in 1967. I have no doubt that in this process of drawing wider attention to the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice on how the suspended sentence should be used, the Magistrates' Association, magistrates' clerks and others who follow these matters will study what has been said in this debate this evening by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, and other noble Lords.
I am in rather a dilemma this evening because I know that your Lordships would like a good deal of information, which I have; but, at the same time, it is late and I do not want to make a long speech and take up your Lordships' time unnecessarily. I will, therefore, try to cover the main points. If, in the process, I leave out the answers to a number of questions, my Department and I will go through Hansard with considerable care and will write to any noble Lord who has raised a question which I fail to answer through shortage of time.
The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, asked whether or not the mandatory provision has led to an increase in the proportion of offenders convicted at magistrates' courts who are committed to quarter sessions for sentence. The statistics do not throw much light on this question. The proportion of convicted persons committed for sentence in 1968 and 1969 under Section 29 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952 showed a slight increase over the corresponding figures for 1966 and 1967. The increase was of the order of 2,000 persons per annum, but part of this may well have been due to annual variations, including the kind of offender being dealt with by the courts. For these reasons it is not possible to say with any certainty whether and to what extent the mandatory suspended sentence might have been a contributory factor.
The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Ken-wood, speaking with experience as a magistrate, and also the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, asked about the use of fines in combination with suspended sentences. We know that the courts sometimes combine these two sentences, just as a fine is sometimes combined with a sentence of immediate imprisonment. The matter
944
has been before the Court of Appeal, who have held that it is a proper sentence. This was in the case of Regina v. Leigh. In one case, Regina v. King, it was suggested that it was sometimes necessary to combine the two, lest the person given a suspended sentence regarded it as a "let off." At the same time, the court warned that if the fines were to be combined with a suspended sentence, there was a need to make sure that the offender had the means to pay the fine; otherwise, non-payment might lead to a second term of imprisonment, in default of payment, for the same offence. The figures readily available do not show how common the practice is.
My Lords, I now turn to the question of breaches of suspended sentences which have been referred to by several noble Lords. The number of persons subject to a suspended sentence who were convicted of a further offence, punishable by imprisonment, was nearly 4,700 in 1968, and nearly 10,500 in 1969. Because of the variable length of the period of suspension these figures cannot be directly related to the number of suspended sentences imposed in each year. The number of persons failing is expected to continue to increase until it levels off, not before the end of this year, at about 42 per cent. of all persons receiving a suspended sentence. In 1968 and 1969 about 86 per cent. of offenders who breached a suspended sentence were committed to prison, the great majority of these being required to serve in full the term of the suspended sentence.
Let me move on to the effect on the prison population. It is true that when the suspended sentence was introduced it was expected that its introduction would lead to a substantial and permanent drop in the prison population. Had suspended sentences been imposed only in cases where, irrespective of the suspended sentence provision, a prison sentence would otherwise have been imposed, a permanent fall in the prison population would to some degree have been inevitable. But it has not occurred. There was an initial drop, but it is calculated that the size of the prison population now is about the same as it would have been if the suspended sentence had not been introduced. The number of persons received into prison is a fifth to a quarter less than it would otherwise have been,

945
but there has been an increase in the average length of sentence. This is probably because, when an offender subject to a suspended sentence commits a further offence, not only is the suspended sentence brought into died, but the courts usually add a consecutive sentence for the further offence.
The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, also asked me about the Government's reaction to the proposals of the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, on non-custodial and semi-custodial penalties and, in particular, to the recommendation that the courts should be given the power to combine the suspended sentence with a compulsory form of supervision. The House may recall that in the debate on prison overcrowding on December 2 I announced our reaction to some of the recommendations in the Wootton Report. At that time I said that this recommendation was one of those still under consideration; and so it remains. We recognise the attraction of this proposal to the courts; and it is not difficult to construct cases where a combination of these two orders would make good sense. As the Sub-Committee recognised, there are arguments both ways, in particular about the impact which the proposed new power would have on the traditional idea of probation—in other words, the consequences of seeking to combine a punitive measure with a measure of support.
The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, also made the interesting suggestion that a sentence of imprisonment might be part served and part suspended; for example, after serving three months of a two-year sentence the offender would be released with the rest suspended. This is certainly a novel suggestion which deserves some thought. At this stage I will make only two comments. First, the objects of any arrangement on these lines would be different from the objects of the suspended sentence as we know it, which is intended to keep offenders out of prison altogether. In its effects Lord Chorley's suggestion would have some affinity with parole, but it would differ from parole in many respects, not least that in the case of parole early release from sentence is entirely a discretionary matter resting on careful assessment
946
of the likelihood that the offender may respond to it. Second, with experience of the suspended sentence as it now exists in mind, we should have to consider the likely impact on sentencing practice. In particular, it would be necessary to look very closely indeed at any possibility that the introduction of this provision might lead to a greater tendency to impose relatively long sentences because the greater part would be suspended.
To sum up what I have said in reply, my Lords, the extent to which the courts have used the suspended sentence suggests that they regard it as a useful addition to their powers. They have felt that some difficulty has been caused by the provision requiring sentences to be suspended in certain categories. The extent to which the suspended sentence has replaced sentences other than imprisonment gives ground for concern. The object of introducing the suspended sentence was to keep offenders out of prison, especially if they were without a bad record and had not committed an offence requiring a long sentence. It might be said that the fact that the prison population is estimated to be about what it would have been if the suspended sentence had not been introduced is an indication that the suspended sentence has not fulfilled the expectations that existed when it was introduced. On the other hand, the fears that have been expressed that the suspended sentence is filling the prisons do not appear to be justified. The suspended sentence, as I have said, is being kept under review and our mind is open as to whether modifications or adjustments might usefully be made in the future.
My Lords, I hope that this account of the operation of the suspended sentence has been of some value to noble Lords. The final thought I should like to leave with your Lordships is that this is the kind of debate about which we can be particularly thankful that we have such a speedy and accurate reporting service as the Hansard reporters. I have quoted a lot of figures; the noble and learned Lord, the former Lord Chancellor, has quoted other statistics. This is the kind of debate which I believe is read by a small but informed number of people who take a particular interest in this

947
subject, and therefore to have the information available in permanent form is especially useful.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I know that I have no right to speak again, but I am sure your Lordships will permit me to thank the Minister for his very full and informative reply.