ISLE OF WIGHT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (Hansard, 19 July 1971)

HL Deb 19 July 1971 vol 322 cc735-64 735

§ 7.1 p.m.

§ LORD BLYTON
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. The Bill has been through all its stages in another place. The Bill has been amended in your Lordships' House, and I think there is only Clause 5 on which there may be some criticism. May I say that the promoters have agreed to the Amendments which are on the Marshalled List. I am given to understand that the noble Lord, Lord Somers, will not be here to move his Amendments, but the promoters accept all the Amendments on the Marshalled List.
Clause 5 arises through the experience of the Isle of Wight of three"Pop"festivals. The Bill is supported not only by the County Council but also by the district councils, the National Farmers' Union, nearly every association in the island, and by the County Councils' Association itself. The first of these"Pop "festivals was in 1968 and about 7,000 people were there. It lasted two days and there was very little trouble. The second in 1969 was promoted by the same people. It lasted three days, in close proximity to a small community of people at Wootton. There were some 80,000 to 100,000 people at this festival. There was a complete lack of control over the whole affair. There were totally inadequate toilets on the site, and this resulted in other land and private gardens and even a churchyard being used. Shops ran out of food, and fire and ambulance services had inadequate access to the site. There was a potential risk to public health, and it became clear that if some control is not exercised there is a risk of an epidemic in future.
There was a third festival in 1970, in August Bank Holiday week. From 150,000 to 200,000 people were attracted to it. The fans stayed for four nights and days during the period of the festival, but 736 many were there for 10 days. The County Council, from their previous experience, sought to avoid the chaos by trying to persuade the organisers to enter into a voluntary agreement to meet the Council's requirements. The requirements were to cover lavatories, water supplies, access, drainage, noise, refuse collection and site clearance. The promoters signed this agreement because they were aware that not signing the agreement would have resulted in the Council seeking an injunction in the High Court under the Public Health Acts to restrain them. So the agreement was signed.
The terms of the agreement were not met, and a local authority has no means of enforcing such an agreement, especially if the promoters go broke. For people who choose to run these enormous events in slip-shod ways, and cause chaos in the community and infringe public health requirements, the penalties are ridiculous. When promoters expect to make an income running into thousands of pounds they will not be deterred by having to pay a £10 fine because they have not provided enough lavatories. In the light of experience, there cannot be any doubt that local authorities must have powers to lay down conditions under which these large gatherings are organised, for present penalties are ridiculous and they do not deter, especially when promoters are seeking to make the maximum possible profits out of what they do.
The Isle of Wight is making ready for an enormous festival this August, and it is hoped that the conditions of the last one will not arise again. It is not the intention of this clause to ban"Pop"festivals—if it did, I would not have supported it—but I believe that it is necessary to exercise some control over a festival of this size, not only in the interests of the local residents, but also of all the fans who come to these festivals, so that they may have the right to decent facilities, and to prevent health hazards. Why should local authorities have to go to the High Court or enter into agreements with people who run these festivals? Local authorities should have the right to enforce public health regulations, and that is all that this authority is asking to do. I hope that no one doubts the wisdom of giving local authorities this power. If they do I 737 would ask them: how would they react, if 200,000 people descended on lands adjacent to their homes, without adequate facilities, not for a short time but for four days and four nights?
The Bill proposes that anyone wishing to have any sort of vast gathering of the nature I have described, whether"Pop"or not, shall give formal notice to the local authority of his intention, of the date and the site. This is not only in the interests of the council and of the inhabitants of the area, but also of the promoters themselves, who for this kind of festival need the amount of time which is prescribed to do their advance publicity and prepare for the festival. On the last occasion, the promoters of this festival gave the Council only seven weeks' notice; when the agreement was signed the promoters wanted to change the site 28 days before the event, and naturally the Council refused.
Under the Bill, the Council has 28 days in which to say"Yes"or"No"to a particular site. It will view the site and examine its suitability and, if agreed upon, will have to set its conditions within those 28 days. There is a clause which gives the promoters a right of appeal to quarter sessions if they are not satisfied about the rejection of the site or with the proposed conditions. There are heavy penalties on the directors or the landowners for each day on which there is an infringement. There is also a provision requiring the deposit of cash or a bond to defray the Council's extraordinary expenditure, and the cost of having to carry out various works which the promoters do not carry out themselves. It applies only to gatherings in excess of 5,000 people, and also fixes the application from 11 p.m. until 6 a.m. This makes it clear that this provision will exclude agricultural shows, rallies, demonstrations and any large meetings in the open air which may take place during the day.
I also say to the Government that I think that at some time there will have to be legislation to control such events; it is urgently needed on a national basis. This Bill is not a question of being against the high art of"pop"fans and their music, if people enjoy this kind of music then their enjoyment in reasonable circumstances must be protected. On 738 the other hand, there are other people to be protected who also have rights, and it is most important that public health shall not be placed in jeopardy. Until we get Government legislation to deal with this kind of festival the Isle of Wight authorities have promoted this Bill, because the problem is immediate and arises from their experience of past festivals; and the Isle of Wight cannot wait too long. It is for all these reasons that I ask your Lordships' House to give this Bill a Third Reading. I beg to move.

§ Moved, that the Bill be now read 3^a.—(Lord Blyton.)

§ 7.13 p.m.

§ LORD WYNNE-JONES
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to rise after my noble friend Lord Blyton. He has had considerable experience of large public gatherings. He has had experience of the Durham Miners' Gala, which I think in his day certainly attracted 250,000 people. He has had experience of the Northumberland Miners' Gala when he occasionally crossed the Tyne and moved up into the other county. There, again, large numbers of people were involved. There are many occasions on which large numbers can be involved. One might notice, incidentally, that the figure mentioned in the Bill, 5,000, is not a very large one. Nevertheless, the Bill is concerned, as my noble friend has rightly said, with"Pop"festivals.
But apart from"Pop"festivals, there are other occasions, such as, in my own country, the eisteddfod: and these in fact step outside Wales. For example, on Tees-side they now regularly hold an eisteddfod, having seen the light and learned that good things can come from Wales. And it would not be inconceivable that an international eisteddfod might he held on the Isle of Wight. So the Bill does not apply just to a"Pop"festival. We also have large religious festivals. I can remember early in this century—I was a boy at the time, but I heard about it from my parents—there started the famous Keswick Convention. There one had thousands of people who came together in a small town for religious purposes. There are all types of gatherings: political gatherings; associations, such as the miners' association, where a large group of people working in the same way 739 come together; cultural festivals; musical festivals and these"Pop"festivals.
I am not really an addict of"Pop"festivals. I suppose that I should be clearly and firmly labelled as a"square ". It should be quite clear that I am not the sort of person who would get a great deal of enjoyment out of a"Pop"festival. Nevertheless, there are—and my noble friend Lord Blyton has said this quite clearly—plenty of young people who get benefit from these"Pop"festivals, and one must realise that it is a real benefit that they get. I happen to have access to a letter written by a lady concerning her son who attended the Isle of Wight. If your Lordships will allow me, I will quote a little from that letter.
She says: They will wear what they like and do what they like and to do the right thing, be at the right place, know the right people—well, if anyone wants to do it, O.K. They are tolerant to the point of fault. One of the joys of the festivals is that they are surrounded for some time by a mass of people all with the same general attitudes of tolerance, though containing a wide variety of ideas. Our son came back from the Island last year after five days in a state of ecstasy. He came down off the mountain. And she adds: I suppose some fornication goes on, but considerably less than in the bed-sits, and flats. The stimulus which young people get in that environment is undoubtedly a good and healthy thing, and I doubt if any of us would wish to deprive them of it. I agree entirely with my noble friend that regulation is extremely important. One cannot have tens and hundreds of thousands of people in a small place without making proper provision for sanitation, water, food and transport: all these things have to be provided. But do not let us forget that there is also a precious liberty involved. If we surrender this liberty, we are surely surrendering the thing which we in this country have always regarded as our greatest asset, and one for which we would all fight. So I do not criticise the promoters of this Bill for wishing to ask the Houses of Parliament to pass a Bill which will enable them to control things. It is a reasonable and rational thing for them to want to do. If they have not the powers, then they are entitled to ask 740 that they should be given to them. But I could wish that these powers were not being asked for by a single authority; that these powers, as my noble friend Lord Blyton has said, were powers which came under the control of the country as a whole. These are powers which I cannot help feeling we should expect our Home Office, in the first place, to take some interest in, and are not powers just to be asked for by a single authority.
However, when one looks at the details of Clause 5 one begins to ask whether it is not too widely written. My noble friend Lord Blyton has said that he and the promoters accept the Amendments. I am grateful to him for that statement, because it means that I do not have to go into detail and argue a great deal about it. But I think it important that we should pay some attention to the matter in this House, because I believe that what we do now will help to set a pattern for what will be done in other legislation which will be required over the country. It would be a mistake for us to ignore this opportunity to get the right ideas across.
The first subsection of Clause 5 demands that anyone arranging an assembly shall give to the council, not less than four months' notice of his intention to do so. I believe that four months is an unusually long period. I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, when replying to the debate, will be able to say something about this point, but my understanding is that four months is much longer than is normally required in a case of this sort. It is a very long period when one thinks of it, because the person wishing to arrange any festival has first to go to the landowners to negotiate with them to find if sites are available. That can take some time. He then approaches the local authority, for it is no good his doing so until he has the site, because the local authority will ask for full details of the site. So he has to wait until he has done the preliminary negotiations and ask the local authority to give its permission.
The local authority, according to the Bill, is allowed a month to consider the matter and to reach its decision. If the decision is unfavourable, the person concerned is allowed to appeal. I am not 741 in the least expert on legal or administrative matters of this type, but I am rather surprised that it should be the quarter sessions to which an appeal is made. I find this odd because I should have thought that the Minister is much more appropriate for dealing with matters of this sort. However, I leave that aside and other noble Lords may discuss it.
I do not know how long the appeal might take, but, speaking subject to correction, I should be surprised if the person asking to have the decision reversed received an answer within another month. Perhaps he would do so, but I should be rather surprised. That would mean two months. But we have to allow for the time taken in doing the preliminary negotiations. It might easily take three months or more from the time he started. If he is turned down again he has to look for another site and, if he has to give four months' notice, he may have to wait eight months or more before the festival can be held. I suggest that this is a very onerous condition and that the period is unreasonably long.
We then find in subsection (2), round about line 35, that the authority can require him to comply with such reasonable terms or conditions as they think fit with respect to water supply and securing sanitary conditions, public order and public safety and for the prevention of actionable nuisance. It was precisely because some of us felt that this was a very troublesome clause, as it does not tell the individual applicant in advance what conditions he has to satisfy, that the Amendment which has been accepted after Clause 5 was drafted. I explain these matters because they fit into the pattern of this Bill.
After that, we come to the penalties to be imposed, and it seems to me, at any rate, that they are rather drastic. The penalties are in subsection (9)(d) which says: A person who commits an offence under this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £400 and on indictment to a fine not exceeding £1,000 for each day on which the offence is committed… In other words if it lasts for five days, on indictment a penalty of £5,000 is involved. I have already mentioned that the minimum number of people involved is 5,000, which is not a very large number. Although this is to cover the evening, 742 quite rightly, if one looks at subsection (11) one sees: An assembly to which this section applies is an assembly in the county in the open air at which during any period exceeding three hours during the six hours following midnight there are not less than 5,000 people present. In other words, if a meeting were to start at eight o'clock and run until three o'clock in the morning it would be just on three hours after midnight and would not necessarily therefore involve a complete night. I mention all these different points to make clear that, while I am in sympathy with the ideas of the promoters of the Bill and I think my noble friend Lord Blyton has put the case very clearly and fairly, the clause as it stands is still not one which I should be happy to have regarded as a model for any further legislation.

§ 7.27 p.m.

§ LORD BRABAZON OF TARA
My Lords, I have to make a personal statement before I say anything else, because in about a fortnight's time there will be the fiftieth anniversary of the first time I was taken to the Isle of Wight. Apart from the war years, I have been there for my holidays every year since and I propose to go there for the rest of my life. I have a house there so I am slightly biased in favour of the Isle of Wight. While the possibility of more general legislation on the question of festivals must be in your Lordships' minds, nevertheless this is the Isle of Wight County Council Bill so I shall speak for a few moments on the Isle of Wight Bill. Basically it is promoted by the Isle of Wight County Council which is responsible for the well-being of its inhabitants. What is a little menacing about this situation of a"pop"festival, or any other festival, in the Isle of Wight is that the basic population is about 105,000. At the height of the holiday season about another 150,000 people come to the Isle of Wight. That makes roughly a quarter of a million. If, on top of that, there is suddenly imposed another quarter of a million (if the promoters of the festival are lucky) we can have potential chaos.
It so happens that the first festival, to which the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, referred, was only a small one, but the second and third festivals were fairly large. It also so happens that the 743 weather was extremely good on both occasions—no rain and not too hot. I admit that the Isle of Wight has rather better weather than most places; nevertheless, one has to acknowledge that every now and then it is not all that good. One asks oneself what would have happened last year and the year before had there been (a) torrential rain, or (b) a heat wave. The difficulty with rain is easily understood, and the trouble with heat waves is that they cause bad tempers. I am talking about the Isle of Wight generally and not"pop"festivals in general, and I would say that another point concerning storms, either from strong East winds or strong West winds, is that you cannot hitch-hike home. You have to cross the Solent, and if there is a very strong wind the hovercraft services probably have to stop. The ordinary ferry can probably carry on, although it will take longer, and the admirable services of British Railways, which are practically 24-hour service, obviously take longer, so it will be more difficult for people to get across. In fact, the British Railway packets are limited to 1,250 people and everything is all right if they can all be on deck; but if they needed to go below it could cause a problem. The transporting of people is a very serious matter for the Isle of Wight.
How does the Isle of Wight get by financially? It has a certain amount of industry, including fortunately the building of the Islander aircraft; it has a considerable agricultural area and it attracts, because of the better-than-average weather, quite a number of retired people; but it must depend very largely on holidaymakers. If you have a festival, for instance like the one last year, which lands on a summer bank holiday, it means that people taking their holiday within two weeks either side will have trouble in getting to and from the Isle of Wight. It is difficult enough to get there anyhow, even if one goes year after year; but the imposition of a quarter of a million people, probably taking 10 days in all to get there and back again, really makes the journey extremely difficult.
My experience, I having started as a holidaymaker in the Isle of Wight and now going there as often as I can, is that the average holidaymaker goes there year after year, and what he likes is a 744 peaceful holiday by the sea. Unless the Council have the right to control these festivals not only will they spoil the potential holiday trade in the future but people will decide not to retire there. Although I am not against festivals of any kind, I should like to say, on a purely parochial basis, that I think the Isle of Wight is a most unsuitable place for a festival; and I very much hope that your Lordships will approve this Bill, including Clause 5.

§ 7.33 p.m.

THE LORD BISHOP OF PORTS-MOUTH
My Lords, may I, in following the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, congratulate him on his maiden speech. Like him, I warmly support this Bill, and particularly Clause 5. I have to admit that I have not personally been at one of the"Pop"festivals yet—they have always coincided with the time when I have been on my own holiday and far away. However, I have had a fairly close link with the last two festival;, in that my own son was a participant, and he brought back glowing accounts of his experiences there. For him, like so many who attended the festival, it was a real experience: I would almost say a spiritual experience—the sense of"togetherness"and of being at one with a vast crowd of people of his own age was a very real experience indeed. But he went on to criticise very severely the unorganised chaos which has reigned in both the previous festivals. I think there can be no shadow of doubt that organisation broke down completely, and I share with the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, the thought that so far the festivals have been extremely lucky in getting away with fine weather, because if there had been bad weather it would really have been quite disastrous. The fact that the organisation went through in any way was a great tribute to the control and the common sense of the vast majority of the young people concerned; and whilst I would be the last one to restrict in any way this kind of enjoyment, I am quite convinced that the time has come when the kind of controls which are being asked for in this Bill should be applied.
I have also had a link with the festivals because last year the churches together provided a group of over 100 counsellors who moved freely around the festival and indeed talked freely with the young 745 people there. A large number of them came for advice and help, and I think it would be true to say that for a considerable number of youngsters, had it not been for the availability of this kind of assistance and advice, the experience would have been far less enjoyable than perhaps it was. I think it is worth mentioning, when sometimes the picture of the ill-behaviour of young people can be so over-painted, that on the Sunday morning there was a Communion Service in the open at which something like 400 young people made their Communion. So far the churches have had great co-operation from those who have been organising festivals. The co-operation last year was extremely close, and I certainly hope it will be so at this year's festival too.
I cannot see this Bill, including the items in Clause 5, as in any way representing a threat to freedom or liberty. It is surely worth saying that freedom always demands some kind of control or discipline and that perhaps one of the troubles in our society at the moment is that we have not recognised the fact that"freedom"which is really licence is in fact producing chaos. I hold that the experiences of the festivals in the last two years have really underlined this. I very much hope that this Bill will be passed, and I would share the sentiment expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, that it is desirable that this should be something which is nationwide rather than an isolated Bill. Perhaps the Isle of Wight County Council are pacemakers in this respect, and in nearly all moves towards better arrangements in society such a pacemaker is needed.
I do not think the Bill at any point really imposes unreasonable limits upon organisers or upon those who are taking part. The noble Lord, Lord Blyton, has already mentioned the fact that the amount of the fines which may be imposed is quite a small sum in comparison with the amount which those who are organising such a festival would expect to make from it. I do not personally think that the time factor for the application, about which the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, was speaking, is really a thing to be feared. The noble Lord implied that it was only after the application to hold the festival had been made that the arrangements for the siting of 746 the festival, et cetera, could be gone ahead with, but as I understand Clause I the application is to be made in the first place four months in advance, with the detail of where the site is to be, so that presumably preliminary negotiations have gone on already. Probably the promoters of the Bill would be the first to admit that there may well be ways in which it could be improved. If, as I believe, this is going to be the forerunner of legislation covering the country as a whole, there will be a chance to make those improvements, perhaps out of the experience which this Bill has brought; but for the moment I warmly hope that your Lordships will approve this Bill to-day.

§ 7.42 p.m.

§ LORD WINDLESHAM
My Lords, I should like to add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara. He spoke with first-hand knowledge of the Isle of Wight. He told us that he has known the Isle of Wight for many years now and it is clear that he has a great affection for it. If I may say so, I thought he spoke very persuasively as well. We have here a clash between two interests. There are not only the rights of the residents and ratepayers of the Isle of Wight to their privacy and to the safe keeping of their property, but we must also accept, as the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, explained so vividly in moving the Third Reading of this Bill, that when very large numbers of people, up to perhaps 200,000, descend on what is, after all, largely a rural area, living out of doors for three to four days, altogether exceptional problems arise in consequence—problems of water supply, sanitation, disposal of refuse, of food hygiene. The risk of an epidemic arises and there is also the risk of nuisance both by noise and congestion. These things are inevitable. The local people have their rights in the wellbeing of their locality and they are entitled to protection; and I think we could accept also the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, that the holidaymakers who go to the Isle of Wight year in, year out, go for a quiet and peaceful holiday and are entitled to consideration in the same way.
The local interests are entitled to protection both under the general law and, where they believe that the general law 747 is not adequate, under any private legislation limited in its effect to their own locality which they may promote and seek the approval of Parliament for; but at the same time there is a traditional right of free assembly in this country. This is particularly important to those who are idealistic or young, or both, and since these are often the dissenters who are critical of the present arrangements of society they sometimes find themselves with no very widespread public sympathy or public support. In Parliament we must recognise that they have rights as well and that these rights are just as important as those of the local residents which I have already mentioned. So what is called for here is some accommodation and tolerance between what are, we may as well accept, conflicting interests.
My Department did raise some matters which seemed to us of importance in a report to the Committee, and the promoters have come some considerable way towards meeting the points made in the Home Secretary's report. This is especially true of the important point that the courts of appeal should be in a position to determine the reasonableness or otherwise of the council's actions. The noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, asked whether or not it was appropriate to have this appeal to quarter sessions. He suggested that perhaps the Minister would be a more appropriate person. This leaves open the question of which Minister. There are three Secretaries of State concerned—the Home Secretary so far as questions of public order arise; the Secretary of State for the Environment as regards the site itself and some public health matters; and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Security as regards matters of public health generally. But the question here is one of deciding what is reasonable in the light of all the circumstances, and we incline towards the view that this is a matter which is more appropriate for the courts in the light of local knowledge. I could not help reflecting, as the noble Lord made his suggestion, what the response of noble Lords would have been if this suggestion had been made in the context of the Immigration Bill which we have just been discussing. There is not a great deal probably between the two interests, 748 but perhaps quarter sessions are the most appropriate body.
Reference has also been made to the level of penalties and the payment of costs of policing. So far as the costs of policing are concerned, the purpose of the Home Secretary's comments was to draw attention to the extent that the Bill's proposals are a departure from normal practice, and to point to the procedure whereby the Isle of Wight County Council would collect money on behalf of the Hampshire Police Authority. But this is ultimately a matter on which only Parliament can decide and the Government would not wish to oppose the clause on this count. It might be added that the cost of policing events attracting very large groups should be regarded as a matter for general rather than public legislation. This point was made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth and by other speakers, and there is a great deal of validity in it. On the other hand, there is concern about this matter. We had quite a prolonged discussion last week, as noble Lords who were present may remember, about the Reading"Pop"Festival in which the same issues arose and there may be something to be said for a pilot scheme, especially as there will be time to work out arrangements properly with the police. The results could be evaluated and taken into account when deciding whether or not general legislation is needed.
The Home Office comments about the penalty provisions related to the normal limits on the powers of magistrates' courts, not to the penalties themselves which, in their revised form, we consider not unreasonable. The Government are keeping under review the question whether general legislation in respect of"pop"festivals would be justified. Recovery of police costs would be only one of the points to be considered in this context. It is not usual for the Government to seek to influence Parliament in its consideration of Private Bills. However, there are issues of public policy involved here, and accordingly the Home Office reported to the Committee drawing the attention of Parliament to certain points about which we had some doubts. Our conclusion is that our main points of objection have been met by the promoters. In the circumstances we should not wish to urge the House to reject 749 either the Bill as a whole, or Clause 5, on account of such reservations as remain. The decision is one for Parliament and not for the Government.

LORD NUNBURNHOLME
My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him one question? Have British Rail been approached to supply extra ferries from other ports, so that in the case of bad weather the congestion will be lessened?

§ LORD WINDLESHAM
My Lords, I am afraid that I am not able to answer that question. It is one which should be put to the promoters, or to the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, who is representing them here. This is the type of question which, now that the Amendment is to be accepted, as I understand it is, and that Clause 5 is not to come into effect until later in the year, shows that the situation is a great deal more clear cut than it would otherwise have been. If nobody was quite sure whether the festival was likely to be on or off, questions of the type that the noble Lord has put would be harder to answer than they are already.

§ 7.52 p.m.

§ BARONESS BIRK
My Lords, may I first add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, on his maiden speech and say how much I appreciated his tour round the Isle of Wight, which I also visit constantly and enjoy very much. May I gently suggest that he should not forget that some of the"pop"fans of today will be some of the retired gentry of the future. I speak first, as every speaker in the debate so far has done, from the viewpoint of the Isle of Wight residents. It is quite clear that people should not have to put up with conditions which can be prevented.
When my noble friend Lord Blyton moved the Third Reading of the Bill in an extremely moderate and succinct way he mentioned the point about hygiene and the lack of lavatories. There may be a case for tightening up the health regulations everywhere. But this is not what Part II of the Bill is about. Part II is entitled: Public Order and Public Safety ". This is what we are talking about, not about the installation of more lavatories; 750 not about by-laws, and not even about penalties, because this is not the principle which is being discussed. I must say that I believe that legislation of this type must be public and should never be introduced by means of a Private Bill. I know that it is the custom—and one to which I normally subscribe—that legislation which has been passed by the other place should not be turned down here and should not be argued against quite so strongly.

§ LORD SHACKLETON
My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend? I am not sure that the suggestion with regard to public legislation in the matter of overriding the other place applies to Private Bills. Maybe this is a matter for the noble Earl, Lord Listowel.

§ BARONESS BIRK
My Lords, I am very grateful that I need not go on with the apology, but may state what I believe. I think the other place should not have passed the Bill. I do not think it should have arrived here at all; it should have been voted down in the other place. This really is a matter of the erosion of civil liberty. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, put his finger on it when he said that this is a clash between two interests. He referred to the traditional right of free assembly. The interest of the right of assembly is the one that must be uppermost, and the facilities and amenities for the residents must be taken care of—I accept that—but in a different way.
In this country we do not have a written Constitution. If we had one, it would be very unlikely that this Bill could pass, because if we had a written Constitution the Bill would no doubt contravene certain of the statutes that would be involved. This means that we must be even more vigilant about our civil liberties and, indeed, must take a very hard look at a Bill of this type. The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, pointed out that a number of the comments that have been made in the report of the Secretary of State to the Committee in another place have been dealt with. This was so on the minor points. But the Secretary of State ended by saying that he doubted whether the problems of law and order, to which such a festival might give rise, were suitably dealt with by a Private Bill. I do not think that this has been 751 altered by the Amendment which has been put into the Bill before us to-day. He also recommended the deletion of the words,"Public order ". These words are still in the Bill and to them has been added the necessity to get the consent of the chief constable.
On that point, the chief constables who were consulted by the Secretary of State were of the opinion that the criminal law as it stands is adequate to deal with the problems that arise and that further legislation is unnecessary. In the statement which has been put out by the Isle of Wight County Council regarding the 1970 festival, they say that the organisers were persuaded to enter into a voluntary agreement for the control of certain aspects of the festival. With respect to the right reverend Prelate, they do not say that there was a complete breakdown of organisation, but that a measure of control was achieved which would have been impossible under existing law and without such agreement.
I should have thought that it would have been better for the time being to try to get a voluntary agreement, and to bring injunctions, if necessary. There is no reason why the county council should not do that, it has the right to go to the High Court. This type of legislation should have been considered not only unnecessary, but quite wrong in the framework of free assembly and civil liberties. I am pleased that the Amendments to which I have joined my name, with that of my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones, are being accepted. We also have to be realistic and accept that if there is an element which wishes to dispose of"pop"festivals, or to ban them, under this clause they will be able to do so even with these Amendments. We hope that now that this whole matter has been aired in the House, note will be taken of the views of quite a wide range of people who have quite legitimate cause for anxiety and concern. I agree with my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones that one hopes that this will not lead to a rash of similar Private Bills, because these repressive measures—and I must use the word"repressive "—can become very infectious. The value of this debate is that people contemplating these measures may be warned that 752 there are many in both Houses who would strongly resist such inroads on individual freedom.

§ 7.59 p.m.

§ THE EARL OF KINNOULL
My Lords, I should like to associate myself with the other noble Lords who have already congratulated my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara on his maiden speech. As other noble Lords have said, I hope that he will be able to take part on many other occasions in our debates, not only on Isle of Wight matters. I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, upon the manner in which he introduced the Third Reading, and also my noble friend Lord Windlesham on what was a very balanced and fair speech on behalf of the Government. Having said that, I should like to declare an interest, in that I have a small home in the Isle of Wight. I wish to confine my few remarks to Clause 5, although there are other subjects that I would mention. For example, hovercraft are dealt with in one of the clauses.
I would personally disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. I believe that this is a planning matter, and I believe strongly too that it is not a matter only for the Isle of Wight. We have had"pop"festivals at Reading; we have them in Hyde Park in London. I was glad to hear my noble friend say that general legislation is under consideration. Every speaker so far has said that the"pop"festival is here to stay. I believe that some form of planning control, not only for the county councils, not only for the residents of the area, but also for the participants in the festivals themselves, is now essential. As the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, has said, one has only to look at the increasing figures; the festivals in the Isle of Wight have increased in numbers from 7,000 in 1968 to over 150,000 in 1970. That is a staggering increase.
The problems of providing facilities and services, and the danger to health, as other noble Lords have mentioned, are obvious. They are essential factors for any county council to consider. Yet the county councils have to rely on the Public Health Act 1933 for their control powers. Otherwise they have to rely on injunctions by courts. One sees how unsatisfactory and how out of date the 753 planning legislation has become. When one examines Clause 5, the first point that must strike everyone is the timing of the notices. As the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, has said, he thought it was wrong that four months should be allowed. He anticipated that it could extend to eight months. On first sight I would agree with him; but I think I am correct in saying that if one looks at this clause carefully it is clear that four months is the time required from the application date to when the festival is to be held. The County Council has one week in which to serve a notice for information, and four weeks in which to serve notice either to refuse the application or to give conditional approval to it. Then, if the application is refused, or only conditional approval is given and the applicant does not accept it, he has only two weeks to appeal to Quarter Sessions. If one is to criticise the timing, it is the two weeks for the appeal to Quarter Sessions to which I would add my voice.
The second thing which strikes one about Clause 5 is the appeal system. Although my noble friend has explained the reason why the Home Office feel that the Quarter Sessions are the appropriate body, I find it a little astonishing, when it is basically a planning matter, that the Minister for the Department of the Environment should not be involved. There are, after all, such considerations as the size of the site, the situation of the site, the services and its facilities. I would not have thought that Quarter Sessions were equipped to decide these planning issues. Indeed, I would go further, and say there is no other precedent which could be adduced under planning legislation where appeal is to Quarter Sessions.
Reference has been made to the question of finances, to deposit of securities, and to fines. Although the fines sound fairly large, I think that when one looks at the problem they are reasonable. I support this Bill because I believe that good will spring from it. I hope that general legislation will follow. Having spoken to people concerned on the island, having seen the problem, and having seen that the law is now archaic and needs revision, I will strongly support this Bill.

§ BARONESS GAITSKELL
I would like to congratulate Lord Brabazon on his 754 maiden speech. He put the case of the residents very plainly, and he really gained our sympathy for them. But, my Lords, I think this Bill has to be looked at in a much wider context. It has to be looked at both from the point of view of the retired residents who live in the Isle of Wight, and the others who are not retired, and also from the point of view of the young people who want to have"pop"festivals. I would also like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Blyton for the very tolerant way in which he introduced this Bill. I have a feeling that he felt more strongly against our Amendment than appeared from his very good speech. I started to the right of my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones and I veered to the left. Now I support his Amendment on all counts.
The truth is, my Lords, that this Bill touches on what we call the generation gap, what I call not so much the generation gap as the memory and imagination gap. It certainly is true that old men forget, and maybe old women too. Never has there been a time when it has been more necessary to remember our own youth. There were days, many years ago, or whenever it was, that a son followed his father in ploughing a lonely furrow. To-day, what with technological progress, population expansion, and pollution, there is a different world from what has gone before and all our problems have become astronomical. The question is what you put first, at this moment. Do you put the problems we have with young people, or do you put the problems of organisation and regulation of"pop"festivals? With good will these problems could be solved quite easily.
This is where the understanding for our young people comes in, and I personally think their need comes first. They do not accept the same injustices, the same inequalities, the same attitudes to war and poverty as we have learned to live and die with. They often feel not only detached but alienated from their parents. They have a strong urge to get together with their own young age groups. They really feel insecure in the world that their fathers have made. We have to understand and indulge this desire and this need, particularly when its expression, as in"pop"festivals, is fundamentally so harmless for us, and pleasurable for them. It is not a question of whether we like 755 " pop ". Some of us like"pop ", some of us like jazz; some of us do not like either. Subject to helping local authorities to arrange decent conditions, to regulate these festivals, I do not believe that the difficulties about which we have heard cannot be overcome. We should not try to prevent these young people from getting together. We really should show sympathy for what I consider to be one of the least harmful aspects of expression, or even protest, from them, because I believe that these are safety valves against violence in this troubled world.
The greatest worry among the older people seems to be about sanitary conditions, although so far I believe no risks to health have occurred after any of the"pop"festivals. There may have been chaos, but I have not heard of risks to health. As I say, of course we must see to these health conditions, but I do not believe that good plumbing is the only criterion of a civilised society. As a matter of fact, both in America and in Canada where there is such wonderful plumbing, I have found that friends of mine and other people there do everything they can to get as far away as they can from their cities to the primitive plumbing that goes on in"pop"festivals. With that, I am very glad that my noble friend Lord Blyton has accepted our Amendments, and I should like to thank him very much for this.

§ 8.11 p.m.

§ LADY RUTHVEN OF FREELAND
My Lords, may I add my congratulations to those of other noble Lords and Ladies to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara. I was very interested in all he said about the Isle of Wight because I have spent many a holiday there, my own father having retired there and lived there, in Bembridge, for quite a long time. I am sure we shall hear from Lord Brabazon in future.
I should like to say how glad I am to hear—and I hope this is true—that the County Council have agreed not to bring in Clause 5 this year. It is too soon and there is a lot to be decided about it. Like many other speakers, I am doubtful whether powers of this kind should be dealt with by local authorities; I think they should be dealt with by central Government. I have great sympathy 756 with the people who live in the Isle of Wight. I personally, being an"old square ", would loathe to be near a"pop"festival; but I also have grandchildren, so I know how much they enjoy such things. We must consider the young because it is their amusement, but we must consider also the people who live in the island. The point which the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, brought out is very well known to me: the difficulties of getting to the island and getting away again.
I hope very much that the Government will consider the whole problem and will draw up some suitable legislation which may be applied in other places. This is not at all a Party matter. We are all concerned, and we are all—I am personally—anxious that something should be done to make suitable arrangements both for the Isle of Wight and for other places in the country wishing to have the same sort of functions.

§ 8.13 p.m.

§ LORD SHACKLETON
My Lords, I should first like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara. It is a misfortune for any hereditary Peer who makes his maiden speech that noble Lords are almost bound to refer to his father, but the noble Lord's father was such a great and attractive man that the noble Lord will forgive me for referring to him; and I say at the same time that we are very pleased to have Lord Brabazon here and to hear a speech of the kind he made to-day. It is unusual for a noble Lord to make a maiden speech on a Private Bill, but this is rather an important one and so we are glad to have heard him.
Because I so respect my old and noble friend Lord Blyton, I find some difficulty in saying that I simply hate Clause 5 of this Bill; I still do hate Clause 5. But I am bound to say that my dislike of it was considerably tempered by the moderation, and indeed the humanity of his speech. But while recommending the House to let this Bill go through, for reasons which I will explain, I am still very bothered about it. This arises partly out of our difficulties in dealing with legislation of this kind. It is the custom in this House that, generally speaking, we do not try to recommit a Bill which has been through 757 Private Bill procedure, for the very valid reason that it could be unfair to the promoters, who may have given their evidence to a Committee, and because we trust our Committees. But we get into particular difficulties where a special kind of public interest arises.
I should like to take this opportunity to do something which has not often been done because so few of us are aware of the position, and that is to say what an enormous amount of work the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and Mr. Talbot and others do in this area. I do not think anybody realises just how much valuable work is done by them. At the risk of offending my colleagues who have recently been in another place I will say that the work we do here is—well, I had better say that it is not surpassed by that done in the Private Bill procedure in another place.
None the less we are presented with difficulties. We are all agreed that the Isle of Wight has a tremendous problem. We all have sympathy with it. We all, in honesty, would say that if we lived close to a"pop"festival we would be demanding that our county council should take the necessary action. One is well aware that local authorities are not well equipped to undertake this task. In this matter the Isle of Wight County Council have been pioneers, and not the least of the public services they have rendered is that they will, I hope, force the Government (all Governments run away from issues of this kind) to take action. Nevertheless, I have not liked the way that this matter has been forwarded. I have not liked the fact that, until very recently, there was an intention to apply the clause even in a situation which would produce great ambiguity as to legality, and indeed where people would have been found guilty of an offence although the safeguards had not been applied.
The fact that the council has repeatedly said that it has been proceeding as if the Bill were already law does not necessarily add to my confidence, even though I realise that it meant well and was trying to provide a kind of appeal procedure. But it would have been intolerable if this clause had passed into law this year and left the situation in a state of confusion. We knew that the festival was going to take place. It was not a question of 758 stopping the festival; it was a question of having clear law with regard to the situation. Very wisely—I do not doubt that the Home Office and the police have had something to do with this, and I must pay my tribute to the officials of the County Council—those concerned have taken the sensible step and we are very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, has found he is able to accept the Amendment making a later appointed day.
However—and this is another reason why I would hope for new legislation—I am still unhappy. We cannot discuss this in Committee, but there is, for instance, in Clause 5(9)(c) this phrase: Any person concerned in the management of an assembly…who knew, or had reasonable cause to suspect, that such a term, condition or requirement was being contravened by some other person shall be guilty of an offence ". Does this mean that a farm worker who thinks that the farmer is about to let land in contravention of this Bill is himself guilty of an offence if he has not informed the police? Furthermore, I found an ambiguity here. There is a provision that one should use"all due diligence to ensure compliance with the term"et cetera. The subsection goes on to say that: A person who commits an offence "— that is, among other things, having had reasonable cause to suspect that a condition or requirement has been contravened— shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £400 and on indictment to a fine not exceeding £1,000 for each day "— and here we come to an Amendment— on which the offence is committed ". I do not know on which days he will have committed the offence of withholding information. This points to the difficulties in regard to Private Bill legislation and the desirability of having Public Bill legislation at an early date. It may be that my noble friend Lord Blyton can put a better gloss on these particular sentences, but they suggest a need for alertness in these matters because, as my noble friends have said, we are not just discussing the protection of the citizens of the Isle of Wight but questions of fundamental liberties. At the same time the clause is very much restricted to certain hours. As my noble friend has pointed out, it is 759 unlikely to affect agricultural shows because it is limited in its effect to certain hours after midnight.
My noble friends are going to move certain Amendments. Of course it is possible to prevent these events from taking place by producing impossible conditions. I am told that one condition which was implied was that certain insurances should be taken out for certain risks which were not insurable. I do not know whether that is correct, but I was informed on good authority that it was so. That, again, is why it is desirable that the two Amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones, even if they do not add materially to the legal strength, should be passed. Again I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and with other noble Lords; I am not really happy about the quarter sessions arguments. I should have thought that if it were to be dealt with by an inspector from a Department he should be from the Ministry for the Environment, because it seems to me to fall most naturally into that area. All Departments fight; I know the Home Office will do their best not to have the responsibility because they are always liable to get it in the end. The Home Office is the dumping ground for anything, from seals to (no doubt)"Pop"festivals. This is something that the Government will need to face, and I am not sure that a simpler form of inquiry would not be better. Such is our confidence in the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham (except when he is dealing with immigration), that we should be very happy for it to come under him; but I think it should be under the Ministry of the Environment.
There remains the question whether the existing powers are adequate. It is to be remembered that this year's festival will be conducted not under this Bill but under the existing powers, and it will be interesting to see whether the doubts expressed by the Home Office, and I believe by the police, as to whether this clause was necessary and whether one could not have got by without it, will prove to be well-founded. At the same time, I think it is right that we should pass the clause. The Council and, I think, your Lordships can claim some credit for determination—and particularly the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and those who work with him, and other 760 noble Lords—as a watchdog in these matters.
I was so glad that the right reverend Prelate and several noble Lords have put the case for the young. A striking thing has come out from these festivals, and the message is there—except when the Press pay people to create a fuss or to take their clothes off, and we know that there were something like 700 Press men at the last festival—the great message that conies over is the kindness, the gentleness and the truthfulness of the young. They are extremely honest and they are very generous to one another. The alienation between generations means that they are not even interested to-day in the Pentagon Papers, simply because it is the kind of thing they expect from Parliaments, the public and politicians. Therefore we have this responsibility for something that is obviously a tremendous experience for them. It is not just the"Pop"music or even the Jazz (which is more intellectual, I believe) or the music generally. The atmosphere produces a situation which is a great experience and where the behaviour is no worse, as was said in the letter quoted by my noble friend, than in the smart circles of London society or the suburbs of Guildford. So we do not wish to be too holy about this.
I congratulate my noble friend on succeeding in getting such a friendly reception to a clause which I still find awkward and difficult. I appeal to the Government—pointing out that we shall watch how this matter goes—that other local authorities should not be convinced that this House will automatically allow clauses of this kind to be put into Bills. It is argued that it should have been petitioned against, but the young are not going to petition. The promoters are essentially ephemeral creatures; they may be interested only in one festival. Therefore we have put on record our concern, and at the same time we repeat our sympathy for the Isle of Wight. We hope the weather is fine and that the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, will do something about the matter in regard to British Railways.

§ LORD BLYTON
My Lords, I do not intend to take up much time after a debate lasting an hour and a half, but I hope my noble friends on this side of 761 the House do not regard me as a person who is prepared to take away civil liberties. For over fifty years I have been in the forefront of the battle for civil liberties and I would never support any aggressive measures. But to compare Clause 5 with the miners' gala—and particularly the Northumberland Miners' Gala—is stretching it a bit too far. After all, the demonstration starts at nine o'clock in the morning and if a man has been out all day he gets home by 11 o'clock at night. The same thing occurs in Durham. If I had thought this Bill would jeopardise free assembly I would have opposed it, but in the experience of the Isle of Wight—and it is a new experience—the local authority must have some powers in such a situation, as I have already explained. This Bill does not take away civil liberties; it does not try to stop"Pop"festivals. It tries to ensure that they are held under decent conditions and that they are run properly. With that I ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Third Reading.

§ On Question, Bill read 3^a with the Amendments.

§ Clause 5 [Control of large over-night assemblies in the open]:

§ 8.29 p.m.

§ LORD WYNNE-JONES
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2.

§ Amendment moved— Page 7, line 34, at end insert (" setting out in the case of unsuitability the grounds on which it is in the opinion of the Council unsuitable ").—(Lord Wynne-Jones.)

§ LORD SHACKLETON
Here again it will be important to people who are appealing to quarter sessions that unsuitability shall be shown. I am quite sure from my knowledge of the Clerk to the County Council that he would have every intention of doing so, but we may as well have it in the Bill and on the Record.