Lords Sitting of 12 December 1972

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Exeter.

SAFETY MEASURES IN SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what safety measures (if any) are laid down in legislative form to protect the eyesight of children and students whilst engaged in activities of a practical nature in laboratories and workshops of schools and colleges coming within the terms of the Education Act 1944.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE (LORD BELSTEAD): My Lords, there are no statutory or regulatory provisions which apply to the protection of the eyesight of children and students while being taught in schools and colleges. My right honourable friend's Department does however give advice on this matter through its publications and through contact between Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools and local education authorities, schools and colleges. There is comprehensive reference to measures for the protection of eyesight, covering a variety of dangers, in the Department's Education pamphlet No. 53, Safety at School.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the necessity for the protection of the children who are engaged in laboratories where scientific studies are taking place, and that it is just as necessary for them to have regulations pertaining to their eyesight and the protection of their eyes as it is for people engaged in industrial concerns? Am I to understand that regulations are coming into effect with regard to those employed in industries? Would the noble Lord
464
regard as necessary the making of similar provisions for children who are subjected to this danger?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord about the necessity for having regard to safety in schools and colleges. The noble Lord might wish to know that the current safety pamphlet, Safety at School, is being followed up now with another one which will deal with safety in science laboratories specifically; and yet another one which will deal specifically with safety in workshops, art and craft and home economics departments, and these will be published early in 1973. In fact, the noble Lord's Question has come in time for us to see what the noble Lord says before these publications go off for printing.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, is the noble Lord able to say how many accidents there have been in laboratories and school workshops?
LORD BELSTEAD: I am sorry, my Lords; I am afraid I cannot. I will try to find out whether there is an answer and will get in touch with the noble Lord.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in many laboratories nowadays the wearing of glasses is being made compulsory? Could he not ensure that this is generally made compulsory throughout the whole country, because the plastic glasses which are available to-day are quite cheap and easily obtainable?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, the list of occasions on which care must be taken to shield the eyes in a school or college is very considerable, and they are listed in the pamphlet to which I have already referred. But as regards making the matter compulsory, I have already sought to reply to the noble Lord, Lord Janner, on this point. We feel that the system of inspections of schools is the one best suited to schools, as opposed to industry.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us how frequently a particular class is inspected? In my experience it is so infrequent that the inspection can be largely ignored.
LORD BELSTEAD: No, my Lords, this is not so. Inspections take place on

465
occasions which, for obvious reasons, are not laid down beforehand so that it is not generally known when an inspection will in fact take place.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that school medical officers, as I take it, still make their recommendation and their examination regarding the eyesight of these children as they did in the case of my own son? In his case they recommended that he should go to a hospital. Is there still that form of liaison with the eye hospital for medical examination? That is what happened in his particular case and the result was satisfactory.
LORD BELSTEAD: Yes, my Lords; but we are getting a little way from the intention of the noble Lord's original Question.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, can the noble Lord assure me that the regulations laid down for schools and those laid down for industrial premises are closely similar? Are they exactly the same or are there some differences? Would it not be very valuable, for the safety of these children in future in industry, that they should have had already in the schools some practice of going through these safety precautions?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, as I tried to make clear in my original Answer, there is no statutory or regulatory provision for the protection of the eyesight of children in schools or colleges. There are of course building regulations. These are similar to, but not the same as, those in industry.

FISHERIES CONSERVATION IN THE ATLANTIC
2.42 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 support the proposal of the North Atlantic Assembly to have an investigation by the Powers concerned, including Canada and the United States of America, into the conservation of fish and other maritime resources in the Atlantic area.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government will consider with interest the report of the Assembly's Scientific and Technical Committee, if one is made, and if it is brought to our attention by the accepted procedures.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister, may I ask whether he would not regard this proposal, initiated by my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones, as a constructive contribution to the settlement of the problem of fishery areas in the Atlantic, now not limited to Iceland, extending to Norway and many American countries? Would it not be a very good preparation for the projected International Conference on Law of the Sea?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, will know, the North Atlantic Assembly is not an official organisation and the accepted procedure is that any reports made by the Assembly go to the Secretary General of NATO and thereafter, if thought fit, to the member countries. I would assure him that we are as equally concerned as is he with regard to the protection of fisheries in the North Atlantic and we are members of a number of consortia already involved in doing just that.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, will my noble friend be careful not to fall into the trap inherent in this Question? This matter, so far as Iceland is concerned, has already been settled at the The Hague, and we stand our ground on it.
EARL FERRERS: Yes, my Lords, but I think the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, had in mind a rather wider connotation than that which my noble friend referred to.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister may I ask him this question? Is it not enormously important that this issue should be discussed on a wider basis than the issue of Iceland, in view of Norway, potentially, and many other territories being concerned about their territorial waters? Will Her Majesty's Government seek to expedite the Conference on the Law of the Sea which may take place next year or in 1974, and, in view of its urgency, see that it takes place as early as possible?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord's last question, I would tell him that we believe that international co-operation is absolutely vital and at the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference, which is to be held next year, we shall be discussing this matter in detail. I would also tell the noble Lord that we are in fact involved with three organisations at the moment: the North Atlantic International Council for the Exploration of the Sea, the International Commission for the North-West Atlantic Fisheries and the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission. We are involved with all these bodies, and we are actively pursuing this matter.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank the Minister.

AIR FARES: PROPOSED EUROPEAN CONFERENCE
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what reply has been received from the Civil Aviation Authority concerning the suggestion that a European Fares Conference should be held to discuss the introduction of cheap fares on scheduled air services in Europe similar to those agreed in principle for the North Atlantic route as from April 1, 1973.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, the Authority tell me that they have considered carefully the points put by the noble Baroness in her supplementary questions on November 23. It is the Authority's view that it is premature to press the airlines to hold such a conference as the noble Baroness suggests. The Authority tell me that B.E.A., with their agreement, have been pressing for the introduction of advance booking fares on scheduled services but have been unable to persuade any of the other airlines concerned to adopt them. This is essentially a matter where progress depends on agreement between the airlines and governmental authorities concerned.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, would it not be possible for the Government to take a more progressive view than that of the Civil Aviation Authority? Is the Minister aware that the promotional fares existing in this country at the moment cover neither all travellers nor all routes, and that what is wanted is one simple plan by which travellers can book in advance? Would the Minister not agree that our own scheduled airlines at the moment feel that they are fighting for the survival of scheduled air services and that they themselves realise that they must have an answer to the cheap fares to be given by the charter airlines as from April 1?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, if it is progressive to press for the introduction of the advance charter service, this is something which we have been doing, but the fact remains that it would be quite unrealistic to imagine that it would be possible to introduce such a service in Europe by April 1 next. All the evidence is that other countries will be looking carefully to see the effect of the introduction of these services on the North Atlantic and mid Atlantic routes before they make up their minds whether it is a good thing for Europe.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I am sorry but obviously I was not clear. Is the Minister aware that I was not pressing for cheaper fares on charter services? Those are to be available from April 1. Does the Minister not recall that I was asking whether it

469
was not true that our own scheduled airlines were wanting an answer to those cheap fares that were to be introduced by the charter airlines; and is he not further aware that it is no use saying it is always premature? Why should air travellers in Europe not have the same consideration as those crossing the North Atlantic?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the answer to the last part of the question is that the conditions in the two areas are totally different, and this has long been recognised. In the European market air services have developed in a totally different way from that in the transatlantic market. For example, cheap travel based on package tours has developed very widely indeed in the European market. I can only repeat that it is not realistic to suppose that further cheap fares can be introduced in Europe in addition to the existing concessionary fares by April of the coming year.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, while appreciating that British airlines have given the lead in reducing world fares on many routes, is it not quite extraordinary that it is now much cheaper to fly to New York from this country than to the central Mediterranean? Will the Government continue to give a lead and endeavour to see that people who cannot afford high fares are able to take advantage of the lower fares?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I think it is always necessary to compare like with like, but I can assure noble Lords that we shall go on pressing for the introduction of some service of this kind in Europe. But, as I have said, it must depend on the agreement of other countries.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that really and truly nobody will have anything much to fear if the Government continue to press in the present manner? Is it not possible for them to have a conference to deal with fares after April 1? Have we to stay in the negative because we cannot have cheap fares before April 1?
LORD DRUMALBYN: No, my Lords. What I said to the noble Baroness was that the evidence is that other countries will be watching to see what the effect of
470
these reduced fares in the Atlantic services will be over the year, and in the light of that it may be possible to persuade other countries to come to the conference table. But at the moment it is unrealistic to suppose that they would.

STUDENTS' GRANTS
LORD SEGAL: 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 would consider making loans available, with favourable terms of repayment, to university students who have to undergo genuine financial hardship during the course of their studies.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, the standard grant is designed to enable students to complete their course without hardship; and award-making bodies have discretion to make additional payments in certain circumstances, where they judge that students would otherwise suffer undue hardship. My right honourable friend does not consider it necessary to introduce a system of Government loans to supplement the present grant system.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that we are far behind other countries in making loans available to supplement existing student grants, and that however generous these grants may be there will always exist cases of genuine hardship which can severely damage a student's career? Cannot the Government be a little more helpful in this matter?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I am aware of other systems of student support which can be found in, for example, some countries of Europe. The British system of guaranteed support in the form of grant for all those accepted for degree and comparable courses is however unique, and it is fair to point out to the noble Lord that it is well designed for the normal three-year degree course which we have in this country. As regards the question of hardship, I would draw the noble Lord's attention to provisions in the awards regulations which specifically allow for assistance in respect of hardship

471
for dependants and difficulties during vacations.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that no other country in the world gives such generous grants to students as we in this country give?
LORD BELSTEAD: I believe this is so, my Lords, but of course it is partly so for the reason I have submitted—namely, that many other countries have systems of loans which they feel are better tailored to their degree courses.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that genuine cases of hardship still exist and that there is an enormous amount of dissatisfaction among students who are genuinely undergoing financial hardship? Cannot some form of loan be made available, at least for that small percentage of students whose parents, for perfectly justifiable reasons, have had to default in their contributions?
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, I have submitted to the House that it is possible to deal with cases of hardship. The noble Lord has put his finger on the one difficult case: that of the parent who does not pay the parental contribution. If this were to be wiped away and a system of loans put in its place, the cost would be in the region of £35 million to £40 million. In addition, it would mean that the people who would benefit most would be parents who are better off.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that while appreciating his acceptance of the hardship point that my noble friend Lord Segal raises, we on this side of the House greatly welcome the reaffirmation of the Government's policy of dealing with basic needs by grants and not by loans?
LORD BELSTEAD: I am grateful to the noble Baroness.

BUSINESS
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Aberdare will be making a Statement about family planning at a suitable moment after 3.30 p.m.
CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911, and read 1a.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with for the purpose of taking the Consolidated Fund Bill through all its stages this day.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived; Bill read 3a, and passed.

ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORITY (WEAPONS GROUP) BILL [H.L.]
2.58 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received. During the Committee stage I said that I would look again at what the noble Lords, Lord Winterbottom, Lord Avebury and Lord Wynne-Jones, had said in suport of the proposal to include in Clause 2 of the Bill the assurances I had given about the terms and conditions of service of employees who come into the Civil Service, and I think your Lordships would wish me to say something about that at this stage before we go on to the Amendments which have been tabled to other clauses.
I said that I would see how inappropriate an Amendment on the lines that had been proposed would be, and I have

473
to tell your Lordships that I have concluded that it would be so inappropriate that I must decline to adopt it. Apart from the objections of principle to the terms and conditions of civil servants being governed by Statute, there are other practical objections. In the Government's view, as has been said on other occasions and in other places, the right way to conduct industrial relations is by collective agreements freely negotiated between employer and employees. In the present case, the terms and conditions of people coming into the Civil Service from the Authority will be set out in such agreements, which take as their starting point the assurance that terms and conditions, taken as a whole, will be no less favourable than those in existing contracts.
As regards the non-industrial staff, it is not the case, as was suggested, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, that the discussions we have had with the representatives are recorded only in minutes of meetings. They are now enshrined in a detailed document which is nearing finality and which will be a formal, signed agreement dealing with specific points where differences in conditions of service occur. It will clearly and specifically indicate the rights of individuals in these matters and will provide that any point of detail still under discussion and any matters that may have been overlooked in the negotiations will similarly be settled in the light of the assurances I have given. On the side of the industrial staff, an agreement has already been entered into with the trade unions, and the assurance given to them will equally apply to any points that might not have been covered.
The agreements to which I have referred can, under the Industrial Relations Act, be legally enforceable, and this will provide for the "justiciability" about which the noble Lord, Lord Ave-bury, was so concerned. I think it would be more difficult for an individual who thought he was being unfairly treated to make a case to a civil court on the basis of a general provision in this Bill, the interpretation of which would be in the hands of the court, than to do so on the basis of a detailed agreement on which he could take his case to the National Industrial Relations Court. I therefore feel that it is in the best interests of the
474
staff to rely on these detailed agreements and I really think that the present position is satisfactory. I beg to move that the Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Carrington.)
LORD KENNET: My Lords, as the noble Lord has chosen to raise this point on the Question that the Report be now received, perhaps I should comment that the assurances which he has given are certainly an advance on those which he was able to give to my noble friend in Committee, and I think that most noble Lords on this side will be content to rest by them. We should, however, draw attention to the difference between the conditions that Parliament feels fit to impose on private companies and those it feels fit to impose on the Government. I have in mind the precedent quoted by my noble friend Lord Winterbottom—the Atomic Energy Authority Act 1971—which passed certain staff from the Authority to ordinary company employment. That Act says that when they enter company employment in the private sector they shall be no worse treated than they were treated when in the employment of the Authority. The present Bill passes certain staff from the Authority directly into the Civil Service and it does not say that they shall be no worse treated when they are in the Civil Service, under the care of the Secretary of State, than they were when in the employment of the Authority. If this were to become a regular trend, namely, that Parliament binds the private sector by Statute to do certain things but that Whitehall rejects binding of the same sort when applied to the Government, it might be a pity. I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us that it is not an emerging trend in labour legislation which is going to be followed by the present Government.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, if I may speak again by the leave of the House, I can certainly tell the noble Lord that if I thought that the effect of putting the words suggested on the Committee stage into this Bill would be that those people who were being transferred to the Civil Service and the Ministry of Defence would be better off, I would certainly have put them in; but I am convinced, in point of fact, that it will be better to leave things as they are.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 1 [Transfer of Atomic Energy Authority Weapons Group to Secretary of State]:
3.2 p.m.
LORD WYNNE-JONES LORD WYNNE-JONES moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 9, after ("Group") insert (",except that portion of the work which is concerned with the production of radio- and other isotopes and with such other activities as are primarily for civil purposes;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to move this Amendment to Clause 1(1) of the Bill. In this clause the object of the Bill is clearly set out, namely, to transfer from the Atomic Energy Authority to the Ministry of Defence the administration and management of Aldermaston and certain other parts of the present Atomic Energy Authority's domain which are concerned with weapons. We discussed many of the details at Second Reading and at Committee stage and it became clear that there was one compelling reason which made the Minister come before this House with this Bill. That reason, if I may use his own words, was the desire to have control and, as he said:
"I start from the standpoint of the Minister who has to run a Defence Budget of some £3,000 million a year and get value for money. A very large part of the money—not perhaps such a large part as we should like—is spent on research and development and production. I do not believe it is possible to use economically the resources which I have at my disposal at the Ministry of Defence unless I am actually managing all the establishments where there is research and development and production for the Armed Services."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16/11/72, col. 839.]
And that is the justification for this Bill.
We could argue about this particular thesis. I personally am not prepared to accept it. But that is not really the point. We have got beyond the Second Reading and we are now at the stage where we are trying to see that the Bill is clear and is able to work properly. When the Minister tells the House that his justification for the Bill is that he, as Minister of Defence, must have under his control and management all the research establishments which are concerned with defence, then he has immediately conceded the important point that the research done for a Ministry should be under the control of
476
that Ministry. If he concedes that point (and that it seems to me is the only purpose of the Bill) then he must surely concede that any research which is done in his establishments which is not for his Ministry should be taken away from those establishments. Because if it is logical to take the work on weapons away from the Atomic Energy Authority and give it to the Ministry of Defence, then equally one should remove from the Weapons Department that work which is not concerned with weapons but which is there purely for civil purposes. That concerns not a minute fraction of the work. If it were possible to say that it was just an odd piece of work here and there; if it were reasonable to state that there were simply one or two people employed in this way, one might say that it is not worthwhile splitting hairs about one or two people. But the Minister himself stated both on Second Reading and in the discussions that we had on the Committee stage, that at least 20 per cent, of the work at Aldermaston is not for defence purposes at all, but is work concerned with radio and other isotopes. Indeed, it is concerned also with work relating to the breeder reactor and with various aspects, which are discussed in another Amendment, which have nothing directly to do with weapons development.
Therefore, my Lords, on the very argument that the Minister himself uses, this portion of the work should surely remain with the Atomic Energy Authority, otherwise the whole Bill makes no sense. As I have said, I am prepared to argue with the Minister on whether it makes sense in any case, but that is a totally different issue. The point is that on his own argument this particular work should not remain with the Ministry of Defence. It could be stated that work can be done just as well in one establishment as in another. Indeed, I would not for a moment deny that, but if we have an establishment which is a weapons establishment it is necessarily, and rightly, going to be governed by strict rules with regard to secrecy. It is inevitable that information is not allowed to pet out from a weapons department. Yet the whole essence of doing civil work is that the knowledge does get out and gets out quickly. Therefore there is an incompatibility between running work in a defence establishment and running work

477
which is primarily meant for civil purposes.
The work on radio-isotopes is very well known. Aldermaston has been well known for that work, and it is work which has been of great benefit for medical and industrial purposes and for research purposes in universities and elsewhere. There is a great future for that work. It is interesting to notice that the originator of the atom bomb himself said that he thought that the real future for atomic fission lay not in energy but rather in the beneficial results of radio-isotopes. Whether he was right or wrong, there is no question but that the radio-isotope work is immensely important, and important in its own right, which has nothing to do with weapons. Therefore, I move this Amendment which would allow the retention of the whole of the work which is concerned simply with radio and other isotopes—I put it in this form because one has both radioactive and non-radioactive isotopes and both may be made in a place like Aldermaston—and such other activities as are primarily for civil purposes, I beg to move.
3.10 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, after the Second Reading and the Committee stage of this Bill, I understand perfectly well what the noble Lord is trying to do, but I hope that I can satisfy him and explain to him why what he is suggesting is not possible. The activities of the Weapons Group are primarily for defence purposes, and that is why it is right and proper, in my view, even if it not in his view, that the Weapons Group should come to the Ministry of Defence. But where, from time to time, there may be any spare effort or facilities not fully employed for defence purposes, or where there are some special skills which have been built up for defence and which are particularly needed to help in the solution of a civil problem, then the group undertakes civil work.
I must make it clear, however, that there is no separate organisation inside the Weapons Group to do this. Civil work may be done anywhere within the Group, using any effort or any facilities which are appropriate for a particular civil task, and it is my intention that civil work should continue in this way. But
478
it would not be possible, as I hope the noble Lord will understand from what I have just said, to isolate a defined part of the Weapons Group and to exclude it from the transfer to the Ministry of Defence. The civilian tasks at the A.W.R.E. will be undertaken on a customer-contractor basis; that is to say, the A.E.A. or other civil departments—because it is not only the A.E.A.—will place contracts with the Ministry of Defence, and the customer will be in control both of the purpose and of the ambit of the work.
I realise, because the noble Lord ended his remarks with this point, that he is particularly concerned about production of radioactive isotopes. This is, of course, primarily the responsibility of the Radiochemical Centre at Amersham, which was set up as a commercial organisation for this purpose by the Atomic Energy Authority Act in 1971. Some isotope production is undertaken by the Authority on behalf of the Radiochemical Centre at various of the Authority's research establishments. However, no isotope production is currently being done within the Weapons Group. I hope that this will help to allay the noble Lord's fears that the transfer of the group's activities will in any way impede the progress of this important area of work.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 6 [Powers of Authority in relation to atomic weapons development, etc.]:
3.13 p.m.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 6, line 8, at end insert—
"( ) Nothing in subsection (1) above shall prohibit the Authority from engaging in any work, as specified in that subsection, for other than war-like applications in respect of explosive nuclear devices of up to 100 Kilogram TNT equivalent."
The noble Lord said: This is the same Amendment as I put down on Committee stage, and I would explain at once that this Amendment and Amendment No. 5, which is a definition Amendment, are in my mind alternatives; I seek to achieve the same effects by either one of these Amendments. In the event that the Secretary of State was willing to accept one or the other, then I would not move the other or the one.
May I remind the House, since we had a rather small attendance on Committee, what this is all about? My noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones was anxious to keep civil isotope production out of the hands of the Secretary of State. I do not know about my noble friend, but for my part I was convinced that the Bill would not put it into the hands of the Secretary of State, or at any rate not in a measure requiring correction in this House. My purpose is to keep research and development into the generation of electricity by thermo-nuclear fusion out of the veto of the Secretary of State, not, as I said at an earlier stage, because I believed the Secretary of State would veto anything worth while, but because it seems that in any case it should not be anything to do with the Ministry of Defence. To cut a long story short, the development of civil thermo-nuclear fusion is the greatest, and apparently at the moment possibly the only, hope of mankind in dealing with the crisis of energy and resources with which we are faced over the next 30 to 50 years. It will be clean; supplies are limitless; it will be a great deal safer than fission as a source of electricity.
It appears that the most fruitful approach to this subject—I am sorry to bore the Secretary of State all over again with this, but there are other noble Lords who would like to know what it is about—is by devising and controlling a series of very small nuclear explosions. So my purpose is to say that though research and development into nuclear explosions in general will pass under the control of the Secretary of State, because they are bombs or things like bombs, yet research and development into very small nuclear explosions—which I define here by a certain physical level—should not pass under the control of the Secretary of State, because this is civil research which ought to be as open as possible. It has to do with the future of the electricity generating industry in this country, and it has nothing to do with defence.
At the last time round, the Secretary of State said that he was aware of what we on this side were after in moving this Amendment, and that he believed that the Bill as drafted would not put him in control of this civil fusion research. I asked him how that could be, and he said that he would look into the matter
480
and see whether he could find any form of words which would put it beyond doubt that his veto did not extend over this form of research. I deduce from the absence of a Government Amendment that he has been unable to find that form of words; therefore I put down my own Amendment again in the same words as before. The Secretary of State says that the Bill as drafted does not give him control over this research, although it does give him control over research and development into all explosive nuclear devices. At the earlier stage I asked the Secretary of State whether the fusion reactor which is being researched into would be not explosive or not nuclear or not a device. At that moment he was not quite ready to answer which of these things it would not be; but it must not be one of those things if it is to escape his veto. I beg to move.
LORD LOVAT: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, how this proposal would affect Dounreay, in which we take great pride in Scotland?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I do not think that anything at Dounreay could be described as explosion. It is an extraordinary fission reaction, which is, of its nature, continuous; it does not go "pop, pop, pop", like the fusion reactor that I am talking about.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the great difficulty is that in this subject almost everything goes "pop, pop, pop"; this is the difficulty of definition. If it were possible to devise an Amendment which did what the noble Lords seeks to do I should be very happy to accept it, because he and I are at one about what we are seeking to do; there is no dispute between us. But the difficulty is to find a way of doing it, and this has baffled everybody. Perhaps I might, with the noble Lord's permission, talk about the difficulties of both his Amendments, since he really moved them as one.
The purpose of the Bill is that all activities concerned with research, development and production related to nuclear warheads, whether for warlike application or otherwise, should come under the direct management control of the Ministry of Defence, and that the Atomic Energy Authority should cease to have powers to engage in such activities. It is for this reason that his first Amendment will not

481
do, because it is incompatible with the objectives that I have just stated. The point simply is that military interests extend below the threshold limit quoted in the Amendment, and it is not practicable to identify a finite boundary between military and civilian work in such terms.
Having said that, perhaps I might for one moment say something (because this happened on the Committee stage and I think that I owe the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, an answer) about the doubts expressed both by him and by the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, who suggested that imprecision in the drafting and terminology of the Bill opened the way to misunderstandings about what exactly is being transferred from the Atomic Energy Authority and what is left to them as a result of the operation of Clause 6. In the first place, Clause 6(2) of the Bill repeals the Authority's power under the Atomic Energy Authority Act 1954 to,
"conduct experimental work which may lead to improved types of explosive nuclear assemblies for atomic weapons."
The prohibition in the Act that
"the Authority shall not develop or produce any weapon, or part of a weapon."
remains unchanged. Then under Clause 6(1), the prohibition on the Authority is extended first to embrace research, experiment, development or production on any explosive nuclear devices (which is what we are talking about under this Amendment), and, secondly, to include warlike applications or otherwise in the prohibition. This last phrase is necessary because devices similar to those used in nuclear weapons are capable of use in massive civil engineering projects—the so-called peaceful nuclear explosions. The technology is fundamentally the same, as are the security and international sensitivities and obligations, and this makes it essential that devices for these purposes, are brought within the management control of my Department, which is responsible for the whole.
Before dealing with the second Amendment of the noble Lord, perhaps I could return to a point which was made at the Committee stage when I was asked why we had introduced in the Bill the term "device" when the Atomic Energy Authority Act 1954 has no such reference, and the term used was "explosive nuclear assemblies for atomic weapons". I can only say that since 1954 nuclear
482
weapons technology has made great strides, and with the increase in complexity the term "explosive nuclear assembly" is no longer regarded as aptly covering the variety of techniques involved. More recently, in drawing up the treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons in 1968, there was international agreement that it was necessary to introduce the word "devices" in order to establish an effective net to catch all the activities which were, or might become, related to or concerned with the proliferation of nuclear weapons know-how. "Device", therefore, is an accepted term of art in the nuclear weapons business, internationally as well as nationally.
With regard to the noble Lord's second Amendment he has, if I may be allowed to say so, made an extremely ingenious attempt to get round the difficulty. When I first saw it, being a layman, I thought, "That is fine. That has got over all our difficulties, and we shall not have any trouble on the Report stage." However, I am afraid that it does not work like that, because we are dealing with the fundamentals of matter. It is difficult to find a definition clearly distinguishing the release of nuclear energy in fission or fusion reactions for civil power generation from those capable of application in nuclear weapon technology. I must tell the noble Lord, since I have learnt this, that his Amendment does not do this, and that the definition that he has produced in this Amendment can in fact be held to encompass the fusion work at Culham, about which he is so anxious, and about which I agree with him. The pellets of light elements and their method of introduction, which are subjected to fusion reactions by use of lasers, can be regarded as a "device" in the Oxford English Dictionary meaning of the word. It is capable of exploding and of being exploded, since an explosive release of nuclear energy is the end result of the laser-induced reaction, and it then no longer exists, as such, since the elements are transmuted. The noble Lord shakes his head and appears to doubt the definition of the word "device" in the Oxford English Dictionary.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I agree with that.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Lord agrees with it (and I do not know whether he has looked it up),

483
but perhaps I may remind him of the definition of "device". It is:
"The action, or faculty, of devising; invention, ingenuity…an arrangement, plan, contrivance…stratagem."
Having said that, I think that the noble Lord will see that, much though I should like to accept his Amendment and, if I possibly could, to accommodate him in this case, we have not been able to find a definition which is satisfactory, and have had to rely upon the definition in the non-proliferation treaty.
3.25 p.m.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, the noble Lord has given us a definition which he himself recognises does not lead us very far. Earlier in his speech he said that the word "device" was used because it was wider than the word "assembly". I find this a little odd, because I should have thought that whereas one might have an "assembly of devices" it would be difficult to have a "device of assemblies". It seems to me fairly clear that the word "assembly" is the wider word, and covers much more than does "device". "Device" is a much narrower and more restrictive word than the word "assembly". I should have thought that it would be very much better if the noble Lord were to stand on that ground, and not attempt to make out that the word "device" was the wider word, because if he does I think that he is giving his case away.
If, on the other hand, he were to say that he means the word "device" as being a narrower expression than the word "assembly", then I think (and I say this without having spoken to my noble friend Lord Kennet on this matter) that if he would state clearly that the word "device" was the narrower expression, and was not meant to be as wide as "assembly", we could go a long way towards agreeing. After all, the important point—and it is a serious matter—is that the Atomic Energy Authority must have quite clearly defined the right to investigate all nuclear explosive assemblies; but I would quite agree that, under the Bill, it might be restricted in its investigation of devices. The word "devices" is meant, presumably, for weapons. Those are the narrower things.
I would agree that if he wishes to
484
separate off a portion (as I have said already I do not agree with his idea of separating them off), then surely the sensible thing to do is to separate along the lines of having the narrowly defined "device", and not having the "assembly" at all as being what is being taken over by his Ministry, the Ministry of Defence. In other words, it is quite vital, if we are to continue to have investigation and research into the fundamentals of nuclear energy, that this research should be done not in a defence establishment but by the Atomic Energy Authority, and there should be no restrictions on the Atomic Energy Authority to investigate the principles, whereas, according to this Bill, the Atomic Energy Authority will be restricted in its investigation of the principles. It would be as ludicrous, as I mentioned earlier, to say that because you had an explosion in order to fire a shell, therefore nobody other than the Ministry of Defence should be allowed to study explosives. Had that been the situation there would have been precious few explosives, because most of the work has been done outside Government Ministries. It has been done mainly in the big research establishments of the great companies. I am quite convinced that this Bill, if it is to be effective, has to be interpreted in a narrow way and not in the inclusive way that the noble Lord is trying to persuade us it should be interpreted.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, when I hear the Secretary of State read out the dictionary definition of a "device" which includes the word "ingenuity", and if I then translate and think of an explosive nuclear ingenuity, I am reminded of, for instance, the noble Lord, Lord Penney, and other persons engaged in nuclear work who are extremely ingenious and whose temperament appears to be explosive. The dictionary definition would leave the Secretary of State, within reason, to take charge of all the nuclear scientists displaying more than a certain degree of explosive energy or having a certain temperament. In other words, I do not attach too much importance to the dictionary definition to which the Secretary of State has treated us. On the other hand, I think he makes his point, and I have to give way on both of these Amendments, when he says that military interests extend below the limit which I

485
named in the Amendment. In other words, if there is an overlap in size, in the explosive force or in the TNT equivalent between civil fusion research and research of military interest, then it is clear that I should not press my Amendment, because it would leave work of military interest, which ought to be covered by security, without that cover. I should just like to put this fairly and squarely to the Secretary of State. Is there an overlap in the size of explosion concerned, on the one hand, with civil fusion research and, on the other hand, with, shall we say, military applications? If there is such an overlap, I shall withdraw my Amendment; if not, I am not quite sure that I shall.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, if I may speak again with the leave of the House, may I just say to the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, that if he is saying that the word "device" is less all-embracing than the word "assembly", he is pitting himself against all the experts who drafted the Non-Proliferation Treaty, who felt that the word "assembly" was not a wide enough word. So I am afraid that I cannot comfort the noble Lord by saying that the word "device" has a narrower meaning than the word "assembly", because it was put in precisely for the opposite reason.
With regard to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, I think the answer to his question, is, Yes, I think there is an overlap; and this is precisely the difficulty. But if I may add one more word, which I should perhaps have said in my original remarks, although we are talking about the difficulties of definition, the solutions to which have eluded all of us, there is absolutely no difficulty between my Department or the Atomic Energy Authority or the civil Departments about what we mean by this. All the Departments are quite happy that the intention of the Bill, which is that nuclear explosions and so on should be the business of the Ministry of Defence and that civilian development should be the business of the A.E.A., will in point of fact be carried out, quite regardless of the difficulty of defining this point in the Bill. I hope that with that assurance the noble Lord will withdraw the Amendment.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Director at
486
Culham did not even know, until I told him, that his work would be affected by this Bill?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, it will not be.
LORD KENNET: Then, my Lords, we come back to the original question. Is it not explosive, not nuclear or not a device?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, this is not a Committee stage and I feel extremely diffident in answering the noble Lord. But the point is that, because we have not defined it as the noble Lord seeks to define it, Culham will remain untouched.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I must digest the noble Lord's words at leisure when I read them in Hansard, and use some log tables and some computers to put statement against statement. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

ROYAL ASSENT
3.34 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I have to inform the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Act:
Consolidated Fund (No. 3) Act.

FAMILY PLANNING SERVICES
3.35 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, it might be convenient if I were now to repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services about family planning. It is as follows:
"My right honourable friends, the Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland, and I have carried out a comprehensive review of the provision for family planning services within the

487 s
National Health Service. We have concluded that a substantial expansion is needed if the numbers of unwanted pregnancies are to be reduced. With modern contraceptive methods available there should be fewer abortions and much less of the unhappiness and ill-health which results from unplanned pregnancies.
"There are three areas in which we need to improve our family planning services—advice, education, and free supplies for those who need them. First, my right honourable friends and I propose to expand the family planning advice services, which from April, 1974, will all be the responsibility of the new National Health Service authorities, so that a comprehensive service of advice is readily available free of charge to all who wish to have it. There will be more clinics, more easily accessible, giving free advice on contraceptive methods, and the domiciliary services will be further expanded to enable all who wish and need advice in their home to receive it. More emphasis will be placed on the offering of advice and where appropriate treatment, to patients in hospital, particularly maternity and abortion patients.
"Many people will prefer to consult their general practitioners. At present they receive full advice and services under the National Health Service only where there is a medical need for contraception. I therefore propose to enter into discussions with the medical and pharmaceutical professions to see whether satisfactory arrangements can be agreed with them under which the fees which general practitioners may at present charge National Health Service patients who have no health reasons for avoiding pregnancy, for the work of prescribing the pill or the fitting of an appliance, can be replaced by appropriate remuneration from official sources.
"Secondly, it is clear that we still need to do more to inform the public about the services available and to encourage them to use them. I intend to make extra funds available to the Health Education Council for this purpose and am providing money for special training courses for professional workers. Finally, my right honourable friends
488
and I have concluded that there should be free contraceptive supplies for those who have a special social need and who would otherwise be unlikely to undertake effective contraception and also for those with a financial need. We also propose a new category for automatic exemption from charges for family planning supplies; that is, women who have had a baby or an abortion within the previous twelve months. Apart from these, people with a medical need will pay no more than the standard prescription charge. Others will pay the full cost of their supplies.
"I believe these new arrangements will be generally welcomed. They will be implemented as soon as possible. Their cost will depend on the use which the public makes of the new services. We expect that in response to this demand the total cost for England, Wales and Scotland will build up to about £12 million per year over the next four years compared with current annual expenditure of about £4 million. This represents total additional expenditure of £20 million over the four year period."
My Lords, that ends the Statement.
3.39 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, may I first thank the noble Lord for repeating that long and important Statement which has been promised for some time. We on this side are in full agreement with the outcome of the Government's review: that a substantial expansion is clearly needed, and that we should develop a comprehensive family planning service. The difference between us, if I understood the Statement aright, is that the Government are proposing to provide a free family planning advice service, but payment will still need to be made by certain categories. The vast majority of women will continue to have to buy such supplies and appliances as are prescribed. We are particularly concerned about these distinctions between the different categories. In particular, I should like to ask the noble Lord how he would define a medical need for contraception. I understand from the Statement that even where a need is accepted the woman concerned will still have to pay flat rate prescription charges for their supplies, rather than the full cost.

489
We are also concerned at the definitions of "special social need" and "special financial need", and I ask the noble Lord what criteria will be applied to the categories that were mentioned in the Statement. Does this mean another kind of means test? What kind of social tests will be applied? We are particularly concerned that women will need to have had a baby within the previous twelve months, or an abortion, before they are entitled to full free supplies. This comes at a time when many local authorities are already providing a free service. This point was made in our Second Reading debate on the National Health Service Bill, and I have no doubt that we shall be coming back to it when we go into Committee, particularly on Clause 4 of the Bill, early next week.
May I ask the noble Lord, finally, whether this Statement means that in future those local authorities already providing a free and comprehensive service will be prevented from so doing until such time as their service is transferred to the new integrated National Health Service?
3.41 p.m.
LORD BEAUMONT OF WHITLEY: My Lords, may I, on behalf of noble Lords on these Benches, greatly welcome this Statement? It is very quick and good of the Government to implement 60 per cent, of the Liberal Party policy on this matter passed last September. Perhaps after another two by-elections they will implement the other 40 per cent. There are four questions I want to ask. First, part of this Statement refers to telling people about the service, and letting them know by as wide a means as possible. Will this include a programme of advertising on the mass media as to the availability of these services? I certainly think it should. Secondly, will it also include a pressure on those public or quasi-public bodies which do not accept advertising at the moment on family planning, that they should review the situation? Thirdly, will any finance be put into the research that is needed for more and better ways of family planning? Fourthly, we have now a situation where it will be possible for anyone who is poor to get family planning free. We have a situation now where it is possible to get a male vasectomy on the National Health. Will it
490
be possible to have voluntary female sterilisation on the National Health? That seems to be one thing which is left out at the moment. Finally, I hope that when talking about this the Ministry will not just talk about the expense, as they have in this Statement, but about the immense saving there will be in regard to ill-health, abortion, human misery, et cetera.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness and to the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, at least for their 60 per cent, welcome of this Statement. The noble Baroness asked me one or two questions. First, as regards medical cases, there will be no change so far as they are concerned. At the present moment a person having a medical ailment gets a prescription from his general practitioner and has to pay the subscription charge for that prescription. If our conversations with the general practitioners and the pharmacists reach a successful conclusion, we shall be providing a means whereby a person who goes for advice to a general practitioner will not have to pay the general practitioner; that will be included in his fee. So to that extent we are providing an additional service.
So far as those who have a social need are concerned it is not possible to lay down detailed criteria; but the important thing is that the family should have a special social need, and whether there is a need and whether the person concerned would be unlikely to go for supplies if he had to pay for them is left to the judgment of a professional worker. As to the financial need, it certainly is not intended to introduce any other form of means test. It will be linked with one or other of the entitlements which exist at the moment under the social services. So far as concerns the present situation with the boroughs which provide free supplies, they will be perfectly at liberty to continue to do so; but, of course, in 1974 the whole service will become part of the National Health Service.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, asked me four questions. I think the answer to his first two questions is that this must be a matter for the Health Education Council, to whom we are making extra funds available. I understand that it is in their minds to do something along the lines of at least trying some sort of

491
advertising on the mass media. So far as research is concerned: Yes, we do both support the Family Planning Association and make grants to the Brook Advisory Centres, which are responsible for quite an amount of research. So far as female sterilisation services are concerned we have yet to issue guidance as to what sort of policy will be effective after April 1, 1974. This has not yet been decided.
LADY RUTHVEN OF FREELAND: My Lords, is there some question of the unmarried woman being allowed to have these extra services? I think this matter is very important. It is no good saying, after a girl has had a baby or an abortion, that she can then have free family planning. We really want to prevent her from having an illegitimate baby. I should very much like to know whether this aspect is covered.
LORD ABERDARE: Yes, my Lords; there is no distinction to be made between the married and the unmarried. As I said in the Statement, there will be more clinics, more easily accessible, giving free advice on contraceptive methods. I have no doubt that this will be of help.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, while I am in full agreement with this decision to disseminate birth control information, am I to understand—I hope I am—that this is to apply only to appliances and not to the pill, which I believe has not had sufficient time to be adequately tested?
LORD ABERDARE: No, my Lords; this will certainly apply to the pill as well as to appliances. I have noticed that the noble Baroness has a Question down on this subject, which I shall have pleasure in answering.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord—because I think this should be decided before this information is given to the public—whether he is aware that, for instance, on October 14 the first long article in the British Medical Journal was warning the doctors of the country of the danger that these young women taking the pill may be infertile for years afterwards? I quote that to the House as one reason. Further, is the noble Lord aware that in America (and it was in America that thalidomide was never
492
given, because the doctors said that it was dangerous) there are most eminent people who still say that the pill has not been adequately tested? Is it fair on the innocent young women in this country for the Government to distribute pills indiscriminately in this way?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I think the noble Baroness is anticipating her Question. Her question now is exactly what she has down on the Order Paper.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: No.
LORD ABERDARE: I can only say to the noble Baroness that we are content to take the advice of our own very highly professional expert committee, the Committee on the Safety of Medicines, which has advised us that there is no reason to fear ill-effects from the pill.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, but is it not the fact that the same advisers were wrong on thalidomide?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, the Committee on the Safety of Medicines did not exist in the days of thalidomide.
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, could the noble Lord be persuaded to elucidate a little further what he means by "social need"? To me, it covers such a variety of cases that I am still completely in the dark as to the intentions of the Government in this respect.
LORD ABERDARE: It is, I would hope, my Lords, a fairly imaginative concept. We intend to leave it to the professional worker—it may be the health visitor, it may be the social worker—to advise where there is a suitable case. I can only suggest, as one possibility, a married couple where in fact the husband's income is above the limit at which he would qualify for free supplies but where, because he is a thoroughly selfish and ill-mannered husband, he is not making things sufficiently easy for the wife to afford the supplies. This is the kind of situation we have in mind.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the noble Lord was good enough to mention that this information would be available to all who need it. Would the noble Lord say from what age it will be available? I have in mind the increasing

493
number of schoolgirls of 11, and 11-plus, who are being aborted and who are having illegitimate children. I should be interested to know at what age this information will be available.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, what education is given in the schools is a matter for the education authorities, but it is one point on which there is a great deal of concern. I know that the Department of Education and Science are well aware of the problem.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister. But, having regard to what is happening in our schools, is it really only a matter for the education authorities? Is it not a matter for the education authorities to lay down that something must be done? We have a very effective Health Education Council and I was going to ask the noble Lord whether his Department intend to ask them to embark on a series of talks in the schools; and that any aid or additional grant which the Government give them should be conditional on such talks.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I know that the Health Education Council are well aware of this matter and that they are in close contact with those responsible for the content of the schools programme.

SUPPLY OF GOODS (IMPLIED TERMS) BILL [H.L.]
3.52 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY (THE EARL OF LIMERICK): 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.—(The Earl of Limerick.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Sale by description]:
LORD AIREDALE LORD AIREDALE moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 35, leave out from ("that") to end of line 36 and insert ("the goods are exposed for sale by self-service").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this clause is very clearly stated in the Law Commission Report in paragraph 24, where they say that a useful purpose would be served if it were made quite clear by a suitable Amendment that sales in self-service stores can rank with sales by description. But in the clause itself, the word "self-service" is not used. The words used are:
"…that, being exposed for sale or hire, they are selected by the buyer."
That does not necessarily mean a self-service store. I thought that it would make the Law Commission's intention abundantly clear if the word "self-service" were to appear in the actual clause. That is what this Amendment seeks to do. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: The subsection as now worded is intended to protect the buyer in any situation where the goods are chosen by him without any words being spoken, whether this be in a self-service store or elsewhere in another type of shop. I think that there are two difficulties about the wording of this Amendment. The first is that the Amendment could be held not to apply to all such situations. Let us take a situation very similar to that referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, on Second Reading. Let us suppose that a buyer in, say, a conventional greengrocer's shop where customers are normally served by assistants, picks up a melon and hands it to the shopkeeper with the money but without speaking. Since the goods are not actually offered for sale by self-service, would such a purchase be covered by the proposed Amendment? Perhaps not. This would become a matter of doubt. But it would certainly be caught by the wording in the Bill.
The second difficulty which we see is that at present we have no definition of "self-service". No doubt we all in this House think we know what it means; but it is an area in which there could be a difficulty, a difficulty which is avoidable and which we naturally prefer to avoid. For these reasons, I feel unable

495
to recommend the acceptance of the Amendment.
LORD AIREDALE: I am obliged to the Minister for his explanation. I do not think that we ought to be too worried about definitions. So far as I know there is no definition of "elephant"; but one knows an elephant when one sees it. However, I am grateful to the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Implied undertakings as to quality or fitness]:
3.57 p.m.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK THE EARL OF LIMERICK moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 41, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 42 and insert ("and section 15 of this Act").
The noble Earl said: It might be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss together Amendments Nos. 2 and 4. It may also be helpful, before referring to Clause 3, if I say a few words about the general intent of all the Government Amendments on the Marshalled List, apart from those of a purely technical nature and the two Amendments Nos. 10 and 21 which introduce or amend references to Northern Ireland.
As my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn explained in introducing this Bill—and I think that this would perhaps be an appropriate moment for me to make an apology to the Committee for the fact that I was unavoidably absent abroad on official business when the Second Reading was taken—our intention is that, so far as the protection given by the Bill is concerned, there should be no essential difference between cash sales and sales on credit. This, I think the Committee will agree, is common sense.
But it is necessary to make special provision for sales on instalment credit. This is because in many, if not in most, sales on instalment credit a third party is involved. That party is the finance house. The Hire-Purchase Act 1965 (and the Bill as introduced) provided for this in hire purchase and in conditional sales. Thus, in antecedent negotiations looking towards such transactions if the customer were to make known the purpose for
496
which he was buying the goods and if the antecedent negotiations in which such requirements were made known led the customer to conclude an agreement with a finance company, the finance company would be answerable for the implied conditions as though the dealer were its agent.
These provisions covered only hire purchase and conditional sales; they did not apply to instalment credit sales. Indeed, when it was enacted it was net at all common for a finance house to enter into actual credit sale transactions as distinct from hire purchase or conditional sales transactions. Today, instalment credit sales are increasingly being financed by a third party finance house and we therefore consider it necessary to put all sales on instalment credit, no matter what they are called, on the same footing. All the Government Amendments, except the two concerned with Northern Ireland, are directed towards this end. They have necessitated a little rearrangement of the Bill. As originally drafted, the Bill went most of the way in covering instalment credit sales but, as it was subsequently realised, did not cover all such transactions.
The implied conditions relating to fitness for purpose in conditional sales were previously dealt with in Clause 13(2) which, if later Amendments are accepted, will be deleted. The effect of this will be that both conditional sales and credit sales will be governed, in this respect, by Section 14(3) of the Sale of Goods Act as amended by Clause 3. It is thus necessary to make provision for antecedent negotiation and this is done in the new subsection (6) which also brings forward from the various hire purchase Acts the definition of antecedent negotiations. The later deletion of Clause 13(2) necessitates the deletion of the reference to it at the beginning of this clause.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.0 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE LORD AIREDALE moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 15, leave out ("being bought") and insert ("required").
The noble Lord said: One is indebted to the Law Commission for setting out in Appendix A the relevant sections of the 1893 Act and alongside them the corresponding clauses of this Bill. It makes

497
it easy to compare the differences, and I spotted that whereas at this point the 1893 Act says:
"The purpose for which the goods are required…"
the Law Commission in their draft Bill changed that to:
"The purpose for which the goods are bought…"
In the actual Bill there has been another afterthought. The word "being" is introduced, and so we have,
"The purpose for which the goods are being bought".
I do not know whether there is any intention to change the thinking, but there is, I think, always a danger when language is changed from one Statute to another that lawyers will strain to find a different meaning. They will say that Parliament must have meant something different because if it meant the same thing it would have used the same language. So we may get a situation where lawyers will strain to find a different meaning here and I suspect that we do not intend a different meaning at all. If the word "required" has stood up satisfactorily ever since 1893, I should have thought that there was something to be said for sticking to it on the basis of the devil you know being better than the devil you do not know.
LORD SOMERS: I should have thought there was a great deal in this Amendment, because it is perfectly obvious that if the goods are rejected by the customer because of the description, they are not being bought. Therefore there is no requirement whatsoever.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: I hope I may set Lord Airedale's mind at rest by saying that there is no intention to bring about any change by this change in wording. It is the fact that we have been guided here by the recommendation of the Law Commissions. In their draft clause on page 54 of their Report the Law Commissions used "bought" instead of "required". The clause in the Bill uses the words "being bought" because the purpose of the purchase is made known to the seller before the transaction is completed. One does not change language for the sake of doing so and I am not fully aware of the reasons which led the Law Commissions to this conclusion, but one can say that it is possible to
498
require goods which are not bought and it is certainly possible to buy goods which may not be required. This was the wording preferred by the Law Commissions, and I hope the noble Lord will accept that the present wording of the clause paints the best picture of the relationship here, which is the relationship between buyer and seller, and that with that explanation he will feel able to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD AIREDALE: I should have been happier to stick to the language which has stood up since 1893. But I do not think this is a matter of earthshaking importance, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: The arguments for this Amendment were taken with Amendment No. 2, and I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 33, at end insert—
(" (6) In the application of subsection (3) above to an agreement for the sale of goods under which the purchase price or part of it is payable by instalments any reference to the seller shall include a reference to the person by whom any antecedent negotiations are conducted; and section 58(3) and (5) of the Hire-Purchase Act 1965, section 54(3) and (5) of the Hire-Purchase (Scotland) Act 1965 and section 65(3) and (5) of the Hire-Purchase Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 (meaning of antecedent negotiations and related expressions) shall apply in relation to this subsection as they apply in relation to each of those Acts, but as if a reference to any such agreement were included in the references in subsection (3) of each of those sections to the agreements there mentioned.").—(The Earl of Limerick.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 3, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I do not wish to detain the Committee or appear ungracious about this Bill which, from the consumer angle, is regarded as a step forward, but I wish only to say to the Minister that there is still some element of doubt in the minds of some consumers about the provisions in subsection (2). If, in the course of selling something—I am thinking particularly of something sold during a sale—the salesman should say to the buyer that there is a slight flaw in the article, that may be accepted by the person buying and so he is lulled into a false sense of security. But when he

499
gets home and looks at the purchase he may find that the flaw is not so slight as he thought. I am concerned that a customer should not be deprived of any rights merely because of a brief handling of goods in a crowded shop under rather difficult conditions. Naturally I am not moving any Amendment now, but perhaps when we come to the next stage of the Bill we may discuss this point so that we have it in writing that the sort of situation I have described will not cause a customer to lose his rights in any way.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: I note the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips. This is perhaps a matter which we could conveniently discuss between now and the next stage of the Bill.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Exemption Clauses]:
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): Before I call Amendment No. 5 I should point out to the Committee that if this Amendment is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 6.
4.8 p.m.
LORD GARDINER LORD GARDINER had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 5:
Page 4, line 26, leave out from ("case") to end of line 33.
The noble and learned Lord said: I had intended to move this Amendment simply for the purpose of saying this. As I understand it, we are all agreed that whereas in the case of consumer sales exemption clauses of the kind here in question are to be void, in the case of non-consumer sales—namely, contracts between traders, one of whom may be a big man and the other a small man—while such clauses are not to be void, it is open to the court to say that in all the circumstances of the case it would not be fair or reasonable to allow the person concerned to rely on the clause. There are two questions here. The first is, what are the criteria which the court should employ in determining the reasonableness or unfairness? And, secondly, whatever they are, should they be in the Bill? The Law Commission set cut seven criteria. They did not put them into their own draft clauses because they
500
had another clause which would have enabled the courts to look at the Report and see for themselves what had been the recommended criteria. For reasons which I understand, but with which I do not agree, the Government did not put in. that clause.
On the Second Reading of the Bill, I said that I regretted that the seven criteria which had been set out by the Law Commission had not found their way into the Bill; that instead the Government had invented two criteria of their own, and that, with the greatest respect, I thought so little of those criteria that sooner than have them in I would have nothing and leave the whole matter to the discretion of the courts. Since then I have received a communication from the Law Society expressing the views of solicitors and I have been persuaded by them that whatever the criteria are, they ought to be in the Bill. They say it is important from the point of view of lawyers that the criteria should be in the Bill, so that they may the more certainly be able to advise their clients what the result of the litigation might be.
There is an additional reason why I am not going to press this Amendment, and that is that I should have liked first to have an Amendment to decide what the criteria were to be, and then, secondly, to decide whether they should be in the Bill or not. But as we have already been reminded, page 4, line 26, comes before page 4, line 27; accordingly it was impossible to take the Amendments in that order. For those reasons, I do not propose to move this Amendment.
4.11 p.m.
LORD GARDINER LORD GARDINER moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 4, line 27, leave out from beginning to end of line 33 and insert ("in so far as they are relevant to the instant case—

(a) the bargaining position of the buyer, relative to the seller and to other sources of supply at the time of the contract;

(b) whether the provision excluding or limiting liability is clear in its wording and scope of operation;

(c) whether the steps taken to bring the provision to the attention of the buyer were reasonable in all the circumstances, including any customs of the trade and any previous course of dealing;

(d) whether the buyer was offered and accepted a material benefit in consideration of agreeing to the provision;

501

(c) where the provision excludes or restricts liability unless certain conditions are complied with (for example, claiming within a prescribed time), whether it was, in the events that have occurred, reasonably practicable to comply with those conditions;

(f) whether the goods are manufactured, processed or adapted to the special order of the buyer;

(g) the ultimate incidence of risk and liability arising by reason of defects in the goods.")

The noble and learned Lord said: I beg leave to move Amendment No. 6, which would set out in place of the two criteria at present in the Bill the seven originally recommended by the Law Commission after full consultation with all the interests involved. I would submit that these seven criteria are all most relevant. The first of them reads:
"(a) the bargaining position of the buyer, relative to the seller and to other sources of supply at the time of the contract;".
As we all know, some buyers or some sellers are in a very strong position. I expect your Lordships have all come across the terms on the back of a printed contract drawn up by a very large corporation from whom you proposed to buy goods from which even a lawyer would find it difficult to conceive of any possible circumstances in which the seller could ever be liable in damages or in any way at all. It does not matter whether he delivers you the right quantity or the wrong quantity, or whether he delivers it on the contract date or some other date, he has covered himself all round. This criteria, it seems to me, is most important for the bargaining position of the buyer relative to the seller and to other sources of supply at the time of the contract.
Then, as to
"(b) whether the provision excluding or limiting liability is clear in its wording and scope of operation;"
if one is considering what in all the circumstances it would be fair and reasonable to do, it is, I suggest, obviously right to take into account whether the man who has put forward the clause exempting his own liability has taken the trouble to do so in language which is clear. Then
"(c) whether the steps taken to bring the provision to the attention of the buyer were reasonable in all the circumstances, including any customs of the trade and any previous course of dealing".
I should have thought, was obviously relevant.
Then come,
"(d) whether the buyer was offered and accepted a material benefit in consideration of agreeing to the provision;
(e) where the provision excludes or restricts liability unless certain conditions are complied with (for example, claiming within a prescribed time), whether it was, in the events that have occurred, reasonably practicable to comply with those conditions;".
I contemplated tampering with the Law Commission's draft of this criteria because of an observation made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who said that it would introduce great uncertainty if a tiling was not limited to its application at the time when the contract was made. With the greatest respect, on reflection I cannot think that that is right. Where the lawyer needs to be able to give his client reliable advice is when a dispute arises. If there is a clause which says that you cannot complain of short delivery if you do not give notice within a week, and the judge has to decide whether in all the circumstances it is fair or reasonable to be able to rely on that, if the man who ought to give notice has unfortunately been run over by a bus and has just had his leg off in hospital, I should not have thought it would be very difficult for a lawyer to advise his client whether a judge would say that, in all the circumstances, it would be fair or reasonable to allow him to rely on that clause. Then come
"(f) whether the goods are manufactured processed or adapted to the special order of the buyer;
(g) the ultimate incidence of risk and liability arising by reason of defects in the goods."
In place of these seven criteria pro-nosed by the Law Commission, after ail their consultations, the Government, for reasons not fully explained to us—I appreciate of course that the absence of the Minister on Second Reading was unavoidable; the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was, so to say, fielding for him—have limited the criteria to two:
"(a) whether the buyer knew or ought reasonably to have known of the extent of the term;
(b) whether in buying goods of the description in question the buyer was able to choose whether to buy the goods (from the seller or any other person) under a contract without that term or with a term less unfavourable to himself."
These totally ignore most of the seven criteria of the Law Commission. Since the Second Reading, the Law Society

503
have been unhappy about this situation. They consider that those criteria are insufficient, and in the communication that they have sent to me they have suggested five other criteria which cover a good deal of the Law Commission's ground.
On Second Reading of the Bill the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, who by virtue of his position in presiding in the Court of Appeal has seen a number of cases of this kind, said:
"I entirely agree with my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner that the Law Commission have set out the most valuable seven criteria for the courts to adopt in saying whether something is reasonable or not."—[Official Report, 16/11/72; col. 863.]
I have had a communication from my noble and learned friend just now to say that, as the Committee stage has come on early, he regrets that he will be unable to be here, but that he is still of the same opinion. And an hour ago I received a letter from the National Chamber of Trade saying:
"This Chamber has noted with interest the Amendments to Clause 4 moved by you in Committee. Although the Amendments do not go as far as we would have gone given the opportunity, I thought you would like to know that the line you adopt has our support. The Chamber's view is that there should be no contracting out at all, but if that cannot be achieved your Amendments are very welcome indeed."
It is not my intention, unless anybody wishes me to do so, to ask the Committee to divide on this Amendment, but I should like the Government to have the opportunity of considering what I have ventured to say and the view of my noble and learned friend Lord Denning. I understand that the Law Society have also communicated with the Government. I should like the Government also to consider the Amendments proposed by the Law Society and what has been stated by the National Chamber of Trade, with a view to seeing, on the Report stage, whether we cannot reach accord in this matter. It is plain, I think, that the two little paragraphs in the Bill as it stands do not attempt to deal with a majority of the seven put forward by the Law Commission. I beg to move.
LORD LLOYD OF HAMPSTEAD: I should like to add a few brief words in support of my noble and learned friend's Amendment. I share with him the view that the simplest way would have been
504
to adopt what the Law Commission suggested; namely, to have a clause permitting reference to the Report, though I appreciate the reasons why this course has not been taken. Indeed, I am bound to say that it is a little surprising that so much objection is raised in some quarters to this kind of proposal because, after all, if one considers what judges do rather than what they sometimes say, one finds that judges are very sensible people, and when faced with an awkward practice usually find ways of dealing with it. I have looked at reports of cases recently and I can say that in the last few months there have been at least half a dozen reported cases in which learned judges have quoted passages from reports of the Law Commission and similar reports in connection with the relevant legislation. This appears to have caused no revolution, turmoil or any other form of disturbance in our legal system. I should have thought that this would be a very sensible principle to have.
Be that as it may and leaving this aside, I would venture to urge that there are very great advantages in having these specific criteria put into the Bill. It is quite true that some of the criteria suggested in my noble and learned friend's Amendment are covered, or conceivably covered, in the clause as it now stands. But it is quite clear that some of these are not so covered and I wish to draw particular attention to (e) and (g) in the Amendment, both of which I think are extremely important. One seeks to avoid the effect of unreasonable conditions being imposed, such as conditions as to the time in which a claim is to be made. For the reason which my noble and learned friend urged, I would suggest that no great problem would be involved by the introduction of such a criterion.
If it is said that there is particular difficulty by having the words, "in the events that have occurred" inserted, thus enabling the court to have regard to what has happened subsequent to the making of the contract, then at the very least I would suggest that it would be desirable to have the words, "whether it was reasonable in all the circumstances to require compliance with these conditions"—in other words, enabling the court to consider whether or not the imposition of conditions was reasonable in

505
the circumstances. If the criteria in the Bill at the moment are adhered to it would seem that there is no specific indication to the court that this is a matter for them to consider.
Again, paragraph (g) talks of,
"the ultimate incidence of risk and liability…"
I confess that it might have been helpful, if I may say so, had the Law Commission followed their usual practice of giving full explanations of what they had in mind when they discussed this matter in the Report. In fact on this occasion they have contented themselves with just setting out the proposed criteria without giving any explanatory material. As regards the majority of these criteria it is quite obvious what their purpose is, so that no explanation is necessary. However, I would agree with the observation made by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on Second Reading, that this particular provision was not altogether clear on the face of it. So far as I understand it, it may have been intended to deal with the case where liability may be incurred towards third parties under some rule of law such as the rule of negligence in Donoghue v. Stevenson or the rule in Rylands v. Fletcher, or something of that kind, where liability is incurred. It would seem to be very unfair for the distributor of the goods, who might be subject to such a liability, to have no right of recourse against the person who supplied (and may well have manufactured) the goods which were found to be defective. That presents a very serious problem and one which one would hope would be covered by these criteria.
My noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner mentioned the letter from the Law Society. They were good enough to send me a copy also, perhaps because they noted that I had participated in the debate on Second Reading. They mentioned in the letter one or two other possible criteria which ought to be in the Bill—criteria which are not even to be found in the Law Commission's criteria, such as the question as to whether the price is reasonable in the light of the exclusion clause; or again whether the liability has been totally and absolutely excluded or only limited. They also mentioned various other matters.
506
I would only venture to suggest, finally, as the noble and learned Lord is not pressing this Amendment to a Division, that the Government might perhaps give further consideration to this new Memorandum that the Law Society has put out, and perhaps reconsider this whole question of criteria. Then there might be some reason to hope that at the next stage we would be faced with a more comprehensive clause, possibly including some amendment of the Law Commission's own proposals as embodied in the present Amendment. That might well be of considerable advantage when the Bill becomes an Act and has to be applied by our courts.
4.24 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We debated this point on Second Reading, and I then more or less stated what my attitude was; and, for reasons which I will give, I cannot say that I have been very much shaken in it by either of the speeches to which I have listened this afternoon. But the very last thing I want to do is to try to dogmatise about what is a very difficult matter—probably more difficult than was suggested by either of the two speakers to whom we have just listened. Therefore I begin what I have to say by assuring the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, and the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, that I will faithfully report to my right honourable friend what has passed in this Committee this afternoon. It is a great comfort to know that we have in Sir Geoffrey Howe a Minister who is very familiar from the technical point of view with the rather abstruse subjects which we are now discussing. I am not going to turn down this Amendment, in the sense that I am going to try to substitute my own rather adverse opinion of it for that of the noble and learned Lord; I am going to pass it back to my right honourable friend so that we can come back to it on Report.
Having said that, I should like to explain the reasons why I remain of the same opinion as I was on Second Reading. I do not think that either of the two speeches has grappled with the real problem that faces Parliament if it is going to limit these exemption clauses. For reasons about which, I confess, I had some doubt in the preparatory stages of this Bill (though they were thoroughly

507
threshed out by the Government, in consultation between Ministers), but which, on the whole, have commended themselves to this House so far as I have been able to ascertain from the Second Reading debate, the Government adopted the "reasonableness" test as the basis of letting an exclusion clause through.
With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, there are no specific criteria in this Bill or in this clause at all. There are not two criteria: and if the noble and learned Lord's Amendment were carried there would not be seven. The only criterion is reasonableness, and that is the only thing on which the courts are being asked to decide. Is the exemption clause reasonable? The difficulty which we were all faced with, and which Parliament is now faced with, is: if you are going to apply the test of reasonableness to an exemption clause, how on earth is the court going to make up its mind as to what is reasonable and what Parliament meant when it said that reasonableness was the test of the clause? "Reasonableness" is as long as a judge's foot and about as long as a piece of string. How can you find out what Parliament meant?
The Law Commission had an ingenious device. They said, "We will not have criteria at all but we will have guidelines"; and they suggested seven. In point of fact, these were the same seven guidelines as the noble and learned Lord has now suggested should be inserted in the Bill, and so long as they are not set out in the Bill I daresay that the seven guidelines are not really objectionable. They would probably be acceptable if the court could read them without thinking that they meant anything; if they were to be accepted as merely giving an example of the kind of thing that Parliament meant.
The noble and learned Lord on Second Reading, and the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, this afternoon, entered into a very exciting and adventurous subject as to whether our rules of construction should allow the courts to look at Blue Books and what-have-you to discover what Parliament really meant. I am not going to pursue him into that most interesting field because it would take me a very long time; but I will venture to repeat one
508
or two things that I said on Second Reading just by way of showing why one cannot enter into it in any great detail this afternoon. The rule of construction at present adopted by the courts of law is that you may not look at Blue Books and you may not look at Hansard for the purpose of discovering what Parliament meant. Of course, an innocent man like myself would imagine that all you would have to do if the words were difficult to understand would be to look at the proceedings in Standing Committee "A" of the House of Commons and see the speeches which were made in support of or against the Amendment which ultimately found its way into the Bill. But the courts think that there would be no end to that sort of inquiry and there would in fact be no certainty at the end of it. Therefore, they say that in order to ascertain the intention of Parliament, you must look at the words Parliament used in the Act; you must not look outside it. That happens to be the rule, and this Amendment, even if passed, will not alter it.
However, what the noble and learned Lord has sought to do by his Amendment is to translate what was intended as guidelines to be looked at in the kind of way that the Law Commission had intended—that is to say, outside the Act of Parliament, not forming part of it, but at the same time giving a court some clue as to what Parliament could have meant. That was a very heterodox, though ingenious, way of setting about it. But the noble and learned Lord wants to write them into the Bill, so that the court would be bound to look at them and treat them as part of the Act of Parliament. What I think the noble and learned Lord has not really hoisted in, if I may say so respectfully, is that by doing that he has altered fundamentally the character of what is proposed. He has altered what was intended as a guideline, to be looked at extraneously to the Act of Parliament, and made it part of the Act of Parliament which alters its construction.
This afternoon's discussion on this clause began by the noble and learned Lord's putting down two inconsistent Amendments, one of which he has withdrawn. The first was not to have any guidelines at all, and the other was to have seven guidelines, but no more. The

509
one which he has withdrawn was not to have any guidelines at all, so that the court was simply left in the air, with the word "reasonable" as providing the only relevant criterion, and without any clue as to what Parliament meant. That, he now recognises, under the persuasion of the Law Society, who succeeded where I failed on Second Reading, is not a viable alternative. So he puts down seven, in point of fact culled from paragraph 113 of the Law Commission's Report—the seven guidelines.
The trouble about that proposal is this—and it can be well illustrated by the third suggestion which he did not adumbrate this afternoon in detail. It is quite true that the Law Society have written to him, to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, and to me, and no doubt also to a number of other noble Lords, to say what they think about it. They concede that there ought to be guidelines. They rather pat the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, on the back for having put in the seven, but they suggest another five, because they consider that the noble and learned Lord's seven are quite insufficient for the purpose. So that would leave us with 12 guidelines. I do not know whether the chamber of commerce, who were among the bodies consulted by the Ministry before bringing this Bill in, would have another seven. They might, in which case we should have 22 guidelines.
However, I wonder whether the Committee would care to reflect with me what the effect of this is. The five guidelines suggested by the Law Society (additional to the noble and learned Lord's seven) are, if he will forgive me for saying so, almost equally good and almost equally intelligent. One was the existence or availability to the parties of insurance against the risk involved or the extent to which it was reasonable to expect one or the other to insure. The second was the amount of the price of or charge for the product or service in question in relation to the price or charge which is or might be payable for a similar service or product without such an exemption clause. That again, I think, is an extremely relevant consideration. The third was whether the liability was excluded altogether or only limited financially or in point of time—another very relevant and reasonable one. The fourth was the com-
510
mercial standing and business experience of the parties and the accessibility to each of legal and other advice. The fifth was whether or not the clause seeks to exclude or limit liability for non-compliance with any British Standard or other recognised code of practice for the product or service in question.
All these seem to me to be equally relevant, equally valuable, to those introduced, or sought to be introduced, by the noble and learned Lord. And, as I say, it means we were left not with seven but with 12; and I dare say that the Chamber of Commerce or the Chamber of Trade, and the Confederation of British Industry, and perhaps the Trades Union Congress, could think of another 50 or 60 considerations which the court might take into account in deciding whether or not an exemption clause was reasonable.
The Committee may now be able to see exactly why I am rather "sales resistant" to the Amendment. If the test is reasonableness, one must either give the court a fairly wide carte blanche in order to decide what is reasonable, or one is going to try to foresee in advance every kind of factor which may arise in a dispute of this kind, and see whether it can be put into the Bill. This, I think, is indeed an impossible task, and one which, in the event, would lead the court into an impossible position if one failed in a given case to specify all the possible considerations which might enter into the infinitely varied circumstances of a contract.
I have already quoted on a past occasion to the noble and learned Lord some words which were quoted by his predecessor and mine, Lord Halsbury, in the Introduction to the First Edition of Halsbury's Laws of England, when he recalled what M. Portalis, one of Napoleon's Commissioners, had said when discussing the degree to which the Code Napoleon should descend into detail. He said:
"We have guarded against the dangerous ambition of wishing to regulate and to foresee everything. The wants of society are so varied that it is impossible for the legislator to provide for every case or every emergency. We know that never, or scarcely ever in any case, can a text of law be enacted so fair and precise that good sense and equity will alone suffice to decide it. A new question springs up: Then how is it to be decided?

511
To this question it is replied that the office of the law is to fix by enlarged rules the general maxims of right and wrong, to establish firm principles fruitful in consequences, and not to descend to the detail of all questions which may arise upon each particular topic. It is for magistrates under Government, penetrated by the general spirit of the law, to direct this application."
So says M. Portalis.
If we may look back at the Bill as it is drafted, we see that we have adopted two general guidelines. They are not criteria, but they are two guidelines. We have not ignored the Law Commission's recommendations. Two, (e) and (g), in the noble and learned Lord's Amendment we have deliberately at the moment rejected because, for reasons gave on Second Reading, they seem to us to be wrong-headed. So far from rejecting the Law Commission's guidelines, we have sought to translate them into a legislative form because we have changed them from being guidelines in a report which forms no part of an Act of Parliament into guidelines to assist the court in an Act of Parliament.
Broadly speaking, the two lines which we have adopted are, first, the extent to which the customer has had brought to his attention the nature of the exclusion clause and its extent—and we all know the extremely confusing nature of these very small print conditions. Obviously the court ought to—and we have said that it should—move against an exclusion clause which is so phrased or which, from its appearance in the document, is insufficiently brought to the notice of the customer. Secondly, we have done exactly what the noble and learned Lord has done and the Law Commission did, which was to discuss in terms the relative bargaining position of the parties, and that is what is meant to be achieved by (b) in terms which we think are devised to achieve their purpose.
We think that guidelines (a), (b) and (c) of the noble and learned Lord's Amendment are well within the existing terms of our Bill as drafted. Factor (d) and factor (f) we also think are likely to be matters which the court would be likely to consider under (b), in particular, of our existing draft. Factors (e) and (g) are items which we have turned down, and therefore they are probably not in our draft. We dislike (e), because we think
512
it is wrong in principle to decide the reasonableness of a clause at any time other than at the formation of the contract. It may no doubt be convenient for the customer to be able to pray in aid matters which have happened since the contract was formed, but in deciding whether a term is reasonable or unreasonable we believe one ought to think back to the time of the contract. Neither the customer nor the vendor will necessarily be able to foresee that the customer will, for instance, lose a leg as a result of a motor accident in the time between the formation of the contract and the time of its performance. We think there is, in its nature, an element of retrospection which is unattractive. Factor (g) we have not been able to understand, and we reject it for that reason.
Having said that, I repeat that I do not regard this as an easy matter or I should not have taken so much time in replying. If I may, I should like to take advantage of the last words uttered by the noble and learned Lord before he sat down. I will take this back to my right honourable and learned friend, with a report of all that has passed on this Amendment. I will not turn it down flat, but perhaps the noble and learned Lord will withdraw his Amendment at the present time, and also indulge in a period of reflection; and we can go away perhaps wiser for one another's words. That is how I would rather leave the matter at the moment.
4.45 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for what he has said, and of course I am quite happy to accept his suggestion. We are all agreed that regard has to be had in applying this clause to certain circumstances for the purpose of finding out whether or not it would be fair or reasonable to allow reliance on the terms. It is not of course a question of whether the clause is fair or reasonable, but a question of whether or not in all the circumstances it is fair or reasonable to allow the party concerned to rely on it.
Whether one calls the matters to which regard is to be had "criteria" or "guidelines" or, as the Law Commission said, "guiding principles", is simply a matter of terminology. I agree with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that it is a matter of some difficulty to

513
phrase what are the measures to which the court should have regard. I always thought that there was something to be said for leaving it entirely in the hands of the court, but perhaps it is better put in the Bill. If one is going to do that it should be reasonably comprehensive, because although the clause says that one ought to have regard in particular to the following matters, the tendency will be for a judge, seeing two things there, to say, "If I take those two things into account, I shall have done my work."
I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for saying that he will discuss the matter with his right honourable and learned friend. The Law Society's five are not, of course, a wholly new five. Some of them are matters which are re-phrased, and I think the noble and learned Lord was indulging in a forensic argument when he suggested that the National Chamber of Trade will produce another five, because they have been good enough to say that I have their support. However, I am grateful for what the noble and learned Lord has said, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Conflict of laws]:
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: As I have already explained, Clause 13(2) of the Bill would be deleted by a later Amendment. If this later Amendment is accepted, the reference in Clause 5 to Clause 13(2) will be unnecessary, and the effect of this Amendment is purely to delete that reference. I beg to move Amendment No. 7.
Amendment moved—
Pase 5, line 19, leave out from ("Act") to (" shall") in line 21 and insert ("those sections").—(The Earl of Limerick.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Interpretation]:
LORD AIREDALE LORD AIREDALE moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 6, line 32, leave out ("or purposes").
The noble Lord said: The Interpretation Act which was passed towards
514
the end of the last century laid down the general rule that in Statutes the singular shall include the plural. I think the intention was that this would make subsequent Statutes less verbose, because it would be unnecessary to clutter subsequent Statutes with expressions like "purpose or purposes". Since we have the Interpretation Act, it seems a pity not to rely upon it. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: The general proposition put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, is one to which I am sure the Committee would assent, but I am advised that it would be unwise in this particular instance to rely upon the Interpretation Act for the inclusion of the plural in the singular. As the Committee will be aware, the Interpretation Act does not apply if there is an apparent contrary intention. The reference in Clause 7(2) to "the purpose" might therefore be held to limit the meaning to the singular. We could have cases where the specified purposes for which an article is sold are more than one and it has to be clear that both those purposes will be fulfilled. To put this matter beyond all doubt, I am advised that the words "or purposes" should remain; and therefore I ask the noble Lord whether he can see his way to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD AIREDALE: I bow to the Minister's superior opinion and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.50 p.m.
Lord AIREDALE Lord AIREDALE moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 6, line 34, leave out (("if relevant")).
The noble Lord said: We are here discussing what has to be taken into account in order to discover whether goods are of what is known as "merchantable quality", one of the factors being the price. In the Bill "price" is followed by the words, in brackets, "if relevant". These words did not appear in the Law Commission's own draft and have come in subsequently. I should not have thought them necessary, because the courts are well accustomed to not paying regard to matters which are not relevant Indeed, one of the first things a court learns to disregard are matters which are

515
not relevant. There is a note or inconsistency here, because the next words in the clause are "and all the other circumstances". All those other circumstances are not likely to be relevant, and thus if one is to say, in brackets, price "if relevant", surely one should go on to say "and all the other relevant circumstances". I should have thought that the courts could be trusted not to take account of any matter that was not relevant. I beg to move.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: I wish to ask the Minister a question which, if it is not strictly relevant, I hope will be in order. In considering questions affecting the consumer in relation to the buying and selling of goods, one has factors like the description, examination and price of the goods, but difficulty arises because a body of court decisions is necessary to interpret the parts of the Bill with which we are now concerned. Many problems faced by consumers involve sums of money too small for the goods to be the subject of court cases. As the question of price has been raised, I have a matter to put to the Minister, though I appreciate that he may not be able to answer it now. What will happen if, for example a secondhand car is purchased for a small sum and the brakes and engine fail within a short time of purchase? Would that be covered by this part of the Bill, remembering that the price would certainly be relevant?
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: I should like to say straight away that the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, is on to a relevant point with his Amendment. There is, however, a difficulty with it and I should like to look further into his alternative approach. We must ensure that the word "relevant" is not used too much in this clause, but nor do we want it to be used too little. In any consideration of whether or not goods supplied under a contract of sale are of merchantable quality, it is clearly necessary for regard to be had to the description applied to them and to all the other circumstances of the transaction. Price will, however, not normally be a relevant factor in that determination, because cheap goods should be as fit for the purpose for which goods of that
516
cheaper kind are usually bought as more expensive goods of the same description, and the courts should not, when considering merchantable quality, normally concern themselves with questions of value for money. If every one of these determinations were to turn on this question of value for money it would be a difficult proposition. But price might be relevant; to the consideration of merchantable quality where, for instance, goods suspected of being defective were for that reason sold at a lower price than would otherwise have been the case. I therefore ask the noble Lord to think again about the Amendment, and in turn I will look at the point he has raised about the later use of the word "relevant", and if need be we can return to the subject at a later stage in our proceedings.
That leads straight on to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, about defective goods. I should not like to give now what might be thought to be an authoritative answer to her question. There are certain implied warranties specifically in the sale of motorcars, and I believe that these cover what are regarded as essential matters, which would include steering and brakes, though I do not believe that they would cover whether the engine works.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: Would the car be much use if the steering worked but the engine did not?
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: I think not, except for going downhill. The important point here is that the court would have regard to those considerations immediately concerned with matters of safety. That is my understanding of the present state of the law, but I should like to look into the matter before the next stage of the Bill.
LORD AIREDALE: I shall be pleased to return to this matter at the next stage, after we have all had another chance to think about it. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Implied undertakings as to quality or fitness]:
THE EARL OF LIMERICK THE EARL OF LIMERICK moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 7, line 38, at end insert ("(including any enactment of the Parliament of Northern Ireland)").
The noble Earl said: This is a clarifying Amendment that is intended simply to make sure that the reference in this clause to "any other enactment" includes any future enactment of the Parliament of Northern Ireland. That Parliament, when not in a state of suspense, has power to legislate about hire purchase, and should it or its successor legislate on this topic at some time in the future it is doubtful whether this would be treated as an enactment for the purposes of a United Kingdom Act unless that is expressly stated in the clause. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.56 p.m.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK THE EARL OF LIMERICK moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 8, line 11, leave out from ("conducted") to ("any") in line 12.
The noble Earl said: It might be convenient to the Committee if we discussed at the same time Amendments Nos. 12 and 13. The effect of the first two Amendments is to leave out the words "servant or agent" in Clause 10(3). It will not have escaped your Lordships' attention that the parallel clause relating to cash sales, credit sales and conditional sales does not include these words and their deletion will align these provisions. The use of the word "servant" in this clause is, we consider, redundant, since any employer bears responsibility for the acts of his servants. To include the reference here may merely create doubt about Parliament's intent in parts of the legislation where the word is not used. To avoid such doubt we think it wise to remove the reference here.
As for Amendment No. 13, Clause 10(5), which has a parallel in Clause 3(5), deals with the problem of agents. Sections 58(3) and (5) of the Hire Purchase Act 1965 and its counterparts in other Hire-Purchase Acts have the effect that negotiations conducted by a dealer's agent are to be treated as having been conducted by the dealer. This Amendment imports these provisions in the Hire
518
Purchase Acts into this clause. There is, of course, also a certain amount of common law that deals with the duty of agents which is not affected by this Bill. I beg to move.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: The Minister tactfully said that this point would not have escaped your Lordships' attention. As it is obvious that none of us was aware of the point, we could not possibly refuse to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: I beg to move Amendment No. 12.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, leave out line 19.—(The Earl of Limerick.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: I beg to move Amendment No. 13.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 29, at end insert—
("(6) Section 58(3) and (5) of the Hire-Purchase Act 1965, section 54(3) and (5) of the Hire-Purchase (Scotland) Act 1965 and section 65(3) and (5) of the Hire-Purchase Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 (meaning of antecedent negotiations and related expressions) shall apply in relation to subsection (3) above as they apply in relation to each of those Acts.").—(The Earl of Limerick.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 11 and 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Special provisions as to conditional sale agreements]:
5.0 p.m.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK THE EARL OF LIMERICK moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 10, leave out lines 10 to 23.
The noble Earl said: Again it may be convenient if we take the argument for Amendment No. 15 together with this Amendment. These Amendments are purely consequential upon others we have already discussed. They have now made it clear that provisions relating to fitness for purpose in conditional sales—that is, Clause 13(2) and (3)—are included in Clause 3, that is the revised Section 14(3) of the Sale of Goods Act, and thus lines 10 to 23 on page 10 of the Bill become redundant. We feel that Clauses 13 and

519
14 follow better in the reverse order because the present Clause 14 deals only with hire purchase and thus may best follow Clauses 8 to 12 which also deal with hire purchase. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK THE EARL OF LIMERICK: I beg to move Amendment No. 15:
Amendment moved—
Transpose clause 13 to after clause 14.—(The Earl of Limerick.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Supplementary.]
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: Amendment No. 16 is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 41, leave out ("antecedent negotiations").—(The Earl of Limerick.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD AIREDALE LORD AIREDALE moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 11, line 8, leave out from ("section") to ("this") in line 9 and insert ("4 of").
The noble Lord said: This clause says that if one wants to know the meaning of the expression "consumer sale" one looks at Section 55 of the Act of 1893, as amended by this Bill, and by the time one gets towards the end of Clause 4 of this Bill—which is a very long clause—one finds the answer. The busy practitioner would be very grateful for being referred specifically to Clause 4 because it may save him a great deal of time. I beg to move.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: Once again the noble Lord has what I believe to be a very good point. I should like to accept his Amendment and I have no wish to oppose its purpose, which is to make clear where the definition of "consumer sale" is to be found in the Bill. It is not possible, however, to do it quite in the way that is suggested in the Amendment, because Clause 4 merely amends Section 55 of the principal Act so that the definition will become part of that section and it is to Section 55 that the cross-reference should be made.
520
I should be very willing to put before your Lordships, before the Report stage, an Amendment which would have precisely the same effect; namely, to indicate where in the Bill a definition of "consumer sale" is to be found. I hope that with that undertaking the noble Lord will be content to leave this matter for the next stage of the Bill.
LORD AIREDALE: I am obliged, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: Amendment No. 18 is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11. line 12, leave out ("11 and 13(2)") and insert ("and 11").—(The Earl of Limerick.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK THE EARL OF LIMERICK moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 11, line 17, leave out from ("1966") to ("and") in line 19.
The noble Earl said: Here I have to admit that the reference to Part VI of the Hire Purchase Act (Northern Ireland) 1966 is misconceived. That Part corresponds to Part III of the Hire Purchase Act 1964, which is irrelevant to the terms to be implied as to title and quality in hire purchase agreements and conditional sale agreements. The Amendment now proposed is necessary, therefore, to secure a uniform definition of "hirer" in the clauses of the Bill which deal with such terms in agreements concluded in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: Amendment No. 20 is again purely consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11. line 38, after ("to") insert ("12 and ").—(The Earl of Limerick.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK THE EARL OF LIMERICK moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 11, line 39, after ("enactment") insert ("(including any enactment of the Parliament of Northern Ireland)").
The noble Earl said: This Amendment has a purpose similar to that of the Amendment proposed earlier to line 38 of Clause 10; that was Amendment No.

521
10. It is again intended to make dear that the reference to "any other enactment" includes any future enactment of the Parliament of Northern Ireland or its successor concerning hire purchase. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

ENGLISH NON-METROPOLITAN DISTRICTS (DEFINITION) ORDER 1972
5.9 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Lord Sandford)The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Lord Sandford) rose to move, That the English Non-Metropolitan Districts (Definition) Order 1972, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Order is a very important one; indeed, I might say that it marks the watershed in the reorganisation of local government in England. It completes the pattern of principal authorities charged with the main executive functions of local government. This pattern was in part laid down in the Act itself, which we were discussing in the last Session and which defined the counties in both England and Wales and also certain of the districts: the metropolitan districts in England and all the districts in Wales.
In the case of Wales the matter was simpler than in England—37 districts, as against 300 non-metropolitan districts in England—and in Wales they were off to a quicker start on proposals for reorganising local government on a two-tier system. Thus it was possible to get the pattern of Welsh districts into the Bill, while for England we had the counties and the metropolitan districts in the Bill but left the non-metropolitan districts to be dealt with separately. As it was, in this House alone we took some 21 hours of Parliamentary time discussing the boundaries of 45 counties. The mind boggles at the length of time we should have needed to discuss in detail the pattern of 300 non-metropolitan districts. The extent to which the pattern before us to-day has
522
already been discussed and considered over the past months is something to which I shall return in a few moments.
First of all, I would make the point that this Order marks a watershed in that it also marks the beginning of the work of the new Local Government Boundary Commission for England. Now we have the Boundary Commission chaired by Sir Edmund Compton as a permanent body established under the new Local Government Act, and given a number of very important duties. First of all, there are those connected with the transition to the new system of local government: the names of the new non-metropolitan districts, the question of successor parishes, as well as the recommendations on which this Order is based. The Boundary Commission also has an important early task in reviewing the electoral arrangements for the new local authorities, and, secondly, it has a long-term task in keeping the areas and boundaries of local authorities—and also their electoral arrangements—up to date, so that they do not remain frozen in the pattern chosen in the light of to-day's circumstances.
To deal with the boundaries of the 300 or so districts in England outside the metropolitan counties, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State accordingly set up this Boundary Commission, composed of people of the necessary calibre to handle these matters. Having done so, and having now seen the first fruits of their labours, my right honourable friend is disposed to commend the Commission's first set of proposals to Parliament without modification and to invite Parliament to consider the proposals as one coherent whole, as indeed they are. This approach was the one foreshadowed when the Bill itself was in Parliament. In this respect the present operation is different from future reviews of local government boundaries by the Commission, which will take place under different provisions of the Act and are likely to be brought to Parliament in a succession of Orders to be considered individually, rather than in one Order for the country as a whole. What we have before us now is the culmination of an extensive process of consultation started back in July, 1971, when my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State invited the existing local authorities to put forward proposals for the new

523
district pattern in the non-metropolitan areas.
By the time the Boundary Commission-designate came into existence in November, 1971, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State had already prepared and published, by circular, the guidelines which are now reprinted on pages 2 and 3 of the Report of the Commission. These dealt with the order of size which both the local authorities and the Commission should have in mind in proposing new districts, and the broad general considerations on which the Boundary Commission should base its recommendations. As I recall it, a number of noble Lords were concerned lest the guidelines as to the size range of districts should be interpreted too narrowly, and, both because matters expressed in figures can be so much more precisely expressed and because these appeared first in the document issued by my right honourable friend, there were fears that the Boundary Commission might place undue emphasis upon them. As a result, my right honourable friend drew the Commission's attention to the fears being expressed and the Commission replied that it certainly did not regard these criteria with regard to population as overriding other criteria in the guidelines.
Let me turn for a moment to some other criteria which were important. They included a provision that the identity of large towns should be maintained, and that the whole designated area of a new town, or the whole area denned as town development, should ordinarily fall within one district. The Commission also suggested that where possible the new authorities should be made up from groupings of complete existing local authorities. The Commission was also charged with weighing all relevant considerations in the light of the general objectives of the reorganisation of local government as set out in the Government's White Paper, and the wishes of the local inhabitants, the pattern of community life and the effective operation of local government services. As regards population, the Commission was asked to recommend a pattern of districts in which only very exceptionally should a district be proposed with a population of under 40,000. Moreover, except in sparsely populated areas, the aim should be to define dis-
524
tricts with current populations generally within the range of 75,000 to 100,000. But it was made clear that these figures were in no sense absolute limits.
When the Boundary Commission came into existence in November, 1971, it had before it the many, and often conflicting, recommendations put forward i by the then existing local authorities. It studied these in the light of the guidelines given by the Secretary of State, and issued a report making draft proposals for a district pattern. These draft proposals were published in April, 1972, with an invitation to the local authorities to comment upon them. The Boundary Commission asked that comments should be in a positive form, either the acceptance of the proposals or a positive proposal for an alternative solution to a particular problem which could be given effect to without causing an impossible situation elsewhere in the county concerned. In responding to this invitation some three-quarters of the districts concerned accepted the first draft proposals of the Boundary Commission. The alternative proposals that were put forward by the remaining one-quarter of the district authorities fell roughly into three categories. First, there were proposals for dividing some very large districts which had been included by the Commission-designate in its draft proposals; secondly, there were proposals for the extension of large towns at the expense of their neighbours; and, thirdly, there were proposals for reshuffling a district so as to give a somewhat different pattern of linkages between authorities within a county.
The Boundary Commission considered all these representations, and came to the conclusion that in most of the instances it would be possible to reach firm conclusions—either to adhere to the draft proposals or to change them in the light of the response from the local authorities—on the basis of the written representations which the Commission already had before it. In 16 groups of cases, however, the Commission felt a need for further discussion of the matters with all the local authorities concerned. It therefore toured the country, meeting the local authorities concerned and looking at these 16 groups of cases on the ground.
As a result of the changes made at the end of its initial consideration of the

525
representations, and as a result of this pattern of discussions with the local authorities, the Commission made changes, ranging from minor to very substantia], in the district pattern in half the non-metropolitan counties in England. I should add that this relates only to the changes which the Commission itself made within the internal district pattern. All through this period, as your Lordships will remember, the Bill was in Parliament—for the greater part of the time in this House—and the boundaries of some of the non-metropolitan districts were being changed, with consequential effects on the pattern of districts in the counties.
There were, I know, fears in particular that in the more sparsely populated areas it would be possible to produce districts of over 40.000 only by bringing together towns and villages which were far too far apart to have any real unity of interest. I think everybody appreciates that this is a problem to which there is no ideal solution, but the Boundary Commission considered—and I think rightly—that for their first initial draft proposals they should ensure that all their districts reached the minimum figure of 40,000 inhabitants. It would then be possible, in their view, to investigate whether the most extensive of these districts really were the right solution, or whether they should be divided or otherwise adjusted. This was, as I say, a very wise approach because, with the range of functions which local authorities have and the growing complexity of the exercise of individual functions, there is much to be said for districts being well above this limit if at all practicable, so as to have a sufficient work load to justify the appointment of the large range of specialists that are needed in to-day's conditions. Where it is proposed to I depart from these criteria it is important to be satisfied that the circumstances really do necessitate smaller districts.
In the event, following further representations, the Boundary Commission were satisfied that there were 14 districts that could be below the figure of 40,000, and have so recommended. These were all in very sparsely populated areas, except the special case of Christchurch (which all of your Lordships will remember), where the Boundary Commission had no time for further local consulta-
526
tions after the later changes which were made in the county boundary in your Lordships' House. In heavily populated areas, however—for instance in a ring adjoining London—circumstances are very different, and the Commission have, rightly in my view, gone for really populous districts. This is one straightforward example of their application of their remit to a wide range of circumstances. And in this as in other respects these final recommendations demonstrate a broad and flexible approach by the Commission to the problems before them.
I am glad to say that the exceptional cases of small districts have, in general, been well received, although it is an indication of the difficulty of pleasing everybody that in the hilly and sparsely populated areas of Northumberland, where a draft district incorporating the whole Northern part of the county has now been divided into two, while authorities such as Alnwick and Berwick-on-Tweed on the coast have been well satisfied with the decision, the rural districts of Rothbury and Glendale high up in the hills have been perturbed and concerned lest these very small districts should not have sufficient resources to provide proper services. This shows once again the difficulty of weighing up and balancing rightly the various considerations.
Similarly in the treatment of large towns. The general approach of the Commission has been to leave the large towns within their existing boundaries, only uniting them with adjoining areas where there was some reason for this in the district pattern as a whole. They have taken the view that this is not the right stage for extending the boundaries of these large towns simply to take in adjoining suburbs. This decision has, I know, disappointed a number of the large towns, and equally has delighted their suburbs. But whatever may be the long term arguments on this matter, it was simply not practicable in the time available to produce a host of entirely new boundaries, each of which would have needed careful investigation and hearing of local objections.
I sum up by stressing the measure of agreement that the Boundary Commission have secured: their draft proposals were accepted by 707 of the county boroughs, boroughs and districts affected. The many amendments they made to

527
these proposals in their final Report have been designed to meet the wishes of a further 108, making 817 out of 975, or a degree of satisfaction of 84 per cent. The reactions since publication of the Report show that most of the remaining authorities are now accepting this proposed pattern, and going ahead with their preparations on the basis of it.
I trust that your Lordships will have been impressed, as I have been, by the sensitivity, the thoroughness and expedition with which the Commission have tackled their work, and by the way in which they have set about reaching their final proposals. My right honourable friend received this Report on November 2 and was soon able to decide that it deserved to be commended to Parliament in its entirety, and this I now do in your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the English Non-Metropolitan Districts (Definition) Order 1972, be approved.—(Lord Sandford.)
5.26 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, may I begin by thanking the Minister for his very careful and full explanation of what the Order is about. As he said, it follows the passing of the Local Government Reorganisation Act and represents the most important step towards its implementation. I should have liked to be able to give the Order an unreserved welcome, but it would be unwise this evening to close our eyes to the fact that there is a considerable sense of grievance felt by many local authorities who, it may be, have not fully understood, or perhaps not fully appreciated, what has been going on. Certainly many of them feel that insufficient attention has been paid to local boundaries, and too little notice taken of the representations that they have made.
I ought not to generalise in a criticism of that nature without giving particular instances. The Banstead Urban District Council feel, rightly or wrongly—and this is not a personal point of view that I am expressing; it is their point of view—that they have been treated somewhat shabbily. I rather think that in your Lordships' House this afternoon the point of view of another local authority will be expressed by the noble Lord, Lord
528
Piatt. I would have touched on it, but I understand that the noble Lord will deal with that. They feel that there has been no real consultation in regard to the district which will be determined as a result of this Order. If the Government feel that they can withdraw this Order, they would do a great deal to satisfy those who, at present, feel aggrieved, and are likely to feel aggrieved if it is pursued.
I can appreciate that there is considerable urgency in this situation. All I can say in connection with that, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said about the time that we gave to it in Committee, is that it seems to me that overall the Government did not allocate a sufficient amount of time to a matter of such vast concern and consequence as this Order makes clear the Act is. I have no wish at all to re-hash the arguments that engaged our attention when the Bill was before us, particularly in Committee and Report stage, although I have the feeling that had we been able to give more time and take the Bill a little more leisurely, perhaps some of the decisions that were taken by your Lordships—such as, for instance, the situation as between Avon and Somerset—might have been resolved differently.
At Committee stage I drew attention to the border—and this was a particular case—between Sussex and Surrey, and in particular the undertakings given by Mr. Speed, the Under-Secretary of State for the Department of the Environment, and Mr. Graham Page, the Minister for Local Government and Development. It would seem to me appropriate to raise the question of how those undertakings are to be implemented, in view of the Order that is now before your Lordships, for it was made clear that if the people of Horley chose to remain in Surrey, they could do so.
This Order provides in Part 38 that there shall be transferred to West Sussex:
"In the administrative county of Surrey, in the rural district of Dorking and Horiey, the parish of Charlwood, except the detached part, and so much of the parish of Horley as lies south of the boundary determined by the order to be made by the Secretary of State under paragraph 12 of Part III of Schedule 1 to the Act .
On Saturday, October 28, the people of Horley held a parish poll and they decided by a three-to-one vote that they wished to remain in Surrey. I have no

529
doubt at all that the Government intend to honour the pledges that were given by Mr. Speed and by Mr. Graham Page, but I want to address this question quite specifically to the noble Lord. I doubt whether it will take him unawares; indeed, I am quite sure that the Department are aware that there is a question on this matter. But may I ask him how the Government intend to implement the pledges given and—more than "how"—when, because it is clearly to everyone's benefit that the matter should be resolved as quickly as possible.
I think the noble Lord will be aware, as a result of a letter sent by Mr. Peter Lynch, the chairman of the local authority there, that they are very anxious that there should be introduced some speed—not that I am making a pun in that direction; they are hoping that the matter will be quickly resolved. At the moment there is a very grave danger of confusion and frustration if too many authorities are to be involved in this part of the county of Surrey. It would indeed be Gilbertian if the people of Horley were to be called upon next April to elect representatives to West Sussex County Council for a matter of a few months or for an indefinite period, or if those elected were not to serve. I have spoken of the need for urgency. There are a number of planning matters which arise in this district. I think the Department will be well aware that builders of national repute have plans for large-scale development North-East of Horley, and it will be extremely unfortunate if they have to deal with a number of authorities but never know which one will ultimately decide upon the local situation.
I should like to ask the noble Lord another question. To what extent does the decision here depend upon the Local Government Boundary Commission? Considerable tribute has been paid to them for the part they have played, and an indication has been given of the vast area of activity which they will be called upon to cover. If the Local Government Boundary Commission are to decide this issue, are they to decide it at once? Will it be among the first matters, if not the first matter, for their consideration. I want to emphasise (there is nothing personal about all of this, and this is the view of all the authorities involved about what I regard as one of the really serious
530
problems arising from this Order, and one which is creating the most difficulty) that all the authorities are anxious that the matter should, if possible, be resolved before the elections which are due in April, 1973. But if that is impossible, when will the matter be decided?
I suppose that many of the same considerations apply to the position at Charl-wood. I shall be a little surprised if other representations are not made here this evening. I imagine we shall be told that there is no possibility of the Order being withdrawn. If, however, there is any possibility of further consideration begin given to it, I am sure that a very great deal of pleasure will be given outside this House. In the meantime, I look forward to quite definite replies to the questions which I have had the privilege of addressing to your Lordships this evening.
5.35 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank my noble friend for the clarity and patience with which he has explained this Order. I should also like to thank the Local Government Boundary Commission, for they have had a terribly hard task which they have discharged with unfailing expedition. Some of us may think that if there had had to be slightly less speed they might have had time to reach, in certain cases, wiser recommendations. But we all realise that, owing to the timetable, there was very little time to spare.
I should also express my own personal view that, having received this set of recommendations for England, the Government were right in accepting them as a whole. I do not really see that a Government could do other than that, especially as the Boundary Commission will remain in existence and will be able to address themselves further, if they so wish, to the matters upon which, locally, there is pain and grief at the present time. Moreover, we all know that there are a number of boundary adjustments which in any case have to be considered. That was avowed by Government spokesmen during the passage of the Bill.
I am grateful for the reassurance which I have been given, and which was implicit in my noble friend's speech, on the question of the relative importance of

531
the population guideline. Some of your Lordships may recollect that on the Committee stage of the Bill 1 moved an Amendment on which I was able to hang, like a coat on a peg, the argument that it appeared to me that, in the directive given to the Boundary Commission designate, population was to be right at the top and other considerations, such as local feeling and community of interest, were to be a long way down. It had seemed to me that, inevitably, from that the Commission would gain the impression that they must produce results in accord with the directives on population, and should take the other considerations into account if they could. I am grateful to the then Secretary of State for having taken note of what was said, not only by me but by a number of noble Lords in that debate.
I know—and, indeed, my noble friend hinted at it in his speech just now—that the Secretary of State brought what was said in that debate to the notice of the Boundary Commission. I was happy to learn, first, that that was done; and, secondly, that the Boundary Commission found themselves able to deny the suggestion which I had made that in their first report they had given excessive attention to the population considerations, and not sufficient to the others. I should like to say that I am entirely satisfied by what I have been told; that the Boundary Commission did not give priority to one consideration above another, but sought to take due account of every one. I fully accept these assurances.
At the same time I have a feeling that that debate may have done a bit of good, because certainly there have been, in the final recommendations, some marked departures from strict adherence to the original population figures suggested by the Secretary of State. In the draft recommendations there were only 36 districts with a population of under 65,000: in the final recommendations that number has gone up from 36 to 66. Moreover, as my noble friend mentioned, although there were no districts with under 40,000 population in the draft recommendations, there are no fewer than 14 in the final recommendations. This marks several steps in the right direction from my point of view: and I am quite sure that the
532
Boundary Commission has to the very best of its ability weighed all the relevant considerations in arriving at these proposals.
I still wonder why the Boundary Commission did not leave alone some substantial authorities which simply wanted to be left alone. The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has just mentioned Banstead. Banstead has a population of 45,000 and a rateable value of £2½ million. It is a substantial authority now, and I should have thought that it had a strong claim to remain independent under the new régime. There is also the question of Esher, to which I think the noble Lord, Lord Piatt, is to refer later. I will not dwell on that because he knows much more about it, no doubt, than I do. But, as I see it, the problem there is that there are four existing authorities—Staines, Sunbury-on-Thames, Walton and Weybridge and Esher—with a combined population of 211,000, and the Boundary Commission have recommended that those four should be grouped into two new districts in a manner which pleases none of the local authorities concerned. There is an alternative plan under which they would be grouped, not in two but in three districts, with Slough and Esher remaining as they are, as independent districts, and Walton and Weybridge joining with Sunbury, which I gather both are quite willing to do.
LORD PLATT: Staines, my Lords, not Slough.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: I beg your Lordships' pardon; the noble Lord is absolutely correct. Slough does not come into this at all; it is Staines which is the fourth of these authorities.
Now, my Lords, it seems to me a pity that in this case the recommendations which have come forward, whatever grounds there may be for them, entirely flout the wishes of the existing local authorities, when there was an alternative scheme which would have been broadly acceptable to all of them. I understand the feeling of such authorities when the guidelines which the Government had given to the Commission included the sentence that the draft proposals,
"should be published as a basis for the fullest practicable consultation with the existing authorities".
Certainly, had I been a member of one

533
of the local authorities concerned I would have said that the "fullest practicable consultation" really meant the fullest practicable consultation. What in fact in this case it has meant is that opportunity was given to the local authorities concerned to comment on the draft proposals, but their request for a meeting with the Commission was rejected. They have therefore not had the opportunity, which they thought had been offered to them, of stating their case, face to face, to the members of the Commission, and of making absolutely certain that the Commission understood their point of view. Of course, I can well realise the pressure that there was on the Commission, which rendered it impossible to hold more than about 16 of these local conferences. That is something we have suffered due to the pressure of time; but all of us who have any knowledge of politics realise that it is always better to meet people and let them talk to you even if, in the end, you find that you cannot accede to their requests. Then, at any rate, they fee] that they have had the fullest opportunity to ensure that those at the top understand their point of view.
My most serious criticism of this local government reorganisation plan as a whole remains that there are too many very large districts. I am sure that any district with a geographical spread of more than 300 square miles is going to be remote to the ordinary people who live there. It is going to be as remote as we know county councils are now remote to people in the small towns and villages. In the final recommendations I am glad to see that the number of districts of over 300 square miles, which was 53 in the draft recommendations, has gone down to 48. I wish it could have gone down a great deal lower than that. I realise, of course, that earlier in this year a good many people in the local authority associations and elsewhere were not keen to fight for the principle of somewhat smaller districts, because during the crucial months their main anxiety was to persuade the Government to grant more functions to the districts. In fact, they failed in that; and they thereby lost the opportunity to urge the Government to reconsider its population guidance of 75,000 to 100,000. My impression is that some of the existing local authorities in
534
country areas which at an earlier stage had pressed the Local Government Boundary Commission designate in favour of districts of 40,000 or 50,000 instead of 75,000 to 100,000, gave up the attempt after the draft recommendations were published. When they saw that there were no districts under 40,000 population in these draft recommendations, they felt it was no good continuing the fight. In fact, it can now be seen that it might have done some good if they had gone on fighting, because the Commission have now accepted and recommended no fewer than 14 districts of under 40,000.
My Lords, there is nothing sacred about these figures. My concern remains that where unnecessarily large districts are being created it will inevitably lead to the loss of good councillors. Good councillors in existing small boroughs and districts are very often the busiest people in the neighbourhood, but they know how to make the best use of their time. These are the people who will not be able to afford time to serve on the councils for very large new districts, considering the amount of travelling which will be involved—and what a lot of travelling there will be if you have to be responsible for 300 square miles and have to travel for every meeting to a place many miles from your home! I well recognise now that I am to blame in not having protested as vigorously as I should have done 18 months ago, when the Government were nudging their population criterion upwards. The Government, your Lordships will remember, started with "about 40,000" as the size for a new district. The next time they gave an estimate they said that the new districts should be "upwards of 40,000"; and finally they came, in this directive from which I have quoted, to the range of 75,000 to 100,000 population, except in special cases. I think 75,000 to 100,000 is ideal in a built-up area, but it is far too large in a scattered area. My personal view is that we should have got a better result had the Government said from the start, and stuck to it, that the reasonable size for a new district in a country area, as distinct from an urban area, was 40.000 to 50,000. I believe that with a population in that range, and a more reasonable geographical size than is suggested in some of these recommendations, you could get really good local government and you could get all the best people

535
to find the time to serve. I regret my failure in not having uttered any sort of protest, when the figure was first put up to 75,000, and I bear my share of the blame.
Having said that, may I congratulate my noble friend Lord Sandford on having reached the watershed in this major task of local government reorganisation, and may I ask one final question? Will it be possible for the Boundary Commission, not at once but over the years, to make recommendations which not merely adjust boundaries but actually break up existing districts because they have been found to be too large? I do not want to have future Governments using the argument that this exact pattern of districts has been approved by Parliament in detail, and that therefore there is a strong reason to believe that the Parliament of 1972 regarded this pattern as ideal. Your Lordships know as well as I that we are accepting this set of recommendations in the Order as a general plan for England. We are not giving fresh detailed consideration to every district and every boundary in it. We hope that the Local Government Boundary Commission will do that over the years and, if mistakes have been made, that it will be possible by that means to rectify them.
5.52 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, I should like to join in the congratulations to the Local Government Boundary Commission. Anyone achieving an 84 per cent, customer satisfaction has done very well. On the other hand, we must think of the remaining 16 per cent, who are still not happy. I should be grateful to the noble Lord if, in his reply, he could indicate clearly, for the Record, exactly what steps can be taken for those areas contained in the 16 per cent, which are not happy with the proposals and how long they may have to wait. I apologise for not having given notice of the particular matter I wish to raise because I have obligations elsewhere and I was not sure that I should be able to be here. I may have to leave before the reply and for that I apologise in advance. I am usually a good stayer, but I have other preoccupations with which Lord Aberdare may be aware and therefore
536
I apologise for not having mentioned the particular instance I have in mind.
I should be grateful if the noble Lord could say what people should do who, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, said, feel they were not entirely adequately consulted. One appreciates the difficulties of the Local Government Boundary Commission. They had a very tight timetable, they did a good job; but in the nature of things they were not able to go to all the small places or to listen to the people in the parishes.
I am concerned with four small villages contained in three small parishes in the County of Kent, in one of which, St. Nicholas-at-Wade, we have had a family home for 50 years. In the original proposals for Kent on page 24 of the Draft Order these villages were included in district No. 7 with which they were content. Now, in the revised version, they have been moved to district No. 8. With this the four villages, Acol, Monkton, St. Nicholas-at-Wade and Sarre, are definitely discontent. They held a local poll at which there was a 75 per cent, turnout and a 90 per cent, vote in favour of staying in the district in which they had been put originally and for not being moved into the district in which they now find themselves.
I do not wish to weary your Lordships by explaining why this is so; but as I know the area intimately and as my brother conducted part of the poll, I appreciate just why it is that they wanted to stay where they were with the rest of the Eastry rural district instead of being moved simply because one place Minster (which is a small town and not a village), would prefer to go in with district No. 8.
I do not wish to labour the point. I have made the main proposition. These are small communities, but they feel passionately and they have taken the troubles to express their feelings as best they can. There was a 90 per cent, vote in favour of staying where they were originally put. The Local Government Boundary Commission were not disposed to take this as conclusive evidence of local feelings. Despite their pleas, as I understand it, they were not able to make representations. All that I am asking the noble Lord is to give a message to these small villages. They are asking:

537
What do we do now? How long may we have to wait? What hope is there of our being able to go to the district we prefer? We have expressed this view as best we can. What are we now to do? There must be other places where similar circumstances prevail. I think it would be helpful if practical advice could be given to those in the 16 per cent, who are still unhappy about where they have been placed.
5.56 p.m.
LORD GISBOROUGH: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for introducing this Order. I should like to raise a parochial point and to say that from the point of view of Cleveland County it is a highly unsatisfactory result. From the point of view of East Cleveland, it started well when we were going to be included with Whitby and Great Ayton in Cleveland County. This was guaranteed because the Minister said he would not make any changes in the boundary. This was shortly followed by an application by Whitby and Great Ayton to move back to North Yorkshire, which application was promptly granted. Now we have a collection of huge districts which are about the largest in the country. For example, we have districts with populations of 163,000, 157,000 and 147,000. The average rateable value is £7 million, which is much higher than any comparable district. In area 4, with which I am concerned particularly, there is a set of totally different towns with totally different interests. It is extremely difficult to visualise the central council finding it easy to administer such a "hodge-podge" of different places.
It is also interesting to look at the guidelines laid down. One sees that the ideal number is from 75,000 to 100,000 people. I have already given figures which indicate that we are almost double the lower limit of 75,000. In Section 3 of the guidelines it declares that the identity of large towns should be maintained; but Cleveland is cut right across because Teesside is divided into two. The fourth guideline says that account should be taken of large increases in population. There will be an enormous increase in East Cleveland. This will make for even larger populations. In Section 6 regard is to be had to the wishes of the local inhabitants; but 80 per cent. of the inhabitants of Guisborough voted in a snowstorm to
538
stay in North Yorkshire. This vote was disregarded. I am sure that an equal number would now wish to have a very much smaller district than they have.
No. 4 district consists of part of Teesside with a population of 91,000 and a rateable value of £4·8 million. The remainder of these various towns (all viable by themselves) Loftus, Saltburn, Skelton and Guisborough have a rateable value of £1·6 million and a population of 56,000 which, as one thumbs through the pages, one sees is quite comparable with many of the other districts.
These districts will inevitably attract masses of "Chiefs" and comparatively few "Indians". There will be lots of chaps sitting at desks one above the other in authority, all more and more unapproachable; and when it comes to getting anything done it will be more and more difficult. It will be remote, impersonal and bureaucratic government—anything but local government. The rates will go up, just as they did when Teesside was formed into an enormous district, and the standard of service will come down just as happened in Teesside. I support what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and particularly his question whether it would be possible for the Boundary Commission to recommend that some of these large districts be divided up in future. I hope that the Government will consider withdrawing and reconsidering this Order.
6.0 p.m.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, like other noble Lords from both sides of the Chamber I should like to congratulate the Government on the work they have done so far. They have done a great deal in a short time. Also I should like to add my congratulations to the Boundary Commission and to the Civil Service. If the Government had allowed another year to go by before introducing these measures we could have threshed out a great deal locally without having to air our washing in public in Parliament.
I have been asked to represent the views of the rural district of Strood. They held a referendum and there was 95 per cent, in favour of their proposals, but the Boundary Commission turned them down. I cannot understand that. The

539
Boundary Commission had certain guidelines but they seem to have kicked over the traces good and proper in going contrary to local opinion. They propose to put Strood in with Chatham and Rochester, making a district of 132,000. I think I am right in saying that the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, is against any figure over 100,000, and so am I. Other proposals were put forward by the Strood R.D.C. which would have given Strood the land West of the Medway in a semicircle, with the Strood part of Rochester on the West side of the Medway in the centre. That would have given the area of the R.D.C. a population of 42,000 and the town, I think, would have had 29,000—anyway, the total would be roughly 72,000, which is an ideal size. One has only to look at the map to see that it is a balanced area geographically and one with plenty of money. The Strood R.D.C. is very rich and includes the Isle of Grain. It has a good clerk, who organised the referendum, and I think that note should be taken of its proposals. Other noble Lords have asked when we may expect a revision for dissatisfied customers and I should like to add my request for this information.
6.2 p.m.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, I am sorry to be another contributor to this subject, but there are some serious matters here to discuss. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, spoke to us with sweet reason and praised the new Local Government Boundary Commission for their work. I have no doubt at all that a great deal of praise is due to them for doing a very difficult job with what the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, referred to as unfailing expedition. I would suggest "indecent haste" as an alternative to his description. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, also referred to the Boundary Commission's Report as being the result of "extensive consultation". I want to bring to the notice of your Lordships a case in which there was no consultation of any kind. The facts have been briefly set out by the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, who was going to refer to this matter but has left it to me to put in a little more detail.
The districts involved are Esher and Walton and Weybridge, which together are already one district, Staines and Sun-
540
bury-on-Thames. The arrangement dictated by the Local Government Boundary Commission, on page 41 of the Order that we are discussing, is that Esher should join with Walton and Weybridge, and that Staines should join with Sunbury, but what three out of the four districts want is for Esher and Staines to remain independent while Walton and Weybridge join with Sunbury, which I understand would suit both those districts. I do not want to bore your Lordships with a special case. I know full well that it would be quite impossible for each case in respect of these non-metropolitan districts to be debated in Parliament, so I will not bore your Lordships with a lot of statistics. Suffice it to say that the arrangement proposed by these districts would fit very well within the numbers suggested. In the case of Esher the population alone is over 64,000. It has an extremely high rateable value, as I know to my cost because I live there. The rateable value is something approaching £4½ million.
It is not really to fight the local case of Esher that I am speaking, though I should like to urge it with as much force as I can; it is really to state the way in which this decision has been taken, and what I have now to relate is a very sorry and painful story. As long ago as last June the Clerk to the Esher Urban District Council sent a letter to the Commission designate, which had not yet been set up as a statutory body, with a copy to the Department of the Environment, making out a strong case for the preservation of the Urban District of Esher as a separate district. Letters had already been sent in 1971 to the Department of the Environment. All the arguments were fully set out. The Urban District had received circulars assuring them of the fullest practical consultations with local authorities. The Esher Urban District Council requested a meeting with the Commission designate at the end of their letter of June. The gravamen of what I am saying this evening is that no answer of any kind has been received by Esher except a printed postcard of acknowledgment. No letter of explanation of the Boundary Commission's decision has been received, and the case remains unanswered. No consultation of any kind took place. A further request to the Secretary of State at the end of

541
October on behalf of Esher and Walton and Weybridge that the Secretary of State should receive a deputation was refused.
In conclusion, I ask the noble Lord who is to reply whether he will please give me straight answers to rather straight questions. First, was it the intention of Her Majesty's Government that evidence from local authorities to the Boundary Commission should be ignored and unanswered, and requests for interviews with the Boundary Commission and with the Department of the Environment should be ignored or rejected, and whether this fits in with his definition of "extensive consultation'"? Secondly, was it the Government's intention that the decisions of the Local Government Boundary Commission should be enforced without explanation or amendment? Finally, I should like to reiterate some words used by the noble Baroness, Lady White, in asking what steps we can take, whether the Government will please take the Order back for further consideration.
6.12 p.m.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, the Commission had by no means a simple task, but it was a most important one, and by its very nature we could not possibly expect that the Commission would be able to please everyone. In fact, it is clear that in some cases they have found it impossible to reconcile all the aims they had before them: certainly not all their decisions have been received with approbation. I agree with my noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor that some of the rural areas are rather terrifyingly big. I shudder to think what the travelling expenses will be for some of the members. I am sure that the noble Lords, Lord Piatt and Lord Garnsworthy, and my noble friend Lord Gisborough, are right in saying that some of the decisions have seemed inexplicable and are unpopular. On the other hand, I feel that the Commission are entitled to a tribute for having achieved 84 per cent, acceptance, which, as the noble Baroness, Lady White, said, is no mean achievement. The pressure due to the time in which this local government reform has been carried through has been extreme; and I think the Commission must have been really up against it: it must have been to some extent a rush job to get it done in the time available.
542
But, having said that, I believe that at this stage of the proceedings the Government, having allotted them this task, are right to accept the Commission's recommendations as they stand, and not to take the recommendations back for piecemeal consideration. We all know that the Chairman of the Commission, Sir Edmund Compton, has been about the fairest-minded man one could possibly think of. While reserving our criticisms in some cases, and perhaps feeling that some of the decisions were not those at which most people have arrived, I think we must congratulate the Commission on the degree of acceptance they have achieved and wish them well in their further deliberations.
6.15 p.m.
LORD REDCLIFFE-MAUD: My Lords, if, before the Minister replies, I might add a word, it would be this. I think we must recognise in this House that the Act could not be on the Statute Book as it is now, and we could not be about to elect new authorities in 1973 and pass to a new system in 1974, unless the Government had with perfect frankness declared from the outset what the programme was, and unless they had recognised that it was absolutely impossible to ask Parliament to draft and approve in detail the boundaries of the second tier, of the districts, as well as the main boundaries of the counties. They were therefore, I think, very wise to decide that there must be a Local Government Boundary Commission, to be appointed before the Act was passed and to get to work long before they were anything but designated. That means that we have, in effect, entrusted to them this exceedingly difficult task of getting a second tier drafted and in action at the same time as the main tier with nothing to go on except the status quo.
The Government had the Report of the Royal Commission, and an alternative in Mr. Senior's proposals for the broad outline of the main framework, but they did not have anything to guide them when they decided that there must be a second tier. Therefore I think we should congratulate the Government on having had the foresight to appoint the Boundary Commission, and on the extraordinary fairness, I would stress, rather than the

543
speed, with which not only the Chairman but also the members of the Commission—and I think in particular of Sir Andrew Wheatley, a man of great experience in local government—have gone to work. I must confess that, having listened with fascination to the debates that we have had this year in this House on the main boundaries and having heard the interesting interventions this afternoon on particular parts of the second-tier system, I am more than ever convinced that the Government were right to leave the drafting of the second tier to a Boundary Commission and only to ask Parliament to approve what the Minister has put before us.
I therefore very much hope that the Government will not yield to the suggestion that they should withdraw this Order. What we need more than anything else in local government now is a degree of finality, so that these important decisions about the agency arrangements to be made between the county authorities and the district authorities can be made immediately in an atmosphere of certainly. Of course I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, that we wish to know that the Local Government Boundary Commission can get on immediately with the work of doing some of the minor patching of this and that, which could be done without disturbing the main framework, and that in due course they will not regard as sacrosanct what goes into this approval of the Order (and I hope we shall approve it) before us to-day. The immediate thing, I suggest, is that everybody in local government who has been consulted over a long period of time must now shut up and not keep on asking to be consulted. We must make the best of what the Boundary Commission and the Government have put before the House, in the hope that we can now make a success of both the first and second tiers, when they are elected in 1973 and when they get into operation in 1974.
Finally, my Lords, I would remind the House that we have parishes, and parish councils with increased powers, which will do something to make up for the size of those districts which some of us think are too big, and that one of the main purposes of local government reform was to take account of the greater
544
mobility of our society and therefore the possibility, as time goes on, of people being better able to cover distances.
6.20 p.m.
THE EARL OF CRANBROOK: My Lords, I rather think I am the only speaker this afternoon who will welcome this Order almost wholeheartedly. I do not share the fears of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, and others, that the areas are too big. I come from a very rural area where the decisions of the Commissioners have made rather large districts; and when I look at the functions—which after all are the most important matters—which these local authorities will carry out for the people who live in their areas, I am quite satisfied that they are the right size for what are perhaps the two most important things they will have to do; namely, to provide housing over a sufficiently wide area to allow for the mobility of labour that to-day we find to be absolutely essential in rural areas, and also over a sufficiently wide area to deal adequately with development planning. I believe the size of the areas to be right. It is the functions which are important and I believe that the authorities will do a very much better service for the people they are looking after than would be possible if they were to be very small, as some noble Lords would wish to see them.
6.22 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am grateful to all the noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and particularly for the expressions of appreciation and tributes that have been paid to the Boundary Commission, which I am sure are fully deserved. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, who harked back to cur debate on the Government's White Paper of autumn 1970, in which debate the factor upon which there was the greatest unanimity was that we should "get on with it". This is what we have been attempting to do.
I refute the suggestion that this has been done with such expedition that the consultations have not been adequate. I will return to that matter in a moment. But the fact is that decisions have been reached after what I believe is an appropriate amount of consideration and con-

545
sulfation, and we must now "get on". The Back Benchers can tell the districts to "shut up". In my position, whatever my feelings, I cannot do this; nevertheless I am grateful to them. A number of noble Lords expressed a sense of grievance on behalf of the 16 per cent. of the authorities. I would suggest to your Lordships that that is a very small number in an upheaval of this kind. It was said that there was a sense of grievance over a lack of consultation. I will not weary your Lordships' House by attempting to answer that allegation in detail: I will make the point that the raw material of the Boundary Commission's deliberations and the starting point of all their discussions was the proposals put to them at the request of the Secretary of State by the districts themselves. The whole exercise began with what the districts proposed. As the noble Lord, Lord Redcliffe-Maud, said, the Boundary Commission were not dealing with proposals made by somebody else. They were starting from scratch on the districts' own proposals. To that extent I think I can safely rebut any suggestion that there has been no consultation, because that was the starting point.
Coming down to particular details, there are certainly those districts adjacent to London who feel they have been thrown together in units which are larger than they would like them to be. Ban-stead, for example, does not relish being the junior partner to Reigate; but this was one of the guidelines—and I submit it was a correct guideline—that around a great metropolitan area like London there should be powerful units of local government at the district level. If you accept that guideline, then it was right for the Boundary Commission to stand firm over a number of places such as Esher, Banstead and others we have heard of. In that connection, and in connection with some of the smaller districts, I have been asked when these matters can be reconsidered. I would say, certainly not yet. The Boundary Commission now have to move immediately to deal with the question of the names of the districts, of choosing the successor parishes and of making the electoral arrangements for the new areas. After that, and after local government reform has taken effect from April 1, 1974, they have to address themselves to a number of minor boundary
546
changes which were found to be necessary in the course of the debates in both Houses of Parliament. Thereafter it may be possible for them to look at a number of district boundaries which have not pleased the 16 per cent, of the districts involved in this exercise.
I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Brooke for what he said, and I am pleased to know that he has been reassured by the outcome in respect of the smaller district areas. I do not believe, if he will forgive my saying so, that it is possible to say that the views of the districts have been in any sense entirely flouted. That surely cannot be the case if 84 per cent, of them are satisfied. I know that he feels—and I think others feel also—that some of the new districts are still too extensive in area. I quoted one example from Northumberland, where two of the existing districts concerned felt it was a mistake not to stick to the original larger area which the Boundary Commission proposed. I have just been travelling in the South-West for which some of the present proposals involve dividing up larger areas originally proposed by the Boundary Commission; and such "comment as I heard was confined to a sense of regret that that had been done.
My noble friend Lord Cranbrook also said that, so far as he was concerned in Suffolk and other rural areas, he is well content with these rather extensive areas, bearing in mind the functions that have to be exercised by the authorities. So here I think we have to face the fact that, although there is a conflict of judgment, the Boundary Commission have done their best. In due course the boundaries will certainly be reviewed in the light of experience, which of course we must gain, because we are now dealing with different bodies performing different functions and operating in a different way from anything we have hitherto experienced.
My noble friend Lord Gisborough raised the special case of Cleveland. That is a special case and, as your Lordships will see, on page 87 of this Report are printed the special guidelines which the Boundary Commission were given in this particular case. My noble friend did not make the charge which was made by some other noble Lords, that the conclusion arrived at, though locally unpopular, was

547
not arrived at without thorough consideration. I am sure he will agree with that especially as I am able to remind the House that that was one of the cases where an additional local meeting was conducted by the Boundary Commission at Saltburn on September 25, when everybody had a chance to make his views known. There was no clear consensus of view as to what should be done, and the Boundary Commission had inevitably to discharge their responsibility and come forward with a decision. It is regrettable that this has not satisfied everybody, but I am sure my noble friend will agree with me that every attempt was made to reach an agreed solution in that particular case.
The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, asked me a question about undertakings given to Horley. Those were given in the hope and expectation that the residents concerned would express their opinion in time for it to be taken account of in the Bill; but in fact the Bill became law on October 26 and the residents voted on the 28th, so that it has not been practicable to do that. But what I was saying about the possibilities of the Boundary Commission securing a change by a later review of course applies in that case, because that was an assurance given during the passage of the Bill.
I hope I have dealt with the main points that were raised, and particularly the allegation made by the noble Lord, Lord Piatt, that Esher had not been consulted. Esher, like every other authority, was invited right at the beginning to submit their proposals and supporting arguments for the changes they would like. Those were considered fully by the Boundary Commission. Their further submissions added nothing to what they had originally said, and the Boundary Commission came firmly to the view that they have now incorporated in their recommendations.
This happened in a number of cases where a number of authorities reiterated the proposals they had first submitted, but the Boundary Commission in a number of those, fortunately not amounting in total to more than 16 per cent., equally firmly came to the view that those proposals could not be accepted. Nevertheless, I think we have reached a position where as much agreement and satisfaction as it would be humanly possible
548
to expect in a situation such as this has been arrived at. So I think we can as a whole welcome the Report for being comprehensive, consistent and as fair as possible, and confirm the tribute to the Commission for being thorough and practical and getting on with the job with a despatch that, in the circumstances, was necessary. My Lords, I beg to commend the Order to your Lordships.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, before the noble Lord resumes his seat I would say that I did not want to interrupt him while he was in full song, but I asked him whether he could tell the House how the pledges given by Mr. Speed and Mr. Graham Page were going to be operated, and I asked him when they were likely to be put into effect. Furthermore, I asked him to what extent the decision depended on the Local Government Boundary Commission; and I asked him whether in point of fact consideration of the position at Horley would be one of their priorities. If the noble Lord does not know, I do not mind a bit if he says so; but a considerable body of opinion is waiting anxiously. I think my questions were clear. I do not at all mind if the noble Lord is unable to answer me—I realise it is a difficult question—but if he does not know he ought to say so.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am sorry because obviously my answers, which were meant to cover the noble Lord's questions, cannot have been clear. I confirmed that the undertaking had been given, but on the basis that it was hoped, if the residents had been able to express their opinion during the passage of the Bill through either House, that it would have been given effect to in the Bill. In fact, the Bill became an Act on October 26, and the residents voted on the 28th, so that ruled out that possibility. I explained earlier in my speech that there were a number of important processes in which the Boundary Commission were involved: notably the selection of successor parishes, the electoral arrangements for the new authorities, and so on—all of which would take priority over individual boundary reviews. I then went on to say that among the boundary reviews that would take place after April 1, 1974, when the Boundary Commission had finished those jobs, the particular

549
boundaries that had been identified as requiring review by the Boundary Commission would take priority, and this particular one would be among them. I believe I said all that in my original answer.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I appreciate that the noble Lord spoke in those very general terms. I do not think he has grasped the point that the position, so far as the local authorities are concerned at the moment, is that next April voters in the area will be called upon to elect representatives to the West Sussex County Council. At some unstated time they are going to be transferred to Surrey. I should have thought that it could be made clear whether the Boundary Commission are going to report, let us say, before June 1973. The noble Lord has not taken the point that, as things stand at the moment, there is little to persuade people to stand for the West Sussex County Council, there is a likelihood of considerable confusion, and the consequences in regard to matters such as planning, let alone the other services, are quite serious.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am sure that the House will not want us to continue for too long, but I did say that the very next thing that the Boundary Commission had to attend to were the electoral arrangements for the next elections.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BUILDING REGULATIONS (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1972
6.35 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR NORTHERN IRELAND (LORD WINDLESHAM)THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR NORTHERN IRELAND (LORD WINDLESHAM) rose to move, That the Draft Building Regulations (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, laid before the House on November 2, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the first Order standing in my name on the Order Paper. Under this Draft Order in Council the present system of maintaining building standards by way of by-laws in Northern Ireland is to be replaced by a new system of building regulations. Over the years, local authorities in Northern Ireland have regulated building in their respective areas in the
550
interests of the safety and health of the people in their districts; but with the increasing complexity of development, the old system has become out of date. All those concerned with building—the local authorities, architects, the construction industry and private building owners—have had to comply with a building code which rests for the most part on provisions contained in the Public Health Act 1878. These provisions have not fundamentally changed in ninety years and the situation is further complicated by local Acts, promoted by Belfast Corporation, for example, combining local features with powers contained in the general legislation.
While most local authorities have tried to achieve a measure of standardisation by adopting a model set of by-laws, varying interpretations have been put on the model set. The present system is therefore rather haphazard, awkward to operate and unsuited to present-day needs. The effect of the Draft Order is to modernise sound parts of the old structure and to replace those which are unsound by a system suited to modern needs and capable of being adapted to meet future change.
The 26 new district councils, which will take over from the local authorities in October, 1973, will in future exercise building jurisdiction. The main function of the district councils will be to enforce the building regulations which under Article 3 the Northern Ireland Ministry of Finance will have power to make. These regulations will apply throughout Northern Ireland and will be the uniform building code to supersede the building by-laws made by local authorities and other relevant statutory provisions, whether in general or local Acts. It is important that a new comprehensive code of the type envisaged should be introduced only after full consultation and advice. While it is intended to introduce the building regulations as at present applied in England with the minimum of adaptation for Northern Ireland, the Ministry of Finance will consult all interested parties in the construction industry before introducing the regulations. In addition, a Building Regulations Advisory Committee will be appointed which must be consulted before the regulations can be amended and which can recommend amendments in its own

551
right. By this means it is hoped to achieve the provision of standards adequate for the purposes of the Draft Order after due regard for the interests concerned.
The Draft Order contains provisions for appeal against a district council which refuses to relax the regulations or rejects plans deposited in respect of a new building. The inclusion of facilities for appeal is consistent with modern attitudes, in that applicants should be protected against the possibility of an unreasonable refusal or a misinterpretation of the regulations. It is not suggested that such refusals would be anything but exceptional, nor that they would be given in anything but good faith; but protection must be given against the possibility of an unreasonable or mistaken decision on the part of a district council. I should add that planning rules are not affected in any way by this Order. They will continue as they are, and builders of new dwellings and extensions to existing dwellings will be required to obtain approval under building regulations as well as planning rules in the future. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Building Regulations (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, laid before the House on November 2, be approved.—(Lord Windlesham.)
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I want to begin by saying that I do not stand here as an expert on Northern Ireland affairs—in fact, I know very little about Northern Ireland. But I have some experience of local government and it was suggested that perhaps I could interest myself in this connection and be of some assistance in regard to consideration of this and some of the other Orders that follow this evening. May I say immediately that we support the Order in what it seeks to do, in that it is, as I understand it, an improvement on the present position because it goes some way towards rationalising the variety of systems of building regulations at present operating in the United Kingdom. When the Order was before the other place on November 21 a considerable number of questions were asked, as was most proper, and while I wish to avoid repeating those questions here it seems to me desirable to raise one or two points that I think were not touched on then. Indeed
552
perhaps it is not unreasonable to say that it is not merely desirable but also important, since it is these two Houses of Parliament that have a duty to examine in detail these Orders affecting Northern Ireland.
I wonder whether we could consider the relations that exist between the North and South of Ireland in regard to this matter of building regulations. I think it is a fact that building and construction firms both in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland work in the other country, and when peace eventually returns to the island there is bound to be a considerable increase in such work. If so, it would seem to me to be logical to encourage a similarity of standards and practices. The development of common building regulations could be co-ordinated through an all-Ireland institution that would cover these economic and social matters on which much is to be gained from joint development. Such a body should be one of the elements in the package to be announced in the White Paper; and the White Paper itself ought to be published soon now, and certainly before the proposed Border poll is held.
Looking at matters in what one might call the long term, with the increasing amount of work that is done internationally by the largest European builders and contractors, I would ask: should not the E.E.C. be putting its mind to the rationalisation of the many building regulation schemes operating in the various member countries? Is such consideration in progress; and, if not, will the Government consider it? In asking for such harmonisation of building regulations, both in Ireland and in Europe, I am not overlooking the need for certain local or national variations, and I rather think that without too much difficulty allowances can be built into any consolidation that may be achieved. However, in many areas of such regulations there is no technical reason for the important variations which occur, and in an area such as this where, as the noble Lord has said, the highest priority is the welfare of the general public, it is vitally important that there should be the clearest and indeed the highest standard of procedures. But generally I offer a very warm welcome to this Order.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for what

553
he has said and for the welcome he has given to the Order. When we were debating Northern Ireland last week we considered a considerable list of items, and the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition remarked that one of the things he regarded as a useful "spin-off" was that a wide range of subjects was good for the political education of those Ministers who had to handle them. There are five items of the Order Paper to-day, ranging from building regulations to local government miscellaneous and other provisions and drainage, and I can assure noble Lords that they have added to my political education in preparing for the debate this evening. As the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy said, he has considerable experience of local government in England and can certainly bring his knowledge and wisdom to bear on Orders of this sort. Indeed any noble Lord, whether or not he has direct knowledge of Northern Ireland, should feel free to take part in these debates on draft Orders in Council.
The main point raised by the noble Lord was the question of relations between North and South. This is a matter of the utmost political sensitivity. The nature of the co-operation between Northern Ireland and the Republic, whether economic or political, was touched on in an important section of the Paper for Discussion headed, "The Irish Dimension", and I do not think this is the occasion to develop that further. The White Paper will be published at the earliest possible moment.
I understand that the Northern Ireland Building Regulations will be similar to the regulations which currently apply to England. The United Kingdom as a whole is moving towards a standard building code which will make similar requirements in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Of course, if common building standards were introduced into the E.E.C. it follows that the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, together with the other Member States of the Community would need to discuss and consult on what their standards should be. As the noble Lord will appreciate, it is not for the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to start taking the initiative as regards the harmonisation or otherwise of building standards in the E.E.C. but I will draw
554
the noble Lord's remarks to the attention of whichever of my Ministerial colleagues has responsibility in this matter.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DEVELOPMENT OF TOURIST TRAFFIC (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1972
6.46 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM rose to move, That the Draft Development of Tourist Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, laid before the House on November 16, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the second Order standing in my name on the Order Paper. As its title implies, this Order is designed to encourage the development of the tourist industry in Northern Ireland. Recent events have, not surprisingly, had a severe impact on tourism in the Province, which up to 1969 was increasing at such a rate that it had become an. important source of revenue. This revenue, brought in by visitors, amounted in 1968 to over £28 million.
The Order provides for making financial assistance available to hotels, guest houses and boarding houses in Northern Ireland. I should make it clear that it docs not involve any form of compensation for loss of business. Its main provision is to continue, and in some cases expand, the system of capital grants for the construction, extension, modernisation or improvement of premises. This is a good time to try to improve the basic facilities for tourism, so that when the picture brightens the standard of accommodation, and therefore the attractiveness of Northern Ireland to the tourist, will be higher than it was before.
An earlier Act of the Stormont Parliament, the Development of Tourist Traffic (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 1963, provided for the Ministry of Commerce to pay grants of up to 25 per cent, towards the construction of new, or the improvement of existing, hotels, guest houses and boarding houses in appropriate circumstances. Subsequent amendments extended the period during which applications for such grants could be made up until October 4, 1971, and also increased the rate of grant to 33⅓ per cent.
This was originally intended as a special measure at a time of considerable growth in tourism, to expand the extent and the quality of the accommodation available. But in view of the exceptional circumstances which have applied since 1969 this measure, in Article 3, provides for a flexible scheme of grant intended to operate retrospectively to October 4, 1971, which was the final date for receipt of applications under the original scheme as extended. This means that there will in practice be continuity of financial assistance to the hotel industry in Northern Ireland. As under the original scheme, grant will not be available towards work in respect of nonresidential establishments or of establishments which are not registered with the Northern Ireland Tourist Board. Financial assistance under the scheme must be related to works of construction, extension, modernisation or improvement of hotels, guest houses and boarding houses. Rates of grant vary between 20 per cent, and 35 per cent, according to the situation of the hotel development. The Draft Order also extends the functions of the Ministry of Commerce, the Northern Ireland Tourist Board and local authorities as far as tourism is concerned, and enables grants to be made to local authorities for tourist and amenity purposes.
With the reorganisation of local government in Northern Ireland, a change in the existing system is necessary. The Macrory Report on Local Government Reorganisation recommended that tourism should be treated as a regional function. Article 5 of the Draft Order therefore enables the Ministry of Commerce to provide tourist amenities and services and acquire land by agreement or compulsorily for such purposes. This power would allow central Government to supplement the efforts of local authorities and, at the same time, foster local interest and involvement by consulting with local interests and representative tourist bodies before initiating such schemes. Once tourist amenities have been completed by the Ministry of Commerce, it is likely that they will then pass into the hands of the appropriate local authorities to be operated, managed and maintained. Article 6 of the Draft Order accordingly provides for the transfer by the Ministry of Commerce of tourist amenities which
556
it has provided, to the appropriate local authorities.
I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the continuing efforts of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board in the most difficult circumstances. In the present troubled conditions the Tourist Board has become increasingly aware of the value of encouraging Northern Ireland residents to holiday and spend money in their own country. Article 4 of this draft Order reflects the need to adopt this new approach by extending the duties of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board to include the general duty to encourage Northern Ireland residents to holiday in Northern Ireland and to undertake and incur expenditure on publicity, advertising or other activities. I beg to move."
Moved, That the Draft Development of Tourist Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, laid before the House on November 16 be approved.—(Lord Windlesham.)
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, may I begin by expressing thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, for the great care he has shown in explaining this Order? I should have thanked him in connection with the previous Order and for the kindly way he explained that—for his kindly, clear, explicit and very helpful explanation—and the same applies to the one we are now considering. My comments will be very brief. We give a warm welcome to the general intention of this Order. We feel, as I am sure the noble Lord feels, that the greatest help the tourist traffic in Northern Ireland could possibly receive would be a speedy return to a lasting peace.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, my noble friend is truly appearing before us this evening as a variety artist, considering the variety of Orders he is introducing. I have only one comment to make. I think I am right—my noble friend will correct me if I am wrong—in saying that before the troubles that we all so much deplore broke out the Northern Ireland tourist trade was going extremely well. This therefore seems the right moment at which to proceed with these improvements, because we all believe in our hearts that happier days will return to Northern Ireland and we wish

557
to do everything we can to show our friends in Northern Ireland that this is our belief. I own that I have not studied this Order in detail. Nevertheless, this seems to me to be the right moment at which to proceed with the kind of improvements that are indicated by this Order.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, may I thank both noble Lords for their comments. As my noble friend Lord Amory said, the growth in the development of the tourist trade in Northern Ireland before 1969 was most encouraging. This is an opportunity—and I am glad to hear that in his judgment he regards this as such an opportunity—to make a gesture of confidence for the future. It takes some time to build extensions to hotels and much planning must be done before a new hotel is built. A period of time inevitably elapses in these cases and it seems right to make additional grants available now, so that when things improve better facilities will be available. Then people will be able to go to Northern Ireland in a peaceful way and enjoy themselves more when they arrive.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT &c. (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1972
6.55 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM rose to move, That the Draft Local Government &c. (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, laid before the House on November 28, be approved. The noble Lord said: This Draft Order in Council contains a number of miscellaneous provisions most of which arise from the reorganisation of local government in Northern Ireland. It is concerned mainly with the finances of local government following reorganisation, and the transfer of certain burdens to the Northern Ireland Exchequer. In addition, it increases the amount which the Ministry of Development may advance to new town commissions to enable them to finance their development functions.
At present local authorities are in receipt of a general grant which compensates for rate income lost because of derating and provides some assistance to poorer authorities. The Draft Order
558
proposes the continuation of these principles in a general grant to be paid in aid of expenditure of the new district councils. These councils vary widely in resources, measured in terms of the average product of a penny rate per head of the population, and it is proposed that the Ministry of Development will pay a grant to poorer councils to bring them up to a standard to be determined by the Ministry. That standard may be fixed by reference either to the whole of Northern Ireland or the districts of the more wealthy councils. The intention is that the first period of the grant—October 1, 1973 to March 31, 1974—it will be fixed by reference to the whole of Northern Ireland. There will, therefore, be a statistical average over Northern Ireland as a whole. This element of the grant is similar to the resources element of the Rate Support Grant which is payable to local authorities in England and Wales.
The general grant contains a second element, known as "the derating element", which is intended to compensate district councils for rate income lost because of industrial derating. The rateable valuation of industrial hereditaments is £0·875 million, which is one-quarter of their total net annual valuation of £3·5 million. Compensation for rate income lost through derating has been a feature of local government finance in Northern Ireland since 1929 and its retention in the general grant was requested by the Local Government Consultative Committee which advises the Government on matters connected with the reorganisation of local government. District councils will be in existence for several months before they receive money on account of the rates they make, and to finance them during this period the Draft Order will enable the Ministry of Development to make loans to them. The amount to be advanced will be about £100,000 and will be repaid from the normal revenues of the councils.
The Draft Order also provides for an increase in the statutory limit of borrowing by New Town Commissions. The present cumulative limit of £30 million has been reached, and to enable the New Towns development programmes—provision of water and sewerage services, roads, industrial sites and comprehensive development—to continue, it is proposed to increase the limit to £55 million. This sum includes an additional £10 million

559
to meet the expenses of the Commissions' operations during the extra six months occasioned by the postponement of local government reorganisation. Responsibility for all roads in the Province will be in the hands of the Ministry of Development from October 1, 1973, and the Ministry will require power to borrow for capital expenditure purposes. This power is conferred by the Draft Order and it is proposed that the present limit on borrowing, which relates to motorways and trunk roads only, should be increased from £110 million to £150 million. As the new district councils will not be housing authorities, the Draft Order proposes that the financial commitments of the existing local authorities in relation to housing should be transferred to the Ministry of Development either directly or indirectly through the Northern Ireland Housing Executive.
Finally, I should like to explain that, while on completion of local government reorganisation many services will be transferred to the Exchequer, their cost will not fall on taxpayers, as under the recently made Rates (Northern Ireland) Order a regional rate will be levied by the Ministry of Finance for the broad purpose of meeting the cost of those services which, though local, will be administered on a regional basis. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Local Government &c. (Northern Ireland) Order 1972. laid before the House on November 28, be approved.—(Lord Windlesham.)
7.0 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, the very great care with which the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has explained this Order is much appreciated. He could be excused, having regard to the attendance in the House, if he thought that to go into very much detail mattered not. I am sure we appreciate this indication of the extremely serious manner in which he seeks to discharge his duties to Northern Ireland, as well to this House, and I repeat that we are indeed grateful to him for the patience and the care with which he is treating the House this evening. Not only the House, but also the people of Northern Ireland will be appreciative of the fact that he is going into such detail. From this side we again offer general support to this
560
Order. It would seem to us to be commendable. We have one small doubt, that we are not too sure whether we ought too often to have the word" et cetera" in the title of an Order. We do not quite understand what it means and there may be a danger if it is used too often. Perhaps it is an "Irishism".
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, I should only like to add my strong support to the commendation that the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has made of the conduct of my noble friend in presenting these Orders to us this evening.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (POSTPONE MENT OF ELECTIONS AND RE ORGANISATION) (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1972
7.2 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM rose to move, That the Draft Local Government (Postponement of Elections and Reorganisation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, laid before the House on November 28, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the fourth Order standing in my name in the Order Paper. I did not speak again on the last Order, because it is perhaps in the interests of the House that we should move on. I hope that the explanations are not too detailed. I have made an effort to keep them reasonably short, but as the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, said, we owe it to the House and to the people in Northern Ireland, to whom these Orders are extremely important, to give an explanation of why they are being brought forward and why Parliament is being asked to approve them to-day.
The purpose of the draft Local Government (Postponement of Elections and Reorganisation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, is really contained in its name: it I is to give effect to the decision of the; Secretary of State to postpone the local government elections for the new district councils from a date in 1972 until 1973, and to deal with the consequential effects of that decision. Noble Lords will know that the local government elections had been fixed for December 6, 1972, which was the last convenient date if the new local authorities were to function properly from April 1, 1973, the date set in the original scheme for the reorganisation of local government in Northern Ireland.
However, very strong representations were made to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland by the political Parties, and by many other responsible organisations, to the effect that the local government elections should be postponed, and my right honourable friend decided that the best and wisest course was to put off these elections until the spring of 1973, when a date would be fixed.
The postponement of the local elections means that the regionalisation of the major services—education, health and welfare, roads, planning, water and sewerage and the centralisation of rating—must wait until after the councils are elected. The administration of the social services will be vested in boards made up in part of representatives of the new district councils, and until the councils are in existence and able to nominate their representatives the boards will be unable to function effectively. Moreover, the new councils must be able, right from the start, to determine their own policy and their budgets, and October 1, 1973, represents the earliest date after the elections by which they could consider and prepare estimates for their operation during the remainder of the financial year. Accordingly, the existing system of local government will continue until October 1, 1973—that is, six months later than had originally been planned—with services being provided as at present and existing rating authorities levying and collecting rates for this period. Services will be reorganised as from October 1, when the district councils assume their functions and area boards and Northern Ireland Departments become responsible for regional services. As there may not be time before April 1, 1973, for existing rating authorities to prepare estimates of expenditure for a six-month period, the Order will enable my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to prescribe a formula by which rate poundages will be determined. There has been consultation with representatives of local government about the need for this power which is sought with their agreement.
There are, however, a number of services which were to be reorganised on April 1 and which are not dependent on the election of district councils. We have agreed that where these changes do not involve substantial financial, staffing or accommodation problems, it would be right for them to go ahead. The main
562
changes I have in mind are the creation of a unified electricity authority; the transfer to the Ministry of Home Affairs of complete responsibility for the payment of criminal injury compensation; the merger of the Belfast Corporation Transport Department and Ulsterbus; the transfer of road safety matters from councils to the Ministry of Home Affairs; the creation of a Fishery Harbour Authority to control three fishing harbours; and the continuous revision of valuations for rating purposes.
The Government realise that the postponement of the local elections and the consequent delay in the regionalisation of major services will inevitably cause difficulties for the existing authorities, but we have been assured of the co-operation of the authorities and their staffs in tackling these difficulties and in the provision of services in the period until September 30 next year. It would be right to acknowledge this evening our appreciation of this co-operation and to thank both elected representatives and officers. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Local Government (Postponement of Elections and Reorganisation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, laid before the House on November 28, be approved.—(Lord Windlesham.)
7.7 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, if another member of the Northern Irish team on this side of the House may intervene very briefly, may I say that it is a great misfortune that we have this Order. The Government—and we have debated this point on a previous occasion—are right to proceed now with the arrangements. I endorse my noble friend's opinion on the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, but he must be getting rather embarrassed. Fortunately, there are not many people on his side of the House to hear the compliments.
It is unfortunate that this situation has had to come about. I will not go over the arguments made last week when we fully debated Northern Ireland, but I hope that as these interim temporary arrangements (as they are in a sense) progress—they really must of then-nature cause considerable difficulty and considerable extra work for everyone including those civil servants who go battling on in the most splendid and

563
devoted way amid all the troubles—the noble Lord may be able to report to us if some of them do not work as well as he would hope. One advantage of the present arrangement is that the Government are able to move extraordinarily rapidly in producing flexible solutions to meet particular problems. When I think of the time that we take to pass legislation concerning the United Kingdom, it must be rather tempting that this single Ministry organisation for Northern Ireland does produce rather effective decision-making and therefore government.
My Lords, I should like to ask one question, though if the Minister finds it difficult to answer it, I will leave it. The noble Lord paid a tribute to the cooperation of local authorities. May we assume now that all local authorities are fully co-operating? Are rating strikes or any of the difficulties that there have been in the past still continuing in certain areas? It may be that the noble Lord would rather leave that subject to-night, but none the less I should hope that, if that is so, it is a good augury perhaps for the Government's White Paper when it does come out.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord is in a generous mood this evening, as indeed he has been throughout most of the debates on Northern Ireland for several months. I particularly welcome the tribute he paid to the Civil Service. As a former Minister with responsibility for the Civil Service, I know that his comments will be appreciated by the Northern Ireland Civil Service and by the United Kingdom civil servants in the office of the Secretary of State. As the noble Lord remarked, there is an opportunity, with a small and compact organisation, to move fairly quickly and flexibly.
I find, also, as a student of government, that there is an almost unique relationship between civil servants and Ministers, because there is such a small group of people who have come together to deal with one particular problem. They work and live closely with one another; and it is fundamentally a one-problem issue. There are, of course, a whole range of administrative matters, but it is the deep political divide in Northern Ireland and the way in which it can be
564
resolved that is the common concern of everyone working with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The relationships within a small Department, and an exceptional one like the Northern Ireland Office, are very different, and the procedures that flow from this are somewhat different, too, from those found on what is called this side of the water.
We have had much consultation—I have been engaged in a great deal of it myself—over the postponement of the local government elections. On the day of the Secretary of State's announcement—I think it was—he asked Mr. Howell, at that time the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, to attend a special meeting of the Local Government Consultative Committee in order to explain to the members of the Committee why the Secretary of State felt it necessary to make this postponement by six months and to ask for their co-operation; and we have received great co-operation since.
The question of the rent and rates strike does not arise directly on this Order. I am afraid that the withholding of rent and rates as a protest still continues, and on quite a significant scale, although not so great a scale as it did at its peak. Nor is it so conspicuous. It is not so much of an issue as it was, although unfortunately it still exists. But the protest is, of course, in the main by ratepayers, or the tenants of local authority housing, rather than by the elected local authorities themselves.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DRAINAGE (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1972
7.13 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM rose to move, That the Draft Drainage (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, laid before the House on November 28, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the fifth and final Order standing in my name on the Order Paper this evening. The background to this Order is that two Bills, described as the Drainage Bill and the Lough Erne Drainage and Navigation Bill, were to have been presented to the Northern Ireland Parliament during April of this year. However, following Prorogation, these two proposed Bills have now been combined into

565
the Draft Drainage (Northern Ireland) Order which is before this House to-day.
In the light of the reorganisation of local government, it was decided that the Ministry of Agriculture, which is already the existing drainage authority for arterial drainage, should take over the urban drainage functions now exercised by the local authorities. While the principal purpose of this Order is to make consequential changes to the current drainage legislation, the opportunity has been taken to consolidate the legislative codes dealing with drainage, Erne drainage and navigation, and urban drainage into one Order in place of the 13 current Acts and a number of amending enactments.
At this stage I had better explain the present division of responsibility for drainage in Northern Ireland. Under the Drainage Act (Northern Ireland) 1947 and the Drainage Act (Northern Ireland) 1964, the Ministry of Agriculture was made the drainage authority for all main watercourses and for minor rural watercourses. A drainage council, which includes representatives of the local authorities and agricultural interests, was also set up to determine which watercourses were to be taken over by the Ministry for drainage purposes and generally to advise the Ministry on drainage policy. In 1957 the Urban Drainage Act was introduced to provide powers for local authorities in Northern Ireland to undertake improvement work on watercourses in urban areas and the subsequent maintenance of these watercourses. In the future, as laid down in Article 6, the Ministry of Agriculture for Northern Ireland is to be the drainage authority for the whole Province. Therefore there will be a unified responsibility covering all drainage, urban as well as rural.
This change of policy consequent on the reorganisation of local government next year has meant an alteration in the financing arrangements for drainage works. Under the 1947 Drainage Act the county councils and county borough, councils were to contribute 50 per cent, of the expenses incurred by the Ministry in carrying out work on main watercourses. Expenditure incurred under the 1964 Drainage Act on minor watercourses was to be met in the ratio of two-thirds by the Ministry and one-third by the county councils, while the local authorities carrying out urban drainage
566
schemes under the 1957 Urban Drainage Act could obtain grant-aid up to a maximum of 50 per cent, of the cost of such schemes. As it is not intended that part of the regional rate should be specifically allocated to pay for individual services, Article 42 of this Order provides for drainage work to be financed mainly by monies voted for this purpose from the Exchequer, which will receive the product of the regional rate.
One new provision to which I should particularly like to draw your Lordships' attention is contained in Article 8. At present, neither the Ministry of Agriculture not the local authorities have legislative authority to undertake emergency works when there is a threat of flooding, and therefore Article 8 empowers the Ministry to undertake such works. Since it is intended under this Order to deal with urban drainage in the same fashion as with rural drainage, it was decided that some additional safeguard was required to deal quickly with flooding to urban properties where both homes and employment may be threatened.
The final new provision to which I wish to draw attention is contained in Schedule 7 and concerns navigation on Lough Erne in County Fermanagh. There is at present a public right of navigation on Lough Erne, but maintenance of the navigation is not the responsibility of any public body. As owner of the bed and the soil of the Lough, and holder of all shooting and fishing rights, the Ministry is already involved in the promotion of the 58 square miles of lakes as a tourist attraction. Paragraph 12 of Schedule 7 enables the Ministry of Agriculture to carry out navigation works on the River Erne and the tributary rivers, and these works include the dredging and maintenance of channels and the provision and maintenance of navigation aids.
The Ministry is further empowered, by paragraph 13, to make by-laws, subject to the Merchant Shipping Acts, to regulate the use of the loughs and their tributaries, and these regulations may cover, for example, the size of the boat and the nature of safety equipment which it must carry. With navigational use of the loughs already increasing rapidly, it is worth making sure that a statutory navigation authority should guide the future development of boating on the

567
loughs. In the exercise of this responsibility there will be close consultation between the Ministry and the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, referred to in an earlier Order, as well as with the local district councils and other interested parties. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Drainage (Northern Ireland) Order 1972, laid before the House on November 28, be approved.—(Lord Windlesham.)
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, this Order is a pretty tremendous affair, containing, as it does, 45 Articles and 10 Schedules. I have no doubt at all that if it were a Bill before this House we should spend a great deal of time going through it very thoroughly indeed. As it is, we have to treat it this evening as Second Reading, Committee stage, Report stage, Third Reading—the lot! And it would seem appropriate, since the other House has as yet had no opportunity of considering the Order, that we should look at this one in some detail.
It would be an under-statement to say that this Order on drainage is hardly the most controversial measure on Northern Ireland that Westminster has considered since it assumed direct responsibility for the Province in March of this year. However, in the at least temporary absence of a Legislative Assembly for Northern Ireland it is important, and perhaps imperative, that we give serious attention to this measure. This week a total of 8 Orders on Northern Ireland are to be debated in the two Houses of Parliament. I think I am right in saying that by the end of this week a grand total of 26 pieces of legislation on Northern Ireland will at least have started their way through Westminster since the advent of direct rule. I am not particularly concerned this evening at the heavy and responsible work load that this places on the Northern Ireland Office and those of us in the Opposition who are concerned with such matters; it is the people of Northern Ireland about whom we have concern. One is pretty sure that legislation for Northern Ireland cannot, in the present circumstances, receive the kind of detailed scrutiny it really ought to have. In most cases in this House—and I suppose it is true of the other House—all too few of us have the specialised knowledge that we ought to
568
have. In any event, our time is always strictly limited, and in no instance can we amend these Orders, however valid our points may be.
All this emphasises the urgent need to establish a new Assembly in Northern Ireland; one that will bring proper expertise and time to legislative affairs, and one that will genuinely share power between the two communities at present so sadly divided. In the meanwhile, as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, has said, there is in existence an Advisory Commission which has a duty to perform in critically assessing Northern Ireland Orders. One wonders whether they are perhaps more interested—and it would be understandable if it were so—in the security and political aspects of the Province rather than the more academic examination of complicated and, for some, boring legislation—that is to say, if Orders on drainage can be considered as academic legislation. Perhaps we can be told what sort of time the Commission spends on each Order, on average, and the extent to which it has been successful in effecting significant changes to the draft Orders.
Moving on to the Drainage Order proper, I note that it has two main features. First, it replaces much of the law relating to drainage in Northern Ireland, and brings most of it together in one comprehensive measure. I think that the extent to which, while the Province has been almost torn apart by civil strife, a thorough overhaul of Northern Ireland law and structures has been taking place, is not sufficiently appreciated. It is good that we should be streamlining things in this way. Secondly, the Order removes responsibility for drainage from the county councils, and councils of county boroughs, and places this responsibility with the Ministry of Agriculture. This is one more measure in the massive reorganisation of local government in Northern Ireland designed to place the exercise of most functions on a Province-wide basis, in accordance with the recommendations of Macrory. A new and more efficient structure of government is taking place, and one only hopes that it will not be long now before elections are held to both the new local authorities and to a new provincial assembly, so that the people of Northern Ireland themselves can operate this

569
system to their collective benefit. Both the rationalisation and the reorganisation aspects of the Order are welcome to this side of the House, and therefore we give our broad support to this measure. However, I should like to make a few observations and ask a few questions on the details of the Order.
I ask a few questions; I hope your Lordships will be a little patient with me because, as I said, this Order is being introduced here before the other place, and it would seem proper, therefore, to raise more points here than would be normal if it had been brought the other way round. Article 2(2) makes it clear that the Ministry responsible for drainage will be the Ministry of Agriculture. I notice that soon we are to consider another Order on Northern Ireland on the Reorganisation of Water and Sewerage, and in this case the responsible Ministry will be the Ministry of Development. I wonder whether there is not something to be said for both drainage and water and sewerage coming under a new Ministry of the Environment in Northern Ireland. I notice that in the Unionist Party's document, Towards the Future, the idea of a Ministry of the Environment was recommended.
Article 3(4) specifies the activities of the Drainage Council. May I ask what sort of mileage of both water courses and sea defences we are talking about? In the case of sea defences, are these concentrated on any particular stretch or stretches of coastline? Article 12 lays down the procedure to be followed by the Ministry in the preparation of a drainage scheme. Are there any significant differences in this procedure compared with the relevant procedure in England and Wales? In particular, is the period of 28 days the same as that over here? Article 15(4) enables a dispute to be referred to arbitration under, and in accordance with, the provisions of the Arbitration Act (Northern Ireland) 1937. Obviously, we here are not familiar with the provisions of that Act, so perhaps the main features of the arbitration procedure in question could be explained to us.
Article 16 concerns the amendment of drainage schemes. The Ministry has to consult with persons likely to be materially affected by the amendment, but
570
should the amendment not also be advertised in the Press, as in Article 12(1)(b) for the original scheme? Article 20 relates to the disposal of surplus lands and contains some imprecise phrases. Paragraph (2) of the Article enables lands to be disposed, as it puts it,
"in such manner as the Ministry, with the approval of the Ministry of Finance, considers fit."
Is there no limit to what the Ministry could do? Could it sell the land to a property developer at a price considerably above the buying price, and so aid land speculation? Perhaps this situation would not, or should not, occur, but it illustrates the vagueness of the phrasing in this article. Paragraph (3) enables the person from whom any land was acquired to repurchase it within three months of completion of the works, but he has to make the request in writing. Ought there not to be an obligation on the Ministry to offer land that is to be sold to its original owner in the first instance? Another area of uncertainty is in the phrase:
"at a price comparable with the price paid by the Ministry in respect of the acquisition thereof by the Ministry".
What does "comparable" mean in this context?
Article 30 is about drainage schemes outside Northern Ireland. I find it a little puzzling that it never mentions the Republic of Ireland. The Order puts it:
"land which is situate partly inside and partly outside Northern Ireland".
Where that land is outside Northern Ireland, is it not in the Republic? I should like to ask what sort of co-operation has taken place in the past between the North and the South of Ireland. Looking a little to the future, I hope that the White Paper, when it is published, will include provisions for some sort of All-Ireland Institution, as I suggested earlier, that will oversee and develop co-operation betwen the North and South, such as that enabled by this Article.
Article 31 renders the Ministry not liable for noxious weeds which may result from the activities of the Ministry. On the face of it, this seems to be unfair to landowners who may suffer through no fault of their own. I wonder whether we could have an explanation of this Article. Article 34 allows the Ministry to sponsor

571
environmental research. This, as we shall all agree, is a very sensible measure. One wonders whether money has been earmarked for it and whether the Ministry has any particular projects in mind at the moment. Article 37 is concerned with entry on to land. I notice that no advance warning is required to be given to the owner of the land before an authorised person enters on to it. However, in Article 58(2)(b) of another Northern Ireland Order—that is, the one on rates—it was specified that the Commissioner of Valuation had to give 24 hours' notice of an intended entry upon land. I wonder why there is no such provision in this Order.
Article 39 excludes the Ministry and its officers or servants from action in law or in equity in regard to compensation or protection under the Order. This seems to be an unusual declaration of non-responsibility. I wonder whether this is, in fact, an acceptable provision. Article 42 is concerned with financial provisions. How much will the terms of this Order cost the Ministry in the financial year 1972–73; and has this been included in one of the three appropriation Orders which have been approved at Westminster? How will expenditure develop over the next two or three years? Finally, what are the staffing and vocations under the provisions of this Order? Presumably, it will involve a reduction in the relevant staff at present employed by the county councils and the councils of county boroughs, and an increase in the relevant staff employed at the Ministry of Agriculture. Can a transfer of staff take place, and can we be sure that where there is redundancy full compensation will be paid? Also, what about the total staff employed on drainage throughout the Province? Will they be affected by the Order?
There are a number of other questions which a reading of this Order prompts in one's mind. I have taken up a good deal of your Lordships' time, but it seems to me that this is the kind of consideration which, from time to time, we must give to Orders of such magnitude as this one, covering such a vast area. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, will not feel that I have been a little unreasonable. Before the
572
discussion in your Lordships House, I tried to give him some indication of the nature and number of questions that I would ask. May I say that I shall quite understand if he is not able to reply this evening to all of my questions, but I am quite certain that what I have said may serve to alert his Department to the kind of question which is being asked.
7.33 p.m.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, has asked my noble friend a formidable list of questions and, while not being at all critical of that—because all the questions he asked seemed to be entirely relevant—I hope that he will not be offended if I suggest to my noble friend that he should follow the advice which is sometimes given to students: "Do not attempt more than three questions. Give your reasons and draw a map." About 15 years ago I used, for a very short time, to consider myself something of an expert on drainage, though I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Champion, who is at present sitting on the Woolsack would not agree that I was. In those days we used, generally, to find drainage Bills and Orders not Party-politically controversial, but I should certainly have expected to spend a whole day in debating Orders such as this. So far as I remember, the drainage proposals that were put forward had been so well discussed beforehand that they were generally very sensible indeed, and I would guess that that is the case here, too.
It has been our pleasure to give a fair and a timely wind to these Northern Ireland Orders, because we realise the pressure under which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has to work. I am sure that that attitude is right and is what we wish to go on with, although I should like to echo what the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, said. But I hope that this virus will not get too much into the Government's bloodstream, so that they begin to ask us to apply instant government to the rest of the United Kingdom, too, because I venture to suggest that they would not then get away with it so easily. Having said that, I feel that in this case we can be sure that these proposals have been discussed and are likely to be generally acceptable, though I would not for a moment quarrel

573
with the questions which the noble Lord has asked in respect of them. I see one old friend in Article 31, which states that the Minister cannot be sued if he disseminates noxious weeds. I sometimes used to lie awake at night fearing that I would be sued for disseminating noxious weeds, and I do not think I was ever smart enough to put an article to that effect into an Order.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the House for its courtesy and for the way in which all these Orders have been received. I liked the advice of my noble friend, Lord Amory, who speaks with such experience in both Houses of Parliament: "Do not attempt more than three questions and draw a map." I think the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, would like me, at any rate, to sketch in a map in answer to some of the questions which he put when lie spoke from the Opposition Front Bench. He made the valid point that this Order, unlike the others, has not yet been considered by the House of Commons. The other Orders either have been considered or are being considered to-day—the same day as your Lordships are considering them. So this one falls into a different category, and fully deserves the detailed scrutiny which the noble Lord has given it.
The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, asked about the Northern Ireland Advisory Commission which, as he said, has a responsibility under the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act to advise the Secretary of State on draft Orders in Council. I can tell him that it discharges that responsibility. Careful consideration is given to any draft Order in Council that is brought before it. The Secretary of State himself chairs the meetings. There is always a good attendance and the practice is for one of the junior Ministers, either myself or one of my colleagues—whoever is responsible for the Department concerned—to present the Order in draft with senior officials present and taking part in the discussion. The debate tends to be rather like that in your Lordships' House when it is in Committee, and a thorough and detailed scrutiny is given to each Order in draft form. Normally, each Order will be considered and approved at one meeting, but in some cases it has needed two, or even three, meetings. I recall that one Order
574
was considered at three successive meetings of the Commission. In this case the Advisory Commission considered the Drainage Order in draft, and their main proposal was that an additional member should be appointed to the Drainage Council. That point was accepted and the Order was amended accordingly.
As the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, said, Article 2, the interpretation article, makes it clear that the reference to "the Ministry" is to the Ministry of Agriculture for Northern Ireland. The Ministry has for many years been identified with land or river drainage in Northern Ireland. It is already the drainage authority for rural drainage, as I explained, in the same way as the Ministry of Agriculture has the responsibility in England and Wales. The noble Lord asked: would there be a case to have the water and sewerage functions of the Ministry of Development and the drainage functions of the Ministry of Agriculture put together to form a new Department for the Environment? I should point out that the Northern Ireland Ministry of Development is really already the equivalent of the Department of the Environment, in that it includes the three principal functions handled at Whitehall by the Department of the Environment; that is housing, local government and transport. So to add drainage would be to move away from the pattern in the rest of the United Kingdom where the Ministry of Agriculture is responsible for drainage, and not the Department of the Environment.
The noble Lord asked what mileage of water courses and sea defences in Northern Ireland would be affected by this Order. I understand that there are some 3,000 miles of tributaries, 1,500 miles of main water courses and 13 miles of sea defences at Loch Foyle. The noble Lord next asked whether there are any differences between the procedure proposed in Article 12 and what applies in England and Wales: in particular, the period of 28 days after publication of a notice following which observations must be sent to the Ministry. I understand that these provisions are broadly similar to those which apply in England and Wales. If there are any significant differences I shall let the noble Lord know. Twenty-eight days is becoming a standardised period of time. Previously,

575
expressions like "one month", which could be 30 or 31 days, tended to be used: now there is a standardisation on 28 days.
The noble Lord then drew attention to Article 15(4), relating to provisions with regard to roads and bridges. This refers to arbitration in the event of a dispute between the Ministry and any authority responsible for building bridges, roads and culverts. In the present circumstances, this authority is another Government Department; the Ministry of Development is responsible for roads, bridges, and so on, on this scale. I understand that there never has been a dispute that has needed to go to arbitration since this procedure was first introduced in 1947. This article does no more than to continue the present Northern Ireland law. As to Article 16, relating to amendment of drainage schemes, the noble Lord asked whether it would be a good idea to advertise in the Press. I can see that this might be of some value in certain circumstances. Of course, there is already consultation both with the Drainage Council and with many other outside interests; but I should like to take note of that proposal.
Article 20(2) refers to the disposal of surplus lands. The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, put the questions: is there any limit on the Ministry's power to dispose? Is this article worded in a manner which is rather too wide? Here again, it helps to get a perspective if we have in our minds the fact that this provision has seldom been used. I understand, on the information available to me at the moment, that the power has been used on only three occasions since 1947. It is true that there is no limit contained in the wording of Article 20(2) itself; but the approval of the Ministry of Finance is required, and this includes a Ministry of Finance regulation that when surplus land is to be disposed of it must first be offered back to the original owner at the price at which it was originally purchased, allowing for changes in the value of money. Article 30 concerns drainage schemes outside Northern Ireland. As the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, correctly inferred, in practice this means the Republic of Ireland. The Ministry of Agriculture at Stormont works in cooperation with the Board of Works in
576
Dublin. I understand that relations are cordial, and a number of cross-Border drainage schemes have been carried out on a shared-cost basis.
Article 31 relates to noxious weeds, and the noble Lord asked whether this provision could be unfair to landowners. We have lost my noble friend Lord Amory, a one time Minister of Agriculture, but it is interesting that what the noble Lord had to say on noxious weeds stirred memories of the past in his mind. I understand that seeds are likely to be in water or a watercourse, and if they were disturbed by Ministry officials the officials would not be putting something on the bank which is not already present in the water. There is already a requirement on farmers to deal with noxious weeds. As to Article 34, the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, asked whether any money had been earmarked for research. A small token sum of £500 is provided for each year. There has also been one experimental research project, carried out some four or five years ago. Article 37 deals with entry on land for the purposes of inspection. The noble Lord queried why no advance warning had to be given. Normally, I believe, there is advance notice at local level. It is not the practice to arrive without warning. Arrangements are good at local level. Sometimes Ministry of Agriculture engineering assistants, who are engaged on survey work, do need to enter on land, but they will always seek to do so with consent, and giving advance notice at local level whenever this is possible, as it normally is.
As to Article 39, the noble Lord asked whether it was acceptable that there should be no accountability to the courts in the circumstances set out in the Article; and this is also a provision to which the Special Orders Committee of your Lordships' House drew attention. I should explain that it applies only where the arbitration procedure contained in Article 40 is appropriate, or where a dispute goes to the Lands Tribunal—Articles 17 and 18. So it is only where other remedies are contained in the Order that Article 39 would apply.
Article 42 relates to financial provisions. The noble Lord asked what the cost of drainage was. On average, the cost is running at about £2½ million to £2¾ million per annum, plus a further

577
£2¾ million over four years under an accelerated drainage programme which was part of the Cairncross package. An amount of £2,311,000 was included in the Northern Ireland Estimates, totalling £391 million. That was the amount of the Civil Estimates for all services, which were voted by Parliament in the Appropriation Orders No. 1 and No. 2. Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, asked me about staffing. There are no staffing implications, or almost none, in the Order as such, except possibly a small number of staff of local authorities concerned with urban drainage, who will be transferred to the Ministry of Agriculture. The numbers are small because much of the work which is carried out at the moment by local authorities is carried out under contract. The total number of people in Northern Ireland employed mainly or wholly on drainage work by the Ministry of Agriculture is at present of the order of 1,700.
My Lords, I hope that reply has not been either too full for those of your Lordships who wish to move on to debate other matters, and who have been sitting here patiently for quite a time, I am afraid, or too sketchy for the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, who put the questions. What I should like to do is to go back with the Northern Ireland Office over the detailed list of questions which the noble Lord set forth in his speech, and to write to him supplementing what I have said and filling in any gaps in the information which I have given the House this evening.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ICELANDIC FISHERIES DISPUTE
7.48 p.m.
LORD KENNET LORD KENNET rose to ask Her Majesty's Government: What is their long-term policy concerning the dispute with Iceland about fisheries. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in putting the Unstarred Question which is on the Order Paper I shall from time to time appear critical of the Government. So I want to say before I start that I do not intend to say that the Government of Iceland are right in the course they have taken, and I do not intend to say in so many words that our own Government are wrong in the course that they have
578
been forced to take. Above all, I do not wish to say that the Icelanders are right in law and we are wrong in law. That would be ridiculous. On the contrary, my intention is to broaden the whole matter, to take into account aspects of it which do not seem to get into the public debate at all and which have nothing to do with international law, or which have only a tangential impact on international law. I should say one more thing by way of introduction. I fear that the Government, to judge from their public statements in Parliament and elsewhere, may be suffering from what they call "tunnel vision"; that is, seeing straight ahead to one purpose only, and ignoring the relevant features of the landscape which lies around.
My Lords, the present world of fisheries is an amazing one indeed. It is a world in which the Soviet Union keeps a fishing fleet in the Central Atlantic and flies crews to Casablanca, of all places, to change them when they are due for relief. That country also fishes in waters off Indonesia, and uses Singapore. It is a world in which, if you go to Bermuda, you find that the principal deep-water fishing fleets around the place are not, as you might expect, European or American, but Japanese and South Korean. It is a world in which the South Koreans catch tuna off Bermuda and take it to the Canary Islands, on Spanish territory, where they process it and can it for anybody who will buy it. It is a world in which many countries, particularly the Soviet Union, adopt the so-called vaccum-cleaner approach to fishing; just sucking everything in the water up a tube into the holds of their ships, and it is then taken, whatever it is, without any differentiation, and turned into fishmeal.
I want to speak for a moment about conservation. The last full look at the British fishing industry, the last major overall look, was that of the Fleck Committee in the early 1960s. This Committee said that it was not competent to pronounce on conservation. Let us turn to the series of annual reports on which we base ourselves for information. The last annual report of the Herring Industry Board pointed out that the Board was not empowered to act on conservation grounds. The last annual report of the

579
White Fish Authority had a section on future supplies of fish which one might have thought would touch on conservation matters. Not at all! It dealt only with research into fish farming—necessary, but I think everyone knows 20 years ahead as a commercial possibility. Even international bodies, principal among which is the North-East Atlantic Fishing Commission, can only recommend conservation measures to members, and of course the members can put them into effect only in their own territorial waters, their own exclusively controlled fishing zones.
What is happening about fish catches? The Government tend to take a 10-year average and say that they have either gone up or gone down. But within a 10-year average it is pretty startling and alarming to know that between 1971 and 1972 there was a one-third fall in the catch in the Barents Sea. This fall was already apparent before 1971 and it sent more British boats to Iceland. In 1971 there was an increase of no less than 50 per cent, in the hours fished over those fished in 1970 by the British fleet off Iceland. Nevertheless the catch per hour of fishing declined. In 1969 per 100 hours fished off Iceland the catch was 67 tons, and in 1971 56 tons—a pretty sizeable decrease. At the same time the proportion of the white fish which came from Iceland has increased. It was 18 per cent, in 1970 and 23 per cent, in 1971. The picture there is clear; it is of an increasing concentration on Iceland and lower yields from Icelandic waters for our own fishermen. All this is accompanied by catastrophic and notorious price rises and also by rising profits in the British fishing industry. These facts together tell their own tale.
Let us look for a moment to two factors which ought to be related but which are not often: capitalisation and the employment level. On capitalisation, the Government do a great deal to stimulate. Over the last 10 years, if I make out the figures correctly, there have been £7 million in grants to the white fish fleet of all sorts, not only for distant waters, and £6 million loans to the white fish fleet. My honourable friend Mr. James Johnson in the House of Commons estimates that Government aid to the British fishing industry over the last 10 years,
580
taking everything together, including things done on land in Britain as well as to the fleets, is no less than £80 million. This is a big figure.
This ought to be related—I should like to ask the Minister whether she can relate it—to the employment level in the fleet. What is it? One cannot easily learn from the published reports. The Fleck Report 10 years ago makes no mention at all of employment levels or trends in employment. It said that so many thousand men were employed, but not that this figure had gone up or gone down or was likely to go up or go down. The last annual report of the Herring Industry Board made no mention of it. The White Fish Authority annual report, on the contrary, boasts of labour-saving devices introduced through its grants; for instance, un-manned engine rooms on fishing boats. Is this wise—to pour money in, in order to get men out? What we are interested in is the rational distribution of wealth in the industry, and above all the interest of the men who take the risks to get the fish.
Let us turn to other scenes which relate to the fishing scene. The seas have so many parts, and they all get annexed by national legislation and jurisdiction. The United States took national power over its Continental Shelf in 1945, and only one year later Chile was the first country to take national jurisdiction over its fishing industry waters out to 200 miles. Within a year or two, it was joined by most of the rest of South America.
In 1970, Canada took jurisdiction over the seas out to 100 miles in order to control pollution. In doing so, they rejected the International Court as arbiters of the matter. Our own country recognises national sovereignty beyond 200 miles over the high seas in the case of the Treaty of Tlatelolco, which is the treaty on the non-nuclearisation of Latin America—the treaty which says that there should be no nuclear weapons in Latin America. We recognise the national authority of Latin American countries to a line which is way beyond 200 miles. Only last year we in this country, rightly, took power to order ships about on the high seas, to order them to do this and to do that, and to sink them, on the high seas for the purpose of preventing oil pollution. This

581
was the Merchant Shipping (Prevention of Oil Pollution) Act. This country also gives the international corporations powers to seal off areas of the high seas over our Continental shelf. Philips have been allowed to build an artificial island of I do not know how many acres, in the middle of the North Sea. This has a safety zone around it which is one kilometre across. That is national jurisdiction giving power to commercial interest in the high seas.
I should like to give a key quote of something which was said in the House of Commons on November 30 this year. Mr. Grimond raised the point: how is it that we can claim the oil under the high seas if Iceland cannot claim the fish in it? He continued:
"There must be some good reason, but at present I do not see what it is."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 30/11/72; col. 640.]
He was answered by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Sir Alec Douglas-Home—none other—and his answer was:
"Nor do I."
Turning to the actual question of fishery limits, I would remind the House—
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, I wonder whether I may interrupt the noble Lord. If he will read on in Hansard he will find that my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary made it clear that the jurisdiction over mineral resources on the sea-bed is quite different from the jurisdiction over fishing limits. That was made quite clear by my right honourable friend.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, it is the case that there is an international law which justifies the annexation of the Continental shelf and not an internationally agreed law about the fish in the sea. I was interested by Sir Alec Douglas-Home's spontaneous reaction before coming to the details. He said, "Nor do I". That is the reaction of the ordinary man, the reaction of the sensible man; and Sir Alec is a sensible man.
The Fleck Report in 1961, on page 4, said in effect that it was all very regret-
582
table that there was this dispute with Iceland about whether they should have control of fishing out to three miles or to 12 miles as they then claimed. It said that the Government had been saying, "Let us wait for the forthcoming conference on the International law of the sea which will solve these matters." That conference had taken place just before the Fleck Report and the point was that it had not saved the bacon of the British Government on the three-mile limit and, contrary to British wishes, decided on 12 miles. That whole paragraph could be read to-day with the substitution of the date of 1973 or 1974 for the date of 1961 with respect to the International Conference on the Law of the Sea.
Where do we stand, now? All the Latin American countries claim fishery jurisdiction out to 200 miles. Chile has done so for 25 years. There is agreement between the United States (our natural allies, a maritime nation like us) and Brazil about shrimping, under which not only does the United States recognise Brazil's right to control shrimp fishing up to 200 miles but it pays money to Brazil to police the observation of Brazilian law by U.S. vessels. It says to Brazil, "You control our vessels within your zone which we recognise." Else where in the world, India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka—three of the largest and most respected nations in the British Commonwealth—all go out beyond the 12-mile limit with their fisheries control. In West Africa, Nigeria does; Morocco goes out to 70, Guinea is beyond; Gabon goes out to 100 miles; Senegal goes out to 200 miles, as does Taiwan. Within the United States, who stick to 12 miles for the moment, the fishermen are most vehemently demanding a 200-mile zone to protect them against the Russian and Japanese fleets. Bermuda, as we learned in this House the other day, has asked for a 25-mile jurisdiction and has been turned down by Whitehall. The Bahamas and the Solomon Islands, other British dependencies, have asked for an extension and they are not going to get it from our own Government.
My Lords, let us look at the question the other way. Do we remember earlier this year, when the E.E.C. wanted to have the right to fish within our 12-mile

583
zone, how we defended our national territorial rights then and what an outcry there was? This was the occasion on which Mr. Austen Laing, the Director General of the British Trawler Federation, said, according to Press reports:
"Without the abolition of free entry to fishing grounds, measures to manage stocks of fish are as effective as trying to store water in a sieve."
About the Icelandic limits, my Lords. If one looks a little wider, I think that the sancrosanctness of the 12 miles appears in a different light. In the 17th century Icelandic fishery limits, recognised by everybody, were 32 miles. In the late 19th century they came down to four and in 1901, at the heyday of British Imperialism, when we controlled the world and could make smaller nations do what we wanted, they came down to three miles. In the late 1950s there was the cod war and we were driven back from three to 12 miles off Iceland, and we all remember that. Now Iceland claims another advance, from 12 miles to 50 miles. This advance, it is not often noted, is one which was supported by the Nordic Foreign Ministers, meeting at Helsinki at the beginning of September of this year.
I would say to the Government, please will they talk to us about the chances of holding the 12-mile line against this background? When the International Conference on the Law of the Sea meets, they will face a situation where more than half the members of the United Nations adopt what one might call the coastal State's view of the matter and reject what one might call the maritime State's view of the matter; the coastal State's view of the matter being that it is the right, in certain circumstances even the duty, of coastal States to preserve their fish stocks by taking whatever extension of national territorial control is necessary.
We have at the moment a complicated situation which I will not describe, because I think that the noble Baroness will describe it better, whereby we and Germany are in the same position as regards our claim on Iceland. Belgium is in a different position; they have settled. Germany wishes to use the coming into effect of the Iceland-E.E.C. Association Agreement as a weapon to prevent the Icelandic extension, or to
584
come to some suitable agreement with Iceland on the quarrel. I should like to ask the noble Baroness whether we agree with the German stand on that. When we are in the Common Market shall we, too, say "No association agreement until we have regulated the 50-mile quarrel"? In passing, I would remind the House that The Hague Court ruling that we have obtained in our favour—that is, the interim injunction—does not say that the Icelandic regulations are out of order. It says that for the moment Iceland
"should refrain from any measures to enforce the regulations."
I think the noble Baroness was herself a little confused about this when on November 30 in this House she said that The Hague Court had given us "an absolute right" to fish up to 12 miles off Iceland, and then later this was de-escalated to the "strong moral force" of The Hague Court ruling.
Lastly, there is the question of the NATO base at Keflavik in Iceland. I think we all know that the Icelandic claim is the fruit of internal Icelandic politics. There is a strong Communist Minister in that Government who does not mind having a big quarrel with this country and with Germany because he is inclined to ask the United States and other countries who use the NATO base—that includes us—to get out of the NATO air base at Keflavik. Recently in this House I put down Questions to the Secretary of State asking whether this air base was of major importance to the Alliance. He said it was used by the United Kingdom, among others, for the surveillance of Soviet naval activities in the North Atlantic. He said that the loss of staging rights for aircraft would be "a matter of great concern to the United Kingdom and to the Alliance collectively." It remains the fact that the Icelandic Government is grumbling about getting NATO out of that place. They have not made any direct plan, but it is at stake.
Just before the summer Recess, I tabled to the Government 17 Questions for Written Answer about our quarrel with Iceland. I also asked them whether they would publish a White Paper in order that we could get into public debate some of this material that I have been attempting to outline. They refused to publish a White Paper, which I regret.

585
I ask them again, will they publish a White Paper? To my 17 factual Questions they gave an answer which was in part helpful, but it began with the following words:
"Even when information is available a full answer to many of the questions would entail an expenditure of time effort that would not be justified."
My Lords, against unjustifiable expenditure of time and effort to find out who catches what and where, because essentially this is what I was asking, let us set a 10-year investment of £80 million in this industry. I would ask whether public information is not being somewhat neglected at the expense of the rather thoughtless rush towards capitalisation which does not necessarily bring any great employment benefit to the industry and will the Government take a fresh look at the matter? Will they perhaps appoint another Fleck Committee, or will they at least let us have a White Paper? Will they recognise the world trend towards recognition of national jurisdiction? What looks now like a deplorable extension of creeping national jurisdiction may, I believe, in a few years' time look like an international duty on the part of States to take the only course open to them to protect these fish. There is no possibility at the moment of effective international regime; there really is not.
If it is to be said that what I am saying tends towards the diminution in the long-run of our traditional fishing rights off Iceland, and of the economic return on our investment, I would say to the Government: let us examine the possibility of turning South. This country has unique knowledge of the marine fauna of the Antarctic Ocean. For 20 years with the ships "Discovery I" and "Discovery II" we had a continuous monitoring of fish stocks there. It is, of course, knowledge over the decades that you need if you are to know what is happening. There is not only our traditional herring, there is also the Southern herring, virtually uncaught, a different species and equally edible. It has been estimated that there is a sustainable yield of no less than 45 million tons per year of krill in the Antarctic Ocean. Krill is a little shrimp which is just as good for cattle food as all those delicious anchovies which the Peruvians are putting into our cattle at the moment. Why are we feeding the cattle of the
586
world on the best edible fish instead of utilising this vast stock, which we know about, which is untapped and which we could exploit? We have the harbours in the Falkland Islands and South Georgia. Is it simply a matter that we do not choose to do so, perhaps because we are nationally a little too lazy to build fleets and to send them very far. Other countries do so. The Russians do; the Japanese do; the South Koreans do, of all the extraordinary people! Why should not we do the same? Why should we be moaning around with gun-boats on a small traditional claim when there are these vast resources waiting to be taken up if only we can get a wider view of the issue? I ask the Government, therefore, what is their long-term policy with regard to the dispute with Iceland?
8.10 p.m.
LORD TANLAW: My Lords, I must first apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for arriving a few minutes late and thus missing his opening remarks. I was delayed by traffic, as another notable person was recently, and I had no one to ring up. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has gone into immense detail on the legal and other parts of this argument. From these Benches I think it is our duty to draw the attention of the noble Baroness to one or two points that may or may not have been overlooked so far. I think the first point is that there has been a steady improvement in the inshore and offshore fleets around the Scottish coast, both in numbers of vessels and in their successful operation. They are offering employment to young people all round the coast. I think the noble Baroness is aware, as we in Scotland certainly are, that this is not a dying industry but an industry with a future and for this reason we are an interested party in this debate.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for clarifying a question that I asked on her Statement concerning the fishing rights and oil rights between nation States. A clear distinction has now been established. On the subject of oil, I should like to mention one point. With the development of the oil reserves in these waters, experience from the United States has indicated that there is a real danger, in spite of the assurances and all the safety precautions that have been taken by the oil companies, of

587
major or minor accidents, causing heavy spillage of oil which will undoubtedly affect the essential breeding grounds of fish in these waters. I think the turbulent waters of the North Sea may cause more big fractures, or at least a higher percentage of accidents, than statistics so far have shown are caused in the more tranquil conditions prevalent in the Gulf of Mexico. I should like to see the establishment of an insurance fund to cover such eventualities; it would go a long way towards protecting the future of those who obtain their livelihood from the fishing industry and, in the long term, protecting the fish breeding grounds.
The problem for those who work in the fishing industry to-day is that with the new developments of oil along the Scottish coast—and no doubt the English and Welsh coasts as well—the fishing industry will begin to die as an industry mainly because of the very attractive rates of pay offered by the oil companies to use their craft in maritime services to the oil industry. Noble Lords may recall that in the short debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Balogh, the other day, I quoted Morgan City on the Gulf of Mexico. Once the maritime oil development took place, only 30 per cent, of the commercial boats, out of the entire fishing fleet, were engaged in fishing. This does not necessarily mean a major change in the construction of the craft, but it means a reliance on the experience, skill and courage of the men who know the sea and its conditions. I believe that the tempting rates of pay offered may be an inducement to fishermen to abandon the fishing industry. There is another point that I would put forward. The industry of oil development is a temporary one which may last 10, 15 or perhaps 20 years. One has to ask: what happens when the oil development has come to an end and these conditions no longer apply? The fishing industry must be careful not to allow its manpower to be diverted by these tempting rates of pay, which may deny the industry as a whole a long-term future.
Then, looking again to the future, there is the question of fish farming. What proportion of fish in the future will be taken from the sea, compared with production of the same types of fish, which
588
never see the sea but are induced to breed in the lochs and voes of Scotland and elsewhere? I hope that the noble Baroness will give an indication of how seriously the Government look on this new industry, as I believe it to be, and will also give an indication of how much finance and research is going into it at this stage. I am sure that she does not need me to advise her that Nature cannot be hurried along by money in order to develop a new industry of this sort, which will take years to build up, however much finance is put into it, because it is a natural industry and a long-term one.
I have no doubt that before I entered the Chamber the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, mentioned that this dispute has been created by the fear of the Icelandic community about their economic future, which is based purely on the fishing industry. There are, of course, political overtones as well. I feel that, through the noble Baroness, we have made a generous offer on an interim basis and that it is in many ways wrong and short-sighted of Iceland to reject it. But I can see a workable solution being brought about only if we show—and I hope that we shall show it in this debate to-day—an understanding of the justifiable fears which the Icelandic community have about their economic future. The International Court, whose decision we still await, will no doubt make a decision.
LORD HOY: My Lords, with respect, I think the noble Lord had better explain his words, "the International Court, whose decision we still await…" We have had the decision of the International Court. Is there another one to come?
LORD TANLAW: I beg your Lordship's pardon. I mean the international conference, which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet.
LORD HOY: That is two years ahead.
LORD TANLAW: It is due next year.
LORD HOY: In 1974.
LORD TANLAW: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. However, this dispute, and this debate, have primarily been brought about by a shortage of food—in this case fish. I believe that our planetary larder, if I may so call it, is

589
beginning to show one or two bare shelves. In these circumstances, disputes of this kind can become more frequent. I should like to feel in a positive way that this dispute may bring us one step nearer towards the establishment of an international enforcement agency, and one step further towards world government: because a number of experts have predicted—and I think this dispute is evidence that they are right—that the balance between supply and demand is beginning to get out of hand. It may well happen that our fossil fuels will run out by the turn of the century, and that other major sources of raw material will also dry up or be affected for one reason or another. This will bring nation States into conflict, and I like to think that the Icelandic dispute, however small it may appear at this stage, will be recognised in future as one step in the progression towards world government.
8.19 p.m.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I am sure the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for having given us the opportunity to debate this important Question, and I should like to thank him for the manner in which it is framed. It refers to the "long-term policy concerning the dispute with Iceland" about fishing. All the same, I think the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, was rather pessimistic. He seemed to think that at the end of the day twelve miles would be the possible solution for everyone and that it was not much good trying to resist it at this moment. He seemed very pessimistic about the Law of the Sea Conference. On the other hand, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, was, if I may say so, looking at it in a very constructive way, although he also said that he felt that Iceland herself had justifiable fears because she was, as he saw it, largely dependent on fish. I would only say to the noble Lord that, having had the good fortune to go to Iceland both in the summer and in the winter, at the time of the Midnight Sun and at a time when it is practically dark all the time, I have felt all along that Icelandic claims that they are primarily dependent on fish are very misguided; because every single house is thermally heated by natural power; indeed, any industry which they sought to exploit in
590
future could have some of the best and cheapest sources of power available. In an age of modern communications, I should have thought in any case that to rely entirely upon a natural resource is not a very wise thing to do.
These long-term matters before us raise difficulties which are of major importance. As both noble Lords who have spoken to-night have said, there is the basic need to ensure that the resources of the sea still remain one of the world's major food supplies. This means that all of us who fish the high seas must learn how to harvest the catch and to balance three main interests: those of the nations who are dependent upon fish for their food; those of the coastal States who are dependent upon fish as a source of income; and those of the communities (of which many of us are closely aware) who are dependent upon distant water fisheries for their livelihood. Britain shares all three interests. If ever there was an issue which should be settled by international negotiation, it is this one.
There are two main methods open to us by which we can together try to solve these matters. First, there are the various international fishery agreements and the provision they make for statistical studies, which are very important, and for cooperation on conservation. Secondly, there is the Law of the Sea Conference which will consider international law in relation to fisheries. The United Kingdom has of course taken part in regional agreements, as I hope shortly to show. We are also doing a great deal of work in preparing for the Law of the Sea Conference. When I was at the United Nations in New York only just three weeks ago, our team over there was doing a lot of detailed study. We look forward—and I should like to emphasise this—to working with Iceland as well as with other fishing countries on a new long-term policy which will take account of the real interests of all the parties all over the world.
It is because we look forward to working with Iceland on a matter of such importance to all of us that we feel it is a matter of particular regret that Iceland has sought to pre-judge the issue. She has sought to do so by enforcing her policy against our vessels; and because of that we have had no option but to dispute its legality and refer the matter

591
to the International Court. We consider that her action is contrary to existing international law and that it does not reflect what the international law of the future is likely to be as it emerges from the Law of the Sea Conference. Therefore, while pursuing our particular case before the International Court of Justice, we shall of course continue to work for agreement on what must be much longer-term arrangements.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, before the noble Baroness leaves that point I wonder whether she can tell us what the Government do expect to emerge from the International Law of the Sea Conference, and also whether she can tell the House when that Conference is to be held.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, as the preparatory work is by no means complete, I should not like to say at this moment exactly what will emerge from the Conference; but I shall hope to deal with that a little later. I would say to the noble Lord that the Conference is supposed to start in 1973, but it looks at the moment as if it is not likely to start until 1974; and it will last a considerable time.
I thought it might be of interest to the House if I were to explain that during the NATO Council meeting in Brussels, on December 6 and 8, my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary had a further discussion with the Icelandic Foreign Minister. I think that as a result of these discussions there is some hope that we may be able to reach a satisfactory arrangement that will take the heat out of this dispute until it is finally settled. I do not think that a solution becomes any easier with the passage of time. No new proposals were put forward during the NATO meeting—it was rather a question of putting the known elements of the problem together again—and I should not like to mislead the House by suggesting that an agreement will ever be a simple matter, or that tensions on the fishing grounds will disappear. I think that noble Lords will recall from what I said on November 30 that the two sides are very far apart. All the same, I feel that my right honourable friend's discussion with
592
the Icelandic Foreign Minister has renewed our confidence that there is a real wish, both in Iceland and certainly on our own side, to try to get together and make an interim amicable arrangement.
The noble Lord who opened this debate talked a good deal about the Conference on the Law of the Sea. He seemed to imply—in fact he did imply—that the trend to-day, both as regards this Conference and what will take place after it, is towards wider coastal State jurisdiction. That was really the burden of his remarks. I do not want to anticipate this, because there are a great many British maritime, commercial and Defence interests which are bound up in the question of coastal State jurisdiction. We will ourselves work for an agreement which, while it acknowledges the preferential rights of coastal States, will stop short of exclusive jurisdiction because both preferential rights and conservation measures should surely be the subject of agreement and not of unilateral imposition.
May I make plain once again that there is at the moment a clear distinction in international law between the law governing the exploitation of the mineral resources of the Continental Shelf, to which the Continental Shelf Convention of 1958 applies, and of course that governing the exploitation of fisheries, whether in the water superjacent to the Continental Shelf or elsewhere. This is covered by the High Seas Convention and the Convention on Fishing and Conservation of the Living Resources of the High Seas. This legal distinction reflects the fact that the resources of the Continental Shelf adjacent to a State are permanent and immovable, while fish stocks unfortunately move from one area to another with no guarantee that they will be there or can be caught, and thus cannot be identified in the same way as one can identify a land mass.
I was interested in what the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, said about the effect, as he saw it, of the booming oil industry, particularly in the North and East of Scotland, and the effect it might have on coastal fishers. I have the feeling that while the pay given to men who work in the oil industry may be larger than for those who are accustomed to go to sea and earn their living by the sea, there will always be a great number who

593
wish to follow the latter occupation. It is our duty as a nation to do our best to see that this is possible.
The noble Lord who opened this debate spent a good deal of time on conservation, and I should like to refer to a particular Report which was prepared by the Working Group of the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea and the International Commission for the North-West Atlantic Fisheries. This Working Group were given the task of summarising the existing assessments concerning cod stocks in the North-East Arctic, Icelandic and East Greenland waters, as well as West Greenland, Labrador and Newfoundland; and were asked to study in general terms the effects of possible regulatory measures, with particular stress on the interaction between fisheries on different stocks.
The main conclusions reached were these: that fleets fishing for cod in the North Atlantic were now operationally capable of concentrating on those stocks which were most productive at a particular time; that for virtually all stocks further increases in fishing would at best produce very small increases in catch, and for some stocks would actually decrease catch; that spawning stocks as low as, or lower than, at present could lead to a very large drop in total catch; and that a level of fishing which would be about right would probably be about half the present level, although this would not in fact reduce the level of catch in the long term. I suggest that it is very important to remember, when considering these conclusions, that the Working Group were considering cod stocks over the whole of the North Atlantic, and that conclusions which are relevant to the area as a whole are not necessarily relevant to the stock of a particular area—in this case, Iceland, which is the subject of this debate. It is very interesting to see that the Working Group found no particular problem over Icelandic cod stocks; indeed, the levels of cod stocks in Icelandic waters are shown to be stable.
The second general point concerns the Working Group's conclusions that a desirable level of fishing effort (and I quote), "would be approximately half the present level", because this again applies to fishing by small as well as large vessels by all countries and is not just aimed at
594
the Icelandic fishery. They said that a drop in fishing effort "would not affect the average long-term yield." The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked was it right to have modern vessels with fewer men employed. Surely that is a very old argument which one could apply to any industry. It is most important that the fishing fleets of this country should have the most modern boats available. This was one of the problems of the last proposal put to us by the Icelandic Government: that it would have excluded some of our most modern boats.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the noble Baroness is making the most important points thick and fast. I wonder whether she would allow me to come back again. She has quoted the so-called Garrod Report, which was presented to a meeting at Charlottenlund in March this year. Will the Government publish that Report in whole? Would that be possible? In any case, could the noble Baroness say any more about the fact which she implies is the case: that this Committee said that the total fishing effort for cod in the North Atlantic ought to be cut by half but that things were perfectly all right in Icelandic waters? Is she saying that the Committee said, or gave countenance to the view, that they should not be cut by half there; that they distinguished or singled out Icelandic waters in order to say that the cod fishing need not be cut by half there, though it need be cut by half everywhere else?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I thought I had made it quite clear that the Report said that, for the North Atlantic as a whole, they thought the fishing effort should be cut in half—that was for the whole of the North Atlantic—and the Group did not find, and did not express in terms, that the cod stocks off Iceland were anything but stable.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I am sorry to press the noble Baroness, but did they say anything about whether in this assessment there was any reason to treat Iceland separately from the rest of the North Atlantic, or did they simply not mention Iceland at all?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, to quote,
"the Working Group found no particular problem over Icelandic cod stocks".
What they were considering were the

595
cod stocks over the whole North Atlantic; and, I may say also, fishing by vessels of all nations—this is the important thing. Of course there are, as the noble Lord rightly said, some nations which use ships—I think he called it—on the "vacuum cleaner" principle; which of course we do not. We do not have factory ships of that type. Therefore, that cannot possibly apply to the British fishing effort off Iceland.
It would not be for the British Government to publish that particular Report; it is not our Report. But on publishing, I should like to refer to the noble Lord's question, whether we would publish a White Paper generally on the Icelandic negotiations. I do not think this moment is the time to publish a White Paper, because we hope we are still in a state of continuing discussion. That being so, I do not think there would be any particular point in doing so, but I will certainly draw the noble Lord's point to the attention of my right honourable friend.
The only other observation I should like to make, because I do not wish to speak for too long, is again on conservation. It is just to remind the House that of course this country takes part in a great deal of international fishery research work: we take part in the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Convention which is aimed at conserving fish stocks in the North-East Atlantic; we carry out the recommendations which include gear regulations, close seasons and closed areas, and we have applied all this to our own fishing fleet. If you take the North-West Atlantic, this Government are also undertaking a catch limitation scheme which is aimed at conserving stocks in the area, and we have introduced measures to limit the United Kingdom catch to 24,000 tons a year, and smaller quotas for other species. Although in the course of negotiations we in fact offered a straight catch limitation scheme to the Icelandic Government, they did not accept this. I think they wanted also physically to see fewer boats fishing off their shores. It was for this reason that the last proposal we put forward was based on a limitation of effort which would have reduced the catch considerably; but I will not now go into all these details of which I am sure noble Lords are well aware.
596
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, asked me about the amount of capital spent on the fleet and its relation to employment. I think he will know that we give two types of assistance to British fishermen: one is a system of capital grants and the other a system of subsidies. At the moment we have about 7,000 men working in the 500 vessels which make up the deep-sea fleet. These are boats which are over 80-feet. I would have said that it was one of the duties of a British Government to try to sustain a British fishing fleet, because surely we should want to see the best working conditions for our men at sea. We feel strongly that we must do our best to protect the interests of not only Britain's distant water fishermen but also our inshore fishermen. It is true that the largest single part of our distant water effort takes place in the high seas off Iceland. That is why we cannot accept Iceland's claim to exclude us by her own action
LORD KENNET: My Lords, the noble Baroness has been very courteous. She has given the figure of 7,000 men employed now. What was it ten years ago or at some convenient date in the past?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I have not all the annual reports with me, alas! but I will certainly write to the noble Lord. I would say that the trend in the number of people employed is going down, but that is because we are having much more modern vessels and modern methods of operating, just as one would in an ordinary modern industry.
LORD HOY: My Lords, may I interrupt for one moment, in case your Lordships' House begins to think that the distant water fleet represents the total of British fishing capacity and the authority of the White Fish Authority. Of course, in addition, I do not think we ought to forget that we have a middle water fleet and also an inshore fleet, to which the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, referred, who of course must have their requirements met from those authorities who have provision from Government to make it possible.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, the noble Lord is perfectly correct, and both he and

597
I have had some experience of this matter. I would say that the capital grants are available for the construction and adaptation of both white fish and herring vessels, because it is important to refer to that. The rates are 25 per cent, for vessels over 80 feet and 30 per cent, for those under 80 feet. In the last year, the total amount of grant paid was nearly £4 million, of which £3⅓ million was for new vessels. This last sum was divided almost equally between deep sea vessels over 80 feet on the one hand and the inshore and herring vessels on the other. I am glad that the noble Lord raised that point.
In conclusion, not only are jobs at stake but, of course, if a large area of our fishing grounds were denied to us there would be a large increase in food prices. I think we are conducting the dispute with careful regard to our wider interests, both in other distant waiter fisheries and in the Law of the Sea Conference, and I am glad to say that in our negotiations with the Icelandic Government, throughout this dispute, we have had the full support of the industry, of Parliament and of public opinion. I hope that this debate will consolidate the position and serve as a reminder to the Icelanders, not only of our determination but also of our goodwill.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, with the leave of the House, and also with permission of the noble Baroness—because there is nothing worse than to come back on a question at the end of a speech, and if she does not want to answer this question I shall understand and respect that view—may I come back to the Garrod Report? Does she deny that the Garrod Report did not single out Iceland when stating that North Atlantic cod fishing ought to be cut by half? Does she deny that the words she used, "They found no special problems connected with Iceland", are her words—the words of the Government—and not the words of the Garrod Report?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I will say now, for the third time, that the Working Group said that cod fishing over the whole North Atlantic should, if possible, be cut
598
by half. But when it came to the Icelandic cod stocks, I am informed that the levels of cod stocks in Icelandic waters, expressed by the Working Group as "population biomass" (if one really wants to take the technical term), are shown to be stable.