Lords Sitting of 25 April 1972

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The Chairman of Committees on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ripon
The Earl Fitzwilliam—Took the Oath.

THAMES POLLUTION CONTROL AND FISH LIFE
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: 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 that Macdonald Hastings, in his book called A Glimpse of Arcadia, makes his characters net a salmon in the lower reaches of the Thames in 1861; whether any salmon have been reported in the river since then; whether it is considered that pollution has diminished in recent years so that salmon can now be expected in the Thames and whether, if and when salmon appear in this river, they will inform the House.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the Answer to the first part of my noble friend's Question is, "Yes". As regards the second part, I am informed by the Port of London Authority that salmon were reported in the Thames Estuary in 1932, when 3 were caught at Southend in the early part of the year and 2 at Leigh-on-Sea in the late autumn. Two salmon are rumoured to have been caught in a trawl off Southend last August. As regards the third part of the Question, I would draw attention to the Annual Report by the Port of London Authority and the Greater London Council on Pollution Control for the year ending December 31, 1971, which has been laid before the House to-day. The Report shows a welcome increase in fish life in the tidal river, and records the presence of sea trout as far up river as Teddington; and that is an
270
indication that the water quality in the lower reaches would not have been a barrier to migratory salmon at all times, even last year. If salmon do reappear it will not, I am sure, require a Government announcement to bring the fact to notice.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, in view of my noble friend's surprising and encouraging report, may I ask whether Her Majesty's Government will consider planting 5 million or 10 million fertilised salmon ova in the middle or northern areas of the Thames river? It is possible that a smolt—that is, a yearling salmon—might be willing to go through the mess to get to the ocean and, remembering what a beautiful river the Thames is, might come back again.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I am always willing to bring to my right honourable friend's attention anything the noble Lord may say. I think that the word which my noble friend was looking for is kelt, rather than smolt.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: No; it is smolt.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, we are getting on with the cleaning of the river and £28 million has been allocated to extra sewage control. Part of this sum has already been spent. But I think that Nature must first do its bit.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it is not much good having salmon in the Estuary if they cannot get further up river? Therefore, can we look to the use of public monies in future to provide the necessary salmon ladders at the various weirs?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: Yes, my Lords, I take the noble Lord's point; but I do not think he heard my first Answer. Sea trout, commonly called salmon trout, have been up as far as Teddington. They were also caught at Fulham, Charlton and places like that last year. But let us get the river clean before we decide whether we need ladders.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: But they cannot get beyond a weir unless there is a ladder. Does the noble Lord not know that?
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, would it be right to summarise the noble Lord's original lengthy but welcome Answer in this way: that when a test was made in 1957 no varieties of fish were found between Teddington and Gravesend, that by 1967 the number had gone up to over 40 and that it is now over 50? Is it not time that we started paying tribute to the public bodies and their officials who have been responsible for magnificent achievements in the field of clearing up pollution of the River Thames?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale: what he said is perfectly true. Not only have over 50 varieties of fish been found in these reaches, but many birds which have not been seen nesting and being around there for a long time, have also come to the tidal reaches.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, if one of us wished to kill a salmon from the Terrace, to whom should he apply for permission?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I think I should need notice of that question.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the last time a salmon was caught above Teddington was in 1923, in Boulter's Lock? Perhaps it was not the only poor fish caught in Boulter's Lock! Is my noble friend also aware that I think that if the fish arrive as far as Teddington they will be able to negotiate the weirs as they now stand. But if any ladders are needed to assist them the Thames Conservancy, and I hope their successors, will see that they are provided.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I think we are all aware that the Thames Conservancy have a very able and excellent Chairman, and when the water has been cleared the fish will look forward to his help.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, do the Government not think that if the salmon in the Thames are working according to rule this is a case for the Industrial Court?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the salmon in the Thames will look forward to working to rule.

DECIMAL COINAGE: THE NEW PENNY
2.42 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: 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 alter the designation of the sterling currency so that the one-hundredth part of the £ is known, both in the singular and the plural, as the pen, thus doing away with the awkwardness of describing it as "p", and at the same time distinguishing it from the old penny, which had a very different value.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD JELLICOE): My Lords, I fear that my reply to the noble Lord opposite must be a firm but friendly negative. To attempt now to change the statutory description "new penny" would involve considerable expenditure and disturb the public's growing familiarity with decimal currency. Nor would it be easy to find an alternative name likely to gain universal acceptance. Whatever it might be, it could not be imposed by Statute; popular preference might well ensure that the word "penny" survived in everyday use. The penny is part of our national heritage; the word has an Anglo-Saxon root and a firm place in our affection, our literature and our sayings. It is one that should be preserved.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply, which leaves me almost sobbing with disappointment. Is he aware that in a supermarket the other day I saw a housewife carefully counting her change and then painfully saying to the cashier, "I think I ought to have another p"? Is that not a silly form of words to have to use; and does not the noble Earl think that it confuses shoppers, when they buy something marked "5p", only to realise that they have spent an old shilling and not merely an old-fashioned five pence?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I must confess that I was not aware of the sad occurrence to which the noble Lord has alluded until he just informed us of it. I think his remarks about the confusion could well have applied when decimal currency was introduced, but I think there is little confusion on the whole now in the public mind. I believe that the new system, good or bad as the case may be, is now gaining universal acceptance, and that it would be a very great mistake now to try to backtrack.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the plural of "penny" is "pence"?
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, on a subject of that sort I should certainly think very hard before disagreeing with my noble friend.

INTERNATIONAL BOOK YEAR
2.44 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will endorse 1972 as International Book Year.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government endorsed 1972 as International Book Year when our delegation supported the resolution proclaiming it during the 16th General Conference of UNESCO.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I am not sure whether I should not declare an interest, as I write some books. May I ask the Minister whether much more cannot be done in this respect? Is she aware that Mr. Nixon has issued a Presidential Proclamation which has had great publicity in America? Is she also aware that the French Government are giving six Classic books to every newly-wed couple in the country this year? Is she further aware that UNESCO has opened an office in this country? Is it not possible for the Government, by proclamation—it may even be by Royal Proclamation—and by presentation on T.V. and
274
through the media, to make the public aware that 1972 is in fact International Book Year?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I am aware of the facts which the noble Lord has put forward, including the fact that he writes books, although I have not yet had the advantage of reading one. But I can tell him that we have decided to make an approach, through the Department of Education and Science, to local authorities, and through the United Kingdom National Commission for UNESCO, to support and publicise a wide variety of International Book Year activities.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, is this not a little late? We are a fourth of the way through the year. Is it not a little belated that the Government should just now be taking action?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: No, my Lords; it is already being done. Apart from that, we have a very large programme, under our aid programme, which amounts to about £850,000 this year for books alone.

BAGENAL HARVEY AGENCY AND BROADCASTING CONTRACTS
LORD ORR-EWING: 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 refer the firm of Bagenal Harvey to the Monopolies Commission as it would appear that this agency now acts for the majority of commentators used by the B.B.C. and I.T.A. companies.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY (THE EARL OF LIMERICK): My Lords, on the evidence before me I do not consider that a reference to the Monopolies Commission would be justified.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, I think that the House would wish to congratulate my noble friend on his first reply to a Parliamentary Question. I

275
hope that his subsequent replies may be even more helpful. Is my noble friend aware that this firm handles commentators' contracts and that at present far more than the one-third figure laid down in Section 2(3) of the Monopolies Act are under contract to this firm? Is he further aware that David Coleman, who is probably their best known sports commentator, has secured a five-year contract with the B.B.C.? Is my noble friend also aware that because of their power the firm are in a position to dictate to the B.B.C. which commentators shall and which shall not appear on the programmes? Is not this state of affairs rather undesirable for a public service?
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, I am aware of my noble friend's concern that a high proportion of the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. commentators are currently engaged through this one agency. There are, however, many other commentators to choose from, and both the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. are free to exercise that choice to avoid undue or undesirable dependence on any one agency.

BUSINESS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn will be making a Statement on the rail dispute at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I take this opportunity to congratulate the Leader of the House on yet another new recruit to his Front Bench? He seems to be doing very well; but I should like to ask him whether he regards it as a first consequence of giving a Second Reading to the Anti-Discrimination Bill that the Conservative Party, for the first time, has a Baroness in Waiting? I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness in Waiting, who I know will contribute to our debates as well as considerably embellishing the Front Bench opposite.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition for his very generous comments on my noble friend's appointment, which I think I am not going too far in saying is probably welcomed all
276
round your Lordships' House. However, I must inform the noble Lord opposite that, with the appointment of the noble Baroness, I have now shot my bolt.

CORNWALL RIVER AUTHORITY BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
MERSEY TUNNEL BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Bill, has consented to place Her interest, so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD POLWARTH): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Polwarth.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Clause 1 [Extended powers of courts to order inspection of documents and other property, etc.]:
LORD POLWARTH LORD POLWARTH moved, as an Amendment to the clause:
Page 2, line 32, leave out from beginning to end of line 33 and insert ("under this section in respect of a document or other property as it applied before the commencement of this section to an application for commission and diligence for the recovery of a document.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name. Its purpose and effect can be explained very briefly. Clause 1 of the Bill confers on the Court of Session and the sheriff court extended powers to order the disclosure, production and

277
preservation of documents or other property which are considered relevant to existing or proposed proceedings. It is intended that this provision should apply to the Crown. Subsection (4) by expressly applying the provisions of Section 47 of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 makes it clear that this clause will enable documents in the possession of the Crown, other than those belonging to Her Majesty in her private capacity, to be recovered in the circumstances specified in the Bill. It was represented to us, however, that this left unclear the position of property other than documents, and this Amendment is designed to remove any doubt that there may be. As amended, the clause will clearly apply to all property in the possession of the Crown including, where appropriate, land.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, it will not surprise the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, to know that I am not rising to oppose this momentous Amendment. It does, however, seem to me to be a suitable opportunity to offer the noble Lord congratulations on joining the "gang" opposite—if that is not a completely inappropriate way of describing them. My only regret in the matter is that his coming to the Scottish Office should deprive us of the services of the noble Baroness, Lady Tweedsmuir, as a Scottish Minister. I should like to say that the pleasure in the noble Lord's joining the Government has been expressed outside the circle of his political friends.
I did not think that I had any influence with the present Prime Minister; but I am rather shaken in that belief because the noble Lord will recall that the last time that he and I took part in a debate I rather disagreed with him on the ground that he was proving too effective a spokesman for the Government. I did not expect that the Prime Minister would act so quickly on that. I hope that the noble Lord will find himself happy in his work in Scotland. I can assure him that in so far as he is not pursuing a particularly political line but is acting, as is usual with Ministers in the Scottish Office, in the interests of Scotland generally he will have support from this side of the House.
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hughes,
278
for his extremely kind remarks. I can assure him that at the time of which he spoke my expectation was even less than his. I hope that the kindness and cordiality with which I have been received will be continued through the months ahead whatever differences there may be.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed and sent to the Commons.

COMPANIES (FLOATING CHARGES AND RECEIVERS) (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
2.54 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Amendment of Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1967]:
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 6, line 36, leave out ("the") and insert ("any").
The noble Lord said: This is a drafting Amendment which is necessary to make the reference to the provisions of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1967 completely accurate. Clause 10 of the Bill refers to Section 4(1) of the Act which requires information about floating charges created by registered societies to be delivered to the registrar of friendly societies. The Act requires a copy of the Instrument creating the charge and a note of such particulars relating to the charge as may be prescribed. In fact, the second document is not sent and cannot be sent because particulars have not yet been prescribed. Nevertheless, the possibility remains that particulars to be contained in such a note may be prescribed in the future and accuracy requires that Clause 10 should

279
refer not to "the" document but to "any" document. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 [Power to appoint receiver]:
LORD DRUMALBYN: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, which is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 29 (incorrectly numbered 31), leave out ("receivers") and insert ("receiver").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 7, line 32 (incorrectly numbered 35) leave out ("Scottish").
The noble Lord said: I hope your Lordships will allow me to move this Amendment which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Hughes and to which the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has been so kind as to add his name. It deals with a small point and I hope that the Committee will not think I am indiscreet in venturing into the field of Scottish law in which I am wholly inexpert. I do so, and did so, on the advice and suggestion of a very distinguished Scottish lawyer who sits in another place, Mr. King Murray. It was represented by him to me that the expression "a Scottish firm" which appears in the text of the Bill as at present drafted would be an expression which would be ambiguous to Scottish lawyers. What is a "Scottish firm"? Does it mean a firm, the contract creating which was entered into in Scotland or does it mean a firm, the partners in which are Scottish? What does it mean? It was put to me that it was ambiguous and it seemed to me that it was not altogether clear in its import.
I am encouraged by the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has added his name, to think that he agrees that there is a case for making a change which would have the result of converting the expression "a Scottish firm" into the expression "a firm according to the law of Scotland", which so I am advised could give rise to no ambiguities in the minds of Scottish lawyers.
That is the case for Amendment No. 3. It is also the case for Amendment No. 4. If the Committee will allow me, I shall, when that Amendment is called, treat this argument as an argument for supporting that Amendment. It is also the case for Amendment No. 5 which does something slightly additional. Perhaps I might add a word on that Amendment when it is called. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Stow Hill and Lord Hughes, for putting down this Amendment. It resolves a slight difficulty which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, raised at an earlier stage. The noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has put a very ingenious formula which I think covers also the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, which was raised earlier. I am glad for that reason to add my name to the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I beg to move Amendment No. 4.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 32 (incorrectly numbered 35), at end add ("according to the law of Scotland").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.2 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 7, line 32 (incorrectly numbered 35), at end insert—
("() A body corporate or a firm according to the law of Scotland which acts as a receiver shall be liable to a fine of £100; and an undischarged bankrupt who so acts shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding £500 or to both.")
The noble Lord said: This Amendment appears inadvertently under the names of the noble Lords, Lord Hughes and Lord Stow Hill. This was not the intention. As noble Lords will have noted before, this Amendment appeared before the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, but it has been altered in order to bring it into line with Lord Hughes' Amendment, so perhaps he may subsequently endorse the coupling of his name with this Amendment.
The point is perfectly simple, Clause 11 provides that certain persons—namely,

281
a body corporate, an undischarged bankrupt, and a firm according to the law of Scotland—shall be disqualified from being appointed as receiver. But it does not provide any sanction against a disqualified person who acts as a receiver in contravention of this provision. The Amendment repairs the omission. The penalties adopted in the Amendment are the same as those in Sections 366 and 367 of the Companies Act 1948 for the same offences under that Act in respect of receivers of English companies. I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: It was a pleasure to see my name on the same list as that of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, and nothing in what he has said about the Amendment in the slightest diminishes my pleasure.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 12, 13 and 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Powers of receiver]:
LORD DRUMALBYN: This is really a drafting Amendment, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 24. leave out ("over") and insert ("as respects").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 [Precedence among receivers]:
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 12, line 36, after ("charge") insert ("to such extent as may be necessary to enable the receiver second mentioned to exercise his powers under section 15 of this Act").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 7. Subsection (4) of Clause 16 provides that the powers of a receiver shall be suspended by the appointment of another receiver, and as from the date when that other receiver is appointed in respect of a floating charge which ranks higher than the floating charge in respect of which the first receiver was appointed. However, a part of the property subject to the lower ranking charge may not be subject to the higher ranking charge. The Amendment is designed to make it clear beyond doubt that the powers of the receiver
282
first appointed are suspended only in relation to the property subject to the higher ranking charge. The first receiver may continue to exercise his powers in relation to the property not subject to the higher ranking charge.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 17 to 20 agreed to.
Clause 21 [Disposal of interest in property]:
3.7 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 16, line 35, after ("to the purchaser") insert ("or disponee").
The noble Lord said: This clause gives a receiver dealing with property subject to an encumbrance the power to sell or otherwise dispose of that property free from the encumbrance. Where such a sale or disposal is carried out the receiver is required to issue a document of transfer to the recipient. As drafted, the clause refers to this recipient only as a purchaser. In the case of a disposal by the receiver other than by sale, the recipient will be not a purchaser but a disposee. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 22 to 27 agreed to.
Clause 28 [Interpretation of Part II]:
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 23, line 5, at end add:
("(4) Any default in respect of any of the provisions of this Part of this Act, which is punishable by fine alone, shall be prosecuted summarily, and the provisions of section 49 of the Companies Act 1967 shall apply in relation to the proceedings as they apply to proceedings for offences punishable by fine alone under Part I of that Act and under the Act of 1948, and any such fine shall be a maximum fine.")
The noble Lord said: A number of clauses of the Bill—for example Clauses 22(5) and 24(2)—make a person liable to a fine in the event of his failure to comply with the relevant provisions, but no provision has been made for the taking of legal proceedings. The Amendment provides that any default which is punishable only by a fine shall be prosecuted

283
summarily and in accordance with the provisions of Section 49 of the Companies Act 1967. That section deals broadly with the place at which proceedings may be taken and the limitation of time within which the action must be taken. The Amendment is essential to give effect to the penalty provisions in the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 28, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 29 and 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Interpretation]:
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 23, line 42, leave out second ("and") and insert ("or").
The noble Lord said: The definition of "ancillary document" in this clause refers to a document executed by the debtor and the creditor in the charge. In practice, documents which in some way affect the terms of a charge may be granted by either the debtor company or by the company's creditor. For example, a creditor might provide that subject to certain conditions the interest rate as provided for in the existing charge would in future be at a lesser rate. There is no practical reason why such a document should be executed by both parties. The clause as drafted imposes an unnecessary restriction by requiring an ancillary document Ito be executed by both the creditor and also the debtor. This appears to us to be unnecessary. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 24, line 28, at end insert ("'register of charges' means the register kept by the registrar of companies for the purposes of Part IIIA of the Act of 1948").
The noble Lord said: The expression "register of charges" which appears in Clauses 13(4), 14(4) and 22(5) has not been defined. It is necessary to repair this omission and to include a definition of the expression in this clause. The provision that the registrar shall keep a register of charges is in paragraph 106D(1) of the Schedule to the Bill. The Schedule will become Part IIIA of the Act of 1948. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.10 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 24, line 44, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment. No. 12. The subsection applies Section 440 of the 1948 Act to the provisions of the Bill. Section 440 does two things. First of all, it defines the meaning of any provision which states that
"a company and every officer of the company who is in default shall be liable to a default fine".
The meaning is that the company and every officer shall be liable to a fine of an amount not exceeding the sum specified in the provision for every day during which the default continues or, if no amount is specified in the provision, to a fine not exceeding £5 for every day during which the default continues. Secondly, Section 440 defines the term "officer who is in default". The clause makes the fine a continuing fine—that is, one for every day during which the default continues; and it provides a defence for officers of the company by stating that an "officer who is in default" means an officer who knowingly and wilfully permits or authorises the default. None of the penalty provisions in the Bill is in terms which would permit Section 440 to apply to it. When the penalty is a continuing one it is stated explicitly in the provision to be such a penalty; and where a defence is required. the defence is explicitly provided. For that reason, this provision is not required.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (AMENDMENT) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a and to be printed.
BETTING AND GAMING DUTIES BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
SUNDAY THEATRE (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.

BRITISH LIBRARY BILL [H.L.]
3.13 p.m.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (VISCOUNT ECCLES): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Viscount Eccles.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [The British Library]:
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 8, after ("books") insert ("including significant overseas publications").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1. The White Paper, in paragraph 3(a), says:
"The objective of the British Library will be to provide the best possible central library services for the United Kingdom. They include: preserving and making available for reference at least one copy of every book and periodical of domestic origin and of as many overseas publications as possible. The aim will be to provide as comprehensive a reference service of last resort as possible."
It is in order to follow those laudable words, with which I fully agree, that I submit that we should include the words in the Amendment; that after "books" we should insert "including significant overseas publications".
The 1967 Report on Libraries by the University Grants Committee defined the role of the National Library in the provisions of foreign literature as twofold. It said:
"It should attempt to be as wide-ranging as possible in its own stock, and should be the centre for the planning on a national scale for the fullest possible coverage of foreign literature."
The Dainton Committee examined the Farmington Scheme operated in the United States of America under the auspices of the Library of Congress, but concluded that this scheme would not
286
be suitable for this country. On the other hand, the Dainton Committee recommended that there should be a scheme, perhaps of more limited scope, for co-operative acquisition of foreign books to avoid duplication and to make the best use of our financial resources.
The noble Viscount the Paymaster General, when he addressed the International Federation of Library Associations in Liverpool last August, as reported in The Times of August 31,
"suggested that an international library service might be set up to facilitate acquisitions and lending between countries."
I fully agree with this. The noble Viscount also pointed out that the British Museum had arranged for the exchange of material with 299 official bodies in 82 countries, and that during 1970 the Museum received by exchange 311,000 official publications. For all those reasons, I believe that the words in the Amendment which stands in the names of myself and my noble friend Lady Lee of Asheridge should be included in the Bill.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: I have the same desire as the noble Lord opposite: namely, that the collections in the British Library should cover as many foreign publications as possible. We feel that line 3 of Clause 1(1) describes that adequately, because we there say:
"…consisting of a comprehensive collection of books, manuscripts, periodicals, films and other recorded matter, whether printed or otherwise."
I cannot conceive of any librarian anywhere who would not interpret "comprehensive" as covering "a large amount of foreign material".
The facts to-day are that if one takes the figures of the intake of books, maps, periodicals and newspapers into the British Museum, 25 per cent. only are the result of deposit by law, 75 per cent. are acquired, and of that 75 per cent. by far the larger proportion is foreign material. So what the noble Lords want is already happening. Therefore I do not think the Amendment is necessary. It will never be possible, as even the Library of Congress has discovered, to buy everything that is printed overseas. There is now just too much being published in Europe, Asia and America, and the volume goes up all the time. Therefore you have to proceed by selection of what

287
you actually buy, by co-operation among specialist libraries in this country, and by inter-lending between libraries in this country and overseas, all of which are obvious duties of the new Board. I hope, therefore, that we shall not try to spell that out in an Amendment.
Coming to the Amendment itself, it is defective in two respects. First of all, the Amendment says, "significant overseas publications" in relation to books only, whereas periodicals of course are equally as important as books when you arc making a national reference collection—as indeed, I suspect, some people will consider manuscripts, films and other recorded matter to be. Therefore we could not put it in where it is suggested, even if we thought in principle that it was right.
Secondly, what do we mean by the word "significant"? In point of fact the acquisition of foreign material by the British Library, or for that matter any other national library, is really conditioned by the amount of grant they get for acquisitions and how they want to split it between one type of acquisition and another. I do not think it would be a good thing to be able to refer to an Act of Parliament and say: "It is significant that you should buy this category of book rather than that category." That is why we shall be appointing the best people to manage the Library, not forgetting the acquisition department. Therefore I would ask your Lordships getting the acquisitions department. hensive collection, in any librarian's mind, covers "significant" overseas material.
LORD STRABOLGI: I thank the noble Viscount for that reply. Of course this is a probing Amendment—I do not pretend otherwise—and I accept what he says about its being defective. On the other hand, a manuscript is not a publication. It would not be very difficult to get it right, but the main thing is that the Government have accepted the principle of the matter. The noble Viscount cannot have it both ways. You cannot have a comprehensive selection and yet a selective intake of overseas publications, whether they be periodicals or books.
I also accept what the noble Viscount says about the Farmington scheme. I believe there are 300,000 titles being pub
288
lished all over the world every year and it is virtually impossible even for the United States to acquire all of them as they come out. On the other hand, I am very glad that this great effort is being made to acquire overseas publications—not only modern ones but older books as well, because I am afraid that there are considerable gaps in this category. The British Museum Library is almost complete so far as our own literature is concerned, as of course it would be from the copyright point of view, but it has considerable gaps in foreign books. I could list quite a number of some of the greatest novels in the world which are not included in their first editions in the British Museum collection. Also, I think it is right to say that research students now wishing to study, say, Western European or even English literature to a certain extent have to go to the United States. It was really to pinpoint this matter that I put the Amendment forward, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.23 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 13, after ("study") insert ("exhibition").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 2. When we debated the White Paper in March last year, the noble Viscount the Minister confirmed to me that there would be exhibition space in the new building, I was very glad to hear it. I am surprised, therefore, that the word "exhibition" has been omitted from the list of important functions envisaged for the Library in the Bill. I hope that the British Library will greatly extend its exhibition field and will do for the printed word what our museums and galleries have for some years now done for the visual arts by way of special exhibitions. I am thinking of much more ambitious exhibitions than the small more or less permanent shows in the King's Library of a few outstanding books, as for example the First Folio, the Kilmarnock Burns or the 1865 Alice.
The British Museum section of the exhibition on "Printing and the Mind of Man" was a splendid show. It showed a new trend, was catholic in its taste, intelligent in its choices of material

289
and extremely stimulating to view, and with it was produced a very fine and scholarly catalogue. There have been others recently, of course. There was a very interesting one last year on the Paris Commune Centenary, and also one devoted to children's books. I hope that this policy will be continued. For those reasons, I think it would be a great advantage to have the word "exhibition" in the Bill.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: Again I agree entirely with the objective of the noble Lord opposite, but this clause defines the principal functions of the Library and I think we must take exhibitions, if I may say so, as one of the "second eleven" functions—of which, of course, there would be many others, such as giving lectures, sales of reproductions, prints and postcards and, I suppose, even restaurants. In any case, we have covered exhibitions sufficiently, we think, in subsection (4) of this clause where we say that:
"The Board may … lend any item, and make any part of their collections, or of their premises, available in connection with events of an educational, literary or cultural nature."
That was deliberately put in to cover exhibitions, because these are, of course, of growing importance.
I would tell the noble Lord that in comparison with the totally inadequate space to which he has referred in the King's Library—which I must say is very well made use of, considering that it it not really what one wants—the new building will contain 2,500 square metres. I am afraid that I am not able to translate that into square feet but there will be 2,500 square metres of exhibition space, which represents an enormous improvement on what we have at present. I would agree with him that exhibitions which do more than simply place on view the main printings of an author's works are highly desirable. The new method, which I think was due to the Bibliothèque Nationale and the efforts of M. Julien Cain, who started by taking an author and then exhibiting everything to show how he had come to write the sort of things that he did write and the sort of pictures which lie had admired and so on, is a tremendously interesting and attractive way of mounting these exhibitions. I have no doubt at all that when space is available, as it will be in
290
the new building, that type of exhibition will be put on. I hope that the Committee will not want the word "exhibition" included here. It is already covered in Clause 1(4), and I do not think it is quite on a level with the major functions of the British Library.
LORD STRABOLGI: I thank the noble Viscount for that reply. I am sorry he thinks that exhibitions are part of the "second eleven". I should have thought they have a much more important function to play than that, but I am very glad to hear that the new building will have a great exhibition space of 2,500 square metres. As the noble Viscount said, there are difficulties with the King's Library; I have never measured the two but I do not think it is very much smaller than the room on the first floor of the Bibliothèque Nationale mentioned by the noble Viscount where they have these exhibitions arranged by M. Cain, the curator.
As the noble Viscount said, the French have in the years since the war put on the most notable exhibitions devoted to the centenaries or bicentenaries of their leading authors. I have a whole row of catalogues at home which are permanent works of reference. From the scholarly point of view and from the educational point of view this is the trend that we need to follow in this country. We have not even begun to touch on it, although the Victoria and Albert Museum did very well and had something much more up to the French standard with their exhibition devoted to Charles Dickens. I am sorry that the noble Viscount is not prepared to include the words in the Amendment. I should have thought that subsection (4) of Clause 1 was far too loose for this particular purpose; but, having made the point, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.31 p.m.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 13, leave out from ("bibliographical") to ("services") in line 14.
The noble Baroness said: I have every sympathy with the Minister and his advisers in seeking to draft a Bill covering so wide a field. My two Amendments are probing Amendments in order

291
that we may be quite sure that certain matters which are of immense interest to all of us are not excluded. For instance, the wording of subsection (2) reads:
"…'the British Library Board', whose duty it shall be to manage the Library as a national centre for reference, study and bibliographical and other information services, in relation both to scientific and technological matters and to the humanities."
It may be that those words meet completely what we have in mind; but we have put down these Amendments in order that the Minister should clarify the position. For instance, "scientific and technological matters" are squarely stated. After that we have, "and to the humanities". The question in our mind is this: what precisely is meant by "the humanities"? Are we thinking in a narrow sense, mainly in a literary sense, or by "the humanities" are we covering social services? In the modern world there is an immense amount of literature and study in the widest sense over the whole field of social services.
We are not in any way married to the words of our Amendment and we do not mean to press it; but we should like to be sure that when the Bill says, "and other information services", that phrase includes the wide field of social services as well as industrial, scientific and technological matters. If it would suit the convenience of the Committee I should like to move both those Amendments together because they arc completely interrelated.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: I am afraid that I can put only one Amendment at a time to the Commitee.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: In so far as this is a probing Amendment I have nothing particular to say about it; but the noble Baroness referred in particular to the social services, that twilight zone between the sciences and the humanities. I am concerned to be reassured that "other information services" would cover such things as abstracting services, one at least of which is carried out at the Library of the Natural History Museum and at Boston Spa in the shape of what is now largely a bibliographical service of the zoological record. That is dealt with by a private society, but in due course one would hope that it will
292
become the responsibility of the Library service. I should like reassurance on that matter from the noble Viscount, just as the noble Baroness wants reassurance with regard to the social services.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: Would it be for the convenience of the Committee if I referred first to Amendment No. 3 and then to the other Amendment which has been mentioned in both speeches so far? I am glad that the Amendment to leave out "bibliographical and other information services" is in the nature of a probing Amendment because this is an integral part of the British Library. It is for that reason that we are bringing in the British National Bibliography, and the information services that go with it. May I reassure noble Lords that we have no intention—at least I hope that the Board will have no intention—of duplicating any good information services that are in operation to-day. The problem of any museum or library is always the double duty of, on the one hand, making a collection of objects or books as comprehensive as possible, and, on the other hand, making that collection available to the public. You cannot make collections of books and printed material available to the public unless you provide bibliographical and information services.
There is the further point that as the cataloguing services become computer based—and we can see that this is going to happen—there will open up a whole range of information services to the public which we are not able to provide at present. I should think that noble Lords would consider this an integral part of the new institution which we are setting up. So I assume that that covers the first Amendment which was to leave out this function of bibliographical services and other information services, which seem to me to be part of the Library.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE:
The word "bibliographical" was left in. There is a misunderstanding. The phrase we were concerned about was, "and other information services". We wanted to be reassured that social services would be included.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: The noble Viscount misunderstood me. I was asking for a reassurance from him in

293
the opposite way to which he gave it me. I was hoping that the Library service itself would be ready to undertake the provision of abstracting services because the time is shortly coming when nobody else will be able to do it.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: I entirely agree with my noble friend; that is why we want this left in the Bill. I cannot pretend to foresee what technological developments will bring. My noble friend is probably right; some of the information services (and I was connected with the National Book League which on a shoestring ran a very good information service, replying to some 75,000 telephone calls a year) will have to be considered. There will come a time when we shall have to consider how these services can be rationalised.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: I do not wish to detain the Committee. I have already spoken on Amendment No. 4, and I beg to move it formally.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 15, at end insert ("and social sciences").—(Baroness Lee of Asheridge.)
VISCOUNT ECCLES: I received something of a shock last night because until then this Amendment had referred to "social services". Yesterday, noble Lords opposite, in their wisdom—and, if I may say so, very much for the better—decided to amend it to "social sciences". This is a very interesting point to which I should like to direct your Lordships' attention. It is necessary in this clause to define the main function of the British Library and then to state the subject matter in relation to which those functions are to be exercised. The words used in the Bill are:
"… in relation both to scientific and technological matters and to the humanities."
I have to admit that I was not content with those words because they perpetuate what I consider to be an unworthy and out-of-date attempt by certain persons, of great eminence, to split knowledge into the arts and the sciences. Of course there was a time when the scientists were struggling for recognition alongside the arts or the humanities, and I quite
294
understand that when one is working one's way upward to be recognised as the equal of the elder brother, things of this kind matter very much; one wants to be seen to be equal in public. But I had hoped that the rivalry between these two great sides of human knowledge was now dying down and that we had really begun to revert to the older conception of the universality of knowledge, and that the words in the Bill might relate to the whole of human knowledge. That is what I should have liked to have. But I was told that I must perpetuate the division because there were people who minded very much about it, and so we have the words in the Bill as they are.
Then along come the social sciences, and they say, "But we are a still further division in knowledge. The Bill refers to science and technological matters, and to the humanities, and we, the social sciences, wish to be distinguished as a branch of learning." I find it difficult to follow the argument because in my view the social sciences are a mixture of the two; they are not a separate category. So far as I can understand it, social sciences are humane because they are social and they are scientific because they are sciences, and therefore they are really subsumed under the two great categories which I regret we have to keep of science and technology, on the one hand, and the humanities, which cover everything.
The noble Baroness asked, "What do the humanities cover?" So far as I understand it, we have always accepted the humanities as covering everything that was outside, strictly, what are known as the various sciences. I therefore feel that it would be retrograde to go on splitting up knowledge into new categories. I should welcome it if the Committee would support me (I have no idea whether it would) in changing my own words to "the whole of human knowledge". But, failing that, we ought to stop at what has now become the accredited division between science, on one side, and the humanities or the arts, on the other. Therefore I should be sorry to see our going further in the direction of fragmentation of knowledge.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER:
It is a very unusual experience to be able to congratulate a noble Lord opposite on being ahead of his time. But I

295
gather from the noble Viscount's observations that he is now prepared to include the social sciences under scientific matters dealing with human subjects. I am entirely with him on this, but he is ahead of his time and ahead of public knowledge and public opinion. I think that the reason why we are asking for the social sciences to be separately mentioned is just to establish this very point: that it is possible to approach problems of human living and human relations in a scientific way. However, I do not think any of us wish to press this Amendment, and I merely hoped that I might take the opportunity of congratulating the noble Viscount on his recognition of the universality of human knowledge and of the application of scientific techniques and scientific methods to these human problems.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: I hope that the Minister has found the noble Baroness's speech as seductive as I have, and that he will respond completely in the spirit of it. We have no desire at all to have false divisions, but we do not want science or technology to be interpreted almost exclusively in relation to the very important subject of earning our living as a nation. There is also the problem of how people live. All kinds of human problems and human relationships are served by social services of many kinds. Provided we all agree that this is what is in our spirit, I do not think anyone would wish to press this Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

RAIL DISPUTE
3.45 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, with permission, I wish to repeat a Statement on the rail dispute that has been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment. The Statement is as follows:
296
"I can confirm to the House that so far to-day there has been a virtual resumption of normal rail services. If, as I hope, this situation continues during the evening rush hour, I expect so to certify to the Industrial Court later to-day.
"Immediately thereafter I shall be in touch with the parties to urge them to reopen their discussions as quickly as possible.
"I am sure the whole House will hope that now industrial action has been discontinued a settlement will be reached."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, I am sure that it would be your Lordships' wish that I should thank the Minister for repeating that Statement. May I add immediately that, so far as those on this side of the House are concerned, we share his hope that a settlement will be reached. May I take it, as he has not mentioned this in his Statement, that the facilities and the expertise of the Department of Employment will be made available to assist in the settlement? Moreover, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that my own view on this matter at the present stage is that the less that is said the better? I wonder whether he would sympathise with that point of view. In particular, I would ask him whether he will be kind enough to ascertain which Minister of the Crown is about to make a speech at the Conservative Central Office, and will he please ask him not to?
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, I am sure we are all greatly relieved to hear that normal rail services have now virtually been resumed, and I take it that that means that the famous "cooling-off" period will now shortly start. May I also say, however, that I hope that during this period nobody will jump in with unsolicited advice to the negotiators, but will leave them to get on with the negotiation? In general, I found myself entirely in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, in saying that during this period it is important to remember that the least said by everybody, the better.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am most grateful to both noble Lords for the way in which they have received this

297
Statement. I would agree right away with the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, that the less said the better at the present time. I can assure Lord Diamond that my right honourable friend is always ready to make available the facilities of the Department of Employment to assist in reaching a settlement, and I join with the noble Lord again in hoping that no provocative (if I may add a word), unsolicited advice will be offered at the present time. I am not quite certain that the last sentence of the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, did not nearly come into that category.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I ask a simple and harmless question? We have heard a great deal about the railway Rule Book. Is it possible for a copy of that book to be put in the Library of this House so that noble Lords may consult it from time to time?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I will make inquiries as to whether there is a copy at the Department of Employment. But perhaps it would be better to put that question to those who are in a position to make the book available.

BRITISH LIBRARY BILL [H.L.]
3.50 p.m.
Committee stage resumed.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 10, at end insert—
("Provided that in deciding whether or not to lend any such item and in determining the time for which and the conditions subject to which any such item is to be lent, the Board shall have regard to the interests of students and other persons visiting the national library, to the physical condition and degree of rarity of the item in question and to any risks to which it is likely to be exposed.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 5. As I said on Second Reading, I do not consider that the present wording of Clause 1(4) is satisfactory. The Minister conceded this and was good enough to say that he would look into the drafting to see whether it could be improved. All through the Easter Recess I watched eagerly for a Government Amendment, but as nothing appeared I thought it would be better if we put something down from this side of the Committee. Therefore, this Amendment stands in the name of my
298
noble friend Lady Lee and myself. It follows exactly the wording of Section 4 of the British Museum Act 1963.
I think it is necessary to have some regard to the risks to which rare items—and in some cases unique items—may be exposed. I know that we can have full confidence in the Board, but this wording is also designed to protect them, as the Trustees of the National Collection, from any possible Government pressure in the years ahead to make loans abroad, rather in the same way as we inserted in the National Gallery and Tate Gallery Act of 1954 a similar protection. In recent years we have seen such cases, particularly in France where the authorities at the Louvre were persuaded against their better judgment to send the Mona Lisa to New York. There have been other cases, and I think it is quite possible that, not this Government, but possibly some Government in the future might bring great pressure to hear on the authorities of the British Library to send very rare items which are national treasures to far-flung parts of the world because they are trying to reinforce some diplomatic approaches, or to "soften up" a possible trade deal. Therefore, I think there should be some such wording written into the Bill.
There is also the question of what loans should be made by a reference library and what should be the policy. Should the reference library loan only to special temporary exhibitions or should it make its books available to scholars in other libraries? I believe that there is now a new school of thought growing up that a reference library should circulate its hooks much more widely in this way. I may say that that is a view that I do not share, because the first principle of a reference library should be the needs of its readers, and if one cannot keep the collection intact it is a very dangerous principle. There is also the risk of damage in transit at the other end, and I think with the development of micro-filming it is increasingly easy to substitute photographs for original documents.
Therefore I have included two principles in this Amendment. First, that the Board of the British Library shall consider the interests of students and other persons visiting the reference library; and, second, that if they are

299
asked to loan a book, such as the Lindisfarne Gospels, which is a national treasure, they should take into account the degree of rarity and the importance of it before they agree to accede to the request. I beg to move.
LORD TREVELYAN: I should like to support this Amendment. The new Library Board will be engaged as a matter of course in lending from Boston Spa, which is the lending branch of the Library, and as the British Museum does now they will lend, under proper safeguards, to exhibitions. At the same time, it is extremely important that they should not lend from the existing British Museum Library, for the reason stated in this Amendment. It is important for students and other persons visiting the National Reference Library that they should know that they will find the book they want there and not that it has been lent to somebody in the Outer Hebrides. I think this is an important point. I have heard it suggested, for instance, that foreign books should be lent, under the new arrangements, from the British Museum Library. Therefore, I support this Amendment.
LORD IRONSIDE: The British Library, among other things, is visualised as being a body which lends books. In fact this is one of its prime objects and thus its powers to lend must be clearly stated, as I think they are in Clause 1 of the Bill, which also sets out the duties of the Board and the functions of the Library. I see that this Amendment also includes a point about preserving the interests of students. This appears to be covered in Clause 1, where the duty of the Board is laid out that it shall,
"… manage the Library as a national centre for reference, study and bibliographical and other information services …".
Therefore the interests of students are surely covered.
In looking at this particular problem of safeguards, particularly the safeguards applied to rarities or scarce articles, it is important to bear in mind the size of the problem relative to the general problem of handling standard loans, and I think that in these categories requests for loans, for one purpose or another, would be very small indeed and could be dealt with on an ad hoc basis or on their
300
merits. It would appear to me that the incidence of the problem is more likely to occur in the Humanities than in the Sciences. I imagine that there are fewer scientific than humanities rarities in the collections, although I could not say this for certain. Loans are transactions and the Board has powers to frame rules for transactions under paragraph 11(2) of the Schedule. To my mind this is quite proper, as in Clause 1 the Board has a duty to maintain and safeguard collections and also under paragraph 11(1) of the Schedule it is empowered to do the things which are necessary in this respect. This seems to me to be very clearly laid out.
As to the items which are transferred from the Trustees of the British Museum to the British Library Board, which is covered in Clause 3 of the Bill, it is my impression that these items are subject to a trust, in addition to any specific request which might be attached. Therefore, any item transferred by agreement automatically has a trust attached to it which is framed under the terms of the British Museum Act 1963. Surely the Board of the British Library is to be just as accountable to the nation as the Trustees of the British Museum—perhaps even more so as in many respects their duties go beyond those of the British Museum Trustees. To my mind, this Bill provides the necessary framework for the proper administration and I consider this Amendment to be superfluous, especially in view of the fact that Clause 1(4) already requires the Board to take adequate precautions to safeguard their collections. Therefore, I cannot see that this Amendment provides any protection where protection does not already exist.
LORD FLETCHER: I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, when he says that this Amendment is superfluous. I think it is necessary. I am not sure that this is the occasion to enter into a debate with the noble Lord as to whether or not the trusts imposed on the Trustees of the British Museum Library will be equally binding on those who are going to administer the British Library. I hope it may well be that those who administer the new British Library set-up under this Bill will regard themselves as bound by those trusts in

301
so far as they receive books and other documents emanating from the existing Library maintained by the Trustees of the British Museum. But it does not seem to me that that is so abundantly clear as to make it unnecessary for us to write this Amendment into the Bill, and I very much hope that it will be accepted by the Minister.
It seems to me that this Amendment involves a question of principle. It is perfectly true, as the noble Lord has said, that there is a reservation in subsection (4) of Clause 1 with regard to safeguarding the collections. But this is a different matter. One of the outstanding features and merits of the Library of the British Museum has always been that it is a reference library; any member of the public, student or otherwise, can always find there available for him any book that he requires, without risk of being told that that book has been lent and is not available. Therefore your Lordships will appreciate that in a real sense there is an inconsistency between the functions of a reference library and the functions of a lending library. It is perfectly proper that the interests of students should be observed in so far as they want to borrow books from some library or be able to obtain micro-filmed copies of the books in a reference library, but the essential feature of a reference library, and particularly of the British Library being set up by this Bill, is that the outstanding advantages of the Library hitherto maintained by the Trustees of the British Museum should be maintained and that it should continue to observe all the essential features of a reference library. Therefore, while when I first read the Bill I was a little disturbed by the fact that the Board would be given power to lend some books, I am perfectly prepared to accept that that provision should remain in the Bill provided that this Amendment as well as another Amendment which we shall come to later is incorporated in the Bill. Therefore, I strongly support the Amendment and hope it will be accepted.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: Your Lordships are divided about this Amendment. That I can understand because there really are several different aspects to it. The Bill as drafted did, we think, safeguard the collections: that is to say, it took care,
302
of the problem of risk to the collections if they were lent, they being rare objects. That was the only point in the noble Baroness's Amendment when it was first put down. But yesterday a second point which we have to consider was included in the Amendment: the interests of students and other persons visiting the British Library. Their interest of course is a different interest; it is not the safety of the objects from the point of view of their fragile nature or disintegration of the paper or whatever it may be. Their interest is that when they come to the Library what they expect to find, and know is in the catalogue, shall be there. This is a very important point. I expect that every noble Lord here has from time to time suffered a great deal of disappointment, having gone a long way, especially to the picture galleries in France, to find that in the place of a picture there is a little card saying that it is on exhibition in Paris. This is very annoying. I understand that.
My noble friend Lord Ironside speaks as a scientist, and there is no doubt at all that there is a big difference between scientific books and antiquarian books of a literary nature. The obsolescence of the scientific books is very high compared with that of books of literature. Not long elapses before someone has written a better book on a particular aspect of science and the original hook is out of date. Therefore, the scientist does not need to have the same regard for the First Edition of this or that book on this or that subject because he has got a better book. Therefore, I understand my noble friend's attitude, that in fact this clause is not necessary because the Board, being sensible persons, would do all that we want them to do with the Bill as it stands. On the other hand, I think the clause has been much improved by the introduction of the second point about the interests of students, and I should be glad to accept it.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am very grateful to the noble Viscount for accepting the Amendment, and to other noble Lords for their support.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [The Board]:
4.9 p.m.
LORD TREVELYAN LORD TREVELYAN moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 21, leave out ("one part-time member shall be a person") and insert ("two part-time members shall be persons").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 6. I must declare my interest as Chairman of the Trustees of the British Museum. This is a practical matter: the close connection of the Museum and the Library in future, apart altogether from the history of the Museum and the old connection of the Library with it, is not in question. This is in fact admitted in the Bill and it is implicit in the old argument about the site of the Library, for the central point of that argument was that the close connection between the Museum and Library must be maintained and there must be physical propinquity between the two. In addition to that, I am glad to know that it is intended that the King's Library with its books should remain in the British Museum; they are used quite a lot, and it will be necessary to have a physical connection, probably underground, between the Library and the Museum for that purpose. But there is another, special reason for the interest of the Museum being maintained in the Library in the initial stages; for the books now on the Bloomsbury site will remain there for at least 12 years, so it is absolutely essential that there should be adequate representation of the Trustees of the Museum, for there will be many questions which will arise during this period which intimately affect both the Museum and the Library. So far there is common ground.
The British Museum is entitled under the Bill to nominate anybody as their representative, but undoubtedly they will wish to be represented by one of their number. The Trustees of the British Museum are almost all, if I may speak with due modesty, men of great distinction in their professions and very fully occupied in their various avocations, and a number of them do not live in London. It will, in my opinion, be difficult if the Museum is only to be represented by one Trustee for their interest to be satisfactorily covered, particularly during the first 12 years. I notice that there is no provision in the Act for alternates. I do not
304
know whether legally that is required, but that would certainly make matters easier. The present provision will not, in my opinion, provide adequate representation in practice. Other learned bodies are not in the same position, though I understand the difficulties which might arise for the noble Viscount if the British Museum had two Trustees, because other learned bodies would probably then press for their own member of the Library Board.
As this is a practical matter I do not necessarily want the question to be solved in the way mentioned in this Amendment. There are a number of ways in which adequate representation can be arranged. For instance, the Secretary of State could nominate another member of the Trustees of the British Museum as well as the one nominated by them under this Act—especially during the interim period—or provision could be made for alternates. I would therefore be satisfied if the noble Viscount could assure us that he has this point in mind, that he considers it a reasonable one, and that he will look into the practical ways in which this question can be solved.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: I should like to say one word on this question because although I have not put an Amendment down to alter the constitution of the Board doubtless the noble Viscount has seen the submission which the Royal Society made to the Minister for Education and Science suggesting that science should be more expressly mentioned in this clause. I should like the same sort of reassurance that the noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, is asking for. I am quite certain that he is right in saying that for the first 12 years there should be a much closer connection between the Trustees of the British Museum as they are now and the Library, because a number of them have great experience in managing the British Museum Library and ought to be involved in the building up of the new one. I think that that is, as he said, preferable to having two representatives ab initio.
Those of us who are concerned with the management of the scientific side of this Library—and I think one must divorce the management, to the extent that one can quite reasonably talk of

305
the management of the scientific side and the management of the side which deals with the humanities—would entirely agree with what the noble Lord said, that the Library's specific objects should not be defined as being (a) scientific, (b) humanities, (c) social sciences, but with the sum total of human knowledge. So far as its objectives are concerned they are as one. During the debate on the White Paper I expressed my doubts as to whether it was right and proper to have two Reading Rooms, one for the sciences and one for the humanities, because I thought that that sort of divorce was undesirable. I think I was wrong there, because fundamentally when you get down to management slightly different techniques are involved. I think it is very important that when the Minister comes to choose the members of the Board he should remember that, and make it quite clear that he is going to keep the present Trustees closely in touch during the first 12 years. But from the very beginning he will need on the Board people with knowledge of the administration of a scientific library. As I tried to explain on Second Reading, the underlying techniques may very often differ, and it is important that there should be people on the Board with that sort of knowledge.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: I quite agree with my noble friend Lord Cranbrook that the administration of the scientific part of the Library is somewhat different, because the scientists require open access to a degree which the people using the arts books do not. I think it is fair to say that the way in which the National Reference Library for Science and Invention has been developed shows that the British Museum Trustees are fully aware that there is a separate technique. However, we can perhaps come to that on the next Amendment.
I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, that it is absolutely essential, especially during the long period of transition when the new buildings are being erected, that there should be every possible form of co-operation between the British Museum Trustees and the new Board, and I give him the undertaking that, in one way or another, I will see that the British Museum Trustees are represented at every Board meeting; and we can have various other schemes of
306
co-operation that we could work out between us. I am certain that we can come to arrangements which would be just as satisfactory as having two part-time members—and I find that difficult for the very reasons which he himself gave. We are not trying to establish a board of trustees; we are trying to establish a comparatively small board of management. Therefore in the few places that are open for part-time members it will be necessary for the Secretary of State to think very carefully about the kind of experience which is required.
If we have these part-time members appointed by outside bodies, they would not necessarily take into consideration the particular needs of the Board itself. They would perhaps be more likely to put on one of their members who was interested in another aspect of the Library, which might already be covered on the Board. Therefore I think it is important that we stick to the principle that all members of the Board should be appointed by the Secretary of State, excepting in the two really special cases. One is that of the King's Library; and Her Majesty will appoint a part-time trustee with the interest of that great Library in mind. The other is continuity with the British Museum itself. If we keep to that, we can stick to the Board as a management body, which is what I believe a modern great Library of this kind requires. I hope that, in view of the fullest assurance that I have given to the noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, and his colleagues that we will make these arrangements work, he will agree to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD TREVELYAN: In view of the assurance given to me by the noble Viscount the Paymaster General, that he will ensure that the British Museum Trustees can be adequately and physically represented at all times on the new Library Board, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.18 p.m.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 23, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 7. If we read the clause we find that it sets out a category

307
of persons to whom the Secretary of State shall give preference:
"those who appear to him to have knowledge and experience of library or university affairs, finance, business or administration."
Even if a later Amendment is accepted substituting "industry" for "business" I am still puzzled why this subsection should be included. Taking, for instance, the words experience of library or university affairs", does "university" specifically include technical colleges, primary schools, and the whole field of education from the nursery to the postgraduate? When the word "university" is specifically used with reference to education, is it a limiting word or an all-inclusive word? Then we come to the word "business". Precisely what does that mean? Does it mean representatives of managements of businesses great or small; representatives who have a great knowledge of the very important subject of leading and managing people who work in industry, such as those on the trade union side?
I was entirely in sympathy with the Minister when he rejected the idea of putting knowledge into separate categories, but I believe that the same logic applies about not having a list of certain fields of activity. If by including this list we are being exclusive, then it is better that it should not be put into the Bill. But if we intend to translate the various fields mentioned in the widest possible way, then the list becomes all-inclusive and therefore unnecessary. No one thinks that a Minister in his senses will appoint someone whose entire interest is in, say, bingo or polo, though bingo is big business and is not excluded. I really think that this is a silly subsection. It is quite unnecessary if the words are to be all-inclusive; it is dangerous if they are to be limiting in any sense; and it is particularly dangerous when we are planning great libraries which we hope will go far beyond any of our lives into completely new fields.
We have talked about microfilms. There was some mention on Second Reading of the fact that the Library might have an archive for films. There are so many uncertain things about the future. If my noble friend Lord Bernstein remains hale and hearty, he may represent films or something else. I am trying to stress the
308
point that this subsection is unnecessary if it is all-inclusive, and rather dangerous if at some future time it can be used to exclude some field of activity which we want to include. In making his appointments a Minister ought to be free to range over a wide field, and a little common sense, taking into account the needs of the time, would be a much surer guide to him than the retention of this subsection.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD DERWENT): I must point out to the Committee that if this Amendment is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 8.
BARONESS WHITE: I should like to support my noble friend for the reasons which she gave in moving this Amendment, because to include this subsection in the Bill—which I know is common form—could lead to some undesirable effects. I do not suppose that it would lead to the undesirable effect that no woman could be appointed. But it was used as an argument in another place only last week that, because of certain provisions in other Statutes, it had been found quite impossible to appoint women to various public boards because they did not quite fulfil the qualifications laid down.
As my noble friend has pointed out, this list is by no means all-inclusive. She mentioned films, which had occurred to me. There might also be the question of recorded sound. We have one institution concerned with films and another concerned with recorded sound. We are legislating for the future and either of those establishments might at some point be brought into collaboration, at least, with the British Library. Someone who was an expert in the fields of either films or recorded sound, but who was not necessarily a librarian or connected with a university, or who was not even an administrator, might still be a very valuable person to appoint to the Board. My noble friend is quite right in what she said. If these words are meaningful, then they can be dangerous. If they are meaningless, why should we include them in the Statute? Therefore, I hope that the noble Viscount will feel disposed to omit them.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: It is a little difficult to know what noble Lords

309
opposite really think about Ministers, because when we were discussing the previous Amendment they said that Ministers could not be trusted not to exercise political pressure to get valuable objects lent to their friends abroad. So we had to write into the Bill words to restrain Ministers from behaving in the way they wanted to behave. In this case, almost the whole Board will be appointed by the Secretary of State, and if we write nothing into the Bill we shall be showing a touching faith in Ministers. I accept the compliment and I think it is remarkable. But I wonder whether people outside this House, and outside political circles, would feel a certain uneasiness about an institution which is of such tremendous importance to a range of very different interests if we did not give in the Bill some indication of the kind of people for whom we expected the Secretary of State to have preference.
The subsection does not state that all members of the Board must be appointed because they have certain experience, but states simply that the Secretary of State "shall give preference to" those who appear to him to have knowledge and experience of certain aspects of life. I know very well that there would be great uneasiness in industry—and if my noble friend Lord Trevelyan moves the next Amendment, assuming that this one is not carried, I shall of course accept it—if it felt that there were not some words in the Bill to show that its interests would be represented, or at least (because it is not certain), had a very good chance of being represented, on the Board. Library and university affairs appear to me quite essential because the interests of the scholars, which are very important, are apt to be lost sight of under the enormous pressures of scientists, technologists, engineers and so on.
I think it is right to include this list. I do not claim that it is perfect—it is not—but it is an indication of the fields of experience where one hopes the Secretary of State would look for a suitable Board member. Therefore, I do not think we should delete the subsection and leave it entirely to every future Secretary of State to make any kind of appointment that he or she likes. It is better to say, "This is rough drafting. It is
310
a rough list of what we want, and we would rather have it in the Bill than not."
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: We do not intend to press this Amendment to a Vote, but I would ask the Minister to look at it again before Report stage. He made a point about someone in industry feeling a little uneasy if industry were not specifically mentioned. I did not get a clear reply about the field of education, but someone whose interest in education was widespread and profound, but who was not specifically attached to the work of universities, might also ask, "Why am I not mentioned specifically?". There are a whole number of cases like that.
The Minister was extremely ingenuous—and he knows it—when he suggested that a Minister lived on a lonely pinnacle, and that in making appointments to our great boards of trustees and so on he was indulging in purely private caprice. We know the conventions of the British Constitution—and I think they are very good conventions. We know that Ministers consult their most senior and experienced civil servants in these particular fields. We also know that there is consultation with colleagues; and that when a new member is added to an existing board then in courtesy the chairman of the board and the members of the board are consulted. It is not a case of dictatorship coming either from the side of the board or from the side of the Minister. It is a consensus, a gathering together. So I know the Minister did not mean his first point to be taken too seriously, but I hope he will take seriously that some members of this Committee feel that this is a rather fatuous subsection and that it would be better left out.
4.31 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: I should like to support what the noble Baroness has just suggested, that the Minister should look at this again. I must say that I was not greatly impressed by his argument for retaining this provision. Indeed, he suggested that it was not by any means perfect. It is a limiting provision, as the noble Baroness has pointed out; and the noble Viscount himself, in an earlier intervention, indicated that we are concerned only with rather a small number of people. If he has to give preference,

311
as the subsection requires, to these various sorts of people, then he is limiting himself, I would have said, very seriously. I do not like the word "preference". I agree with him that there is something to be said for indicating the sort of interests which should be considered in this connection, but accepting the obligation to give preference to quite a substantial number of interests of this kind is, I think, altogether unduly limiting. I am sure there is a better way out of this than this subsection, and I hope that the Minister will find it, as I am sure he can.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: This wording is, of course, common form. In the legislation relating to the Gas, Steel and Transport Boards, the National Research and Development Corporation and other national institutions which provide national services in the same way as this one will do, there is a provision defining the categories of experience to which the relevant Minister should look. If we did not have this in the Bill, we should be doing something new in relation to this kind of institution. Therefore, though I am prepared to look at it again, I have very grave doubts whether it would commend itself to Parliament as a whole that the Secretary of State should be left with an absolutely blank cheque. I am not saying that one could not find Secretaries of State who would make the appointments perfectly well, but I think Parliament might say that it would prefer to have something in the Bill. As I have said, I will look at the point again, but I cannot give any assurance.
LORD FLETCHER: Would the Paymaster General, in looking at it again, verify whether, as he said just now, there is a precedent for this form of words? My recollection is that there are Acts which have words to the effect that, in making appointments, the Secretary of State or the Minister concerned shall "have regard to" persons with particular experience. But, speaking subject to correction, I think it is a matter which requires verification as to whether there is a precedent for using the words "shall give preference to" persons of one category or another, as distinct from giving the Minister responsible for the appointment appropriate guidance as to the kind of persons whose experience should qualify them for appointment.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD TREVELYAN LORD TREVELYAN moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 26, leave out ("business") and insert ("industry").
The noble Lord said: I will not repeat the arguments on this point put forward by several noble Lords on Second Reading. "Business" is an unsatisfactory word. What we want is a man with experience of industry, particularly in the light of the close connection of the Science Library with patent work. I am very glad to hear from the noble Viscount that he is prepared to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: I am very glad to accept this Amendment. I am quite sure that "industry" is a better word than "business".
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT ECCLES VISCOUNT ECCLES moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 35, leave out ("incidental powers and staff") and insert ("and incidental powers, to the employment of staff and the terms and conditions of their employment").
The noble Viscount said: This is simply a paving Amendment to enlarge a phrase in this clause in order that it can cover an addition to the Schedule which, if your Lordships agree to such an addition, will spell out our obligation to the staff of the British Museum and the other constituent parts of the British Library. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedule [The British Library Board and its Advisory Councils]:
4.36 p.m.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 5, line 17, at end insert ("provided that, except for a whole-time member, this is not for an aggregate period of more than seven years").
The noble Baroness said: Your Lord-ships will observe that in this Amendment I am seeking to make a distinction between whole-time members of the

313
Board. Obviously, whole-time members, salaried members, who are working for the Board, who are giving their entire energies to the Board, need continuity of service. But as the Schedule now stands it says:
"A member of the Board who ceases to be a member, or ceases to be chairman, shall be eligible for re-appointment."
If that includes the part-time members of the Board, it could mean that not only the full-time, salaried employees but also part-time members could serve indefinitely. I am not persuaded that that would be in the interests of the Library. The Library obviously needs a superb staff serving it at every level. It obviously needs some full-time members of the Board. But, in addition to that, for this great Library, as for our museums and galleries and for almost all our public services, an invaluable element is introduced by part-time members coming in from the outside world and giving their services—still keeping a good deal of their energies in other fields—serving for a period, and then there being a refreshment of the Board by other people coming in and taking their place. I see the noble Lord, Lord Clark, is in his place. He served as a most distinguished chairman of the Arts Council for a considerable time. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, may appear at any moment, and he is finishing a seven-year stint. But I think anyone who has had great experience, whether it is on the arts side or on the libraries and museums side, would say that it is a good thing to have the refreshment of new blood coming in. I have put down an extremely moderate Amendment, because all I am saying here is,
"provided that, except for a whole-time member, this is not for an aggregate period of more than seven years".
I beg to move.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: I quite agree that one would not want to have a Board on which there were a number of what one might call professional part-timers who came on and stayed on. But this is not a self-perpetuating board. There are some boards where the trustees are able to appoint or to co-opt members of their own choice and they can go on appointing the same ones. But in this case every appointment is to be made by the Secretary of State. It appears to me fairly cer
314
tain that the Secretary of State, not having a great many part-time places to fill, will look around for men and women with considerable experience. They are likely to be middle-aged and it is not very probable that the period of seven years would be too short for the kind of service that they would wish to give to the institution. But there can be exceptions. I can readily conceive of someone not of a very advanced age but who is deeply concerned in books and printed material (it may be a great collector, it might be a publisher; but someone who is outstanding in the aspect of this world in which they have their own job) who says, "I will serve as a part-time member." If you have to say that in no case—and that is what this Amendment says—can you renew the membership of a man or woman after a period of service of seven years you might lose some really very valuable people.
I hope that my old friend will not take it amiss, but let us take the example of Sir Mortimer Wheeler. It would have been terrible to have lost the possibility of having his services over a very much longer period than seven years. I do not think anyone can say that it would be at all easy to find anyone to replace him in the particular field of archæology in which he is so acknowledged an expert. I do not think that we ought to put into legislation a rule which stops us from re-appointing anybody who shows a really exceptional ability—and the Secretary of State will be there to be the judge. Therefore, I do not feel that to accept this Amendment would improve the Board. If it did so, I would accept it. In nine out of ten cases the part-time member will already be someone of middle age with considerable experience. In the tenth case it may be that you will find somebody younger who is already very distinguished and you will be only too glad to have him or her for 10 or 15 years on the Board. If we accept the Amendment this would not be possible. I recommend that we leave the subsection as it is.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: I see the skill with which the Paymaster General has shifted his ground. He tells us now that it is the Minister who should be left to be the judge in a matter of this kind. I take the point. At one

315
moment the Minister must not be allowed; at the next moment the Minister's judgment and common sense can be trusted. We are not pressing this Amendment to a Division, but we have put it down very seriously because we should like it to be the spirit of the Bill that it would be an exceptional case where the part-time member of the Board would be asked to continue beyond this very considerable period of seven years. We should not like an atmosphere in which it was considered a kind of downgrading for a part-time member of the Board who had served three or five years to be replaced. Rather, we want it to be the case that if someone is asked to serve it is because here is an exceptional person in exceptional circumstances and because when we looked around the world of scholarship there were no other claimants who could equally well refresh the Board by their services. If the Minister were to accept what we said in that spirit, I should beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 6, line 1, leave out paragraph 6.
The noble Baroness said, This Amendment is one that I regard very seriously. Your Lordships will see that paragraph 6 deals with the disqualification for membership of the House of Commons. We know that Members of another place are not allowed to occupy offices of profit under the Crown. I believe that we can get round this by amending this legislation in such a way that while full-time members of the Board must be paid salaries, the part-time members of the Board should receive only expenses or allowances. We should then avoid doing something which I think would be very serious indeed; namely, excluding from the Board Members of the other place, whatever their qualification. I do not think that it would be a good thing if the elected Chamber in our country was made up entirely of full-time serving Members of Parliament. I think its status and usefulness are enhanced when it contains a considerable number of persons who retain their outside interests. Further, it would surely be in the interests of the British Library to have in the other place
316
an advocate who is informed, who is able to ask questions, able to speak and aided in doing his duty in the other place because he has an intimate, up-to-date and detailed knowledge of the working of the Library.
If I were concerned only with seeing that the rights of Members of another place were not lost, that in my view would be sufficient reason for moving this Amendment. But, in addition, I do not think it is a good practice for part-time members of a board to be paid salaries. If we are talking about full-time members, we know precisely what we are asking them to do; for they are working full-time. When we come to part-time members there is a difficulty. What does "part-time" mean? Does it mean attending a board meeting occasionally, perhaps for one or two or three days a week? Would it be compulsory? We could get into great difficulties. For all those reasons, I think it would be in the interests of the Library, and would strengthen the Bill, if the paragraph on disqualification for membership of the House of Commons (and I will come to the other point later) were omitted.
LORD FLETCHER: As the Bill now stands, it provides in paragraph 5 of the Schedule that the Board shall pay to the members of the Board
"such remuneration and allowances as the Secretary of State may determine".
There was on the Marshalled List an Amendment to that provision limiting its application to the whole-time members. That Amendment was not moved. Had it been moved I might have supported it. But as the Bill now stands, it seems to me that the Board, in all probability, will wish to make some payment by way of remuneration to all members of the Board, whether they are whole time or part-time, and I imagine that most of those who are invited to become part-time members might, not unreasonably, expect some remuneration. That being so, one has to consider whether it is appropriate to include the Library Board in the Schedule to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957.
It so happens that I had a certain amount to do with the preparation of that Act. It was based on a number of Reports and involved a very exhaustive consideration of those offices of

317
one kind or another, paid or unpaid, which should, quite properly as a matter of public policy, exclude from membership of the House of Commons. Your Lordships will remember that prior to 1957 the law on the subject was very obscure and produced a number of anomalies. Therefore that Act was based on a very comprehensive review of the whole subject. Sorry as I am to disagree with my noble friend Lady Lee of Asheridge, I am bound to say, recollecting the discussions which took place at that time, that I should have thought that on principle if the philosophy that actuated the preparation of that Schedule were applied, it would not be right to do otherwise than, as the Bill now provides, make membership of this Board a ground for disqualification.
4.53 p.m.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: I also greatly regret having to disagree with my noble friend but I think that she is proposing something which goes back very much on existing practice. It is a very common practice now that some remuneration should be paid to the members of boards and public bodies. The B.B.C, the I.T.A. and nearly all the boards of nationalised industries include part-time members who receive some remuneration. I appreciate that this normally excludes Members of the other place but, much as one wishes Members of the other place to have outside interests, I think experience shows that the outside interests have to be compelling in order to get their fair share of attention from the Members of the other place who are so fully occupied by their pressing duties in their House. I know that the noble Baroness has not moved the Amendments about remuneration, but I understand that they are tied up with this Amendment and therefore it is perhaps not out of order to speak to them. I should very much regret if a decision were made that members of this body should be an exception to the fairly well established rule that some modest remuneration is paid.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: I hope that, before we come to the Report stage, we shall give serious consideration to the position of Members of the other place. If this point is not cleared up in your Lordships' House, I think that it will certainly be raised in the other
318
place. I see the varying points of view, and I accept what has been said about remuneration by my noble friend, Lady Wootton of Abinger. But remuneration may be given in different forms. If it is given in the form of a salary it excludes Members of another place. If it were given in the form of expenses—as happens in the case of anyone, for instance, who travels from Inverness to attend meetings of the Arts Council—it would not exclude Members of the other place. I hope that we shall look at the methods of payment to part-time members in such a way as to take into consideration something about which I feel very strongly; namely, that if there are suitable applicants from the elected Chamber they should not be excluded just because of the method of remuneration.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: I understand what the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge, feels about the disqualification of Members of another place, of which, I am happy to say, both she and I were once Members. But we have had the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Fletcher, and I am glad that he spoke because I suppose that he had more to do with the House of Commons Disqualification Act than any other noble Lord. I have looked at the Act and I was much impressed by the very long list of bodies to which the disqualification of membership of the other place applies. I do not wish to weary your Lordships by referring to them all, but there are bodies like the University Grants Committee. I tried to find bodies which seemed to have some sort of relationship to the area about which we are now talking: the British Film Fund Agency; the Commission for Industrial Relations; the Commonwealth Development Corporation; the Community Relations Commission and the Consumer Council. The names of the bodies occupy three pages of the Schedule to the Act; and, of course, additions are made every year.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I wonder whether the Minister realises that he mentioned the Consumer Council, which his Government abolished.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: I know; but the Consumer Council was a body on which one might have expected Members of

319
Parliament to serve, yet they were disqualified. And no doubt there will be other such bodies which will arise and, in their turn, disappear.
The noble Baroness did not move Amendment No. 11 which was concerned with the payment of part-time members. Therefore, as the Bill stands, and as we should like it to remain, part-time members may be paid at the discretion of the Secretary of State. I have a list (it relates to November 1, 1969, the latest issued) of members of public boards. It is Cmnd. 4245, and it shows that in every case now where there are part-time members they are paid. This has become a common practice. Indeed, I think that the sort of life we live to-day calls increasingly for people of experience to do more than one job. It may well be that one would miss somebody if one were not able to offer a modest salary, in addition to expenses. That is a very important point when considering the problem of the disqualification of Members of another place.
The second point I would bring to the notice of your Lordships is that, as I said before, this is a small management board which we hope to set up. Because of the range of subjects which the British Library will have to cover, with all the problems connected with collections and reference and scholarship; the problems arising from lending to the different classes of user; the large problems connected with the improvement of the techniques of library services; and the very considerable international problems, which will probably increase all the time, it will be a board on which, as I see it, part-time members will have to serve on committees and will have to do some real work. There will be so much work involved, on such a variety of subjects. Therefore I do not think that this is the kind of board on which someone who was primarily engrossed in another job could serve. I do not think that such people could very easily give the time. I feel fairly sure that if the right organisation is to do it (I do not know whether the parallel is correct), it will be something like the Bank of England where the part-time members do a considerable amount of committee work. Therefore, on the ground that it is almost certain that the precedent which is now well established
320
will be followed and the part-time members will be paid a salary, and on the ground, as I hope, that these part-time members will be prepared to give a considerable amount of time to the work, I think it is right that we should maintain the disqualification as in the provision that we are now discussing.
BARONESS LEE OF ASHERIDGE: I am afraid that I am not convinced. I think it will be a sad day for this country when we do not have the tremendous amount of unpaid voluntary service which we have in so many fields. I can remember that when the National Health Service was introduced there were all kinds of able and highly qualified people who were giving a good deal of their time to the maintenance and care of hospitals. When the service started they had the wrong idea that their help would no longer be required. But we owe an immeasurable debt for all kinds of voluntary service in local authority work, and I think it is good for the community and the individual that there should be fields where, if people have the time, energy, specialist knowledge and concern, they should offer their services. However, at the moment it looks as if my point of view is in a minority in this Committee. We shall have further time to discuss this at a later stage, and I am certain that it will be debated at considerable length when it goes to the other place. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.2 p.m.
LORD TREVELYAN LORD TREVELYAN moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 6, line 40, at end insert—
("Provided that the disposal of all articles specified in section 3(1)(a) of this Act shall be subject to the conditions imposed by section 5 of the British Museum Act 1963 on the disposal by the Trustees of the British Museum of objects vested in them and comprised in their collections.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 17. This relates to the powers of the Library Board to dispose of books and manuscripts which are now in the collections of the British Museum. On Second Reading, I expressed the view that the Board should have full discretion on this matter, on the principle that you appoint a good Board and then trust it to behave sensibly. But I have since

321
consulted my colleagues on the Board of Trustees of the British Museum, some of whom feel strongly about it, and I think there are good arguments for changing my view.
I should like to explain the effect of this Amendment. It means that the power of disposal of the books and manuscripts at present in the collections of the British Museum remains as at present; that is to say, in terms of the British Museum Act, 1963, that the Board can dispose of a book or manuscript taken over from the Museum only if it is a duplicate, or made after 1850 and can be photographed, or is unfit to be kept in the collection and can be disposed of without detriment to the interests of students. That, I feel, is a reasonable provision, and I think that the Board would welcome it, particularly because the Trustees have found it to be a useful defence against various pressures put on them from time to time to give away articles from their collections. This will increase public confidence that these great collections will be preserved as a national heritage. I hope that the Government will agree to accept this Amendment which is parallel to the Amendment on lending which has already been accepted.
LORD STRABOLGI: I should like to support this Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, and I, too, hope that the Government will accept it. I am very much opposed on principle to museums being able to dispose of objects, although, as the noble Lord has said, we can have full confidence in the Trustees and the Boards. I think that the British Museum is probably a special case. I am glad that the National Gallery and the Tate Gallery have not the right to dispose. I suppose that in the 'thirties they would have disposed of many of their Victorian paintings, because the Bloomsbury Group taught us to despise them. Now we do not think much of the Bloomsbury Group, but of course revere Victoriana. The British Museum is, I feel, a special case. We debated this at length at the time of the British Museum Act 1963. As the noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, has said, I think that the section in that Act is about right, and it is important that this should be included in the present Bill.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: I do not think that either of the two noble
322
Lords who have spoken on this Amendment realise its full implications, because the disposal of objects in the collections and otherwise of the British Museum under the 1963 Act was dealt with not only in Section 5 of the Act, to which the noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, referred, but also in Section 9, which deals with the transfer to other institutions. On Second Reading, I ventured to draw the attention of your Lordships to a number of manuscripts which are now held at Bloomsbury, and which I think in the interests of students should be transferred to another national institution. I rather think that if we qualify the powers given to the Board under Clause 11(3) by Section 5 of the 1963 Act it will mean that we shall have to move an Amendment at the Report stage carrying forward Section 9 of the 1963 Act, which, as I have said, refers to transfer to other institutions, in order to regularise the position.
LORD TREVELYAN: I suggest that this is really a different point. It is one which has not come to my notice before. I personally should support the idea that Section 9, if it is found to be legally necessary, should be continued, but I think it should be considered separately from the Amendment that I have moved, perhaps on the Report stage.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: As a generality, I entirely support the noble Lords, Lord Trevelyan and Lord Strabolgi.
LORD FLETCHER: I have not the text of the British Museum Act 1963 before me, and no doubt the Paymaster General has, but he will recollect, as I do, that when we were considering the 1963 Act in another place considerable thought was given to this matter. I do not think that anybody then disputed the desirability of including Section 5 in the Act of 1963. It was done for very good reasons and, if my recollection holds, the Paymaster General was in support of it, as I was. Desirable as is this present Bill—and we all welcome it—it is difficult to imagine any grounds that have arisen since 1963 which make it any more acceptable now than it was then that either the Trustees or the new Board should be released from the conditions which Parliament then thought fit to impose.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: When I saw that my noble friend Lord Cranbrook was present I was certain that the other part of the 1963 Act would be mentioned. First, may I say that I am convinced by the arguments of the noble Lords, Lord Trevelyan and Lord Strabolgi, that it is right to do as they wish and carry forward into this Bill the section from the British Museum Act 1963. I feel sure that the Board would have recognised this inheritance, and would not have tried to dispose of property which they had had transferred to them from the British Museum in this way; but I think it is right to put it into the Bill, and I gladly accept the Amendment.
As to whether on Report stage we should incorporate Section 9 of the 1963 Act, perhaps I should remind your Lordships of what that section provides. It gives the British Museum Trustees now, and would give the British Library Board in the future, power to transfer certain objects to the Natural History Museum, in which my noble friend Lord Cranbrook is much interested. The question whether these books and objects that belonged, I think, to Sir Joseph Banks, should or should not be transferred has been discussed for many a year and will no doubt go on being discussed. We will look at this point and if it seems desirable we will also include on Report stage Section 9 of the British Museum Act. However, I am not absolutely sure about this and I should like to discuss it with the noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, and the Trustees of the British Museum before giving an absolutely definite assurance.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: I hope that the noble Viscount will also discuss the matter with the Trustees of the Natural History Museum.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.11 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI LORD STRABOLGI moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 7, line 15, at end insert—
("(4) Civil servants and staff of the British Museum who are transferred on the appointed day to the British Library will retain terms and conditions which correspond, as nearly as the circumstances permit, to those of the Civil Service. These conditions will not be varied in the future without the agreement of the recognised staff associations.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 20. On Second Reading I pointed out that the White Paper, in paragraph 15, contained conditions about transfers of staff but that there was nothing in the Bill. The noble Viscount promised to look into it, and I see that since then the Government have put down Amendment No. 21, which the Committee will be considering in due course. My own feeling is that Amendment No. 21 does not go far enough and therefore I am moving my own. The creation of the British Library requires for all practical purposes the compulsory transfer of civil servants and the staff at the British Museum to a new employer. For the civil servants it is a compulsory transfer out of the Civil Service. For the British Museum staff, who have always enjoyed conditions identical to those in the Civil Service, it is a compulsory transfer to another organisation in which, as things stand, they may or may not have Civil Service conditions in the future.
None of the staffs concerned, of course, has sought these transfers. Notwithstanding that, the associations representing the staffs have, I understand, adopted a very positive and constructive attitude to the proposed British Library. The one thing they have asked for in exchange is that the staffs they represent shall not be worse off in the future than they would have been if they were not compulsorily transferred to the new organisation. The most practicable way to achieve the staff associations' request is for the Government to agree that Civil Service conditions will continue to apply to the staff of the British Library after it has been created. That is why the Amendment has been drafted in the way it has been.
So far the Government have agreed that the conditions will apply at the date of the transfer, to which the noble Lord will come in his Amendment, but in my submission that does not meet the fundamental point. It may be held that the objection to my Amendment is that its acceptance would mean tying the hands of the new employing authority on the future conditions and terms of employment of their staffs. But it is clearly provided in the Amendment that the future conditions of employment can be varied from the Civil Service conditions by agreement between the new employer

325
and the appropriate staff associations. This formula, I submit, safeguards the staff yet makes it clear that departures from Civil Service conditions can be made when both parties agree. As time goes by and mutual confidence is established, I have no doubt that the two sides will be able to agree on such departures when they are appropriate and sensible. I would remind the Committee that similar arrangements have worked well in, for example, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority and the Natural Environment and Science Research Councils set up in 1965.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: The British Library, of course, is going to afford wider career opportunities for librarians and also more opportunities for promotion. Therefore I think the way in which the staff have received the idea of this great integration of these four parts is understandable. None the less it is very welcome. In our discussions with them, the staff have been extraordinarily co-operative and I should like to place that on record.
It is not really possible for me to discuss this Amendment unless I refer to the alternative one which I have put down, so I hope that your Lordships will not mind if I do that. There are two things which we want to do and which also form the purpose of the noble Lord's Amendment. The first is to see that on transfer the conditions offered by the British Library to those employees, some civil servants and some not, who come into their service are no worse than the conditions they had before. We have already given an undertaking in that regard, and we spell that out in the first part of my Amendment: that is also what the noble Lord does in his. However, the first sentence of the Amendment we are now considering is a little too narrow and I think probably that on reflection noble Lords will agree that it is covered better in subsection (1) of my Amendment.
Then we come to the second sentence of the noble Lord's Amendment:
"These conditions will not be varied in the future without the agreement of the recognised staff associations."
That, of course, is going further than we have gone before. It is one thing to assure all these people—which we certainly intend to do—that their conditions
326
will be at least as good, taken as a whole, on transfer as they were before; but it is another thing to give the staff associations the right of veto on any change, in however long a future, in their conditions of work. This, I think, would not be a wise approach—I hope that your Lordships will agree—to introduce into an institution of this kind or, indeed, any other institution. Therefore when we come to my Amendment you will not find the future mentioned. What I am doing is what I feel we must do—that is, to give a guarantee for here and now. As the years pass, and there are rises in salaries, changes in grades and all that sort of thing we simply cannot give the staff associations (indeed we do not do this in any other institutions, so far as I am aware) a complete veto as to whether or not a proposal of the Board should be accepted. I must tell the Committee that we are not able to accept this Amendment, but in the following Amendment all that we have been asked for, and all that we have done, in other cases is provided.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am disappointed that the noble Viscount cannot accept my Amendment. As he said, and indeed as I said also, there is no provision in the Bill or in the Government's Amendment for safeguarding the future. On the other hand, I note what he says and hope very much that the Board will enter into discussions if they wish to change any of the conditions. I may say that the situation and the gaps in the Government's Amendment have caused concern to the Institution of Professional Civil Servants; and they are concerned not about the conditions which will prevail at the time of the transfer but about those that may come about afterwards. I hope that the Government will bear in mind that there must be consultations and, wherever possible, mutual agreement before decisions are made. Perhaps the noble Viscount will give some such assurance.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: I am glad to tell noble Lords that to the best of my ability I will see that the members of the Board are people who will do exactly what the noble Lord asks. Any good Board consults with the staff associations when making any changes in conditions. I should be surprised if the people who are appointed to the Board did not do

327
that. But we cannot accept that there should be an absolute right of veto.
LORD SHACKLETON: The Civil Service Department have had long experience in working with staff associations. They have the Whitley Council system which works superbly, although there are difficulties now and again. There is bound to be a little concern that the general ethos of negotiations with staff associations, which both sides within the Civil Service understand so well, may be lost. I do not know what my noble friend's intentions are, but one appreciates that it would be difficult to accept all that he asks. The noble Viscount has promised to speak to the new Board and I hope that he will at that time ensure that so far as possible they meet with the staff associations concerned. Although he may not wish to give them directions, I hope that he will, if necessary, seek the help of the joint Whitley Council machinery in ensuring that they get off to a good start. This will give great confidence to the general secretaries of the unions, to their members, and to those who are directly responsible for these particular workers. The workers will be on contracts of employment; their position will have changed from that of civil servants. One cannot go too far in giving assurances. The noble Viscount's heart may be right on this; we want to make sure that it carries through into the right action.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: I assure the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition that I will do my best to see that that comes about. I believe strongly that a rather intricate kind of business such as the British Library is going to depend tremendously on the good will and the enthusiasm of the staff. Therefore consultation with them is an absolute necessity.
LORD STRABOLGI: I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.26 p.m.
VISCOUNT ECCLES VISCOUNT ECCLES moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 7, line 15, at end insert—
(".—(1) In the case of persons to be employed by them on and after the appointed day who immediately before that day are employed either in the civil service of the State or by
328
the trustees of the British Museum, the Board shall, in negotiating their terms of employment, ensure that the terms, taken as a whole, are not less favourable in the case of each such person than those on which he is employed at the time when an offer is made to him of employment with the Board.
(2) In the following provisions of this paragraph, "the Act of 1963" means the Contracts of Employment Act 1963, "the Act of 1965" means the Redundancy Payments Act 1965 and "the Superannuation Acts" means the Superannuation Acts 1965 and 1972.
(3) Where a person enters the employment of the Board on the appointed day having been, immediately before that day, employed as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) above, then—

(a) for the purposes of the Acts of 1963 and 1965 any period during which he was so employed before that day (other than a period excepted by sub-paragraph (4) below) shall count as a period of employment with the Board, and the change of employer shall not break the continuity of the period of employment; and

(b) if he was employed by the trustees of the British Museum and his contract of employment was terminated with a view to his being re-employed by the Board as from that day, he is not to be treated for the purposes of the Act of 1965 as having been dismissed by reason of redundancy.

(4) A period of employment excepted by this sub-paragraph is one which ended before the appointed day in consequence of termination of the employment, where there was made to the person in respect of that termination a payment in accordance with Part I of the Act of 1965, or under the Superannuation Acts or any enactment replaced by either of those Acts, or under any such arrangements as are mentioned in section 41(3) of the Act of 1965.").
The noble Viscount said: I beg to move Amendment No. 21. The first subsection does what I said before; namely, gives an assurance that:
"the terms, taken as a whole, are not less favourable in the case of each such person than those on which he is employed at the time when an offer is made to him of employment with the Board".
That follows the Civil Aviation Authority Act 1922 and is accepted as a sound formula.
When we come to the other part of my Amendment, when we drafted the Bill we overlooked the fact that if we were not to put some such words in as we are now seeking to do, then when employment with the British Museum and other constituent bodies ceased, there would arise certain rights for redundancy payments; whereas what we are all aiming to do is simply to arrange that the employer should change from one day to the next but that the service be

329
continued. It would not be in the interests of the employee if the service did break at that point, because we want to take into consideration the period in which a member of the staff has been employed by the British Museum, the National Bibliography or one of the other two bodies, and aggregate it with the period of employment in the British Library should any circumstance occur when it may be necessary to make a man redundant. He will get a different redundancy payment if there has been no break as between one employer and the other and it is treated as one period of service. It is very much in the interests of the staff that subsections (2) to (4) should be in the Bill. If noble Lords want any further explanation I have a long brief on the topic. My Amendment makes it quite clear that all the rights the man had before are carried over and aggregated with the rights that he will accumulate under the new employer.
LORD STRABOLGI: I am very grateful to the noble Viscount for moving this Amendment. I am sure that it was right to put these subsections in the Bill rather than leaving the intention to the White Paper. It is always better to get all the facts and legal backing that one can into the Statutory Instrument rather than leaving it to the White Paper. Therefore, I am very glad that the Government have included the wording in the Bill.
LORD TREVELYAN: While generally supporting this Amendment, I should like to enter one caveat: there has not been time for the British Museum administration, which deals with staff matters, to scrutinise the Amendment. I have no reason to suppose that they will have any comments on it but if they have I should be grateful if I may give them to the noble Viscount before the Report stage.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I have a simple question to ask which I am sure can be answered without reading the long brief. Would subsection (4) cover any echelon of service whatever position the staff are in so far as superannuation is concerned? I gather that that is safeguarded by subsection (4).
VISCOUNT ECCLES: I hope so. I had better reserve the right to communicate with the noble Lord in case I am not exactly right.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.
House adjourned during pleasure, and resumed by the Lord Chancellor.

EMPLOYMENT MEDICAL ADVISORY SERVICE BILL
5.29 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be received.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 1 [Establishment, organisation and functions of employment medical advisory service]:
LORD DRUMALBYN LORD DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 18, leave out ("(3)") and insert ("(4)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be convenient to discuss all the Amendments standing in my name together. I hope noble Lords will agree to that; they all cover substantially the same point. Noble Lords will recall that on the Committee stage Clause 2 was inserted in the Bill against my advice. In fact, there was not really a great deal between us. I argued that it would be anomalous to have two different penalties for obstruction of an E.M.A. (employment medical adviser) and obstruction of an inspector of factories, and that it would be better to await the outcome of the Robens review on safety, especially as there seemed never to have been any obstruction of appointed factory doctors or of medical inspectors under the existing legislation. Noble Lords opposite argued that a penalty was nevertheless needed and that the opportunity should be taken to bring the legislation up to date. I think I may summarise the arguments as briefly as possible in that way. It was appreciated that some further consequential Amendments might be needed.
Since then my noble friend Lord Reigate has put down an Amendment to remove my first objection; namely, that

331
the penalties for obstructing E.M.A.s should remain the same as those for obstructing factory inspectors, and that therefore the penalty for obstructing factory inspectors should be increased at the same time and to the same extent as that for obstructing E.M.A.s. The combined purpose of all the Amendments I have put down is to preserve the effect of the Amendments which your Lordships made in Committee, and also to accept in effect the Amendment proposed by my noble friend, which I agree is logical and, I am advised, practical for us in this House to make, while at the same time removing the defects and anomalies in the Amendments already accepted by your Lordships.
May I briefly explain the effect of the Amendments standing in my name. Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 will put back in Clause 1(5) the figure "(4)". Noble Lords will remember that the original reference to the penalties for obstructing an E.M.A. was in paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Bill and when the new clause was agreed to in Committee one of the consequential Amendments which was also agreed was the deletion of the references in the Bill to paragraph 4 of the Schedule. As I shall explain, I am proposing that paragraph 4 of the Schedule should be reinserted and it is therefore essential to reinsert the reference to it in Clause 1(5). Amendment No. 5 merely leaves out the new Clause 2 which was inserted at Committee stage.
Amendment No. 7 inserts a new clause after Clause 7 of the existing Bill, and this is the real substance of my Amendments. This new clause says that any person convicted of an offence under Section 146(4) of the Factories Act, which relates to the obstruction of a factory inspector, or under that subsection as it applies in relation to an employment medical adviser by virtue of Clause 1(5) of the present Bill, shall be liable to a fine not exceeding £100. This meets the wishes of the House, I hope, as regards both the obstruction of an employment medical adviser and the obstruction of a factory inspector. The last phrase of the Amendment, that "section 156 of that Act shall not apply", refers back to the Factories Act, to where the occupier of a factory in which an inspector was obstructed is guilty of an offence and
332
liable to a fine not exceeding £60. Under the new clause this fine also is raised to £100—that is to say, both for the obstruction of an E.M.A. and for the obstruction of a factory inspector, whether by an employee or the occupier of a factory.
The next Amendment, No. 8, reinserts in Schedule 1 paragraph 4, with the omission of the reference to the penalty because that has already been put in the new clause. Amendment No. 9 makes it clear that the reference in subsection (4) of Section 146 of the Factories Act relating to the fine of £20 is repealed except for offences committed before the coming into force of the Bill. The final Amendment, No. 10, refers to the Long Title of the Bill. In accordance with the wishes of the noble Lords, we have now extended the amendment of the Factories Act to cover other than medical arrangements and related matters, and so it is essential that we should put in the Title of the Bill a reference to the fact that the Bill has been amended not only in relation to medical arrangements and related matters but also in relation to the obstruction of inspectors. My Lords, I hope I have made the reasoning and meaning behind these Amendments clear, but as noble Lords know, although this is a short Bill it is a highly complex and complicated one, partly because it amends both the Factories Act and because it establishes an Employment Medical Advisory Service. In framing the Amendments which have appeared in my name, the Government have accepted the wishes of the House on this question of penalties, and incidentally the wishes expressed in another place during the earlier passage of the Bill. It is a complicated series of Amendments but the purposes are essentially simple and I hope that they are purposes in accordance with the wishes of the House. My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1.
5.36 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. He has dealt with this matter in a wholehearted way, though he did not imply or suggest that he was very pleased about it. Of course, he still used the same bad argument he used last time; namely, that because there had not been a prosecution for obstructing,

333
no obstruction was taking place and therefore there was really no need for a penalty at all—or for the right penalty. Well, we will not waste time on that. Furthermore, it was not until the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, logically saw that if one was going to do this for the medical inspector one ought to do it for the factory inspector that the penny dropped for the second time, and this time the noble Lord learnt wisdom and realised that he was on a losing ticket and that the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, was likely to carry his Amendment. This is a good example of co-operation and I am very grateful to Lord Reigate in this matter.
I do not propose to spend much time on this matter because in fact the Government have now done, rightly, what we want and have extended the Bill's provisions. This has meant some quite extensive amendment of the Bill. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has the Amendments right now. He has the best advice. But if I may turn to the Amendment by which provision is put in the Schedule, I assume that it is all right to have the heading to Schedule 1—
"Provisions of the Factories Act 1961 applying to give employment medical advisers certain powers of inspectors "—
and that he does not need to add "as amended by the Employment Medical Advisory Service Bill 1972". I take it that we have amended the 1961 Act by the noble Lord's new clause and I presume it still remains the 1961 Act. If he says so, I shall be content; if he says he will check that, I will still be content. It is a small point and doubtless the noble Lord has got it right. But we were told that one of the reasons why we could not do in the Bill what we wished to do was that the Schedule merely reproduced certain provisions of the 1961 Act and therefore was sacrosanct. Well, once the House had made its feelings known the noble Lord found that he could do it; and perhaps he was not too well advised on that. At any rate, I am grateful for this progress. I must say in fairness that some of the credit for it goes not merely to this side of the House but to the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, and some of his friends.
LORD REIGATE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shackle
334
ton, for his tribute. I should like to thank my noble friend for coming to heel, if I may put it that way. I noticed that he was rather lacking in his thanks to me for my efforts in provoking the elaborate series of Amendments which he has put before the House on this occasion. In looking at his Amendments, I must say, frankly, that I think my own, which was drafted by an expert draftsman, was far simpler and just as efficacious. But I will take my noble friend's advice that it is better done in the way he proposes to do it. The main point is that it should be done. On a previous occasion he gave three reasons why he could not possibly accept my Amendment, the most curious being the suggestion that there had not been any prosecution. I cannot wait for the day when someone comes to the House and says, "There have not been any prosecutions for treason for a little while; let us get rid of the penalty". That is quite the worst reason I ever heard.
Then my noble friend resisted the Amendment on the ground that it was anomalous. He ought to give me credit for being most helpful to him on that. I suppose that the worst of all the reasons was the suggestion that we ought to wait for the noble Lord, Lord Robens of Woldingham, to report. Even when Lord Robens has reported there will have to be legislation, and it is singularly ominous that Lord Robens has just published a book under the title, Ten Years' Stint. Therefore I think my noble friend ought to congratulate me on having taken time by the forelock and saved everybody a lot of trouble.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I most willingly congratulate my noble friend on having tabled this Amendment. It has certainly focused our thoughts in what I know he regards as an entirely desirable way. I thought I had made it plain that what he did was entirely logical, and I thought that was itself a measure of tribute. To deal with the one point that he made, I never said that we did not need a penalty. At no time did I say that. What I said in arguing the case before was that it was less important to bring the penalty up to date because there had been no offences so far. Perhaps we may leave it at that. With regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has said, I am grateful for the

335
way in which he has received this Amendment. With great respect, I still feel that there was not much between us. Nevertheless, our view was as it was expressed, and without the pressure that has been brought we would not have changed it. Let me leave it like that.
So far as the structure of the Bill is concerned, the alteration of the Long Title does make a difference, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, will agree. I would never go so far as to say that I am absolutely certain that we have done it right, but in view of what he has said we will certainly have another look at it before the next stage. I was myself convinced that what had been done was exactly what the noble Lord required.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 25, leave out ("(3)") and insert ("(4)").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.43 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON LORD SHACKLETON moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 5, at end insert—
("() The Secretary of State shall ensure that medical records of persons specified in subsection (6) above whose medical records are not in the possession of the local education authority by virtue of the fact that such persons have been educated independently, shall be made available on demand to an employment medical adviser, and the Secretary of State may by statutory instrument make an order to this effect.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Summerskill. The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that those persons—namely, young people—whose medical records are not in the possession of the local education authority because they have been educated independently shall be made available on demand to an employment medical adviser, and the Secretary of State is given powers to achieve this.
Let me say straight away that I shall not be in the least surprised if this Amendment is defective. Its purpose is to draw attention to quite a serious gap.
336
As noble Lords who have followed our debate will know, we are abandoning as an automatic procedure the medical examination of young persons entering into employment in factories. There is at present provision that their medical records will be made available to the employment medical adviser and that only then may he carry out a medical examination, if he thinks fit. We think this is a sensible provision, and it is provided for in Clause 1. But there is a gap, to which attention was drawn by my noble friend Lady Summerskill in our debate in Committee on the Question, That the clause stand part of the Bill. A very experienced personnel director said:
"… there will be practical difficulties in implementing the link-up between school medical services and careers officers and employers where school leavers are concerned, …"—
and—
"a particular problem where private schools are involved."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23/3/72, col. 883.]
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, gave a reply which I am bound to say was totally unconvincing. I had not given him notice of this point, and he did his best in the circumstances, so that my remark does not reflect on him. But what he said (col. 883) was:
"there is an organisation of doctors at private schools, and I understand that that organisation has undertaken to notify all its members",
and then he added:
"—who are presumably all the doctors in private schools—of the requirements."
He said that there is no statutory cover. I do not believe that noble Lords will be satisfied that all private schools have in fact a satisfactory medical service. In many cases they do not need it; for example, a small private day school, even if it has older children. It may be that the organisation of doctors at public schools is in a position to co-operate and, for all I know, has proper medical records. But there are other independent schools, and in the absence of statutory cover it will be possible for young people to enter into employment without any medical records being made available. In that case they will slip through the net, and there may be some people who health is of such a kind that the employment medical adviser ought to have details, not merely when

337
they first enter into employment but when they change jobs. In my view it is likely that the only person who will have this information is the family doctor—the general practitioner—and I should hesitate to seek to extend this Bill to require the general practitioners in the National Health Service to provide this service, although it may well be that this would be the best answer.
Yet another answer would be for all such children who have no record to be automatically examined, as they would have been examined in the past under the earlier legislation. This is not an unimportant point; it is not only the possible danger to the individual that is causing concern. I am sure that the noble Lord is as keen as any of us to make this measure as watertight as possible, but there is a gap here. There is a danger to the individual and there may well be a danger to fellow workers in industry if someone who is not fit enough slips through the net—there might even be a person with a history of epilepsy but so occasional that the school did not know about it properly; indeed, they might not have a medical advisory officer. Organised ones no doubt will co-operate.
My Amendment seeks to require the Minister, one way or another, to take steps to achieve the purposes that are contained in Clause 1 in relation to the local authority schools. I fully acknowledge that if those medical records in fact do not exist then he cannot achieve that, and the fact that he has power to make orders will not get him anywhere at all. But in that case we need to know what alternative proposals the noble Lord has in mind. As my noble friend Lady Summerskill pointed out on Committee, there is a gap here; and although there probably are not very many children involved, it is a gap that I think properly ought to be filled.
LORD AVEBURY: Could the noble Lord say whether the position is the same in the direct grant schools?
LORD SHACKLETON: I am sorry, I do not know. I assume it is so. I do not know whether the direct grant schools which have links with local authorities come in this respect under the local education authority—perhaps the noble Lord,
338
Lord Drumalbyn can help us on that. If it were so, the number becomes very much greater. My impression is that no great problem will arise in direct grant schools. It is in the case of the smaller independent schools where we want to make sure this is properly handled. I beg to move.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I find it difficult to understand why it has been decided to discriminate against these children. If a child is sent to an independent school it certainly may not have been the child's choice: it was the parents' choice in the first place. Following some years in school the child is taken into some occupation. It is decided that, whereas the boy or girl working next to him who has been to a State school is not denied the full benefit of the Health Service because their health records are produced, this child who has been at an independent school is handicapped, in my opinion, in a very serious way. The child may be in a factory where there are certain industrial hazards which are known. Let us take dust hazards. It may be that this child has had a record of hay fever, asthma—diseases of that kind; and in such a case the record of the medical adviser on this child is of paramount importance. Indeed, later on we are coming to another Amendment on this clause, put down by my noble friend and myself, which is concerned with the examination of a worker and the right of that worker to be assisted by a trade union. Here the two things are linked together. I am hoping that the noble Lord will accept that second Amendment. We are advising that the worker should have a friend, a counsellor, a man who understands the importance of industrial diseases, present when the occupier of the factory is called upon by the medical adviser for an examination of the worker.
This boy or girl who has been at an independent school is to be denied all health records. It is quite incomprehensible to me. It seems to me that it is denying him or her elementary justice. To establish two kinds of workers at a factory, one who has his full health record and one denied it because he has been to an independent school, really cannot be supported. I hope very much that the noble Lord will reconsider this. It was raised on Second Reading, and the more one thinks about it the more one

339
recognises that it would be grossly unjust not to accept this Amendment.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, I know very little about this subject, but it seems to me, as a layman, that everybody entering employment should be medically examined whether he has medical records in the State school or the independent school. I urge that this Amendment should be accepted.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I cannot help rising for one moment to point out to your Lordships the humour in the situation, when Socialists are sticking up for the rights of old Etonians and old Harrovians who are suffering from these appalling diseases, pneumoconiosis, byssinosis, and so on, contracted as a result of the sub-standard occupations in which they have been involved, having worked in a quarry with the fumes and dust coming into their lungs causing serious diseases. My heart bleeds for these young men who are forced into occupations where they run such appalling risks. My heart bleeds for them even more when I hear Socialists pleading their case.
But I think there is a serious point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. It would surely be anomalous, even if only a few individuals were involved, to leave out of protection this small minority. I must also ask the noble Lord the Minister to say definitely whether the implications raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, do apply to students from direct grant schools. If it were so, we should be talking not about a tiny problem but about many thousands of school-leavers who every year would be left out of the protection otherwise to be given under this Bill. But for the sake of uniformity, even if it were a tiny minority the noble Lord ought to take the opportunity of this Amendment to clear it up and put everyone on the same footing.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I must take up the point of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. We are not protecting Etonians and Harrovians from pneumoconiosis and silicosis, suffered from working on an anthracite face in Ystradgynlais. We do not want them to go into that kind of job. But
340
one must not think only of Eton and Harrow. There are some people whose money is young who, through some false idea of cheap snobbery, send their children to inadequate private schools and keep them there against their will until they are 15 or 16. I know what kind of education is given in some of these schools. A certain friend of mine was the only qualified mathematician and person holding a degree on the staff of a school with about 50 children from all over Britain. In a great many cases those children went direct to industry, and not in the higher echelons after going to university; but coming from a snobbish little private school that was not only not developing their minds but neglecting their bodies, too. Consequently there is a place for my noble friend's Amendment, and I am quite sure the Government will treat it—as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury did, after his little "crack"—with the seriousness which it undoubtedly deserves.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, does this Amendment seriously mean that in the case of a young person who has been to a school which employs no medical officer, and who has simply been under his or her own general practitioner, that general practitioner is expected to submit the whole of that person's records, at any rate so far as they can possibly apply to employment, before the person is employed? It seems to me that there is a difference. The school medical officer knows the reason for the keeping of his records, and he knows that as soon as the child is of an age to be employed the child will then pass out of his hands. The situation with regard to general practice is surely something quite different. I can imagine a large number of general practitioners who would be quite alarmed if they thought they were liable to get demands, backed up by Act of Parliament, to submit these persons' records. I think if the wording were that the employment medical advisory officer, whoever he is, should request an account of any illnesses which might affect certain kinds of person with regard to certain kinds of employment, that would be a reasonable thing to ask. However, I think that the way this Amendment is worded really will give rise to a great deal of difficulty.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend how he expects the employment medical adviser to obtain information? After all, if the patient left his general pracitioner and went to another doctor, as my noble friend knows, the record is transferred to the next doctor. There is no question of that record being only in the hands of one doctor for the whole of the patient's life. It is transferred sometimes to two and perhaps three doctors. All we are asking is that, if it is only the record of the general practitioner, that record should be seen by another doctor—not the employer—in the factory, just as another doctor could see it if the patient transferred himself to another area.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, if I may say so, he does not transfer himself to two or three doctors at a time.
6.2 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, first of all I should like to say that I am very grateful to the noble Lord for providing us with this opportunity of looking more closely than we had done at the practical aspects of the arrangements for enabling the E.M.A.S. to help pupils from independent schools. It is not always easy for a Minister to anticipate all the branches into which inquiries may go, but I can tell the noble Lord that in this case he has provided a focus for attention, and I personally have done my best to go into this as well as I could in the time. It is a subject, of course, that involves at least four Departments, and, as he says, it is not an unimportant point. There is no dispute about the importance of pupils who leave independent schools being able to have the same help from the Employment Medical Advisory Service as pupils who leave maintained schools. The question is how this can best be achieved. I hope the House will bear with me because this is a very complicated matter, and I am afraid that necessarily my response to the noble Lord must be complicated and somewhat lengthy.
As the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said when he spoke about this during the Committee stage, the Bill provides for the school health service to co-operate with the Employment Medical Advisory Service. I stress the word "co-operate"
342
because, although Clause 1(6) is expressed in terms of compulsory powers and, in the language of legislation, "requires school medical records to be furnished", it is essential if a service such as the E.M.A.S. is to be successful that there should be willing co-operation; the schools, the school medical officers, the young people themselves and their parents, and the future employers, must understand and appreciate how the I service can help them. Clause 1(6) therefore provides a statutory basis for a service which essentially depends on good co-operation. It is intended as a fallback provision, just in case anything should go wrong or a mistake should be made.
For maintained schools it is possible to express this requirement for co-operation in the terms provided for by Clause 1(6) because the legislative basis for complying with what is required already exists. There is a legislative requirement for a service of medical inspection and treatment—and the noble Lord, Lord Platt, has put his finger on this—and it is also a requirement of legislation that school medical officers, who are the employees of education authorities, shall keep records. It is therefore a simple matter for legislation to lay a duty on education authorities to require that the medical officers who work for them shall provide information from those medical records.
The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has already indicated that he is aware that the position is not so straightforward with non-maintained schools. There are in England and Wales, I am told, about 180 direct grant grammar schools, and just under 2,700 independent schools. About 1,600 of the independent schools admit only children of primary school age. There is great variation in the size of independent schools; nearly half have less than 100 pupils and just under a quarter have less than 50 pupils. There are both day and boarding schools. It is a requirement that direct grant schools—a "requirement", and this is in answer to the question put by the noble Lords, Lord Shackleton and Lord Avebury—shall provide a service of medical inspection comparable with that provided by the school health service, but there is no comparable requirement for independent schools in general, and there is no

343
requirement about the keeping of school records either by direct grant or by independent schools.
In practice, many of these schools, and particularly the boarding schools, have well-developed arrangements for supervising the health of their pupils, and some have an arrangement with the local education authority—as the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, suspected—to do this on their behalf through the school health service. But these services are not based on the same legal requirements for a service or for record-keeping as exist for maintained schools.
The legal basis for any statutory requirement such as the Amendment proposes is further complicated by the fact that the contractual relationship between medical officers and independent schools is not the same as that of school medical officers to local education authorities. This, as the noble Lord, Lord Platt, has indicated, is important. I have no detailed knowledge of the arrangements between independent schools and their medical officers; I do know that they vary, and I also know that it is usual in the case of boarding schools for pupils to be on the National Health Service list of the school medical officer. This means that the school medical officer would then normally provide services for the pupil by virtue of his contract with the local executive council, and would be remunerated by the executive council for his services.
There is also other work, largely of a preventative and advisory nature, which falls outside the National Health Service for which the school medical officer may be under a direct contract to the school governors or proprietors and for which he may be remunerated separately. But he is not a "servant" of the school in the legal sense. Some school medical officers may keep school records independently of their patients' National Health Service records; but I have no certain information about this, and it is quite possible that the records of pupils may be kept with National Health Service records and go back with the pupil to his home general practitioner if he returns home when he leaves school, or on to whoever is responsible for his health if he goes on to higher education. This, I think, would be normal,
344
as the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, has indicated. There are certainly complications here about what records the school medical officer who is also the pupil's general practitioner might be being asked to provide.
As I think the noble Lord has recognised both in what he said on March 23 and in the way in which he phrased his Amendment and what he said to-day, it would be difficult to draft legislation to fit the various circumstances under which independent schools provide medical services and to accord with existing legislative provision. If we are going to legislate, we should certainly need to do this by regulation so that the Department of Employment, together with the Department of Education and Science, the Department of Health and Social Services, and the Scottish Office, could look thoroughly at the legal and practical implications, and could carry out the necessary consultative processes, and could draft orders which were legislatively sound. But when all this process has been completed, one would probably be left with regulations which said little more than that when records existed they were to be produced.
I would hope that we could do better than this. We want independent schools to understand the service which the E.M.As. can offer, and to be willing themselves to make the sort of arrangements which will enable the E.M.As. to help pupils who may need advice on medical grounds about their future employment. Both the Department of Employment and the Department of Education and Science are proposing to set in train the consultative processes, and to make the organisation arrangements, which will ensure that independent schools are aware of the service and have an opportunity to co-operate with it. Part of this consultation process has already begun, and I think that this debate and the interest which the noble Lord has focused on the subject will speed it considerably. It has to be clearly understood that there are cases when one can legislate straight away for a denned purpose. There are other cases when one has to proceed by way of consultation and then to legislate in consequence. This consultation should now go forward. The Medical Officers of Schools Association has already said that it will make

345
sure that its members are aware of the service.
Details have not yet been finalised, but arrangements will be made to ensure that employment medical advisers know of independent schools in their areas, that the schools know of the employment medical advisers, and that the schools and the employment medical advisers consider together how, under the medical arrangements prevailing in each school, which vary so much, the help of the employment medical adviser can best be made available. It is conceivable that in day schools this might be by liaison with a pupil's general practitioner on an informal and professional basis, in a way which parents and pupils would accept as being helpful, but which it might be quite inappropriate to provide for in legislation. The Department of Employment, the Department of Education and Science, the Department of Health and Social Security, and the Scottish Education Department certainly intend to do all that they can by administrative means to ensure that the spirit of Clause 1(6) is observed by pupils in independent schools.
I have been into this with the greatest of care, and I feel sure that in the circumstances which I have described we are more likely to achieve what we all want by administrative than by legislative action. Administrative action will enable the best possible arrangements to be made, according to the circumstances of individual schools, for ensuring that information is available about pupils who need help. We feel that enacting legislation of the sort proposed in the Amendment would do no more than apply compulsion to those independent schools where compulsion is least needed; that is, to those schools where records already exist which could be passed on. There could be no question of further amending this Bill to require independent schools to employ school medical officers and keep medical records. That would be a matter of amending the Education Acts. We are confident that what we all want can be obtained by administrative action, and I can assure the noble Lord that Government Departments concerned will do all they can to ensure this.
I hope that I have said enough to convince noble Lords that, in the first place, the whole essence of the Bill so
346
far as the young person is concerned is that it will work by co-operation. There is a fall-back provision in Clause 1(6), but that would not help very much in the case of independent schools. For the reasons I have given, it certainly could not cover the whole field as matters are. But we are very conscious of the gap which exists in the system for those whose parents have decided that their children should be educated outside the system, and we are determined to overcome it so far as it is humanly possible to do so. No system is going to work perfectly and no doubt even with compulsory powers this will not work perfectly. But I believe that with the co-operation and the administrative arrangements which we intend to achieve, this will work more than satisfactorily. Does the noble Lord wish to interrupt?
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, before the noble Lord concludes, may I raise one point about which I am anxious? He said that he will enter into consultations but, as he said, there are so many independent schools which cover a vast network. In addition to the ordinary public schools which come under the Headmasters' Conference, there are the schools which the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, has mentioned—the fly-by-night establishments which cater for particular needs. I am anxious about the schools which cater for mentally and physically handicapped children. So far as I am aware, there is no body which represents them in the same way as the Headmasters' Conference represents the well-established public schools. So although the noble Lord said—and I quite accept it—that extensive consultations will be entered into between the Deparment of Employment, the Department of Education and Science, other Ministries responsible and independent schools of various kinds, I wonder whether he can tell me what body it is possible to enter into consultation with in respect of schools for the mentally and physically handicapped.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should have thought that handicapped children were virtually completely covered at present. In the first place, one has the local authority schools and then one has the private schools. I believe that

347
some of those are "recognised as efficient" and, even in the case of those which are simply registered, there has to be the consent of the Minister for every pupil to go into such a school. They will be very amply followed through, so I really do not think one needs to worry on that score. It is not that kind of case with which the Bill seeks to deal. It seeks to deal with the kind of case where it is plain, from a person's medical state and history, that he is not suited for certain kinds of job. The form that is made out by the school health service is a very simple one, which simply states the kinds of job for which a pupil is not suited. That goes to the careers officer who in due course also receives from employers lists of people taken on. He will compare the names of school leavers in respect of whom there is a Y.9 form with those on the lists. In that way the employment medical adviser will be able to see whether any of the children have been taken on for unsuitable occupations.
But in the first place, before one gets to that stage, in the last year before leaving school the school health service will have identified those children, will have made out the Y.9 forms—a copy of which will have gone both to the employment medical adviser and to the child's own doctor—and there will have been ample consultation. They will all know the sort of jobs which they ought not to go in for. It is that kind of service—and it is all done on a voluntary basis—that we also want to see provided for the independent schools. All I am saying is that we cannot make a blueprint for it, partly because the circumstances vary so much in the different kinds of schools, and partly because no consultation has yet been carried out, and it will be a matter of consultation to find out how the best results can be achieved for the different categories of schools.
6.20 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, who has obviously taken a great deal of trouble over this matter and has gone into it fully in a way which he was not able to do when he replied during the Committee stage. I feel bound to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the noble Lord has not found a
348
solution to this problem, and that what he is seeking to do is to rely on voluntary co-operation—and I entirely agree that all this legislation requires good voluntary co-operation. But, my Lords, those of us who had to administer the Factory Acts, whether the persons concerned were individual firms' medical advisers or personnel officers, know that the law, even if the sanctions are never invoked, provides a firm base which ensures that the requirements are carried out. Under this Bill we are removing a very important safeguard with regard to young people, and we are substituting something else which is sensible, though I am bound to say that I have some slight doubts, even in this respect, about the school medical records. I have known of cases where the statutory medical examination by a firm's doctor has revealed a condition which was not previously known. This is a serious point, and before we dispense with something that is an important safeguard to individuals and a wise requirement, we want to make sure that what takes its place is satisfactory.
I find it very difficult to understand why it is necessary to make statutory provision, instead of leaving it to voluntary co-operation, in the area of State education, where it is most easy to obtain the co-operation, yet it is not sought to have powers to deal with this much more ill-defined area of the independent schools. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, gave some helpful figures about the size of the schools, and there is no doubt that in a large number of them there will be no real medical service at all; and even in the large schools, like the public schools, it is very likely that the school doctor will be a general practitioner, and he will be asked, presumably, if it is going to be by co-operation, to produce medical information to give, as my noble friend said, to another doctor. It is not proposed that it should be given to an employer. I see the difficulties about requiring doctors in general practice to do this, and I am well aware of the defectiveness in this respect of my Amendment. But what gave me the greatest alarm was that, while the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said that the Ministry of Education and the Department of Employment were considering the matter very fully—and I do not doubt that they have given a great deal of thought to it—he made no mention of the Minister of

349
Health; and of course it will be from the general practitioner that this information will have to come.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, if your Lordships will forgive me for intervening I specifically mentioned the Health Service twice over. I admit that I did not mention the Scottish Health Service, though I did mention Scottish education.
LORD SHACKLETON: The noble Lord certainly mentioned the Health Service, but he said at one point words to the effect that the Department of Education and the Department of Employment were working on this. However, I do not want to make much of this.
I am bound to say that I do not regard the situation as satisfactory. I should very much have liked to accept the noble Lord's assurance, but he knows, as I myself know from experience in the past, that ministerial assurances, however sincere and however well meant, do not necessarily achieve administrative results. I should like to take this Amendment to a Division. If this Amendment is inadequate, it is open to the Government to do something about it—and the noble Lord found he managed it quite easily on the other Amendment that we carried on Committee stage against his advice. For instance, it may be that he ought to provide in the Bill that all school-children whose records are not available should be especially examined. The noble Lord has given us no assurance on that. If he had, this would have met the case and we should not need this Amendment.
I would urge my noble friends, as well as other noble Lords, who have been very helpful, to support this Amendment. We do not approach this in a par
tisan spirit. We ignore what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said—he is rather new to this House. But on the last occasion we had very good co-operation in this House. If, in the end, the noble Lord and his right honourable friends find that this Amendment is unsatisfactory, they can take it out in another place; they have a majority there. Goodness knows! we had to do that often enough when we were in Government, It will be good experience for them. But we need the sort of help which, for instance, the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, and others gave.
This is a serious issue. It is no good just saying that public schoolboys are not likely to get byssinosis or pneumoconiosis. Large numbers of children from independent schools will go into industry, and many of them, in the course of training, will be working in factories. It is desirable that there should be a proper health check before they go in. There is no guarantee under this Bill; and although I fully accept that the noble Lord, his right honourable friends and his officials will do their best, I urge the House to accept this Amendment in order to encourage the Government to find a solution. If the noble Lord were to give me an undertaking even now that he would be a medical examination, however would be a medical examination, however it was done, then I would withdraw the Amendment; but I realise he cannot do so, and in those circumstances I must take the Amendment to a Division.
6.28 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 34; Not-contents, 68.

CONTENTS

Archibald, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Roberthall, L.

Arwyn, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Serota, Bs.

Avebury, L.

Hall, V.

Shackleton, L.

Bacon, Bs.

Hughes, L.

Slater, L.

Beswick, L.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Summerskill, Bs.

Burntwood, L.

Leatherland, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Champion, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Tayside, L.

Collison, L.

Longford, E.

Wise, L.

Crook, L.

Maelor, L.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Diamond, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Wynne-Jones, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Raglan, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Albemarle, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Northchurch, Bs.

Allerton, L.

Dundonald, E.

Oakshott, L.

Auckland, L.

Eccles, V.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Balerno, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Onslow, E.

Belstead, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Berkeley, Bs.

Ferrers, E.

Platt, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Fortescue, E.

Polwarth, L.

Bradford, E.

Gainford, L.

Rhyl, L.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Greenway, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Grenfell, L.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Buccleuch and Queensberry, D.

Hanworth, V.

Sandford, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Sandys, L.

Conesford, L.

Headfort, M.

Sempill, Ly.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hertford, M.

Somers, L.

Courtown, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Stonehaven, V.

Cowley, E.

Leicester, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Craigavon, V.

Limerick, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Lloyd, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Lothian, M.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Daventry, V.

Mancroft, L.

Vernon, L.

Davidson, V.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Vivian, L.

de Clifford, L.

Young, Bs.

Digby, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the negative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 2 [Obstruction of employment medical adviser]:
6.35 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 5 formally.
Amendment moved.
Leave out Clause 2.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
Clause 4 [Medical examinations of persons employed in factories]:
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL BARONESS SUMMERSKILL moved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 4 insert the following new clause
Duty of employer to consult with representatives of workers
".It shall be the duty of an employer in consultation with an Employment Medical Adviser to ensure due consultation with representatives of Trade Unions or other organisations of workers representative of workers in his employ on the implementation of the provisions contained in sections 3 and 4 of this Act; and in doing so an employer shall have regard to the requirements of the code of industrial relations practice."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it will be recalled that under Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill the medical adviser has the right to ask that a worker shall have a full medical examination. This could be an ordinary clinical examination or a
352
full investigation, including X-rays, a pathological report and so on. The Amendment asks that in the event of a worker going for a medical examination he should have the support and advice of a trade union representative.
If a noble Lord or a noble Baroness here was informed that they had to go for a medical examination they perhaps would not feel very apprehensive. They would take it in their stride and go along to wherever the examination was arranged, perhaps alone and without a friend, and they would regard that as normal. But I wonder whether the House can envisage the situation of a young worker in a factory where conditions are rather strange, where he has no knowledge at all of the details of industrial injuries and industrial diseases, and no knowledge at all of the technicalities of these matters or the recognition that he may make some admission which might be damaging to himself or that he might not give a full account of his background or the conditions under which he has worked. In other words, I think it would be agreed that a boy of, let us say, 19 years should have a friend and adviser to call upon when the medical adviser decides that there should be a medical examination because there is some suspicion that he may have some condition related to the conditions under which he works. Who better in such a case than an individual in his trade union who is particularly concerned with health and

353
health matters? Surely this is a simple request.
I would also say that the medical adviser, who may not have as much knowledge on these questions as a worker in a trade union who has devoted years of his life to industrial diseases, may well be grateful for some of the expertise possessed by the trade unionist. Far from being reluctant to accept his help, he would welcome his attendance. Therefore I hope the House will realise that this is not an Amendment intended in any way to destroy the Bill or any aspect of the Bill. Far from it! It is an Amendment which in my opinion will improve it and give the worker and the medical adviser—and, indeed, the good employer—help and advice from the trade union in the light of knowledge which has accumulated over the years. There are still many things that we do not know about industrial diseases. There are all the new processes and the new materials used in our factories. Therefore we should be grateful that in the trade union movement there is a powerful section devoting itself to this aspect of industrial health. All we ask is that when one of these young men or women is invited to go for a medical examination he or she may have the support and help and the friendly presence of a trade union representative. I beg to move.
6.40 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining the purpose of her Amendment, because frankly we were rather mystified about what she had in mind. I have had a little difficulty in relating what she has been saying to what is actually in the Amendment. I have no reason to doubt that it would be a good thing in some circumstances to have expert trade union advice and someone accompanying an individual who was to be examined. But this is not what the Amendment says. I have looked at this Amendment carefully to see what would be achieved by accepting it. So far as I can see, the provisions in Clauses 3 and 4 do not lend themselves to consultation between employers and trade unions. Subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 3 obviously do not. Subsection (3) has as its purpose solely to confer on the chief employment medical adviser powers similar to those at present exercised under
354
regulations by the chief inspector of factories to approved medical practitioners, other than appointed factory doctors, who may carry out medical examinations for the purposes of the regulations. The authorisation of the works medical officer to carry out periodic examinations prescribed by regulations under the Factories Act does not seem to be a matter upon which an employer could properly consult representatives of the trade union. It would be a matter for the professional judgment of the chief employment medical adviser.
The Amendment would not in any way affect any other powers conferred by regulations on the chief inspector of factories, I am advised, nor does it extend them to the chief employment medical adviser, because of the effect of Schedule 1. Schedule 4 to the Factories Act sets out the procedure for making special regulations where it involves publication in the London Gazette and in such manner as the Secretary of State may think best adapted for informing persons of a notice of his proposal to make regulations and of the time within which objections may be made. This is the procedure under Clause 3. Again there seems to be no real scope for consultation. The procedure is completely established.
As to Clause 4, the only point on which I thought there might be consultation between employer and trade unions is the time and place of the medical examination which an employment medical adviser gives notice that he intends to conduct. That hardly seems to be a suitable subject, either, for consultation.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: But that is the whole point.
LORD DRUMALBYN: If that is the whole point, then I am afraid that I have not yet seized it—
Lord SHACKLETON: That is obvious.
LORD DRUMALBYN: —because subsection (3) says that the employment medical adviser, in issuing a notice under subsection (1),
"shall name the place where a medical examination is to be conducted."
This is the notice of the employment medical adviser and it is not a matter for consultation between the employer and the trade unions. It is not a matter

355
for consultation, I should have thought, and I find difficulty in understanding what is to be gained.
LORD SHACKLETON: May I interrupt the noble Lord? This is really the nub of the whole matter. It is a matter of concern to workers where examinations take place and the circumstances, and so on, and whether the accommodation is right. Admittedly there are various steps which they may take. All we are saying is that it is sensible to consult on this sort of case. It may be said that nothing is achieved but in that case the noble Lord does not believe in consultation at all.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Surely, if we read what is said here, the word "place" does not mean a room or accommodation. It means whether the examination is to be at the factory or at a hospital or clinic. That is what is intended. I should not have thought there was much scope there for consultation. As I said, we did not fully understand what the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, and the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, had in mind. We shall have another look at it to see whether there is here a point which we feel should be met. I confess that I failed to anticipate this point and I still do not understand and should like to discuss it further. I do not understand what good purpose would be served by consultation within the terms of the Bill as at present drafted. Perhaps it might be convenient if we had a further word together. We need not debate the whole thing, but I should like to know exactly what the noble Baroness has in mind and how she would like to see this carried out. If she would like to do so, we might meet and discuss this matter, but at present I find difficulty in accepting the Amendment without further consideration with the Department.
LORD SHACKLETON: The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, was a little more conciliatory than on the last Amendment. I, and I am sure my noble friend, would be the first to accept that an Amendment of this kind drafted in Opposition without the resources to carry out a good deal of research is liable neither to be explicit nor entirely satisfactory.
356
Here there is a real problem, and it may well be that we were wrong to confine this Amendment purely to Clauses 3 and 4. We might have said "on the implementation of the Act" in so far as it affected the workers in a particular factory. There are a number of possibilities. As I understand it, the point which my noble friend was making seems to be valid as an area for possible consultation. The theory about how this works is perfectly clear, particularly where there is a known health hazard. For instance, there may be a suspicion of lead poisoning, of which there have been examples recently. Then there is a good deal of anxiety on the part of the workers. The purpose of the Amendment, adequate or otherwise, relates first to the arrangement to which my noble friend referred; but it is possible also that a medical adviser may wish to carry out certain tests on an extensive scale. At this point, if anxiety exists, it would be proper (I assume that good management would do this anyway but they might not) to have consultations.
The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, did not refer to the Government's own code of practice which states that management and employee representatives should make the best use of the arrangements for consultation about safety and health. This is an aspect of health and they have told us that their Industrial Relations Act is such a wonderful thing and that the code is a wonderful thing. We put down the Amendment with some trepidation on my part about referring to that ill-begotten Act to encourage them to carry out the principles to which they attach importance.
I do not blame the noble Lord for not fully understanding the Amendment, but I am surprised that some of his officials did not understand it. They have had experience of dealing with Amendments. It has been perfectly clear to those with whom I have consulted in industry and in the trade unions, so I hope that the noble Lord will consider whether there is some way in which we can give expression to the desirability of consultation on health matters. My noble friend Lady Summerskill's examples explained one obvious and important aspect—and I think there are

357
others—which justify the sort of consultation that we seek to achieve.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord has said, I will not press this Amendment to a Division. But the noble Lord does not seem to have understood it. The more I read it, the more elementary it seems to me. And if the noble Lord did not understand it, I regret that he did not come to me in the House and say: "I do not understand this Amendment. Can you explain it to me?" We could then have had a discussion and threshed it out beforehand, instead of having to do so here. The duly of an employer to consult representatives of workers seems to me to be so obvious. In view of the fact that it is related to Clause 4, which says that medical examinations of persons employed in factories, dare I say, with all respect to the hardworking Minister, who I think has too much put on his shoulders and therefore has not sufficient time to examine some of these details, that perhaps the difficulty has arisen because he and his advisers have found it quite impossible to identify themselves with the unfortunate worker and with the trade unions. However, I accept the noble Lord's offer, and we will discuss the matter behind the scenes on another occasion. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 7.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 7 insert the following clause:
Obstruction of inspector or employment medical adviser
".Any person convicted of an offence under section 146(4) of the Factories Act 1961 (obstruction of inspector), or under that subsection as it applies in relation to an employment medical adviser by virtue of section 1(5) above, shall be liable to a fine not exceeding £100."—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I take it that the noble Lord has not yet had time to get the answer to my question whether the Schedule needs further amendment. It occurs to me that he may have done so, but if not I will not press it.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am afraid that I have not had time to get an answer.
Schedule 1 [Provisions of the Factories Act 1961 applying to give employment medical advisers certain powers of inspectors]:
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 8.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 31, at end insert—
("(4) Where an inspector is obstructed in the execution of his powers or duties under this Act. the person obstructing him shall be guilty of an offence; and where an inspector is so obstructed in a factory, the occupier of that factory shall be guilty of an offence.").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
Schedule 3 [Provision of the Factories Act 1961 repeated]:
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 9.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 7, at end insert ("and (except for offences committed before the coming into force of this Act) the words 'and liable to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds' in subsection (4).").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
In the Title:
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 10.
Amendment moved—
Line 4, after ("matters") insert ("and in relation to the obstruction of inspectors").—(Lord Drumalbyn.)

FARM CAPITAL GRANT (VARIATION) SCHEME 1972
6.53 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that the Farm Capital Grant (Variation) Scheme 1972, which was laid before this House on March 16, be approved. The Scheme covers England, Wales and Northern Ireland, and it may be convenient to your Lordships if my remarks are also addressed to the Farm Capital (Variation) (Scotland) Scheme 1972, since its content is similar.

359
These Schemes give effect to the changes in the arrangements for the farm capital grants which were announced with the results of the 1972 Annual Review at the beginning of March. The Schemes continue the higher rates for field drainage which, like the rates for other works and facilities, were to have been reduced by 10 percentage points for application after March 18, 1972. They also provide for the termination of the grants for certain minor items unless approval was applied for by March 31.
As your Lordships will recall, the grant rates were increased by the last Government as a temporary measure for two years from March, 1970. Their action was taken at a time when capital investment was lagging, partly because of credit difficulties, and also because farmers were finding it increasingly hard to finance investment out of income. To-day the industry is in a more favourable situation: incomes are higher, credit is cheaper and easier and taxation less onerous. There is now greater confidence among farmers, and the temporary need for higher rates of grant for all items has therefore passed.
But, my Lords, there is still a need to give special encouragement to field drainage, which is of fundamental importance both for expanding production and for maintaining the fertility and structure of our soil. Of all the possibilities of increasing the productivity from the actual land itself, proper and efficient—and improved—drainage stands out as being the one thing that, when every other factor is constant, will result in improved output, and there are many farms, and very many acres, whose output is being directly and specifically curtailed by lack of adequate and effective drainage. But drainage—and I mean proper and complete drainage—is of course expensive. I pay tribute to the Party of noble Lord opposite, who when they were in Government increased the drainage grant from 50 per cent. to 60 per cent. I believed then—and I believe now—that this was the right move, because there-after the farmer did not have just an equal stake with the Government in drainage, but he had a definite and direct incentive to undertake the heavy capital expenditure which drainage necessitates. In England and Wales alone it is esti
360
mated that there are still about 7 million acres of land which could benefit from under-drainage.
Over the past ten years the annual acreage under-drained in England and Wales as a result of grant-aided schemes has roughly doubled. The acreage under-drained during 1970–71 had reached nearly 200,000 acres, at a cost of £6·3 million. Comparable figures for the following year, 1971–72, are 233,000 acres, at a cost of £7·4 million. But we need to maintain this impetus. If the higher rates of grant were not continued it might well become more difficult to convince farmers, and particularly those in the traditional grassland areas, that drainage deserves a very high priority in any plans for investment, both in order to facilitate an extension of arable crops and in order to enable the grass itself to be fully exploited. These Variation Schemes therefore amend the principal Schemes in order to continue the present enhanced rates for field drainage. These will remain at 60 per cent. for field drainage work and 70 per cent. if the work is for the benefit of hill land. So far as the Exchequer is concerned, the continuance of the higher rates on field drainage in the United Kingdom is estimated to increase the annual cost of the grant by about £2 million.
It will, I think, be generally accepted that field drainage deserves this high priority in its present condition. But farming conditions have changed since grants for farm improvements were originally introduced, and we have therefore considered whether expenditure of public money is still called for on various relatively minor items. My right honourable friend concluded that grant was no longer justified in certain cases. The Scheme therefore specifies seven items for which grant has been ended in so far as lowland farms are concerned. These items are sheep and cattle grids; fencing; shelter belts; hedge removal; land clearance and reclamation (but excluding orchard grubbing); ploughing, destruction of cover for rabbits and claying and marling. To qualify for grants on these items applications for approval must have been made on or before March 31. However, before applications ceased to be accepted a period of notice was given, to allow farmers who already had plans in hand

361
to get in their applications. Farmers throughout the country made very good use of this opportunity. The annual savings from the ending of the grant on these minor items will come to less than the figure of some £2 million, which will be required for the continuance of the higher drainage grant.
My Lords, I said that the grant on these items will no longer be available to lowland farms. Nevertheless, we intend that hill farmers shall still be able to get a 50 per cent. grant for the works that concern them, just as would have been the case if the separate items had not been terminated. The Variation Schemes therefore extend the list of works and facilities covered by the special hill item, which is Item 13 of Schedule 2 to the main Schemes. Although the ploughing grants are not specifically mentioned as being continued for the hills, I would point out that ploughing work of a capital nature will continue to qualify in the hills as "regeneration of grassland" or "reclamation of land", which are already mentioned in the hill item.
I should like to refer briefly to the technical amendment contained in paragraph (2)(a) of the Variation Scheme for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Its purpose is simply to correct a minor printing error in paragraph (3)(1)(a) of the principal Scheme. These Schemes are designed to secure the right priorities in the expenditure under the farm capital grants so that assistance is concentrated where it is most needed. The capital grants are of course only one aspect of the support arrangements for agriculture, but in conjunction with the Annual Review Award and the steps being taken to strengthen the market for farm produce. I believe they will help our farmers and landowners to achieve an expansion of production and an improvement in their returns. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Farm Capital Grant (Variation) Scheme, 1972 be approved.—(The Earl Ferrers)
7.3 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, for the very detailed statement which he made—so detailed in part, I am afraid, that I shall have to be content to wait until I read it to-morrow in order that
362
it may sink in—but I am sure that those of your Lordships who are more directly concerned with farming than I am will appreciate the value of some of these statistics quoted by the noble Earl.
Towards the end of his remarks he used words, which are now becoming familiar from this Government, about "concentrating the aid where it is most needed". These words have perhaps a less happy connotation when they are directed to rents of houses than in other directions. It is not for me to quarrel with anything that the Government may do when they decide that certain grants which have hitherto been paid to farmers are not now needed and propose to withdraw them, though it is a certain satisfaction to me to know that they continue for hill land, which has perhaps a proportionately greater importance in Scotland than South of the Border. I found myself very substantially in agreement with the noble Earl's references to grants for drainage. He indicated that the arrangements made under the last Government, by which these grants would be available for two years until 1972, are now being continued. I am not certain whether the noble Lord meant that these grants are to be continued indefinitely or for a further limited period. Perhaps he can clarify that for me.
The only other thing I wish to say concerns items which are now being dropped in paragraph (2)(b)(i) and which are being added by paragraph (2)(c) to paragraph 13 of Schedule 2 so that they may continue to apply to hill land. I am a little mystified by some of the wording. When one reads that the grant will be continued for items like
"the removal of hedges, tree roots, boulders or other like obstructions …"
what other obstruction can be like a boulder or a tree root? I presume in fact that the "other obstructions" may be the alternatives not merely to boulders but to the various things which come before them. I have become very much infected with the views of the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, who does not like to see strange or unnecessary words in legislation. Quite frankly, I wonder what useful purpose is served by including the word "like" here. Presumably what is meant is that any obstruction which is likely to interfere with work which

363
would otherwise be done is to be provided for—or are we to understand that unless something can establish some kind of identity or similarity with a tree root or boulder it is an obstruction which the farmer must put up with and that he will not get any grant for its removal? I hope that the noble Earl can answer the first and more serious point and let me know what "a like obstruction" is. I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth that I do not intend to repeat any of these remarks on the Scottish Scheme, which I am prepared to accept follows the English one.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, as a practical farmer I welcome the Farm Capital Grant (Variation) Scheme, which contains a very good point about land drainage. I am certain that if more farmers took advantage of this, production would go up. There is one thing that I should like to mention, and it concerns grants for shelter belts. I do not think it is sufficiently realised what benefits a shelter belt confers in the production of either grass or corn crops. A reduction of the wind raises the temperature of the soil and makes things grow. There is one other thing: I would ask the noble Earl whether these grants come off the money we shall have to pay to the EEC when we join.
LORD WISE: My Lords, may I also ask the noble Earl to clarify one small point for me? I am most perturbed by the colossal and rapid build-up in the rabbit popuation. Am I right in assuming that the grant will still be paid in lowland areas for scrub clearance in order to eliminate rabbit cover?
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, I welcome this increase in the drainage grant, but I would particularly like to speak to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, of "other like obstructions". Other like stone obstructions which occur to me are ruins of old farm cottages or farm buildings which can sometimes be found, especially after farms have been merged with others. Also, I have sometimes had experience of the remains of military erections from the last war which have not been completely removed. I would suggest to the noble Earl that these are all things that might come under the definition of "other like obstructions".
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am very grateful to your Lordships for giving such approval to these Schemes. I am bound to say that I was fascinated by one remark of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, which I shall certainly remember, when he said, "It is not for me to quarrel with the Government when they have decided what to do". I am delighted to know that, and I hope we shall see the noble Lord's compliance with what the Government do in future.
LORD HUGHES: Either I did not complete the sentence or the noble Lord did not listen to the end of it. I said: "when they decide to take money away from the farmers".
EARL FERRERS: That certainly puts a slightly different complexion on the matter. The noble Lord asked whether the Government were continuing the drainage grant for just a two-year period or for longer. The two-year period was the period which the noble Lord's Party, when in Government, accepted. We have been rather more generous and have decided to make it a part of the Scheme. Therefore, it will not continue for just a two-year period but will continue, relatively speaking, as long as the Scheme lasts, or until it is altered.
My noble friend Lord Balerno explained what he thought was the answer to the noble Lord's query with regard to the
"removal of hedges, tree roots, boulders or other like obstructions."
The noble Lord asked what was an "other like obstruction". Rather frivously, I thought that the answer was a Member of the Opposition Front Bench. But on more serious consideration I felt that my noble friend had hit the nail on the head when he said that when you are levelling land for cultivation you are likely to come up against some curious obstructions; for instance, where airfields were constructed during the war. There are many curious underground obstructions which may come to light and which clearly have to be removed. Where this is the case this will be covered under the Scheme.
The noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, referred to the shelter belts. I agree with him that shelter belts and the making of them is something which is desirable,

365
both from the point of view of amenity and agricultural land. However, the fact is that the grant which has been payable in the past has been so small, and people have applied the grant to such a small extent, that it has been decided that this would not be a sensible means of using public money in the future as the sum concerned amounted to only about £9,000.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, the grant was small. May I ask on what grounds it was decided that it should not be continued?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the basis on which my right honourable friend worked is that if money is going to be spent it should be spent in the way most likely to produce the best results. As this was a Scheme which was very little used, it was decided that it should not be continued. That does not mean to say that the farmers should not be encouraged to plant their own shelter belts, because this would be something which would be very beneficial.
The noble Lord also referred to the European Economic Community. I am pleased to tell him that to a certain extent we shall be able to use this particular assistance for capital investment which we have been discussing when we accede to the European Community. The agreements which were reached in Brussels shortly before Easter on the directives for structural reform provide sufficient flexibility to enable us, once we are members of the Community, to continue the system broadly as at present using methods which are appropriate to our own circumstances.
The noble Lord, Lord Wise, asked whether this referred to rabbit scrub clearance. Rabbit scrub clearance is not going to be included in future in the Farm Capital Grant Scheme.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, before the noble Earl finally resumes his seat may I point out that with the aid of his noble friend Lord Balerno, he has only answered part of my question? I am willing to accept that a ruined building or an old wartime erection might be a suitable obstruction to be removed with the aid of this grant. I cannot accept that it would necessarily fall into the category of being a "like obstruction".
366
I can see no resemblance between a ruined cottage and either a boulder or a tree root. But perhaps to the ministerial or civil servant mind they just look like two sides of the same coin. On a more serious note, I asked why the word "like" was put in because I can only see that it has some significance if one has in mind that there can be other kinds of obstruction which will not rank for grant. Is it intended that there could be an obstruction that a farmer might come across on his land and someone in the Ministry of Agriculture or the Scottish Office could say, "This is not one of the obstructions referred to and it is not a 'like obstruction '"? Can the Minister give me any indication as to what possible kind of obstruction would be excluded?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, as the noble Lord has come on to a very technical, precise point, as to what a "like" object is, I should prefer to consider it a little. He asks me off-the-cuff what is to be excluded. I should have thought that a "like" object to a boulder might well be a lump of concrete. There is certainly a similarity there. If the noble Lord is asking me to categorise those objects which are not "like" objects and which will be excluded I will certainly consider this and write to him.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I must accept that. I was hoping that among the frequent notes that the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, was passing over to the noble Earl one was the answer to my question.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, while some of the notes may have been the answer to the noble Lord's question, I am afraid that I have not read them.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, might I suggest that an electric pylon is an obstruction but not a "like obstruction"?

FARM CAPITAL GRANT (VARIA TION) (SCOTLAND) SCHEME 1972
LORD POLWARTH: My Lords, I beg to move that this scheme be approved.
Moved, That the Farm Capital Grant (Variation) (Scotland) Scheme 1972, be approved.—(Lord Polwarth.)

INTERIM COMMISSION FOR THE INTERNATIONAL TRADE ORGANISATION (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES) ORDER 1972
7.16 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, This short Order and the one that follows it, which have already been considered in another place, are of very limited scope. Neither of them will confer any immunity from legal process upon anybody. They are necessary because of our continued co-operation with other countries in matters of joint concern, and I trust that this House will welcome them. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Interim Commission for the International Trade Organisation (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1972, laid before the House on March 22 be approved.—(The Marquess of Lothian.)

INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR THE MANAGEMENT OF TECH NOLOGY (IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES) ORDER 1972
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I beg to move that this Order be approved.
Moved, That the Draft International Institute for the Management of Technology (Immunities and Privileges) Order 1972, laid before the House on March 22 be approved.—(The Marquess of Lothian.)

CLYDE RIVER PURIFICATION BOARD BILL
Reported, with Amendments.