Lords Sitting of 15 February 1972

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Coventry.

RHODESIA: SETTLEMENT PROPOSALS AND DETENTIONS
LORD AVEBURY: 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 publish a list of the names of persons in detention in Rhodesia prior to the agreement on Settlement Proposals and a list of persons released and detained respectively since that date.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN): My Lords, Rhodesian regulations forbid the publication of names of people held in detention. We have asked the Rhodesian authorities for a list of names, but this has been declined. The names of some of the more prominent detainees and ex-detainees have appeared in the Press outside Rhodesia, but I regret I do not
2
have information about all the individuals concerned.
At the time of publication of the Proposals for a Settlement there were 93 people in detention in Rhodesia In accordance with the undertaking given at that time by the Rhodesian authorities, 31 people were subsequently released. However, a further 5 people have since been detained, so that the total now in detention stands at 67.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, why is it so difficult for the noble Marquess to give the names of these people? If he will be so good as to refer to the White Paper, Command 4835, he will see that it says that,
"normal political activities will be permitted to the satisfaction of the Commission".
Can the noble Marquess say how the Commission could possibly be satisfied that normal political activities are in operation unless they are able to see the names of the persons who are in detention? Can he further say what implementation has taken place of the White Paper, that
"Rhodesians will be releasing a substantial number of detainees"?
From what the noble Marquess has said, the number has risen. Is not, this contrary to the undertaking given to us by Mr. Smith at the time of the settlement?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, it will be for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearce, and the Commission to decide whether they are sat satisfied with the arrangements made for interviewing detainees, and indeed for finding out who

3
they are. As I said in my substantive Answer, it has not been possible so far to persuade the Rhodesian authorities to release the total list of names of those persons whom they are holding in detention. With regard to the second part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, it is true to say that normal political activity is to be resumed, and this again is something about which Lord Pearce will have to make up his mind.
I am afraid that I have now forgotten the third point raised by the noble Lord. I should be grateful if he would repeat it.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, it was on the question of the undertaking given by the Rhodesian Government to release a substantial number of detainees.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, as the noble Lord must be aware, they have done this in the case of the 31 persons who were released at that time. The noble Lord is also obviously aware that, under the Proposals for a Settlement, as soon as a settlement is agreed a Commission will be sitting to review the cases of the other detainees. That was part of the agreement.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, since the accounts of the numbers of detainees appear to vary so alarmingly, and since Mr. Smith seems to be so extraordinarily unconcerned about the condition of the people in his prisons, and since Her Majesty's Government are still responsible for a great deal of what goes on in Rhodesia, may we ask Her Majesty's Government to take further steps to find out what the actual numbers of people under restriction may be?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, this is obviously something that we are very anxious to know. The numbers I have just given refer to those who are in detention, as it were, under the orders of the Minister. It does not take into account those Rhodesians who may be restricted under the 30-day police order, or indeed those who are restricted in detention for some reason or other, either awaiting trial or after conviction. As the noble Baroness will be aware, in his
4
broadcast the other day Mr. Smith put the number at something around 1,000.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, is not the figure of 1,000 which Mr. Smith gave in his broadcast extremely important; and should we not try to clarify it? Of these 1,000 people who were said by Mr. Smith to have been taken into custody, some of them may have been released, some of them may have been charged with ordinary offences and the remainder have been placed in detention without the ordinary processes of the law coming into operation. If Mr. Smith is not prepared to give this information to the Commission for it to be conveyed to the Government, how can the noble Marquess say that normal political activity is taking place to the satisfaction of the Commission? Will he consult Lord Pearce about this as a matter of some urgency?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I am quite certain that Lord Pearce is as aware of this problem, as are the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the Government themselves. But I will certainly draw the attention of Lord Pearce to what the noble Lord has just said.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, is it really a matter for Lord Pearce? Clearly he will need to have this information when he makes his report to Her Majesty's Government, but would not the noble Marquess accept that at the end of the day the Government will need to come to Parliament and to satisfy Parliament that the conditions of the agreement have been fulfilled, and that unless Her Majesty's Government have clear, specific information on this matter it will be impossible for them to satisfy Parliament to this effect? Will the noble Marquess therefore bear in mind, in the long-term interest of the Government in relation to this agreement, that this information should be obtained and made available to Parliament?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I will certainly bear in mind what the noble Lord has said. It is perfectly true that Parliament in this country will have to be satisfied. The only point I was trying to make was that before that happens it is up to Lord Pearce and his colleagues to be satisfied that they themselves have been able to carry out an acceptable test.

HEAVY FREIGHT VEHICLES ON DOVER ROAD
2.42 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the phenomenal increase of "juggernaut" road transport entering this country through Dover last year, and whether they realise the unsuitability of the A.2 Dover/Canterbury road for such traffic.]
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is aware that there was a large increase in the number of road haulage freight vehicles passing through the port of Dover in 1971. Plans are well advanced for improving the A.2 to dual-carriageway standards to meet the recent and expected increase of traffic on this route.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Is he aware that in the last five years this type of traffic through Dover has increased twelve-fold? May I also ask my noble friend whether he is aware that not only is this a matter of congestion but also that many of the houses along the route are having their foundations seriously affected? In ally case I am satisfied with my noble friend's answer.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that much heavier vehicles are used on the Continent; and although they are temporarily restricted here, is it not a fact that when we enter the Common Market we shall be obliged to accept heavier vehicles than even our present-day vehicles?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I do not think that is quite right. The Common Market countries at present allow up to 42 tons. As the noble Lord and the House are aware, we have restricted our gross weight to 32 tons, and we are now in consultation with the E.E.C. bodies on this matter.
6
A final decision has not yet been reached. We have already given them our opinion and are continuing to do so.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, do these discussions include the question of preventing any further extension to width or length of vehicles beyond what is allowed under our present regulations?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I think I am right in saying that the only big difference is in weight. In Britain the maximum width is 2½metres and the length 15 metres; I think that in the Common Market the length is 15½metres but there is no difference in width. So I do not think we are really at issue here.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that not only the foundations of the houses but the foundations of our economy are being shaken by this apotheosis of lorries and transport? Could we not reverse some parts of the Beeching Plan and get some of this nefarious traffic back on to the railways?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, that is a different question. If the noble Lord would like to put down a Question on that specific point, I shall be glad to provide the answer.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, my noble friend spoke of the permitted weights difference between us and the E.E.C. and said that we were awaiting the E.E.C. decision—
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: No, my Lords, with great respect, I did not say that. I said that at present the E.E.C. allow up to 42 tons and we allow up to 32 tons; and this tonnage is about to be enforced by law. We are already entering into the E.E.C. consultations on what is to be the future limit in the E.E.C. The E.E.C. have not yet made a permanent decision. We are in continuous consultation with them.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I apologise if I misquoted my noble friend, but may I ask what will happen to the roads in this country if in future the E.E.C. do not agree with our limit of 32 tons?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, they cannot make their decision without our consent. By the time

7
such a decision is made, if it is made—this is all hypothesis—we shall be that much further forward.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, can the noble Lord remind us which Government denationalised road transport, thereby probably creating the present situation?
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, following on the question from the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, if we join the Common Market do we have to conform to their regulations concerning gross weight of lorries or can we go on making regulations of our own?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, we shall not conform to "their" any thing; we shall be part of the E.E.C.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, the noble Lord has only half answered the question. Will this country, Great Britain, still be able to continue making separate rules regarding the gross weight of lorries after we have joined the E.E.C.?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the rules will be made to the mutual benefit of all. If one country finds them absolutely impossible its views will be listened to with reason.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, might not the conclusion we come to be to our disadvantage?
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the amazement there will be on the part of our licensing authorities when they hear that there is no difference between 15 metres and 15½ metres? Is he aware that in the circumstances half a metre is quite lengthy?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: Yes, my Lords.

SPEED LIMITS ON HEAVY GOODS VEHICLES
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that the
8
present speed limits on heavy goods vehicles are satisfactory and are being adhered to.]
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government believe the present limits to be appropriate, but more experience of the 60 m.p.h. motorway limit is needed before its suitability is confirmed. Observance of speed limits generally is less than satisfactory and Her Majesty's Government will see that enforcement action continues.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that, from my experience of these heavy goods vehicles and provided my speedometer is correct, many of them exceed 60 m.p.h.? Further, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that a heavy goods vehicle carrying a load of 30 tons is an extremely lethal weapon if asked to stop in a hurry—lethal not only to the driver but to other motorists? Thirdly, may I ask my noble friend whether he, with his right honourable friend, will really impress on the police the need to check on the speed of these heavy vehicles on the motorways more regularly than they appear to do?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: Yes my Lords. I think my noble friend's questions could really be ill the form of statements, and my right honourable friend is well aware of these matters. He is concerned with the safety angle and with the enforcement of the law, realising the effect it has on safety in general.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it is a question of balancing the speed of heavy vehicles with that of other vehicles, so that the heavy vehicles do not block up the traffic but allow it to move?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: Yes, my Lords. I will look at that and if necessary write to the noble Lord.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that heavy goods vehicles are at a great disadvantage whenever they have to climb a hill, and will he seek to increase the number of lay-bys to give an opportunity for other traffic not to be impeded?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, having suffered this fate myself the other day, I am well aware of the problem, but it is a question of who goes into the lay-by to let the others pass.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that the most unsatisfactory speed at the moment is the extremely slow speed of Her Majesty's Government?

VEHICLES' EMISSION OF SMOKE AND FUMES
2.50 p.m.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many summonses have been taken out in the last five years in the London Metropolitan police area against commercial vehicles emitting smoke and fumes beyond the statutory limit.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE HOME OFFICE (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, during the five years, 1966–70, there were a total of 751 prosecutions in the Metropolitan Police District for unlawful emission of smoke and other substances from motor vehicles. The available statistics do not distinguish between private and commercial vehicles.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that many motorists appreciate that there are large numbers of vehicles which emit obnoxious fumes far above a reasonable limit? Would it not be easier to clean up the environment in our towns if it were easier to collect evidence and also to get successful prosecutions? Would he consider perhaps enlisting the aid of traffic wardens in reporting vehicles which are making excessive smoke? Would he also consider setting a limit to the amount of obnoxious fumes that can be emitted, just as limits have been set on the amount of noise which can be made?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the difficulty about setting statutory limits is that smoke blows away, so that
10
it is hard to measure it in any way. Heavy goods vehicles, especially those powered by diesel fuel, are the main offenders, and additional regulations, including those making it necessary for goods vehicles to have an annual test and authorising random roadside tests, were introduced by my right honourable friend, the Minister for Transport Industries, last year. There are now over 500 Department of the Environment goods vehicle examiners, and so they are available to assist the police in the way the noble Lord has indicated.
LORD ORR-EWING: My Lords, does my noble friend appreciate that noise also blows away; so that is no argument against trying to set a limit?
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, can the noble Lord say, out of the number of prosecutions he enumerated, how many proved successful?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords. I can do that on the basis of convictions for England and Wales, although not for the Metropolitan Police District. Out of a total of 1,857 prosecutions in 1970, 1,774 were successful.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that probably a better solution would be to have regulations for the power/weight ratio of vehicles, so that smoke emission would be likely to be very much less?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, this is a technical subject, and the fact that a Home Office Minister is speaking on it as well as my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton shows how unsparing the Government are in giving our attention to these matters. I am told that the reason why the regulations take the form they do rather than setting a statutory limit is that they aim at the causes of excess smoke. This is usually caused by faulty engine maintenance, overweighting and things of this sort, and the regulations are aimed at preventing this.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, in view of the importance of this subject, could the noble Lord tell me whether the Government are satisfied with the number of prosecutions, which seem to me to be a very small percentage of the total number of vehicles on the road?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, the figure in the original reply referred to the Metropolitan Police District only. If we look at the figure for England and Wales over the same period we see that there were 11,817 prosecutions. I am advised that this does not include written and verbal warnings by the police, which often will be an appropriate form of sanction.

COAL STRIKE: TEMPERATURE OF THE CHAMBER
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl the Leader of the House whether it is his intention that the temperature of your Lordships' House should remain at its present level during the crisis? It may be that the noble Earl feels that we should set an example. If that is the case, perhaps we could have some warning so that some of us may bring our overcoats, and those of us who are a little sparse on top may bring a hat.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I am not at all clear that the noble Lord is in order in this regard. I personally am enjoying the rather equable climate which we have in the House at the present time, but I will look into the matter. I think it is a subject which could properly be looked at through the usual channels.

WHITTINGHAM HOSPITAL INQUIRY
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Aberdare will be making a Statement on the Whittingham Hospital at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. It may also be for the convenience of the House if I inform your Lordships that dinners will be available to-morrow.

MALTA: PROGRESS OF NEGOTIATIONS
2.55 p.m.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission I should like to make a Statement about the progress of negotiations for a new Defence Agreement with the Maltese
12
Government. The fourth round of talks in Rome on February 7 and 8 was attended by the Prime Minister of Malta, the Foreign Minister of Italy, the Secretary General of NATO and myself. Dr. Luns and I confirmed the financial offer of the Alliance and made other proposals relating to our requirements for a Defence Agreement, with a view to bringing to a conclusion the negotiations which have been in progress since Mr. Mintoff formed a Government in June last year. In conjunction with our NATO partners we have offered payments at a level of £14 million per annum over 7½ years. These payments, which would be conditional upon the signing of a satisfactory Defence Agreement, would take effect from October 1, 1971. In addition, the Maltese Government have been offered bilateral economic support by certain members of the Alliance totalling more than £7 million in all. We would require in return to be able to deploy our forces in Malta, for national and NATO defence purposes, and to have satisfactory arrangements for the exclusion or restriction of forces from countries outside NATO.
During successive rounds of negotiations progress has been made towards defining the terms of an Agreement. We have made clear that we would be prepared to release certain land and fixed assets required by the Maltese Government. To enable the Maltese Government to operate Luqa as a civil airport under their own arrangements at the end of a new Agreement, we have offered to train and employ at British expense the necessary number of Maltese personnel. But throughout the period of a new Agreement Luqa airport as a whole would continue to be controlled by the R.A.F., who would, as now, give full consideration to the requirements of civil aviation. We have also offered to meet the full net costs of running the Malta Flight Information Region, instead of only doing so in part as at present.
If a satisfactory Defence Agreement can be reached, the British Government would expect to deploy forces in Malta at a level that would ensure a substantial contribution to Malta's economy. But I have made clear to Mr. Mintoff that the reduction of Maltese supporting personnel has not kept pace with the rundown of our forces which began in 1967. We

13
should in any case have had to reduce substantially the present number of some 6,000 civilian and uniformed employees. The reduction now required is of the order of 1,600. To mitigate the effects of the reduction, I have shown readiness to discuss with Mr. Mintoff how the necessary reductions, over and above normal retirements and resignations, might be phased. Special terminal benefits would continue to be made available to those becoming redundant during the rundown period. In addition, we have offered to employ 200 men at our expense, at a cost of up to £1 million, to carry out the repair of historic buildings for the Maltese Government. We have also offered to bring the take-home pay of Maltese locally enlisted personnel, serving away from Malta, up to the level of the equivalent British Servicemen and to carry out an out-of-cycle pay review for all Maltese uniformed personnel.
The Secretary General and I asked the Maltese Government to indicate whether they accepted our proposals as a basis for a new Agreement. A reply is awaited. We and our NATO allies still hope that the Maltese Government will state their readiness, on the basis I have already indicated, to conclude an Agreement which would satisfy NATO and British requirements. In that event, detailed negotiations could be resumed forthwith. Meanwhile, the withdrawal of British forces and equipment continues in response to the request made by the Maltese Government at the end of last year. In the absence of new developments, withdrawal will be completed before March 31. It will accordingly be necessary shortly to issue final discharge notices to the total of about 6,000 Maltese civilian and uniformed personnel we now employ. But it remains the British Government's hope that the Maltese Government will find it possible to accept the NATO offer which we believe is fair.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for making this Statement and will, I am sure, wish to compliment him on the very conscientious effort that he has made to meet the Maltese position. May I take it from the tone of the Statement that this is the final position of Her Majesty's Government, in which case I think we should
14
say from this side of the House that the financial arrangements appear to be fair, if not generous. The noble Lord spoke of some 1,600 employees losing their positions. I hope that there will be some flexibility concerning the period during which these men are made redundant, in order that they may find new positions. My concluding remarks must be to Mr. Mintoff and the Government of Malta. I express the hope that they will accept these terms, provided of course that Her Majesty's Government bear in mind my plea for flexibility in regard to redundancies of citizens who are very loyal to this country.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for what he has said. I can confirm to him that, from the financial point of view, this is NATO'S final offer. Dr. Luns has made this quite clear and I think Mr. Mintoff understands it. I think that everybody has sympathy with the problems of the Malta Government over the redundancy of the civilians, and I have made it very clear to Mr. Mintoff that I am very willing to talk to him about the phasing of these reductions. The last thing that any of us would want to do is to make things more difficult for Mr. Mintoff and for the Malta Government. I would just point out, however—and I think one must remember this—that in 1967, in the days of the Government of the Party of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, it was made clear to the then Malta Government that under Her Majesty's Government's plans the number of locally employed civilians would be a great deal less than we are now proposing by March 31, 1972. So I do not think this should have come as a great surprise to the Malta Government.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I should like to endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said, and to congratulate the Minister on the patience and assiduity which he has shown over the past few months in a very difficult situation. I agree that this is a fair and generous settlement and I only hope that Mr. Mintoff will see it in that way, because I feel that time is not on the side of Malta in this matter. If an agreement could be reached within the next day or two, or within the next week or two, it would be far better for Malta than

15
letting this matter drag on until the end of March.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am also very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, for what he has said, which I think meets with the agreement of everybody in your Lordships' House. Certainly, he and the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will know that there is a fund of good will in this country for the Maltese people.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, is it not quite clear from the Minister's Statement that the British Government have behaved to the Maltese exactly as they have behaved to the coal miners, in making an offer and then raising it like negotiations in an Arab souk? Is it not quite clear that, if the Maltese had been offered the sort of terms that they have now been offered, they would have accepted at the beginning?
LORD CARRINGTON: No.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether, in the event of an agreement being reached with the Maltese Goverment—and may I be allowed to interpolate with a statement and say that it seems to me that the proposition coming from NATO appears to be fair and reasonable—that agreement will be of some duration, or for one or two years? Also, will the noble Lord take into account the possibility of a diminution in the strategic value of Malta? In those circumstances, apart from the financial commitment, would it not be mistaken policy to continue any obligation to Malta despite their services in the past?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, of course all these factors were taken into consideration. The length of the agreement proposed—if there is an agreement—is seven-and-a-half years from October 1, 1971; but I think one can both over-estimate and under-estimate the importance of Malta. I think I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and the noble Lord, Lord Byers, said, that this offer which has been made by NATO is a very generous one. Fourteen million pounds annually, together with the £7 million in aid spread over the period of seven years, is a good deal more than Malta has ever had before, and I should have thought that the Malta Government
16
would feel that this was generous, and that it would be wise to accept it.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether the withdrawal of our forces from Malta can be halted if a speedy agreement is reached?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, if an agreement is reached not only will it be halted, but we shall start putting things back.

COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a and committed to a Select Committee.
FRIENDS OF THE CLERGY CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Jellicoe, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name.
Moved, That leave be given to the Earl of Bessborough to advance his motion on Government Research and Development from Tuesday the 29th to Monday the 28th of February.—(Earl St. Aldwyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HARBOURS, PIERS AND FERRIES (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

AIRPORTS AUTHORITY BILL
3.8 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been sent down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move, pursuant to

17
Standing Order No. 43(2), that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned during pleasure and resumed by the Lord Chancellor.

EMERGENCY POWERS ACT 1920
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg to move that the gracious Message delivered on Wednesday last, signed by Counsellors of State on behalf of Her Majesty, be now considered.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg to move that an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty in the terms set out on the Order Paper.
Moved, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, thanking Her Majesty for the Most Gracious Message sent on Her behalf by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother and Her Royal Highness The Princess Margaret, Countess of Snowdon, to whom has been delegated certain Royal Functions as specified in Letters Patent dated the 4th day of February, 1972, communicating to this House the Declaration made on Her Majesty's behalf that a State of Emergency exists.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented by the Lords with White Staves.

EMERGENCY POWERS ACT 1920
3.10 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE EARL JELLICOE rose to move, That the Emergency Regulations 1972, laid before the House on Wednesday last, shall continue in force subject to the provisions of Section 2(4) of the Emergency Powers Act 1920. The noble Earl said: My Lords, your Lordships will recall that last Wednesday I repeated a Statement by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announcing the proclamation of a State of Emergency as a result of the very sombre situation with
18
which we were faced arising from the coal strike. It was agreed through the usual channels that we should deal with the humble Address formally, and that we have just done. I gather, however, that your Lordships would wish to have a wide-ranging debate on the emergency with which we are faced, the Emergency Regulations and the orders made there-under. I also gather that possibly the Opposition may take the exceptional step, at least in your Lordships' House, of dividing on those regulations. That being so, I propose to cast my remarks fairly wide, although I propose to be reasonably brief.
My Lords, the regulations made under the Emergency Powers are similar to those moved on previous occasions. They vary in one or two matters, which I will mention. I would not wish to weary your Lordships by going through the regulations one by one, and your Lordships may feel that it suffices if I refer to those regulations which have a particular relevance to the present emergency, or those which are novel. As to the changes. Regulation 11 is new and gives the Secretary of State for the Environment power to exempt drivers from the statutory provisions governing their hours of work. This would enable greater flexibility to be introduced, provided always—and I emphasise this—that the drivers themselves were willing, in the movement of essential supplies. I understand that difficulty is being experienced, for example, in collecting milk for processing and distribution.
Regulation 17 is of crucial importance at present, in that it relieves the Electricity Boards of their statutory obligations to supply electricity. Until this regulation came into force, the Boards could make power cuts only if their output was insufficient to meet the demand at that time. It is now possible—and this is being done, as your Lordships are only too well aware—to make power cuts in order to conserve stocks of fuel. There are important new provisions also to which I must draw your Lordships' attention in Regulations 17 and 18, the latter referring to gas supply. A wide power of entry is given to persons who may be authorised by the Secretary of State to enter premises in order to ensure that orders under Regulations 17 and 18 are effective. I trust that your Lordships will agree that these powers

19
are necessary, particularly in order to preserve public safety where the gas supply may be in danger.
I should also like to invite your Lordships' particular attention to Regulations 21 to 24, which enable the appropriate Minister to regulate the supply of fuel. It is under Regulation 21 that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has made two orders restricting consumption of electricity for advertising display and floodlighting, and for non-domestic heating.
There is one further specific matter concerning the regulations themselves on which I am aware that some concern has been expressed in some quarters. It is alleged that Regulations 31 to 35 may in some measure have altered the law relating to picketing. I can give a definite assurance that this is not the case, and I would in this context direct your Lordships' attention to the important proviso to Regulation 37, paragraph (1). This makes it clear that a person shall not be guilty of an offence against any of these regulations by reason only of his taking part in lawful picketing. Thus, nothing in Regulation 31, which deals with acts of sabotage, or in Regulation 32, which deals with trespassing and loitering, in any way alters the position of those who participate in peaceful picketing.
My Lords, I would not seek for one moment to minimise the gravity of the situation which now confronts our country. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made it clear in another place last night that even if there was an immediate resumption of work in the mines we should still be faced in the immediate future with the gravest possible disruption of our electricity supplies. As I understand the position (and as in all situations of this kind it is one which tends to fluctuate, or in which one's evaluation of it or the experts' evaluation of it may tend to fluctuate, plus or minus, almost every day, though it is of course one which the Central Electricity Generating Board is keeping under continual review) the stock situation in coal-fired power stations—and these represent some 75 per cent, of our generating capacity—is at present as follows. Today, there are something over 4½ million tons of coal in the hands of the Generating Board. Of this total, about half
20
cannot be used at the present time because of picketing and because the power stations have been deprived of supplies of lighting-up oil. Thus, there is only enough coal available at the present time for about—and I stress "about"—two more weeks of present demand. If supplies of lighting-up fuel were to be resumed, then this period could be extended by another 10 days.
In this connection, your Lordships will be aware of the reports in to-day's Press—and I have seen other reports, or a gloss on these reports, on the tape—of the National Union of Mineworkers taking action possibly against mass picketing. I would hope that in the national interest this will enable full use to be made of existing stocks of coal. In the meantime, it behoves all of us, wherever the option is in our own hands, when our finger may be on a switch that still works, to practise the most rigid economy. In this context, I should like to pay tribute, if I may, to the substantial contribution which domestic and very many commercial and industrial consumers have already made towards reducing the load on the grid. These economies have already reduced that load by something of the order of between 20 per cent, and 30 per cent. I should like to take this opportunity, my Lords, to reinforce the appeals which are already being made to ail electricity consumers that they should from now on exercise the most stringent self-discipline in order that such output as is available can be directed towards the essential services, towards the hospitals and towards those in greatest need.
In addition to the stocks at power stations to which I have referred, there are also some 4 million tons at pitheads. If, as I hope we all hope, there is a settlement and an early resumption of work, it will become of really paramount importance to move these stocks from the pitheads to the generating stations. Such action would win the nation light and heat and time On the other hand, it is regrettable that, because of the failure to maintain adequate safety measures in some pits, our rate of recovery after a resumption of work will be slower than would otherwise have been the case. Of the pits, over 200 have not been maintained in a proper state. In these circumstances, whatever our feelings may be about the rights and

21
wrongs of this dispute, I am sure that all of us will wish to pay tribute to the really enormous efforts which the supervising staff have deployed in trying to keep these essential safety measures going.
Be that as it may, I cannot, I fear, stress too strongly that whatever remedial measures are taken now, there will necessarily be a further period of restriction of supplies which is bound to last for some weeks after the resumption of work. The implication of that further restriction for the domestic consumer and for industry must be all too clear to all of us. It means, my Lords, that within the next two weeks or so there could well be further drastic cuts over large areas of the country, blacking out whole cities and giving no priority treatment to any consumer. This situation will be reached if and when the output from the coal-fired generating stations continues to fall, and the total generating output falls significantly below the level of the reduced demand. Therefore your Lordships may reasonably ask—and many people in the country are asking —why it is that we find ourselves, almost overnight, up against a position which is likely to entail not only the most serious inconvenience to the man in the street, more especially to those members of our community who are elderly or infirm, but also a situation which carries with it the gravest possible economic implications for the nation.
My Lords, I do not think it would be appropriate for me, at this moment of delicate balance, to comment on the merits of the case. Nevertheless, I recognise that there are those who, while they feel the recent offers of the National Coal Board to be good, if not generous, at the same time criticise the Government for moving too slowly and without due preparation and consultation in declaring a State of Emergency and in bringing forward these Regulations and the Orders made under them.
On the score of lack of preparation and lack of consultation, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made it crystal clear yesterday evening in another place that for the past year or so all those most intimately concerned with this matter have been carrying out a detailed examination of the steps which would
22
be necessary in an emergency of this kind. It has been said that there was no proper consultation with industry and with other consumers. My Lords, this is simply not true. Consultation has been taking place for some months now, and the mere fact that the Department of Trade and Industry was in a position at the end of last week to send out no less than 20,000 individual letters to individual firms indicating what was required of them in the present situation is evidence that this is so. And again, much though we may be inconvenienced by it, and much though we may deplore its necessity, I think that most fair-minded people would concede that, by and large, the rota system is working pretty well—in circumstances, admittedly, of extreme difficulty, but in a way which clearly does not imply lack of prior planning and preparation.
The second main criticism levelled in this context on the Government is that we moved too slowly in asking Parliament for these crucial emergency powers. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary explained yesterday how wide and deep these emergency powers are. A glance at the Regulations will suffice to show that this is in fact the case. I submit to your Lordships that no Government would go to Parliament for such powers unless and until they were completely convinced that theme was no other option open to them. But, my Lords, it had been our hope, certainly during this past week or so, that it would be possible for the National Union of Mineworkers and the National Coal Board to conic to an agreement on the substantially increased terms offered by the Coal Board. As I said in cur debate two weeks ago, it was our hope that early agreement could be reached on a settlement fair to the miners, fair to the Board and fair to the community as a whole. I am quite certain that for the Government to have asked for these sweeping emergency powers on the eve of this possible negotiation would have been held by many—wrongly, but perhaps understandably—as pressure and provocation. I concede that these are difficult areas of judgment, but it was our judgment that earlier action might well have nipped in the bud that possibility of settlement that still, unfortunately, eludes us.
Nevertheless, my Lords, I would grant that in one respect we must agree that we did not perhaps take as stringent and pessimistic a view of the situation as events have shown to be justified. No one, I think, could have fully anticipated the extent and intensity of the picketing, and the degree to which this picketing would affect the ability of the C.E.G.B. to generate the power which the nation needs. In view of the considerable concern and extensive publicity which has been given to picketing in this emergency, your Lordships will no doubt wish me to say something about it. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary said in another place, peaceful picketing is lawful, and as long as it remains peaceful it may extend beyond the movement of coal to the movement of other commodities. Nevertheless, it must be recognised that in this dispute the extent of picketing has been unparalleled in recent years. Most of this picketing has been peaceful and lawful, and I am glad to say that the National Union of Mineworkers have made it crystal clear that they are opposed—as I am confident every single Member of your Lordships' House is opposed—to the use of violence and intimidation in any degree. It is of course difficult to judge—you can pick your eyewitnesses, and you can take your choice—where intimidation begins and where lawful picketing ends. Nevertheless, there have clearly been instances of intimidation, of picketing which is demonstrably not peaceful and of illegal picketing.
I know your Lordships recognise that in a situation of this kind the duty of the police is one of very great delicacy and difficulty. On the one hand, they have a duty to ensure that the highway is not obstructed, that law and order is maintained, and that those who wish to go to work are not forcibly prevented from so doing. Equally, they have a duty to ensure that those who wish to dissuade peacefully other persons from going to work or from delivering supplies are entitled so to do. In a situation of this kind, when tension and tempers may be high, this person or that person may possibly make an error of judgment. But, my Lords, I am confident that this House would agree that, by and large, our police forces up and down the country have, as we have learned to expect from them
24
in good times and in bad, carried out their duties impartially and with sound judgment. I know that this was a matter which was worrying your Lordships when we last discussed this strike. Some noble Lords asked me to represent their concern to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. They would doubtless have noted that he has brought to the attention of the police the representations which were made to him recently by mining Members of another place, that there should be close liaison between the police and the representatives of the N.U.M.
I trust that your Lordships will acquit me of in any way minimising the gravity of the situation with which we are confronted. There is all the distress and discomfort which the denial of light and heat involves for all of us. For some of us it may perhaps be no more than a frightful nuisance. But for those of us who are sick or infirm, or old, it can mean very great hardship. Again, there are the crippling effects which the present shortages of power will have on our economy. It will entail acute difficulties for many firms, and for some firms it could well, I fear, mean that they will go out of business. It will, at least until we can all get the economy moving forward again, mean lower profitability, lower investment and, therefore, a delay in that industrial recovery and economic resurgence which is, I believe, now ours for the winning. It will almost certainly involve adding some millions, I hope very temporarily, to the many who are already unemployed. All these, my Lords, are tragic effects of a tragic dispute which we can no doubt explore further in our debate to-morrow. But there are two other side effects on which I wish, in conclusion, to touch.
The first is that nothing has made me more unhappy about this strike than the increase in social tension within our nation which it has occasioned. And, returning yesterday from leading an inter-Party Parliamentary group on a short trip overseas, I must frankly say to your Lordships that I have been worried at the shadow which this dispute and its side-effects cast on our reputation and our standing abroad. Feeling these matters as I do, I can only express the hope that with the appointment of the Court of Inquiry under the noble and learned Lord,

25
Lord Wilberforce, will very soon come a return to work and a settlement. I had hoped that the return could precede the final settlement, but this is not ground on which I wish to tread this afternoon. However, I cannot refrain from saying that, given the undertakings extended by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment, and by the National Coal Board, such a return in the very near future, if not now, could not be disadvantageous to the miners and could only be to the advantage of the community as a whole of which they are very much members.
My Lords, I hope that I have not dealt with these Regulations too cursorily. I hope, too, that this debate, like our last debate on the coal strike, will be conducted in such a way as to increase the chances of that early settlement which the nation so desperately needs. I hope, too, that in the final analysis noble Lords opposite will not press this issue to a Division. Whatever they may feel, whatever any of us may feel, about the rights and wrongs of this issue it is surely, clear beyond peradventure that these Regulations are now necessary. Certainly any member of your Lordships' house who wishes to argue that they are overdue is not in a position to oppose their confirmation now. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Emergency Regulations 1972, laid before the House on Wednesday last, shall continue in force subject to the provisions of section 2(4) of the Emergency Powers Act 1920.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
3.32 p.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, like the noble Earl the Lord Privy Seal, I propose to be reasonably brief and certainly do not intend to discuss the Regulations in detail, for they appear to me to show, in the main, the well-established precedents for Regulations of this sort and clearly are the kind of Regulations that one would expect to be laid in the circumstances of the emergency which is existing in this country. With the noble Earl, I would pay tribute to the restraint exercised by the police when they have had to face men who are angry about things which affect them very deeply. I would support also his statement that picketing has in the main been peaceful. I hope that it will be peaceful from this
26
day onwards; but I sincerely hope that we shall not have picketing for very much longer—that is, of course, in connection with the dispute we are now discussing.
I congratulate the Government on one thing; that is, on securing the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, to head the Court of Inquiry into this disastrous dispute. He, I am sure, is acceptable to both sides, for his impartiality was amply demonstrated when a year ago he chaired the Court of Inquiry into the electricity supply dispute. The Report of that Court made it quite clear to me that the noble and learned Lord and his colleagues then were not by any means creatures of the Government. Neither did the Court headed by the noble and learned Lord fall over itself to placate the trade unions. The facts, the circumstances, of that dispute and everything about it were most carefully examined; the resulting Report was recognised as fair and just and the dispute was resolved. We can, I think, confidently await the outcome of the deliberations of the present Inquiry. I am hoping that the Court will be able to present its Report in a much shorter time than it did in connection with the electricity dispute which I have mentioned. In that case, the Court of Inquiry was appointed on December 31, 1970, and did not report until February 5. We cannot afford to wait a further month and a few days for the Report of the Wilberforce Court of Inquiry; and I certainly welcome the statement made by the noble and learned Lord that we can expect them to act expeditiously in their consideration of the matters which are now before them.
My Lords, from this Box I am not going to disagree with the decision to advise the powers-that-be to declare that a State of Emergency exists, for the obvious reason that a state of emergency undoubtedly exists and is probably the most serious (excepting for the years of the 1939–45 War) since the year 1926. We have arrived at a serious moment in the history of this country. It was reported yesterday that 800,000 men were laid off; because of this situation, 800,000 men did not go to work yesterday. The production of those men has been lost to the country and lost to us all. It is suggested in one newspaper, I see, that the figure of 800,000 may be an underestimate; and when that figure is added to

27
the massive figure of the existing unemployed it means that some 2 million people were qualified for the dole yesterday and the loss of production was so great as to be in my opinion positively catastrophic. The hardship is enormous and will continue to be enormous until this dispute is settled and normal working is resumed; that is, if, for so many people, normal work can ever be resumed. Clearly, many of our industries, and particularly the smaller ones that are balanced on a knife-edge, will find that these power cuts will tip them off their precarious balance and never again will their doors open. This I fear may be the case. I have heard such reports from the West Midlands and from my own part of the country, South Wales, and I imagine that what applies in those areas applies equally in many parts of the country where we have this unhappy situation. Workers in some of these industries look forward to a very bleak future indeed because this crisis may tip those industries off the balance which has previously kept them alive—even if only just alive.
My Lords, it is—it must be—part of the function of Parliament to examine the failures of the responsible Government and to show the public where the blame lies for permitting the drift to this appalling situation. What we have seen over the past few weeks has been a decision by the responsible Government to stand back and hope that the market forces would play upon the situation and produce a settlement. Nothing of the sort has happened. The tragic result of that miscalculation is upon us to-day: we have these Regulations, as we had that Humble Address, before us. The Government seriously miscalculated the mood of the miners and miscalculated, too, the mood of the unions outside the mining industry; namely, the transport workers, the workers on both road and rail. They should not have miscalculated in that way because their statement had been that they unequivocally supported the miners' claim for justice in their dispute with the Coal Board. The Government also miscalculated the length of time that the electricity industry could continue to keep their plants running on the existing coal stocks. As a result of those miscalculations, the Government failed to
28
impose fuel rationing in the early weeks of the strike. The result has been that there are now barely two weeks' supply of coal to permit the present limited electricity consumption.
Not only did the Government mismanage the supply of fuel available but although the supplies were fast being exhausted they made no attempt to ration electricity supplies. Last Thursday power cuts had to be enforced because there were no longer enough stations working to meet the demand, but it was left until Friday before official rationing came into being. What sort of preparation had the Government made to meet that situation? The noble Earl told us that they had had some forms printed and some letters ready to send out. That was not enough. Is it not the case that the decision was announced and sprung upon industry in such a way that industry itself had not been able to make the necessary preparations? No wonder The Times said on Saturday last:
"Millions of workers will be sent home next week as industry and commerce begin to implement the Government's emergency orders. There was confusion throughout the country yesterday as companies tried to sort out the meaning of the orders. Mr. Campbell Adamson, Director-General of the Confederation of British Industry, gave a warning that industry was facing 'a very serious situation'. He had not expected such severe measures."
He—the Director-General of the Confederation of British Industry—had not expected such severe measures. Why was he not told? Why was he not consulted long before Friday last?
In the same article it was later stated:
"In all sectors of industry and commerce confusion over the effects of the Government's orders was mixed with anger that the cuts had been forced on the country without sufficient consultation."
The only people who could really consult industry were the Government of the day, the people who ought to have known what the situation was, the people who surely ought to have been advised by their officers and to have taken a decision which would have ensured that they did in fact consult the people who complained in The Times and elsewhere that there had not been sufficient consultation. The anouncement of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on Friday last came as a shock, as Mr. Adamson makes clear in the words that:
"he had not expected such severe measures."

29
The blame for mishandling the whole situation must to some extent be placed fairly and squarely on that Minister's shoulders. Everything one reads and everything one hears seems to indicate that no meaningful consultations had taken place. And we read this morning that only yesterday did Sir John Eden, Minister for Industry, see Sir John Partridge to discuss the situation. The report in this morning's Daily Telegraph tells us:
"Sir John Partridge, President of the Confederation of British Industry, and Mr. Campbell Adamson, Director-General. yesterday discussed the power crisis with Sir John Eden, Minister for Industry.
"They asked that the three days a week of electricity supplies allowed under the Government's measures should be consecutive so that industries operating 24-hour processes or 12-hour heat treatment cycles could benefit.
"The C.B.I. chiefs also pressed for changes in the timing of cuts. 'The cuts are at present arranged on a basis which does not fit into the normal shift system', said a C.B.I. statement. 'We also pressed for more information to be provided so that many of industry's uncertainties could be dispelled.'"
Surely these are matters that ought to have been the subject of negotiation and discussion three weeks ago, and certainly not later than the date upon which it became clear that the transport workers and the railwaymen were solidly behind the miners. They could see what was coming. They must have been able to foresee it; but they did nothing. They were inactive. They hoped that something would turn up, instead of making preparations of the sort that any Government ought to make in these circumstances. At last the Prime Minister enters the field, and I see it is reported that he is to see Mr. Victor Feather and leaders of the Confederation of British Industry to-day. In the worst crisis to confront this country since 1926, the Prime Minister is to see the leaders of industry some six or so weeks after the crisis began—four days after the delayed announcement by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry of the shock cuts to be made in electricity supply for industry. It just was not good enough and it is not good enough for a Prime Minister and a Government of this country to behave in such a fashion. Neither was it good enough to leave it so late in appointing a Court of Inquiry in the case of the dispute which is the cause of this crisis.
30
Mr. Carr must, with the advice of his excellent officers, have known that this dispute was not going to be settled by negotiations early on: the sides were too far apart. But he, like the rest of the Government, hoped that something would turn up. The Government were warned. time after time. The speeches of my noble friends, Lord Blyton and Lord Taylor of Mansfield on January 31—men thoroughly versed in the industry, with a feeling for it—gave an indication to this House and surely to the Government of the day of how the miners felt. The efficiency of the picketing of the, miners added to the writing on the wall, but the Government did not heed. The noble Earl, the Lord Privy Seal, did his best to excuse the failure of the Government, but I must say that he did not convince me. I doubt if he convinced the House, and I am certain that he would not convince the leaders of industry. The Government are to be indicted on the grounds of failure to take adequate steps to settle the mining dispute, failure to appreciate the rapidity with which the disastrous cuts in electricity supply would be upon us, failure to bring industrial leaders into consultation when rationing became inevitable and failure to ration fuel supplies weeks ago.
The whole history of this crisis and its development is one of incompetence, mismanagement and a failure to safeguard the country's interests. As such, my Lords, we shall exceptionally—and I use the word "exceptionally" deliberately—vote against these Regulations. On Thursday last we had decided not to vote, but the announcement towards the end of last week and the total failure of Ministers to reply adequately to the charges of my right honourable and honourable friends yesterday in the other place has forced us to decide to register our profound disapproval of the handling of this crisis by this Government.

WHITTINGHAM HOSPITAL INQUIRY
3.50 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ARERDARE): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, and with apologies to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, perhaps this may be a

31
convenient moment for me to repeat a Statement which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is making in another place on the Report of the Inquiry into Whittingham Hospital. The Statement is as follows:
"Allegations of ill-treatment of patients, fraud and maladministration at Whittingham were made in confidence to my predecessor in 1969. These were followed by a special audit investigation and inquiries by the police. Shortly after the police inquiries were completed a nurse was tried and convicted of manslaughter of a patient. As soon as I was free to do so after these proceedings I set up the Committee of Inquiry, which made its report to me early in November. Publication of the Report has been delayed while charges against two other nurses, on which they were both acquitted, were before the courts.
"The Report is very disturbing. It is highly critical of standards of medical and nursing services in some parts of the hospital, particularly for longer-stay patients, and of the management. It also criticises the Manchester Regional Hospital Board, and to some extent my Department also. With a few qualifications, which are not however central to the main issues, I accept the conclusions and recommendations.
"The Report assesses Whittingham as a hospital of wide contrasts and an extreme example of a hospital which has failed to keep up with the times. Side by side with some good modern services, it found in the long-stay wards evidence of old-fashioned methods, inadequate treatment and rehabilitation, poor buildings and insufficient medical and nursing staff. The Report severely criticises the medical and nursing administration, the management structure and the way these worked; it describes the result as a hospital with day-to-day tactics but no overall strategy. The Committee of Inquiry believe that in these conditions there have been instances of ill-treatment and large-scale pilfering by some members of the staff and the further evil of suppression of complaints about such practices when made by junior staff.
32
"As the House knows, I have set up a Committee to review the procedures for dealing with complaints in hospitals and I have arranged for this most distressing aspect of the Whittingham Report to be brought to their attention.
"The Report apportions a share of the blame for the general state of affairs at Whittingham to the Regional Hospital Board who, while pioneering the establishment of psychiatric units in general hospitals, did not adequately recognise the needs of elderly long-stay patients, which led to dual standards of care. I accept that my own Department, as well as others, may not have been sufficiently alive to this danger in earlier years. Our present policies take full account of it.
"The Report recommends that all members of the Whittingham Hospital Management Committee should be invited to resign and the Committee reconstituted. It also recommends complete operational integration of the medical and nursing services at Whittingham with those of the psychiatric unit at Preston. Such integration is undoubtedly most desirable, but in my view it is doubtful whether it can he achieved satisfactorily without amalgamating under a single Hospital Management Committee the hospitals at present in the Whittingham and in the Preston and Chorley groups. The Board have already started local consultations on proposals for amalgamation. The Chairman of the Whining-ham Committee resigned in December on grounds of ill-health, and four other members have resigned in the course of discussions of the proposed amalgamation. With my endorsement the Chairman of the Board is inviting the remaining members to resign so that a reconstituted Committee can be appointed with amalgamation with the Preston and Chorley group of hospitals in mind at an early date. The new Committee will need to consider the many detailed recommendations in the Report for improvements at Whittingham itself. There have already been important staff changes.
"This Report highlights two of the most important problems facing the Hospital Service to-day: the proper

33
care and treatment of longer-stay and elderly patients in large isolated mental hospitals, and the proper planning of the transition from services based on such hospitals to services based on departments in general hospitals. I have asked all Boards to review their services for longer-stay mentally ill patients, looking particularly at outmoded attitudes, allocation of staff, and at management policies and organisation. Each Board is also now working out and discussing with my Department plans for the restructuring of their services for the mentally ill; these will provide for a properly organised transition to services based in general hospitals, and improved standards in the old mental hospitals until they eventually close.
"It would be wrong to jump to general conclusions from the indictment in this Report of some parts of one hospital. There have been enormous improvements in the last twenty years in nearly all psychiatric hospitals. The great majority of staff, at Winningham as well as elsewhere, work with patience and devotion, often in difficult and unsatisfactory conditions, which we are now making great efforts to remedy.
"I have referred in this Statement to the main points which arise from the Report. The Command Paper includes a Foreword I have written which contains similar comments and also refers in more detail to the recommendations addressed to my Department and to the Regional Hospital Board; action on most of these has already been taken or is under way.
"The House will, I am sure, be grateful, as I am, to Sir Robert Payne and the other members of the Committee for the time and effort they devoted to their Inquiry and to producing this forthright and constructive Report. Ever since I have been in office I have been continuing the theme of my predecessor in concentrating on improvements in this and related fields where they are most needed. The House can be sure that the lessons of this Report will not be forgotten."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
3.56 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, may I first thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement made by his right honourable friend in another place, especially as I am only too conscious that this was neither an easy nor a pleasant task in view of the very grave and extremely disturbing nature of the findings of the Payne Report. Clearly, your Lordships will wish to read and study this Report in some detail and with very great care. The 14 allegations of ill-treatment and dishonesty listed in paragraph 41 of the Report which were found to be largely justified by the evidence are such that all must agree that a very serious position has been revealed in this particular hospital.
I will at this moment of time confine myself to asking the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, two or three questions on the Statement he has just made. First, may I ask him if he is in a position now to tell the House the long-awaited out come of the protracted discussions his right honourable friend has been having on the appointment of a Health Commissioner? May I again remind him of the recommendations of the Committee which inquired into the events at Farleigh Hospital about which I reminded him only last November in our debate on the reorganisation of the Health Service; namely, that
"a Health Commissioner, given the widest possible powers, should be appointed to meet public anxiety about the investigation of complaints in the Health Service".
This anxiety—and I think I can speak for all of us here—is certainly not lessened by this latest Report. The matter is now extremely urgent. I appreciate that in paragraph 5 of the Statement the Secretary of State refers to the Committee he has set up to review procedures for dealing with complaints in hospitals. But this is quite a separate matter. We know that the complaints procedures need to be speedy, effective and efficient; but the additional need for an independent Health Commissioner to investigate complaints is of prime urgency and importance.
The second question I should like to ask the noble Lord is about this very real problem of pocket money. The Report finds that there was abuse of patients' pocket money—"pilfering if not

35
more organised corruption". I should like to ask the noble Lord what progress his Department has made with the proposal that I put to him last April: that patients in long-stay hospitals who are eligible as of right for pocket money should be paid this direct through the Supplementary Benefits Commission's procedures in the same way as is done for all other eligible patients in general hospitals. I believe that the time has come to remove this long-standing and unjust anomaly. At that time the noble Lord assured me that his right honourable friend was giving serious consideration to the question and I suggested to him that schemes of this kind should be progressively introduced. The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, supported me in this. May I ask, if this proposal has been taken seriously, what progress is being made; and could it be applied to the situation at the Whittingham Hospital where there was gross abuse of patients' pocket money entitlement?
Finally, the noble Lord has given us to understand through the Statement that his right honourable friend accepts in full the recommendations of the Report of the Payne Committee. May I suggest that consideration should be given to inviting the Hospital Advisory Service to assist the new Hospital Management Committee which is now to be appointed to implement the recommendations of the Payne Committee as quickly as possible.
4.0 p.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for making this very disquieting Statement. I do not want to say a great deal about it, but I will study the report. It makes one wonder once again whether conditions rather like these may exist in some of the other large mental hospitals in the country, particularly those taking care of the elderly who are there for a very long time. One has been told in the past that it will be possible to shut down these hospitals and to treat the patients in the community or elsewhere, but that is going to take a very long time.
I associate myself with the two questions which the noble Baroness has asked about the appointment of a Health Commissioner and about some kind of
36
inquiry regarding the pocket money which these mentally disturbed patients are allowed. I know what an enormous amount of very good work is done by all members of the staff in these very overcrowded, uncomfortable, inconvenient hospitals, and one would not like an occasion such as this to pass without saying some kind word about those who work in the psychiatric world.
4.1 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, and the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, for the way in which they have received this rather long Statement. May I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, that I am afraid I cannot at the moment relieve her anxieties about a Health Commissioner. I do not think she would expect me to do so as a result of this Statement. I can, however, assure her that this matter is under the most careful and detailed consideration at the moment. As my right honourable friend has said, he is consulting with the medical profession. On the question of pocket money, I can only repeat that we took full account of what the noble Baroness said in our debate here, and we are also looking at this matter. This was an unfortunate occurrence in this hospital. One might wonder how it could have occurred; but auditors have not in the past been expected to examine the control of cash in the wards where much depends on the relations between the medical and nursing staff and patients and on a judgment which an auditor cannot make of the capacity of the patient to manage his own affairs. The whole question is under review. The noble Baroness also asked me to draw the attention of the Hospital Advisory Service to this matter. I will certainly do so although, as she knows only too well, they are an independent advisory body and make their own decisions.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, particularly for the kind words he said about the staff who work in these hospitals. This was mentioned in my right honourable friend's Statement. We do appreciate the valuable work which the vast majority of them do.
BARONESS SUMMER SKILL: My Lords, in view of the fact that this is not

37
the first time that there have been complaints of scandalous conditions in some of these long-stay hospitals and on investigation the complaints have been fully justified, does not the noble Lord think that the time has arrived when we should have a national survey of these hospitals and not wait, as we have been doing, for complaints to reach such a pitch that the Government have to step in and investigate the conditions and then, as now, find them fully justified? Everyone, including the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, knows that these old places invite all kinds of abuses. One knows about them; one realises that the appalling conditions of nursing and so on do not necessarily attract the best people to do the work. Will not the noble Lord therefore seriously consider having all these complaints investigated and so anticipate any further complaints of this character?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am grateful for the suggestion of the noble Baroness, but we must not forget that we are dealing here with matters and conditions that operated some time ago. As a result of the initiative taken both by the previous Secretary of State and the present one I think that the conditions are now very much improved in these long stay hospitals. The other effective instrument now available is the hospital advisory service, which to some extent is the kind of thing the noble Baroness is asking for, a body of independent people to report directly to the Secretary of State on conditions in mental hospitals, and now also hospitals dealing with old people.
LORD GRENFELL: My Lords, I feel I should say one word on this very tragic occasion. With the noble Lord, Lord Amulree—and I know that my noble friend Lord Aberdare would agree—may I say that the great majority of nurses and all who work in hospitals give the greatest wonderful loving care to their patients, and I should not like it to be thought that I should sit in this House without paying that tribute. I have not yet had a chance to read the report, but may I ask my noble friend whether there was by any chance—and I do not mean this in a difficult way at all—any criticism of the medical side in this one hospital? There would appear to be no mention of that but a good deal about the nursing. I think this is important. Perhaps my
38
noble friend could just say whether there was any such criticism.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. Perhaps it would be best if he reads the report. Indeed there was criticism of both medical and nursing administration.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, I would also take the opportunity of that king the noble Lord for reputing this Statement and paying tribute to the devotion of the vast majority of the nurses engaged in the care of long stay mental patients, and adding a word of tribute to the energy with which his right honourable friend seems to have followed up the publication of this report. Since the Manchester Regional Hospital Board bears some degree of blame for the existing conditions in this hospital, may I ask whether any changes have taken place or are contemplated in the personnel of the Manchester Regional Hospital Board? The local hospital management committee have been invited to retire as whole. Have any individual members of the Regional Hospital Board been invited to retire or is it intended to inject some more active members into this Hospital Board who will concern themselves with the state of affairs in this and other longstay mental hospitals? Would it not allay local uneasiness to some extent if something of this nature were done?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I would advise the noble Lord to lead the report. The recommendation of the Committee was that the hospital management committee should be asked to resign, and although certain criticism was made of the Regional Hospital Board I do not think it would be appropriate to go so far as the noble Lord was Suggesting, to replace anybody.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, although I have not had time to read the report there are two questions I should like to put to my noble friend on one aspect which I have studied. First of all, has any action been taken with regard to visiting hours? The report of the restrictions on visiting hours se ms to me to be a particularly disturbing aspect. If nothing has been done could something be done quickly? Secondly, there is mention made of a recommendation to sell some of the market gardens. Many of these hospitals do not possess such

39
valuable assets. Can my noble friend say anything about what is being done or is contemplated on this score?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I cannot give him a straight answer on either of those questions. They would be matters for the new hospital committee, who I am sure will pay due attention to the recommendations of the Committee.

EMERGENCY POWERS ACT 1920
4.10 p.m.
Debate resumed on the Motion to continue in force the Emergency Regulations 1972.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, if we may now resume the debate on the Emergency Powers I would first of all take up the reference made by the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, to the concern which he felt, and which many of us share, about the shadow that has been cast on our standing abroad by this serious dispute in the country. But, equally, it is only right to say that it has been a matter for some congratulation by reason of the most public-spirited manner in which the nation has responded and has accepted in a remarkable way the sacrifices which it has been called upon to make. In fact, somebody said to me the other day that it is almost like getting back to wartime conditions; and we know what that means, when London and the big cities get down to it.
I do not wish to range widely to-day, as the noble Lord, Lord Champion, wished to do. I do not want to cover the whole subject, and I do not want to repeat the kind of debate we had on January 31. I do not wish to say anything which might adversely affect the propects of an honourable settlement of the miners' dispute. The Court of Inquiry, with commendable speed, is at work, and I do not want to jog backwards on this occasion. There will be occasions when we should look in depth at the gross miscalculations which appear to have been made in many quarters and try to learn the lessons of the situation in which we find ourselves.
There has been up to now a very great deal of sympathy with the miners' case; and particularly with the case of the
40
lower-paid worker in the mining industry. We support that. But we must not lose sight of the other horn of the dilemma; that is, what is best in the national interest. My noble friend Lady Seear said in the debate to which I have referred, held about a fortnight ago, that any settlement within the figures demanded by the miners is bound to trigger off demands for similar treatment from many other industries, and we shall then get back to a very uneasy square one. It might have been possible to treat the miners' case as a special case at the beginning, and to regard it as something which should not be followed by other industries; but we have been through this problem of inflation and what triggers off other inflationary demands if the norm is substantially increased in any one particular claim. As I say, I do not want to go into the merits of that. I do, however, want to demonstrate that while we still have very great sympathy with the miners' claim, it has to be looked at against the interests of the nation as a whole. I do not believe that any section of the community is entitled to inflict on the rest of the nation the sort of damage to the economy which we are facing at the present time. I say this with all sincerity. There comes a moment of time when the nation—and that is the Government—has to say: "Enough, and no more."
What concerns me as a Liberal is the way in which our picketing practices seem to be taking us down a very slippery constitutional slope. I believe we may get to the point where in handling demonstrators and pickets we shall undermine 'our traditional standards of law and order which are respected world-wide and are fundamental to the exercise of real democracy. I believe that we have seen a serious erosion of the rule of law. If I may say so to the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, I think he gave the impression, which is uncharacteristic of him, of a certain amount of complacency about picketing. It may not have been intentional. But there are not just a few instances. I believe that the way in which the picketing, which we dislike and which worries us, is developing is pretty widespread. It is not just one or two instances here and there. I believe that the right to peaceful picketing is an essential part of our general philosophy of

41
freedom; it has been hard won, and we must preserve it. But, equally, the right of the citizen to be protected by law, and the enforcement of the law to prevent violence, pestering or molesting, is a fundamental part of our general philosophy of freedom of the citizen. It is with the protection of these freedoms that I, as a Liberal, am particularly concerned. That is why I hope that Government will clarify the situation much further than they have done so far in the course of this debate.
I was frankly disappointed that the Home Secretary in another place yesterday, and the noble Earl the Leader of the House to-day, were not really specific about points which are worrying many people to-day. For instance, what are the instructions to the police in cases where, patently, pickets have molested and used violence on workers entering National Coal Board premises—for example, in Doncaster, and elsewhere? I do not think there is much doubt that there was pestering. People were spitting upon these young girls going in, and all the rest of it. What happened? What charges have been preferred? If charges have not been preferred, what is the philosophy behind not preferring charges in this case? Secondly (and this I do not understand from what has been said by either the Home Secretary or the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe), what is the law concerning the picketing of third-party industries, particularly when this results in supplies not getting through? I can quite understand, and support, the right of a reasonable number of pickets to persuade by peaceful means their fellow workers in the same industry. But what is the position when miners picket a power station and prevent supplies of essential commodities, such as hydrogen and special oils, from being delivered? Surely this is unlawful; and, if it is, how is it proposed to stop it?
The noble Lord, Lord Citrine, I believe, wrote the "Erskine May" of the trade union movement. It is a great work, and I think it is called Trade Unions and the Law.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, may I correct the noble Lord? That work was written by the noble Lord's son.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I am much obliged for the intervention and the cor
42
rection; it brings the work all the more up to date. In this particular work—and it is not the author but the work to which I wish to refer—the position is stated, as I understand it (the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, is an authority on this, and I hope he will correct me if I am wrong), that:
"Picketing will become unlawful if either the means or the object is unlawful".
And clearly, as I say, the way the female employees were reported as being treated must surely have been unlawful. Then the book goes on to say:
"Thus, if the object of the picketing is to induce breaches of contract, other than contracts of employment in contemplat on or furtherance of a trade dispute, it will be unlawful. To picket in this way can also be criminal."
The question I want to put to the noble Lord who is to wind up is this. Presumably the power stations have contracts for the supply of essential commodities. May I ask the Government why no charges have been made, or why instructions have not been given to, say, the police to enable the supplies to get through? Because what is happening to-day is surely a breach of contract which is preventing a third-party industry from carrying on its lawful business. I do not think it is any good saying, "Well, this is being prevented by peaceful picketing". On "The World at One" to-day a group of miners were asked what they were going to do about the lorries that were coming down to the power stations. They said, "We are going to stop them getting through, of course. What do you think?" This is obstruction. It cannot in my view be peaceful picketing. I should like clarification on this whole position of the third-party industry handling things which are not coal or the product of a mine.
I am told that in some places the police are actually stopping delivery lorries in order to allow the pickets to talk to the drivers. Is this right? Is this within the law? Is this the sort of thing that ought to be going on? Because if it is, and if this is our philosophy bf picketing, I believe that we may find we get rid of the rule of law. It is also clear that if picketing is carried out in such numbers, or otherwise in such manner as to be likely to intimidate those subjected to it, or to obstruct or molest them against their will, it will be unlawful.

43
There must have been a good deal of that if the Press, television, and radio reports are correct. The book continues:
"Any show or threat of violence, or any other unlawful threat likely to create fear in the mind of a reasonable man makes picketing unlawful and may make it criminal."
There have been cases of that nature reported in the Press from day to day. My Lords, I believe that a vital constitutional principle is involved here. The Government of the day are charged with protecting the freedom of all citizens by seeing that the law is properly enforced, and I believe that the Government have not only miscalculated the potential gravity of this strike so far as the national economy is concerned, but that, instead of seeing that the law was enforced from the beginning, they may have done grave damage to our constitutional freedoms, and in my opinion this must be rectified.
Therefore, I ask the Government; what is the present law? To what extent has it been enforced? What instructions about picketing have been given to Chief Constables in the past few weeks by the Home Secretary, and particularly so far as third party industries are concerned? My Lords, I emphasise that this is not an attack upon the miners. I am asking what is the constitutional position here because I believe we are in danger of getting things out of perspective. If the Government do not enforce the law, every major strike will be aimed at stopping some third party industry, such as the power industry, from serving the public. This is the way to anarchy, and I want to know what the Government intend to do about it. Is it not time, for instance, that the Government had talks with the T.U.C. on the constitutional issues, on the way in which picketing has developed during the course of this strike? I believe that the damage which will he found to have been done to the continuous processing industries, some of which will have great difficulty in starting up again, will justify an immediate inquiry into the way in which the picketing system has developed. I would say to the miners that I hope they will call off their pickets while the Court of Inquiry is working. It surely cannot have any effect one way or another on a man of the integrity of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce. The miners, as Lord Champion has said, will get a fair and
44
impartial assessment from Lord Wilberforce because he is that sort of man, and I hope most sincerely that there will be a complete reconsideration of the lengths to which this country can go, particularly in the way in which picketing has developed recently in such an antisocial way.
4.23 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, I do not propose to follow the noble Lord, Lord Byers, on the question of what is and is not legal picketing. What I can say to him is that in my county of Nottinghamshire there has been very little trouble over this particular point. In fact it was reported in the local paper only yesterday that the Stay-thorpe Power Station had been shut down, pickets had been there during the whole of the stoppage but there had been no incidents and no disturbances. Peaceful picketing had been going on in that part of Nottinghamshire and evidently had been successful in bringing the working of the power station to a halt. As the noble Lord, Lord Byers, has said, this may be a constitutional issue, and it may be that in the future more will be said about it.
I want to follow the example of the previous speakers, so far as brevity is concerned, and I want to begin by saying that it has been my opinion over a long period of time that something must be done to make this industry—the coal mining industry—viable. Certainly since 1921, and possibly before that—although that is a long enough period to enable one to make a judgment—one can state categorically that the industry has never been out of debt financially. During the period from 1921 to the outbreak of the war in 1939, scores of millions of pounds were written off, presumably owing by the miners to the late coal owners. I have not the time this afternoon to go into the details of the circumstances which prompt me to make such an assertion, but I would submit to your Lordships that if you were to take the trouble to go into the district ascertainments which pertained between 1921 and the outbreak of the war you would find that the assertion which I have just made is by no means out of place.
In the month of June, 1970, the present Prime Minister said to the nation that if

45
the Conservatives were returned as the Government of the day, at a stroke prices would be reduced, as also would the figure of unemployment; and, further, there would be a better to-morrow. I do not know whether at that time the Prime Minister was suffering from a figment of the imagination or whether he had been looking into the crystal ball, or whether, as a seafaring person, Father Neptune had said to him, "Now look here, you have a good chance if you say so-and-so." But that is what the present Prime Minister said at that time. What is the picture to-day? During the past twelve months prices have not been reduced "at a stroke"; they have been increased by at least 10 per cent. The figure of unemployment has gone up almost 100 per cent. and the situation (which we all deplore) in which the nation finds itself to-day is hardly the kind of "better tomorrow" that was visualised in June, 1970.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Champion that during this crisis the Government have been guilty of ineptitude and incompetence, and, I would add, procrastination. I recall the Secretary of State for Employment saying quite non-chalantly in the other place during the first week of the stoppage, when it was being urged upon him to take some action that would bring the mining dispute to an end, "I cannot do anything. The only thing I can say is that the door of my Department is open". The matter was dismissed by him as flippantly as that. My complaint against the Government, so far as first the mining situation and now the general situation are concerned is that they are guilty of incompetence, ineptitude and procrastination.
May I say this about the present Prime Minister? I am disappointed at the silence that he has exhibited during the past six weeks. Last Friday he went to address a Conservative Party conference in Liverpool, and this was the first time from the date of the stoppage that he had even opened his lips. As I watched him on television my immediate reaction was that anybody who did not know who it was would think he was not a statesman but a private auctioneer. What he said to the mining community of this country was, "Take the money, cash down, accept the Inquiry
46
and go back to work ". And yet—and this is where the failing of the Prime Minister is so apparent—from the first day of the stoppage until last Friday he had never asked to see the leaders of the miners.
I am glad that the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, is here in his place this afternoon; he is a member of the Cabinet; he must be close to the ear of the Prime Minister. I would ask him to take this message back, because it is important: "Do not be so intransigent and so arrogant and so stupid. Even at this late stage it would not do harm, certainly psychologically, to call in the leaders of the miners." At this late stage he has to-day asked to see the President of the Confederation of British Industry), and the General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress. I do not complain about that; it is quite a good move, but I think it would have been much better had he called in those who are directly responsible in this dispute, that is to say, the miners' leaders.
My Lords, I said I would be brief. There are only two other things I want to say. I think that in the long term there are three alternatives facing the mining industry: number one the restructuring of its finances; number two, an increase in the price of coal; or number three, the continuing erosion of the miners' standards. Those are the three alternatives with which this country is confronted as regards the mining industry. Let me say about the last one that that is out, and I will say why in a moment or two. So far as the second is concerned, an increase in the price of coal, that would be very unwelcome by the nation. Some Government, if not this, has got to get down to the business of restructuring the finances of this industry and removing the millstone from around its neck which is mainly responsible for the trouble in which the nation finds itself to-day.
My closing words are these. I live in the coalfield, and these last three or four weekends I have made it my business to talk to the miners and their local leaders in Nottinghamshire. May I say this to the noble Lord who is to reply. In this industry I have had a long experience, but at no time have I seen greater determination on the part of the miners to refuse to have their standards

47
eroded. I want to talk as the miners are talking. There are thousands of them with their wives outside this afternoon, come to impress Members of the other place with the justice of their case. I had a talk with one miner and I mentioned to him, "You hear what they are saying about pit closures?". "Oh", he said, "pit closures, Bernard"—that is what they call me—"it leaves us cold, like pouring water on a duck's back". I said "You must have some reason for saying that." He said, "Oh, yes, for the past ten years they have closed 600 pits and have put nearly half-a-million miners, at any rate, on the roads. And you tell them this in London …". I am going to tell your Lordships what he said. I do not know whether to use the adjectives or not; it might not be appropriate in this place. There seems some dissent about it, so I will leave the adjectives out. "When you get to London tell them this: that as far as we are concerned, seeing that we have been so rewarded for our co-operation in the last ten years to make this industry viable, we have now reached a stage where unless we can have a standard of life comparable with the workers in other industries, commensurate with the dangers and the difficulties that we have to face, they can close the lot". That is the mood, that is the temper and that is the spirit of the miner at this time.
I am glad the Inquiry has been set up. I hope there will be a successful outcome. But may I say this, with no desire to cause any influence: that the miners are in no mood, believe me, to accept peanuts as part of the settlement of this dispute.
4.38 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, I shall be briefer than usual. During the weekend this Tory Government—and I use the word "Tory" deliberately rather than Conservative—have had a pasting in the Press from right, left and centre. Picking on picketing to excuse themselves, the Government have not convinced me, or many other people either. The extent of picketing should make one think not just of law and order but of law and equality in economic policies. To think of law and order in the rather superficial way that a great many people do is simply to evade the underlying
48
malaise in our society. Whether the newspapers have leaned more towards the miners' case or the Government's side, all have agreed that the Government have been insensitive, intransigent, incompetent and unprepared; and here I agree with my noble friend Lord Taylor of Mansfield.
From the day that this Government took office they have been what I can only call "manifesto mad". They keep referring to their little blue book of election promises—superficial slogans. They are steadily discovering that governing is not the same as electioneering and they have alienated half the population of this country. By resisting increased wage demands and at the same time disclaiming a prices and incomes policy they have wielded an "incomes without prices" policy which rests on increasing unemployment. There is an irony about their policy of limiting wage demands in the public sector, for here the Right-Wing Tories are conceding the argument of the Labour Left, who maintain that a Government can regulate the economy more easily through the public sector in the interests of the whole community. But this must not be interpreted as holding down wages in the public sector while leaving the private sector to ignore the exhortations of the Government and allocate wage increases far higher than those asked for by the miners. The recent increases made by Chrysler and British Leyland are examples of this.
Gentlemanly disengagement has been the order of the day in the miners' dispute. Mr. Ezra, the Coal Board's chairman, has sounded rather like a ventriloquist's dummy—the Government denying any intention of bankrupting the Coal Board while they were in the process of bankrupting it. Mr. Carr and Mr. John Davies should have staged a "sit-in" at the Mineworkers' Union headquarters and not left until they had hammered out a settlement. Here I again agree with my noble friend Lord Taylor of Mansfield when he suggests that the Prime Minister might have joined them there, too. Even if a settlement had not been achieved, it might have taught them something about the facts of life, and about the industrial state of the nation and the grievous feelings of injustice that many trade unionists are labouring under.

49
This weekend the Sunday Times came out strongly for the Government, saying why they thought that the miners must not win. It was a very unstatesmanlike headline. They would have done better to reprint an article by their labour correspondent, Hugo Young, written during the power workers' dispute about a year ago. This article, which I re-read the other day, is prophetic in its analysis of our industrial troubles and their misguided handling by the Government. The article stated that it looked at issues beyond the power cuts, and accused the Government of engaging in policies of "divide and rule". This is as true today as it was over a year ago.
Mr. Heath's ambition to change the course of history—as he proclaimed when he was returned—will spell disaster if he does not couple this ambition with a change in the social order. The Government's dogmatic economic policies as the Guardian pointed out a few days ago, have so far failed to deliver success. These emergency measures, necessary as they are, are a monument to their failure, for we shall have everything in months to come: we shall have inflation; we shall have high prices; and we shall have high unemployment. Finally, I should like to wish the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, success in his Inquiry, and hope that pride and prestige, two of the most dangerous components of politics to-day, will not prevent a successful outcome to this tragic strike.
4.45 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, on the case for the miners for greater remuneration I do not propose to say anything at all, because that is a subject that has been referred to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, and his Court. I believe that noble Lords in all quarters of the House are glad of that and do not think that it would be very profitable to discuss that topic—certainly not for somebody without direct knowledge of the industry. The matter on which I am going to address the House is a matter of law. Here may I say with what pleasure I heard the noble Lord, Lord Byers, because I propose to address the House on precisely the same topic.
It is generally admitted in all quarters that in the events that have happened
50
picketing has played an extremely important part. Was this picketing legal? My Lords, it is my submission that a large part of the picketing that has taken place has been quite plainly illegal. The authorities that I shall quote are, I think, authorities that the House will respect. They are the Report of the late noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, and the two modern cases decided in the courts that the Donovan Report itself cited.
What are the purposes for which picketing is authorised under Section 2 of the Trade Disputes Act 1906? They are expressed thus: the attendance must be—and now I come to the actual words—
"merely for the purpose of peacefully obtaining or communicating information, or of peacefully persuading any person to work or abstain from working."
Those are the two purposes for which alone that section of the Act of 1906 provides: peacefully obtaining or communicating information, or peacefully persuading. For the reasons given in the Donovan Report in paragraph 872, sometimes the pickets are entitled to have the first purpose only—namely, communicating information—but in order to simplify matters for the House on this occasion I shall assume that in all the recent cases of picketing the pickets would have had as possible legitimate aims both those purposes.
The two modern decided cases are these—and I shall give their legal references in order that they may be followed up by anybody who is concerned to ascertain the law—Piddington v. Bates, reported in [1960] 3 A.E.R. at page 660, and the more recent case of Tynan v. Balmer, reported (as to the proceedings in the Crown Court of Liverpool) in [1965] 3 A.E.R. at page 99, and in the Divisional Court of Queen's Bench in [1966] 2 A.E.R. at page 133. Of those two decisions of a modern Divisional Court, that in 1960 was a decision of the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Parker of Waddington, and the more recent decision of Tynam v. Balmer in 1966 was the decision of the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Parker, and Mr. Justice Sachs and Mr. Justice Widgery, as they then were. These decisions make the present law perfectly clear in certain respects. I am going to

51
state some of their effects, and I am very glad that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is here so that he can correct me if he thinks I am going wrong.
The first thing that is absolutely clear is that the police can limit the numbers of pickets. Let me read what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, said, about the Piddington case. He said:
"Two recent cases on section 2 of the Act of 1906 might be mentioned. In Piddington v. Bates"—
and then there is the reference that I have given—
"a police constable told Piddington, a would-be picket, that the two existing pickets at the particular entrance to the employer's premises were enough."
Three would be too much. He stopped a third and that gave rise to the case. It was held that the police constable was right. It is equally clear from these decided cases, even if it was not before, that obstruction and intimidation are unlawful and that the pickets have no right whatever to use force to stop either a pedestrian or a vehicle, if the pedestrian or the man driving the vehicle does not wish to stop. These scenes, in which men crowd around vehicles and try to push them back, have no resemblance whatsoever to peaceful picketing—none whatsoever. Nor by any stretch of the imagination can they be brought within that sphere. The fact is that the mass picketing recently practiced making it physically impossible for people or vehicles to get through, derives no authority whatsoever from the law as laid down in 1906.
The noble Lord, Lord Byers, in his admirable speech, asked one or two rather difficult questions which I think would need a good deal of consideration by a lawyer. But the main points he made were, I thought, crystal clear and absolutely right; that the law has been ignored and contravened to a very large extent. Let me make it quite clear that here I am not accusing the leaders of the National Union of Mineworkers of bad faith. I think some of them are as mistaken about the law of picketing as many other people who ought to know better. What I am suggesting is that the National Union of Mineworkers—and the men who lead them, I feel sure, are not
52
indifferent as to whether or not they are obeying the law—should study what the noble Lord, Lord Donovan, has said in his Report and the two cases which I have ventured to quote. Does the noble Lord wish to interrupt?
LORD BESWICK: I did not really want to interrupt, my Lords. But is there not an even greater obligation upon the Government to state what the law is at the time?
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I am not a member of the Government, and what the Government do is for the Government to decide. I am stating bona fide, with such legal knowledge as I have, in the presence of the Lord Chancellor whom I ask to correct me if at any point I go wrong, what I believe the law to be. I advise the leaders of the National Union of Mineworkers to study what Lord Donovan said and to study, above all, the two legal cases that I have quoted. May I read in passing, because it is rather interesting, what Lord Donovan himself said on the subject of mass picketing, because there were people who wanted him to recommend an alteration of the law that would permit mass picketing. It may be useful to remind your Lordships in a few sentences of what Lord Donovan himself said, and I think I am right in saying that in this paragraph he was speaking for all his colleagues, including Mr. Woodcock of the T.U.C. This is what Lord Donovan said about mass picketing in paragraph 874 of his Report:
"The T.U.C. asked that Section 2 be amplified so as to permit communication by pickets with a person 'whether that person is in a vehicle or on foot'. There is, however, at present nothing in the section to preclude this. The Society of Labour Lawyers went further and suggested that a limited right should be given to pickets to stop vehicles so as to communicate with the drivers, due regard being had to other users of the highway. It seems to us, however,"—
and here he was speaking, as I said, for all his colleagues—
"that it would be impossible to define such a right in terms which would avoid considerable obstruction to the highway and serious risk of personal injury to the pickets themselves. Others urged that 'mass picketing' should be protected by the law. It is not clear, however, why mass picketing is required simply to communicate information, and the advocates of this proposal did not suggest that they desired it for any other purpose than

53
to demonstrate solidarity, which can be done equally well by other means."
I thought it well to remind the House of those words of Lord Donovan because they show that this question of giving further legal protection to the mass picketing from which we have recently suffered was considered by the Donovan Commission and deliberately and unanimously turned down.
There is only one further point which I might make in self-defence. It may be asked: "Why did you not suggest making the law clearer on this subject when the Industrial Relations Bill, now an Act, was passing through this House?" The answer is perfectly simple: I did. On June 8, 1971, the picketing clause—there was not very much in the Bill about it—came before this House in Committee. I expressed my regret that Her Majesty's Government had not thought fit to deal with the effect of the two decided cases that I have cited this afternoon and which were cited in the Donovan Report itself. Those cases showed what limitations could be imposed by the police under the existing law, through the control of numbers and so on. May I quote my actual words? I said:
"My criticism of the Government in regard to this clause is that it is a great pity that, by omission, they do not mention any of those limitations defining what the police can legitimately do on the basis of the decided cases."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8/6/71 col. 119.]
It is just conceivable that there are members of the Government who now think that that was not a bad suggestion. That Industrial Relations Bill, now an Act, was not a short one. Surely it was worth while stating in clear language what was the law of picketing.
My Lords, let me conclude by saying this. With the noble Lord, Lord Byers, I hope that nobody will say that the law does not matter. Our national and international reputation, as well as our economic recovery, depend on our recovering our respect for the law, and obeying it.
5.0 p.m.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, I apologise to the House for being absent for a while during this debate, but I was called out by the miners and their wives, who are demonstrating in another place: and I may tell the noble Lord who preceded me that I was peacefully picketed
54
by the hundreds of miners and their wives who are lobbying their M.P.s in the Lobbies. Of course, the picketing here will not interfere with any production that affects our economic life.
My Lords, the Declaration of Emergency and the Regulations before us were bound to come as time went on because stocks were bound to be run down and. at the same time, no coal was being produced. There are some 150 electricity stations on coal, and they are responsible for nearly three-quarters of our electricity supplies. If this strike is not settled they will slowly be stopped altogether because there cannot be much coal left at the stations. The undistributed stocks cannot be moved unless, by these Regulations, the Government intend to use the Forces of the State to do it. If that happens it will bring about a state of affairs that no one wants to see. All that the miners wish is for this dispute to be settled in an orderly way that will give them a reasonable wage. It should be remembered by the Government also that what undistributed stocks there are will be needed to keep the stations going when this dispute is settled, and it will take two to three weeks to get the pits going again.
I would advise the Government that these Regulations must not be used as a weapon for breaking the strike or the miners, because we have memories of these Regulations in the 1926 dispute. On the other hand, I recognise that the Government have a great responsibility to see that power goes to the hospitals, to the water and gas industries and to the railways; and also to see that old people get heat. In respect of coal to hospitals and the aged, the miners have helped and will help all they can in these two cases. But the House of Lords should remember that there are many old people who can get coal but who have not got the money to pay for it on the meagre pension that they are receiving.
This still means that electricity will go on ration, causing an upset to family life and to industry. These controlled black-outs will affect 7 million domestic, commercial and industrial users, and if the weather gets worse power supplies will he cut further. Under these Regulations the Government can order a complete shutdown of power to non-essential industries for as many days as they consider

55
proper. So the situation this House faces is of factories facing a shutdown as power stations' coal stocks dwindle and electricity dies out, and homes being without light for long periods. As I see the picture, it is apparent that we shall be witness to the largest industrial crisis that has been seen for years if this dispute is not settled. Are the Government going to face a shutdown and a crisis that is so unnecessary? Within the financial limits of the N.C.B. they say they cannot afford more money, and so the Inquiry takes place—and the union has decided to give evidence. It will take at least a week, and then it may take another week to get the men's decision if the decision of the court is worth putting to them. It is only the Government who can come to the rescue. Many projects enjoy State support: why not coal? It is still an asset to the nation.
In my last speech to the House I dealt at some length with the N.C.B.'s financial structure, and I now find the Minister for Industry, of the Conservative Party, saying that the Government have now come to the same conclusion. In closing the debate in another place last week, on February 8, he said:
"It is, I think, common knowledge that the whole question of the board's financial structure has been in the air for some time, and, obviously, we shall have to give careful thought to the prospects of viability now before it. But first, of course, the strike itself has got to come to an end."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 8/2/72; col. 1263.]
So at last the Government are recognising that the financial structure is as I illustrated it to the House last week. That is why the miners have objected to these accounts being used as an argument to deny to the men in the coal industry reasonable wages; and that is why we say that their 7 per cent. wages policy in the nationalised sector cannot be accepted, and that it has created the present position.
It must be realised by all that this crisis lies squarely on the Government's shoulders. The Government began by misjudging what would be the economic effect or the economic impact of this strike; secondly, they misjudged the determination of the miners; and, thirdly, their interference by laying down a 7 per cent. increase for the nationalised industries while leaving the private sector free
56
to negotiate higher wages was bound to lead to industrial warfare. Why, even last week the Chrysler men were settled at £6 a week, and the Government could do nothing. Their lavatory attendants now get £33 a week, and Chrysler will merely increase the price of cars to meet the situation. But the miner, in the hard, laborious work that he does, must be tied by the Government's norm.
If this strike is not settled sharply it is going to have serious effects on the economy. Unemployment, now over a million, is going rapidly upwards and will take a long time to reverse; and output, which we expected to rise in the economy, will take much longer. The longer this strike goes on the more will feelings get harder and the men get more embittered. The men are 100 per cent. solid, and so are their wives. You only have to go among them, as I do every weekend, to understand their attitude. It is they, the wives, who are behind their men in this fight for wages. I recognise, as I said, the difficulties of the Government, but they have been created by themselves. These Regulations will not break the determination of the men, even if they are used in a vicious way.
My Lords, in the light of the Prime Minister's speech at Liverpool on Friday, miners are asking "How can the Inquiry be impartial, free and unfettered, after this speech by him?" It was an untimely speech to be made just before the Inquiry starts its work. Neither side are bound by any decision that the Inquiry gives; and we want a settlement; but the speech by the Prime Minister again gives the impression that the Inquiry will be governed by Government dictates. Can an assurance be given that the Inquiry now taking place will not be subject to the 7 per cent. or 8 per cent. norm on wages fixed by the Government for the nationalised industries?—for if this is not given there cannot be much hope of a settlement.
Peaceful picketing is within the law, and in most parts of the country it has been done without incident. In others, there have been incidents and provocations. I have done a lot of picketing in my time and it is not an easy job, especially in an acute crisis like this. All I would ask is that the Government request the police to be tolerant towards the pickets and for the pickets to carry

57
out their job within the law. While we know that at all times the police have to maintain public order, I think that their job was made very difficult by the provocation at the Saltley Gasworks at Birmingham last week; and terrible indignation was created among my people by one of the miners' pickets being killed. He was buried last week. All that one can do here is to ask the police and the men to be tolerant towards each other where picketing takes place. I would ask the Government to have the same sense of responsibility that the miners and the police have been exercising at 95 per cent. of the coalfields and in getting out the supplies to hospitals and needy cases.
My advice to the Government under these Regulations is not to bring any troops into this dispute. Our troops in Ireland have a hard job between the two sections of the population. The last thing I want is to see them used between the miners and the Government in this dispute—because the miners have long memories and we still remember Featherstone and Tonypandy when they were used against us pretty ruthlessly. To bring troops into this dispute will create more bitterness than that which exists to-day.
The announcement by the Minister of Trade and Industry last week means a massive increase in the unemployment figure which will rise from one and three-quarter millions to two and a quarter millions—that is including the pre-dispute figure of one million unemployed. The Minister also stated that there will be sterner cuts if the situation gets worse, and until this dispute is settled I cannot see its getting any better. Industrialists are perturbed as they try to grasp the implications of the Government's emergency measures. The steel, car, shipyard, repairing yards and engineering industries are already affected. The cost of it all in money is far more than is needed to meet the request of the miners for a reasonable wage. No one can say that the position we are in now was not foreseen. Warnings were given to the Government weeks and weeks ago; yet nothing was done to appreciate the gravity of the situation. The miners want a settlement—which is probably harder to get now than it was five weeks ago. My sincere desire is that Lord Wilber
58
force by his Inquiry can break this deadlock and settle the matter. The greatest industrial crisis we have had for many years faces the nation, and the total responsibility for it rests squarely on the shoulders of the Government. They did nothing for four weeks while this strike went on. The miners do not want to see the country in danger; they are ready to work once they are given a wage on which they can decently keep their families.
My Lords, in conclusion I would appeal to the Tribunal to give the matter the utmost urgency to bring about a settlement in as quick a time as possible. I hope also that their decision will convince the miners that at last they have got justice and that the country will not have to endure the present agony a moment longer than is necessary. Because the Government have played such a part in these negotiations as to have brought the nation to this crisis, I shall vote against the Motion tonight.
5.17 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF ST. MARYLEBONE): My Lords, the course which the debate has taken probably places me under an obligation to intervene at this stage. I must first say how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, who according to the list of speakers was to have spoken next and who has kindly indicated that he has no objection to my intervening at this particular point of time. I think that my need to address the House at this stage arises out of the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and of my noble friend Lord Conesford. I also fully accept from the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, who intervened at one stage, that it is the obligation of someone on behalf of the Government—and, if anybody, then probably the Lord Chancellor—to give some indication, where it is possible, of what the law may be on this topic. May I say, in passing, that I had not intended to speak as your Lordships will have noticed from the list of speakers? That was quite deliberate. We are discussing the Regulations and the Emergency which has given rise to them. I would think that, strictly speaking, what the House would wish to discuss was, first, whether an emergency did exist and, secondly, whether the Regulations were in order.

59
Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Byers, in what I thought was a notable contribution to the debate—and in that respect I endorse fully the words of eulogy heaped upon him by my noble friend Lord Conesford—raised the question of the lawfulness of some of the things being done. So did my noble friend Lord Conesford, in his own speech which I should also like to praise for the accuracy of many of the things in it. There is obviously a danger in my intervening on the legal side of the matter because, as I learned from my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and as I noted from his speech in another place yesterday, arrests have been made, charges are pending, and the courts will have to rule upon them. I therefore do not want to say anything this afternoon to your Lordships, or to anyone else, which could possibly prejudice the outcome of legal proceedings before the courts. Therefore, in the nature of things what I have to say must be confined to some extent to generalities and certainly should not be taken as referring to any particular case, whether or not noble Lords think they have seen it on the television screen. Because such a case might be the subject of judicial proceedings, it would be still improper for me, whatever other noble Lords may be free to do or say, to say myself anything which could conceivably prejudice those proceedings.
With that by way of premise, perhaps I may approach this subject with suitable caution. Almost every generalisation that one chooses to make about this subject probably needs qualification. The Common Law on the subject is not altogether plain. What is plain is that there are two statutory enactments now in force; namely, the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875, of which the relevant section is Section 7, and the Trades Disputes Act 1906, of which the relevant section is Section 2. Both of these Acts have a bearing on the subject under discussion. There is also a third enactment the relevant part of which is not yet in force, but which comes into force on February 28—the Industrial Relations Act. That Act, which will be comparatively fresh in your Lordships' memory, also has a bearing on one of the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, though not, I think, on the questions raised by my noble friend
60
Lord Conesford. So that really, except in so far as there exists a somewhat imprecise Common Law on the subject. what one has to consider is two enactments, and only two, now in force; namely, the Act of 1875 and the Act of 1906.
The Act of 1875 (apart from its other provisions, with which I will not weary the House) differs from the Act of 1906 in this respect. The Act of 1875, by Section 7, renders certain acts unlawful, whereas Section 2 of the Act of 1906 renders certain acts lawful. While, therefore, I wholly agree with the interpretation put upon the Act of 1906 by my noble friend Lord Conesford, with which alone he dealt, there should be added the qualification that the section which he quoted legalises something which might or might not have otherwise been illegal. The Act of 1875 renders something illegal whether or not it might otherwise have been legal. It is important to bear that in mind, in view of what I am going to say.
I will not weary the House by reading the entire sections. I absolutely agree with my noble friend Lord Conesford that an extremely good semi-popular exposition of this subject is contained in the Donovan Report, at page 227, under the heading "Picketing". This is easier for the layman to read than Citrine's Trade Unions and the Law, which is a book for lawyers, and indeed the leading textbook on the subject. For those who wish for an intelligent layman's point of view, I would recommend Donovan as being a slightly easier, though not necessarily more accurate, exposition of the matter.
The Act of 1875, as I have said, renders certain acts illegal which might or might not have been legal up to that point. One of those acts is:
"To use violence to or intimidate such other person or his wife or children, or to injure his property."
The second is:
"Persistently to follow such other person about from place to place.'
A third is:
"To hide any tools, clothes or other property owned or used by such other person or deprive him of them, or hinder him in the use thereof."

61
Then, fourthly:
"To watch or beset such other person's house or place of work or business or the approach thereto."
And fifthly:
" To follow such other person with two or more other persons in a disorderly manner in or through any street or road."
The whole of those acts are rendered illegal. The Act provides that it is unlawful for any person to act in those manners
"wrongfully and without legal authority and with a view to compelling another to do or not to do any act which that other had a legal right to do."
Clearly, in the case supposed by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, in the ordinary case where a gas company, for instance, is seeking to perform a contract to sell coal or coke already in their possession and on their own property to some third party, they and persons acting under their authority have a legal right to sell and deliver that coal or coke, and therefore they would come within the phrase which I have just quoted from the Act of 1875; and to do any of those acts which I have enumerated in relation to them or their servants might therefore come within the words of the section if the evidence was such as to bring them within those words. So much for the Act of 1875.
The Act of 1906, as I said before, is not an Act which illegalises anything (if I may coin a horrible and un-English verb) it renders something lawful. My noble friend read parts of this Act. but he did not make it absolutely plain; and to this extent, and this extent only, I thought his exposition was defective. The Act begins with the words:
"It shall be lawful for one or more persons, acting on their own behalf or on behalf of a trade union or of an individual employer or firm in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute"—
and those words are material, because it must be in contemplation of a trade dispute or in furtherance of a trade dispute before the section bites, and there have been some recent decisions in which those words have been construed by the court which might have a bearing on the question posed by Lord Byers—
" to attend at or near a house or place where a person resides or works or carries on business or happens to he. if they so attend merely for the purpose of peacefully obtaining or
62
communicating information, or of peacefully persuading any person to work or abstain from working."
Of course, when your hear somebody like the noble Lord, Lord Blytan, who has just spoken to the House, talking about "peaceful picketing", teey are really using a perfectly legitimate form of shorthand to refer to that section. But it is not true that everything that you do which is peaceful and which you choose to call picketing is legalised by hat section, because what you have to look at in order to ascertain whether it is legal or not is not the perfectly legitimate shorthand that we use in conversat on, but the actual words of the section.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, is not the noble and learned Lord now saying something which might prejudice, my case on the subject of picketing coming before the courts?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think so at all. I was asked to expound the general law on the subject, and I am trying to do it for the information of the House. Of course, if at any moment I were to say anything which reflected on an individual case, I should immediately seek to qualify it. But, so far as I know, I have said nothing which any judge, jury or counsel could possibly treat as influencing any individual case which is now sub judice or is likely to become sub judice in the course of this dispute. If I am wrong I hope to be rebuked, but I am fairly confider t that I am right.
That said, it follows that m" noble friend is right. In order to claim the advantage of the section of the 1906 Act, a person must establish that what he was doing was in contemplation or furtherance of a trade dispute; and in the case of Cousins v. Torquay Hotels he failed to do so. There was one other case, called Stratford v. Lindley, in which the point was raised and was equally unsuccessful from the point of view of the union. Then a person seeking to rely on the section has to show tint what he was doing, if it comes within the description of the action. was merely—that is the crucial word—for the purpose of peacefully obtaining or communicating information or of peacefully persuading any person to work or to abstain from working.

63
My noble friend Lord Conesford, absolutely correctly, drew the attention of the House to two cases on which Lord Donovan's Commission rightly placed emphasis in their exposition of the law. The first was Piddington; and Piddington clearly establishes the point I was seeking to make a moment ago: that in order to claim the advantage of the section you must look at the words of it and not use a shorthand phrase like "peaceful picketing", because your Lordships will remember from my noble friend's exposition that in that case there were only two persons picketing, and what Piddington sought unsuccessfully to do, for which he was arrested, was to make a third. I quote from Lord Donovan's exposition at the bottom of page 229:
" There was no obstruction of the highway, no violence and no disorder."
In other words, what Piddington did could be, within the meaning of those phrases I have just read out, described as "peaceful". He was none the less held to be outside the law because the police constable who stopped him was reasonably justified in expecting a breach of the peace unless he thinned out the picket line. Piddington was convicted of obstructing a police constable in the execution of his duty contrary to the Prevention of Crimes (Amendment) Act 1885. In other words, he was not able to claim the benefit of Section 2 in that case, and equally he was guilty of an offence not under the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875 but under the general Statute Law relating to crimes which applies to everybody. So much for Piddington, to which my noble friend referred.
He also referred to the case of Tynan v. Balmer in which, again, the facts are extremely material to the question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Byers. In this case, 40 pickets outside the main entrance to a factory moved about in a continuous circle, thus obstructing vehicles and pedestrians. Yet there was no violence—again, something that could perfectly well be described as "peaceful" in the ordinary use of the word. Tynan, who was in charge of the pickets (he was the party who gave his name to the case), was asked by a constable to stop the circling, but refused. He was arrested and later convicted by a magistrate for
64
wilfully obstructing a police constable in the execution of his duty. The conviction was upheld in the Crown Court at Liverpool and in the Court of Appeal. It was held that the powers of the police to interfere with picketing were not confined to cases where a breach of the peace was feared, that the circling was not justified by Section 2 of the 1906 Act and that the circling was an unjustified obstruction of the highway. In other words, what rendered that act illegal, apart from the law relating to the obstruction of the police, was the obstruction of the highway—another factor which is illegal under the general law and not under the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875. That was held to be illegal and, so far as I know, that is the law at the present time.
It follows therefore that if by sheer numbers you seek to stop people getting somewhere where they have a right to go, this is not peaceful picketing within the meaning of Section 2 of the 1906 Act, because what is sought then is not to convey information or the like but to physically obstruct people from doing a thing which they have the right to do. Secondly, sheer numbers and threats of violence or noise can be intimidation. I do not say that they are in any case which has occurred or is likely to occur. I merely say that sheer numbers and threats of noise or violence, so as to put reasonable men in apprehension that they will not be allowed to enter somewhere without paying a penalty which they arc not liable to pay and to do that which they have a legal right to do, is not something which is sanctioned by the law.
I am not going to give a direct answer to the third question which was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, because it is a more difficult one; that was about the contractual rights of third parties. I do not think I should be justified in giving a likely explanation there, except to say to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, that one of the reasons why we passed that section of the Industrial Relations Act last summer was because that part of the law is not altogether satisfactory or clear. I would rather, if I may, in my brief remarks this afternoon, steer clear of it altogether. Also, I am not in a position this afternoon to say what instructions, if any, my right honourable friend has given the police. That is a

65
matter for the Home Office. My noble friend Lord Windlesham is here to assist the House if he feels able to do so. All I have sought to do is to reply as clearly and accurately as I could to the invitation which was impliedly put out by the two noble Lords who have spoken, and expressly thrown out by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick. I must apologise for detaining your Lordships for so long.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down may I say how very grateful the House will be for his very important intervention. May I ask him when we are likely to get any clarification of this question of people who persuade other people to break a contract which has been entered into in good faith? I do not want an answer to that now, but when will this be clarified?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not want to fluff this in any way, but these are cases where one has to but these are cases where one has to fluff the answer deliberately. I do not want to burke this question, but the Lord Chancellor (and indeed in another place the Law Officer) is not a British law ascertainment tribunal, in the sense that he is entitled to prejudge the decisions of the courts. He is bound to assist the House of Lords, so far as his humble professional capacity enables him to do so, about the principles which are reasonably well ascertained; and that I have tried to do. I tried to do it this summer as to the possible effects of the section which we have enacted but which does not come into effect until February 28. But where the law is slightly obscure and depends very largely on a precise formulation of particular facts, I think it would be wrong for me to venture an opinion, and I might be treading on the ground which the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, suggested I might have been treading on a moment or two ago. I do not know that there are any cases which raise this point, but the only definitive answer which can be given to the noble Lord, Lord Byers, at this stage is that the courts must decide.
5.40 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I am sure the House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his interpretation from the Woolsack, but I
66
wish to point out something that the entire House seems to have missed. First, we have been talking about the Donovan Report in normal circumstances. What this House seems to have forgotten is that we are discussing these Regulations, giving emergency powers, and the entire statement (I have not been trained in the law, but I did some logic and semantics) of the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack seems to be changed by page 21 of the Regulations. Regulation 35 says, in simple, plain English language:
" Where a constable, with reasonable cause, suspects that an offence against any of these Regulations has been committed, he may arrest without warrant anyone whoa, he. with reasonable cause, suspects to be guilty of the offence."
So why all the talk?
LORD CHAMPION: That is fair enough.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Of course it is fair enough.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not think it is. My noble friend Lord Jellicoe dealt with this point in his opening speech. One of these Regulations (I have not been able to put my finger on it while the noble Lord has been speaking; but it is Regulation 21, I think) expressly says that this does not alter the law in relation to picketing; it does not impinge on it.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I would not be so arrogant as to contradict the noble and learned Lord directly; but in my estimation it does exactly what I said it does. Furthermore, we are now legitimising illegality of emergency powers. I do not want to delay the House; it is my intention to steak for about only four minutes. We have 50 or 60 Regulations: a man can run a car or lorry without a licence.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, would the noble Lord forgive me for one moment, if he will be patient enough? Where I failed before in putting my finger on it, what I was referring to is in Regulation 37. If the noble Lord looks at the proviso he will find that I was right.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, the House will be delighted that that clarification has come forth. I will leave

67
it at that because it would be obtuse of me to follow that point any further. I think I have made a case here that since we have had emergency regulations the whole matter is different. I want to warn the House, as somebody who remembers the great previous occasion of 1926, and before, that we are a different society from that of 1926, which was primitive. At that time we could cook on a coal fire; upsetting the electricity supplies did not interrupt the rhythm of life so much in the 1920s and in 1926 as the rhythm of life is upset to-day. Take the poor people who are living in 26-storey flats where the water has to be pumped upstairs. In other words, the impact of this type of strike is greater than ever before in our history.
With an intelligent and understanding Government we may be able to make this the last of the strikes if we approach the problem and do not play a game of political brinkmanship as the Government have been doing. I should have liked to take longer, but this House is a wise one and probably knows everything I am going to say. I want to spike down, en passant, this point: we must use the public services as a social shock absorber. Coal, transport, electricity, gas, are social shock absorbers. I accept that at the moment (although one day I think it will be changed) that they can be the floats upon which an intelligent, fair, private enterprise can he kept smooth and competitive. Even Churchill, 30 years ago, believed that it was legitimate to subsidise the railways to help industry. I wish the Government would look at these public enterprises in that light. I could quite easily make a 30-minute speech on that point; but this is such a wise and noble House that I am sure every Member present has grasped my point without me expanding on it.
I am objecting—and this point should be watched—to the snide asides at our people in the mining industry, about them lacking intelligence. They are as intelligent as any policeman. Some judges who have sat in this House and other noble Lords, and even bishops, have been sons of miners or, in some cases, have cut coal themselves. To attack any particular class of society for lack of intelligence, as apparently Kingsley Amis did the other day, is an
68
arrogant assumption of intellectuality. So many people oozing with intellectuality, oozing wisdom and lacking wisdom, do not help in a case like this. Consequently, I hope that this trial by television will cease. I feel quite strongly about this, and I am trying to control my emotions about it. Quite sincerely, I think that the interpretation that the noble and learned Lord gave from the Woolsack is necessary at this period in order that we may understand the position. I hope that in this emergency period those who appear on the television will control their remarks rather than cast forward things to get immediate applause or use the immediate catch phrase to arouse popularity.
I have cut my speech by about 99 per cent., and I will sit down now with this observation: no noble Lord in this House can justify the situation in an industry where, as in South Wales, there are nearly 80,000 miners who, after a week's work, can claim family supplements if they really wish to push their claim at the Ministry of Social Security. I thought that it was a good Act in which Sir Keith Joseph did a job of work when he introduced the family supplements provisions. I maintain that any system of society which allows 280,000 key men in the mining industry to he pushed into the position where 80,000 of their number in one part of the country alone, South Wales and its area, can ask for family supplements has something wrong with its scale of economic values. Consequently, without exacerbating the situation, I sincerely hope that we will try as soon as possible to settle this dispute and learn that we must look at this industry in a different light. Why did we send "Bevin boys" to the pits during the war? It was because of the hardness and difficulty of the job. Consequently, while this debate to-night has been a good one, and so far as I am concerned fairly conducted, I hope that noble Lords on both sides of the House will understand that those of us who come from country or mining backgrounds are not trying to overstate our case, but that the time has come when this industry should he treated justly.
5.48 p.m.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, may I utter a word of support for my noble friends on the Front Bench

69
who are moving this Motion for Emergency Powers? Let me say straight away to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, that I agree with the special case of the miners, but the question at issue is, "How much?" This is always the problem. One thing that we have all been able to agree about is that there is now a grave crisis and therefore emergency powers are needed. With some dialectical skill the noble Lord, Lord Champion, managed to differentiate his support for that from his intended opposition for the Motion itself. There is no doubt that it is the Government's duty to take every action needed to safeguard the life of the community, and that is what they are doing. As I understand it, particularly from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Champion, supported by many other noble Lords opposite, Her Majesty's Opposition are opposing the Motion because they claim that the fuel crisis was caused by the Government's mishandling of the situation. Let me say in passing that however this is differentiated, it is very unusual for the Opposition Party of the day to vote against giving emergency powers to a Government in a national crisis.
Let us face the issue in the present crisis. Clearly there has been fault—and probably there have been faults. Either they have been on the side of the National Coal Board, and possibly the Government, or they have been on the side of the National Union of Mineworkers, who called the strike. It is not difficult for both sides to recognise that. I must say to noble Lords opposite that in assessing the objectivity of their decision to charge the Government with this fault, to attack the Government for mishandling, we must record the fact that noble Lords opposite have decided throughout this disute that they will support the National Union of Mineworkers. I am not complaining about that; that is -for them to decide. I well understand the deep traditional loyalties on the other side and I listened with interest and respect to noble Lords who have worked in the pits and noble Lords who have been closely associated with them for many years. I well understand how deep and strong their feelings are, but noble Lords opposite, in opposing this Motion to-night and dividing against it, are doing no more than being consistent
70
to this loyalty that they have already declared. But they cannot expect to be regarded as impartial judges of the situation, and they will not be. In voting against the emergency powers they expose themselves to the charge of putting Party interests before national interests.
My Lords, there are two points specific, ally, and one major one, which I should like to touch on briefly in regard to the Government's handling of this dispute which has led to the present requirement of emergency powers. They are both unusual in an industrial dispute. The first is the National Union of Mineworkers' persistent unwillingness to negotiate at all in this dispute. This has been the rock on which our fuel supplies have now foundered. The second is the nature of the picketing, which has already been referred to. I regard it as very much a secondary issue, although it is obviously one which people feel very strongly about. Dealing with the first. the unwillingness of the National Union of Mineworkers to negotiate, it is significant and I think it is just worth repeating the course of events.
Since the strike started on January 9, the National Union of Mineworkers have stuck to their demand for full settlement which was an extra £5 to £9 per week. That would cost the National Coal Board an extra £130 million per annum, a sum which everybody must have recognised was impossible. I will quote specific instances. In the final negotiations, before the Union decided to call the strike, the National Coal Board offered to refer the dispute to the independent National Reference Tribunal and this was rejected. This has been especially provided under the coal mining industry conciliation tribunal. It was rejected. Secondly, during the course of the strike the General Secretary of the Trades Union Congress, Mr. Feather, made a determined effort to try to bring the two sides together and he failed. He said in his statement on January 19 that there was no prospect of doing so.
Finally, in the negotiations last week, the National Coal Board increased their basic offer by £1 per week to an extra £3 per week. It would have beer spread, it is true, over an 18-month period instead of a 12-month period, with certain other improvements. This would have raised

71
the national minimum wage for mineworkers to £22 per week for the lowest paid workers, and would have raised the national rating of the lowest paid workers and the national rating of mineworkers generally from 16th to 6th place in the national scale. This was also rejected. This, my Lords, really does show an extremely unco-operative attitude.
There are many unions in this country who can make out a case for special treatment. We have heard several in the last 18 months. Only 15 months ago we were deeply concerned about the case for what are called the "dirty work" workers in the public service. They have a special case. I will not take up your Lordships' time now, but I cannot forbear to say that I am connected with the farming world. The farm worker's statutory wage for a 42-hour week is £16·10. He has to work weekends as well. It is true that he gets overtime for that weekend work, but his final wage is far below the final wages being claimed here. Of course, he does not have a dirty, dangerous job like mining. I agree that the miner has a dirty, dangerous job and deserves recognition as a special case. The point I am making is that there is a limit, and it must be seen in the national perspective in order to judge what it should be. However strong the miners' case may be, no Government could have agreed to finance the wage increase concerned. Certainly the National Coal Board could not do it. If something of the order of an extra £100 million, which their final demand of some £7 per week would have amounted to, had been granted, this would have had to be financed by the Government, and any Government knows well from the history of recent years that this would have been the prelude to a procession of similar claims and we should have been back to square one with the raging inflation that we have experienced in recent years.
Normally, the leadership of the trade unions are willing to negotiate, and we can see throughout the national scene today leaders of unions who have negotiated recent wage levels at somewhere between 7 and 10 per cent. I would say that, in face of the National Coal Board's final offer, it was reasonable to expect that the National Union of Mineworkers
72
would agree to negotiate. For that reason alone I would reject the charge of the noble Lord, Lord Champion, that the Government should have acted sooner to take emergency powers in order to safeguard the nation's supplies. It is always difficult to decide what the right timing is. If the Government act too soon they may prejudice the chance of the union leaders coming to the negotiating table and negotiating a settlement.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, the point that the Government ought to have acted sooner did not relate to the emergency powers but related to the appointment of a Court of Inquiry which in my opinion could have been set up at least three weeks earlier.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, I am coming to the Court of Inquiry in a minute. Normally, fortunately for everybody, union leaders and employers, whether in the public or in the private sector, do manage to get around the table and do manage to settle these disputes by agreement.
Finally, a word about the nature of picketing. May I join in thanks to my noble friend the Lord Chancellor for his valuable and authoritative exposition on this difficult subject, and say also how much I enjoyed the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Byers, and my noble friend Lord Conesford? The measure of intimidation and violence employed by some pickets, particularly in interfering with workers and supplies at electricity generating stations, has undoubtedly significantly worsened the supply position and was not anticipated by Her Majesty's Government. It could not have been. The Government can hardly be criticised if they made any mistake on timing on this account.
To what extent this kind of picketing has occurred I am not prepared to express an opinion. We do not know. We know that some did occur, because we saw it, but I am prepared to accept that in many cases pickets behaved perfectly reasonably. In so far as there was any intimidation or violence, there was undoubtedly a breach of the law, and this was something the Government could not have expected. But we do know that the

73
effect has been that there are some 2 million tons of stocks of coal at the power stations which are now immobilised because the Generating Board has not been able to use them, either directly or because of shortage of the various supplements that are necessary in the use of this solid fuel. So, in regard to timing, I would urge that the Government's original estimate that the power stations had some eight weeks' supply of fuel—that was the statement they made on January 9—was probably not far out, if the extra two weeks are taken into account. In the light of these events, I maintain that Her Majesty's Government were right to give the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers a last chance to negotiate last week. And, in the light of the last offer made, I roundly say that I felt, and I believe a great many people felt, profound disappointment that the National Union of Mineworkers rejected it out of hand. In my opinion, the responsibility lies squarely on their shoulders and not on the Government's.
The one ray of light I welcome in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Champion, was his reference to the appointment of the Court of Inquiry. I join with him in welcoming it, and particularly in his welcome to our distinguished friend, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, as Chairman. Despite my criticism of the noble Lord's decision to go into the Division Lobby, I felt that his comments on the setting up of the Court of Inquiry, and the statement that he welcomed it, boded well; and I most earnestly hope that this implies that the Labour Party will use its influence with the National Union of Mineworkers to accept the Court's recommendation when it comes. Because at this moment in time, during an urgent fuel crisis, the issue at stake, as we all well know, is the life of the whole nation. The miners and their families are a very important part of the whole nation, but they are only a part of it and they must take second place to the interests of the whole. It is the Government's responsibility to protect the rights of our people against inflation, which has done so much harm in recent years—and here the Government are having a substantial measure of success—and equally, to protect the interests of the private citizen
74
and the nation as a whole against strong-arm methods by any section of the community against the rest. It is in that spirit, my Lords, that I urge your Lordships to go into the Lobby—I wish it would be unanimous—to support this Motion.
6.3 p.m.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, accused us of partisanship, and then accused the mineworkers of not wanting to negotiate. Here is a trade union which has not had a strike since 1926 It does not seem really, on the face of it, a union which does not want to negotiate and avoid strikes. Lord Nugent himself exposed his non-partisanship by saying that the miners should have submitted their claim to the Reference Board. He could not have read my speech on the miners' strike made a few weeks ago, because had he done so he would have seen that that Board consisted of I. retired civil servant who acted as a counsellor to a large company, with two members, one a publicity counsellor of another trade association, and a so-called academic whose bitterness against trade unions is well known. This is what the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, wants the miners to accept as an impartial body. Well, I congratulate him!
LORD NUGENT or GUILDFORD: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. Yes. I gave myself the pleasure of reading the noble Lord's speech, but I reached a different conclusion from his about the impartiality of this body.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I am quite sure that the noble Lord, Lord Nugent. was entirely guided by non-partisanship, while I am very partisan. I am partisan between good and bad.
My Lords, we are asked to approve emergency powers for this Government. In normal circumstances as their have been since the war, of course one would have granted these emergency powers as of right, on the nod. "Butskell' could have had it and "Gaitler" could have had it. But this is not a normal postwar British Government at all; this is something quite different. This is a Government which depletes the ranks of

75
the Judicial part of this House with extreme rapidity, exporting them to either coal Inquiries or Northern Ireland Inquiries. We have seen an exacerbation, indeed an escalation, in another part of this country as the result of ill-considered or non-considered steps of this Government. Can one be sure that the Government here will not follow their policy nearer to the capital? Britain was a pleasant country to live in until this Government came into power. It was a country which showed that Marx can be taken as an object of scepticism, not as a major describer of actualities. We had no class war or even class hostility in this country before this Government came to office. We now have both, and mainly thanks to the obstinate stupidity of the Prime Minister in extolling abrasive competition and positively favouring those who have against those who have not. The characteristic performance of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack shows with blinding clarity the cause of our difficulties. The lawfulness of picketing is irrelevant.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Lord may describe my intervention as characteristic but it was directly the result of an invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, among others, to state what, so far as I knew, on behalf of the Government, were the general principles of the law. That is all I did. If the noble Lord thinks I was inaccurate he is well entitled to say so, but I only responded to an invitation which came from three quarters of the House.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I stand corrected. But it is still irrelevant, I fear. It is irrelevant if we want to establish a society which can combine stability and full employment. If you want to have conditions in which we can securely go into the Common Market. or indeed exist outside, it is not by lawfulness or unlawfulness in this connection that we are going to get them.
The departmental structure is obviously absolutely hopeless. Ministerial control, as this case has shown. is almost nonexistent. Some of my friends have emphasised here the special case of the miners. of course the miners have a special case; but so were so many others. We had a special case even for the noble
76
and learned Lord on the Woolsack. His salary for being on the Woolsack was reduced by £1,500, but his overall salary went up quite nicely. The civil servants were a special case. Indeed, everybody is a special case. How can we, without a central body, without having a packaged deal on the national level, deal with these matters? Obviously what we are now having are demands for higher wages, and it is obvious that this will continue. Noble Lords may laugh but it is not a laughing matter; it is a tragic matter. However, I do not want to detain your Lordships now, because we are going to discuss these matters to-morrow. The only appropriate simile I can find to this sort of negotiation is that everybody is somebody and nobody is anybody. That is what is so tragic about it. In the rat race we are trying to catch up with each other and we end by imperilling the prosperity of the country. To-day I can only say that I cannot entrust this Government with these powers.
6.10 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, was correct in his assessment of the position: the Labour Party sides with the mineworkers; the Conservative Party, as exemplified in the course of the debate in the other place yesterday. sides with the Government. There is not the least doubt that noble Lords on the Conservative Benches opposite will also support the Government. That is how the matter stands.
We can deal with the merits of the coal dispute, and indeed that it partly the purpose of this debate. but there have been irrelevancies. The noble Lord. Lord Nugent, embarked on one such irrelevancy. He referred to the situation in the farming industry and compared it with the right rates of pay offered to the mineworkers. Is he not a little ashamed of the low wages paid to those associated with farming in the United Kingdom? If he is not ashamed it is obvious that the Conservative Party's policy, if it has the power, will be to depress the living standards of the workers of this country. Indeed, they embarked on this policy after the last Election.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, will the noble Lord be kind enough to give way for a moment? Certainly I would like to see the farm

77
workers' wages higher, but the last two wages increases which have been made—and they are statutorily controlled, as the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, will know —in January of this year and the previous January, in other words, while this Government have been in office, are the two biggest wage increases that the industry has ever had.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, no matter what the wage rates of the farming community are at present they are far too low, and any attempt to improve their living standards has been resisted over and over again by the farmers, many of whom sit on the Government Benches. But we are not discussing the wage rates of farmworkers; the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, embarked on a comparison and thus he provoked me into making this brief observation on that aspect of the subject.
We had a somewhat lengthy dissertation on the legal aspects of picketing. It may be that the generalisations—I use the term that was used by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—may Prejudice some of the cases that come before the court. Men engaged in picketing are accused of illegal or unlawful activity. but that may not be so in this case. In my submission, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, went pretty near the bone and I only hope that the judges who are empowered to try those cases will pay little or no attention to the observations made by the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack.
There is another observation I wish to make in this respect. If there is such anxiety to ascertain the facts relating to what is called "illegal and unlawful picketing", why did not the Law Officer in the other place say something on the subject? It may be that there was no request in the other place during the course of yesterday's debate for a lengthy (or even a limited) exposition of the subject. Why was it left to your Lordships' House? It was the noble Lord, Lord Byers, who raised the subject. What was the content of his speech. and indeed what was the purpose of it? Let us take the content of it first—"Ah, the millers deserve better treatment". Then said the noble Lord, Lord Byers, "Of course they do, but we cannot go too far". In other words, the miners should only go
78
just as far as the noble Lord, Lord Byers—an industrial tycoon—along with his associates, will permit. That is the situation. So he has indulged in the obvious diversion, if I may use an old expression which I am sure is familiar to the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack: if you have: lot got a case, abuse the plaintiff. So, if you have not got a case against the miners then attack them, in an indirect, oblique fashion, and refer to illegal picketing.
What is more, the noble Lord, Lord Byers. referred to violence, as ii violence had been general up and down the country throughout the coalfields. There is not a substratum of truth in that. Of course there has been picketing; men have been desperate and have been in conflict with the police. Many of the police have sought to restrain themselves. On the other hand, many of tie police have been under instructions from chief constables in various parts of the coalfields—and everyone knows w lat chief constables are: members of the county golf clubs: they go hunting, they mix with members of the Conservative Party and they do not care very much about the miners. I would like to know what their actual instructions were. But we will not discuss in this debate whether picketing is desirable or not, whether it is lawful or legal or not. That is not the subject. The issue is whether we can support the Government in the presentation of emergency powers.
In that connection I am going to make one preliminary observation. I want to say one thing and I hope that my noble friends on this side of the House will permit me to say it. But whether they permit me or not, I shall say it. It is the prerogative of any Government to introduce emergency powers. I have been a member of Governments that introduced emergency powers. The question is not whether the Government have the right, the prerogative, the privilege or indeed the responsibility of introducing emergency powers: the question is whether there is justification at any moment of time for undertaking that task. That is the issue.
What is this issue all about? The situation is that the miners say: "We want better rates of pay". They approach the National Coal Board, and the National Coal Board say: "We cannot afford it

79
but we will give you something". When asked: "What?" they say: "We will give you something that is equivalent to the norm"—stated over and over again by Mr. Heath and company, namely, seven point something per cent. That is what they said. The National Coal Board were carrying out their instructions. They have a case—the financial structure. Just look upon this typical situation. The Board add: "Moreover, if we increase the miners' wages the price of coal will go up", as though the price has not been going up all the time. If we take comparable rates per ton of coal in this country, the rates are enormous in comparison with what they were, not because miners' wages have increased but for a variety of other reasons, in particular including the quite appropriate efforts on the part of various members of various National Coal Boards to mechanise the pits, to rationalise them, to make them more effective, to introduce modern equipment in order to increase the manpower production of the men who are employed in the mines. They have done that. It costs a lot of money, and the National Coal Board, the present Board and Boards which preceded them, have had to pay high rates of interest on the capital invested by them, compulsorily invested by them, because without that investment it would have been impossible even to produce the coal that has been produced before this strike began. That is the situation.
The Government say the miners have been demanding too much, but in point of fact the Government now recognise, as indeed the country recognises, as indeed noble Lords opposite must recognise, that the miners have got a case for more than the National Coal Board offer. In point of fact the offer made by the National Coal Board was derisory. Why do I say that? Because now we are told the miners should accept what amounts to a £4 increase, a £22 minimum wage, a substantial increase beyond what the National Coal Board offered. So what was offered in the first instance was derisory. The case has been made out.
Then why emergency powers? Because there is not enough coal. But we are told there are 9 million tons of coal in the stocks and 4 million tons of coal
80
at the disposal of the Electricity Generating Board. Indeed we have been told from the start that it would be possible to avert anything in the nature of a stoppage or a blackout or a reduction in power, either in industries or for domestic purposes, because there was sufficient coal for eight or nine weeks. That was what we were told. And it was because the Government believed, or at any rate asserted—whether they believed it is beside the point—that there was sufficient coal for seven weeks that they were able to ignore the miners with the contempt which they indulge in when
it suits their purpose. That is the position. If the Government had believed that there was not more than four weeks' supply available, if the Government had believed that it would be impossible to go beyond three or four weeks without introducing emergency powers, if the Government had believed the miners would not take it lying down but act in some instances like desperate men, very often provoked into desperation, then the National Coal Board would have made a much more substantial offer.
But what did that mean? More inflation. I want to make another proposition which is a principle which I think ought to be acceptable to every Member of your Lordships' House. We ought to curb inflation if it is possible to do it, of course. Nobody likes inflation, any more than anybody likes emergency powers with all the consequences of emergency powers and an emergency situation. But consider what the situation is. Here we have a large section of industry under national control, operating by corporations, by boards. and here we have a large section of industry under private enterprise, private ownership. What is happening? Look on this picture and on that. Take the private section. The motor firm of Chrysler recently increased wages by £4 or £5 a week.
A NOBLE LORD: £6.
LORD SHINWELL: Maybe £6; at any rate, increases far beyond anything offered to the miners. The comparison of the kind of work undertaken, the hardships, difficulties and casualties, must be obvious to everybody. Indeed, in almost every sector of private ownership

81
in this country since the Government came in there have been substantial increases in wage rates leading to higher living standards, whereas in regard to the public sector they have been held down to a norm which the Government must know in their hearts is far less than those in the public sector are entitled to. So when we are talking about inflation, and the desire, which is wholehearted, universal, in this country to curb inflation, what are the Government doing? It makes the impact on those in the public sector. It may be said they have no responsibility for, no power over, those in the private sector. It was possible for them to go to C.B.I. and come to some arrangement for the purpose of restricting the rise in food prices and other prices to 5 per cent. Was it impossible for them to use their influence with the C.B.I. and those associated with the C.B.I. in order to curb inflation in the private sector, or were they afraid that it would lead to a series of industrial disputes? So on behalf of the Labour Party I say that the miners have got a case.
Now take this question of illegal picketing. There was a sense of unreality when the noble Lord, Lord Byers, the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, raised the matter. I shall tell noble Lords why. Because almost simultaneously with those speeches, indeed before those speeches had been delivered, even in the case of the noble Lord, Lord Byers, to say nothing of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, in the Evening Standard and the Evening News (and those are organs of unimpeachable veracity; they never tell anything but the truth) there was a declaration by Mr. Gormley to terminate mass picketing—nothing but peaceful picketing, indeed in certain parts of the coalfields no picketing at all. Why did Mr. Gormley say this? Because, he said, we have now got an Inquiry and we know that that Inquiry will result in a much more substantial wage than was offered originally by the National Coal Board. So where was the reality in all these dissertations and discussions about illegal picketing? It would be advisable for noble Lords before they make their speeches to go into the Library and read the newspapers or look at the tape,
82
as I did; they would discover that their speeches are unnecessary or completely irrelevant.
Where are we now? I shall tell your Lordships. We are back where we were in the last mining debate. Do not forget what was said on that occasion: we need a fuel and power policy. We have not got one—with electricity standing on its own head, gas standing on its own feet, coal in between, insecure, uncertain and told over and over again, "We do not know how long you are going to last". The workers of the coal industry are never certain about whether the pit in which they are employed is going to linger on or be closed down. It may be that it is the insecurity among the mineworkers that causes this appearance of desperation that has been exemplified recently in some parts of the coalfields. We require a fuel and power policy; coordination of electricity generation, gas production, North Sea gas, oil, and even nuclear energy. In parenthesis, may I remark that the vast sums of money that have been spent by the State in the production, development and research in relation to nuclear energy have led to practically nothing. We want coordination with the whole of the fuel and power industries; and the sooner the Government get down to that the better it will be for the country.
There has been a great deal of talk about keeping in mind the national interest, and I agree with almost every word that has been said about it. In my opinion, the national interest must always be No. 1 priority. But when we are concerned about the national interest we cannot disregard some sectors associated with the national interest; and particularly when we have a Government who claim to be anxious to improve the lot of the people by reducing prices, about which there has been so much boasting with such little performance.
Finally, a word about the Prime Minister. The Sunday Telegraph, of all papers, Tory to the hone, had a leading article; and look at the headline: "We want another Baldwin". Nothing that has been said on this side of the House against the Prime Minister—and I listened to the speech of my noble friend Lord Taylor of Mansfield criticising the Prime Minister in very mild, muted tones—or even in the other place yesterday,

83
compares with what the Sunday Telegraph said. "We want another Baldwin"—another leader, and how rightly! Obstinate; obdurate; arrogant; almost perverse: if I can use a gem used by the late lamented Neville Chamberlain over and over again about his critics: bungler, amateurish, a political apprentice with an awful lot to learn. Yes, comparing him with some of the Conservative Prime Ministers of this country—Balfour, at the beginning of this century; Baldwin; even Bonar Law for 12 months; Macmillan (what a tower of strength in comparison!)—it is about time your Lordships were a little ashamed of him.
There it is. What are we going to do about it? We know that to-night the Labour Party will go into the Lobby and, whether we like it or not, we shall have to accept the emergency powers, for what help they are going to be. We shall have a report from the Wilberforce Committee, and no doubt they will add a little to what was offered by the National Coal Board on two occasions since the beginning of this dispute, and the miners will go back to work. But not all of them will go back to work; some of them will not be able to go back because of the condition of the pits, so I believe, although I think that matter has been grossly exaggerated. I have had experience as a Minister connected with the mining industry way back to 1924, and I know that it is often found, when a pit is waterlogged or even when the equipment has deteriorated, that it is possible to recover it very rapidly. Many miners will not want to go back. If it were not for the one million unemployed in the country many miners would not go back to the mining industry. Those who are always telling us that after all the conditions are very good—like the noble Lord. Lord Nugent of Guildford, who said they are going to get a minimum wage of £22—and many of the newspaper scribes who have said that the conditions are not so dangerous in the pits as is said, can go and dig the coal themselves.
We must vote against the Government to-night, not because we are against emergency powers as such but because of the wrong timing. the miscalculations, and the attitude of the Prime Minister who, during this dispute, has done practically nothing. There has been no attempt to bring both parties together. There was
84
an occasion when we had the seamen's dispute rather more than two years ago when complaints were made that the former Minister of Labour, Mr. Gunter. failed to bring both sides together and the dispute lasted seven or eight weeks. It is the responsibility and duty of a Minister associated with industry and employment to bring the parties together at the earliest possible stage. I am satisfied that both parties would have come together under the auspices of the Minister responsible if they had been invited in the proper fashion. They were treated with contempt ail the way through, and now we have this grave disaster which we all deplore and which we want to bring to an end as rapidly as possible.
6.36 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, my noble friend and Leader in opening this debate said he would go fairly wide and that he expected the debate to go wide. Certainly Lord Shinwell's speech in that respect has been typical of the debate, with his kaleidoscopic oratory. He sought to justify going into the Lobby against the Motion—which is quite a simple one, as to whether we approve or disapprove the continuance of the emergency powers—as did the noble Lord, Lord Champion, by claiming that it was a protest against the Government. The tenor of the debate as a whole has been that these emergency powers are necessary. Noble Lords opposite are welcome to the luxury of going into the Lobby against the Government. It is a luxury because they would not do it if they thought that there was any chance of defeating the Government. They know that these powers are necessary.
The noble Lord, Lord Champion, started off on a very moderate note. He waxed more and more critical of the Government as his speech went on, but I really do not think that, if the noble Lord were fully aware of the facts, he would have been able to make such a speech as he made. I hope to be able to tell him some of the facts of which he apparently was not aware. He said that the Government had stood back and hoped that market forces would produce a settlement. However, the National Union of Mineworkers, on January 6, declined the invitation of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment, to enter into talks at

85
his office. On January 18, as my noble friend Lord Nugent said, my right honourable friend again emphasised in another place that his door was wide open to both sides for any help which he could give. This was no nonchalant, flippant statement, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, suggested; it was a constructive offer of his assistance. It was one of the initiatives which led, on January 21, to him seeing representatives of the National Coal Board and the Union. Although both parties felt unable to change their positions, he declared publicly that he would continue to consider any possibilities of further action, and would keep in touch with the parties. On February 9 my right honourable friend again persuaded both sides to come to St. James's Square, and he and his officials did everything possible to promote a settlement. As your Lordships know, the National Union of Mineworkers rejected the much improved offer by the National Coal Board at that meeting. I submit that in the light of the evidence I have mentioned, the Government stand acquitted of the charge of having stood back throughout the dispute. They have actively sought to help both parties towards a settlement.
The noble Lord, Lord Champion asked: Why leave it so late to appoint a court of inquiry? Why spring the decision on industry? This decision was not sprung on industry. The Government had stated at the outset that there were eight weeks' supply of coal for electricity. This is a point which the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, mentioned. He said that the declaration of emergency was bound to come. After live weeks, it must have been obvious to all that the taking of emergency powers was imminent. The papers had been full of warnings the previous week-end. In the fifth week, the parties were at last brought together again. The noble Lord said that no meaningful consultation took place, but I want to tell your Lordships that consultation took place at all levels; that there was a considerable amount of preparation; that the preparation for an emergency of this kind went back to the autumn; that the electricity boards were in touch with their customers in all the regions; and that it was on this basis that it was possible to make the plans. I was challenged on the point of consultation, but, as I said, there was very full consultation at all levels and
86
your Lordships should ask noble Lords who know. Many of them or both sides of the House have been consulted and have been able to take steps or to make representations on this matter.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, as my companies have certainly not been consulted, I wonder whether the noble Lord can make available in the Library a copy of the letter which the noble Earl the Leader of the House said was sent out, intimating to companies what action they should take. Will the noble Lord undertake to look into this?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord has made a mistake. It was not a question of sending out information to firms telling them what was going to happen. What happened was this. The electricity boards were authorised to undertake confidential consultations in the autumn when these seemed necessary, and many such discussions took place; for example, with firms with continuous process plants that may have been unable to comply safely with the directions. The extent of the consultations was left to the discretion of area boards but there was at least one area board that consulted all its major consumers.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, will the noble Lord be good enough to tell us when industry was told that it was going to be put on a three-day week?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, that is a different matter and I am coming to it.
LORD SHEPHERD: Twenty thousand letters.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, 20,000 letters had obviously been prepared in advance to send out to those customers whose demand was 100 kilowatts or more. These had obviously been carefully prepared. They could not have been sent out on that day unless they had.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Can the noble Lord—
LORD DRUMALBYN: No, my Lords. I cannot give way all the time. I was challenged about consultation. All this was done in the light of consultation and it was therefore possible when the time

87
came, when it was obvious that an emergency had descended upon us, to send out the letters. But the scheme had to be carefully worked out, and it was only when the decision was made that the letters were sent out and promulgated.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, is the noble Lord then telling us that, although there were these consultations last autumn, it was still necessary to give only 24 hours' notice that these cuts were to be made?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, we had come into an emergency. The fact was that at that stage we had a rejection of an improved offer by the National Coal Board. The following day we had a rejection of the suggestion that the offer should be taken up by the miners and that they should go back to work while a Court of Inquiry investigated the position and the Coal Board itself said that it was prepared to implement the findings of the Court of Inquiry, whatever they were. It was on that basis that we arrived at that situation. The situation at that time was that we had a limited supply of coal with which to work.
LORD BLYTON: Can the noble Lord—
LORD DRUMALBYN: No, my Lords, I really cannot go on giving way all the time. The situation at that time was that industry, generally using about 75 per cent. of its normal consumption of coal, still had three weeks' supply in all except three regions. The power stations were down to three weeks' supply, taking into account stocks which were being denied to them. Obviously, this was the moment at which to declare the emergency. Noble Lords are arguing from time to time that it should have been declared earlier. On the other hand, they are proposing to vote against giving emergency powers now. Noble Lords really must make up their minds what they want.
The noble Lord, Lord Byers, did a great service to the House, as did my noble friend Lord Conesford, in raising the question of picketing. I have listened quietly throughout the debate and I hope that noble Lords will extend to me the same courtesy. As I said, they did a great service in raising this question of
88
picketing as it affects the liberty of the subject. My noble friend Lord Conesford, and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, have dealt with this matter, but they have left me to deal with important points that were raised. I want to make it quite plain that no instructions—and "instructions" is the word that was used—have been issued to the police. The Home Secretary has no power to issue such instructions. Chief constables were reminded early—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Ah!
LORD DRUMALBYN: That is the normal way to do it—of the law relating to picketing in particular, Section 7 of the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875, and Section 2 of the Trade Disputes Act 1906. Guidance was later given to chief constables about the importance of close consultation. The first was telling them where to look for the law, and the other was giving them guidance about practical matters. They were told of the importance of close consultation between the local trade union officials and local senior police officers in ensuring that picketing is conducted properly and peacefully.
It is the responsibility of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary to maintain law and order, and this is done through the chief constables. They are responsible for law and order in their own areas. I am bound to say that I think the House ought to be grateful to them—and I do not think this has been sufficiently appreciated—that they have kept all feeling, all emotion, down. It may be that they have done this by way of turning a blind eye from time to time to particular offences. But, at any rate, it is very much to the credit of the police in this country that in what was undoubtedly a highly contentious situation they succeeded in getting through with so few incidents. It is, of course, for the courts to interpret the law; and I hope that I may leave the matter there.
My Lords, something has been said about the restructuring of the finances of the Coal Board. The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, and the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, both mentioned this. The noble Lord, Lord Blyton, quite correctly quoted what my right honourable friend the Minister for Industry said in another place; and it is a fact, of course, that the

89
restructuring of the finances of the Coal Board have been under consideration for some time. But this has nothing to do with the present issue. One has to remember, after all, that in respect of the Coal Board's finances over £400 million has already been written off. This is a matter which can be considered at the proper time; but the issue that we really had to deal with was, on the one hand, a very high claim by the National Union of Mineworkers and, on the other, an offer by the National Coal Board which was raised three times—and the last offer was, in ordinary terms, about 50 per cent. higher than the original offer.
Perhaps I may be allowed to say just this, because noble Lords have raised the question of justice. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, spoke about justice; and naturally we all want to see justice for every section of the community. We want to see justice for the miners. But perhaps it is not out of place to point out—and I hope I am not in any way prejudicing anything by saying this—that at the time when the present Government came into power the minimum wage for miners was £15. It is now £18; and if the offer that was put forward had been accepted, the minimum wage in the mining industry would have been £22. So it has gone up from £15 to, as it would have been, £22 in less than two years.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
A NOBLE LORD: Sit down!
LORD BLYTON: I have asked the noble Lord quite civilly, and he has given way. Why all the shouting?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD BLYTON: Dealing with the financial structure, it is only belatedly that the Government have now made an announcement. These accounts have been used against us all the way, and the offers that have been made we have considered totally inadequate. It has been this millstone around our neck which has caused the present situation.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the Government have always been willing to look into this problem, but, as I say, there has already been a reorganisation of the finances. The finances can be reorganised if necessary; but what no Government are prepared to do, as my right honourable friend said in another place, is to subsidise wage increases.
I hope that noble Lords will now allow me to draw to a close. The point that I think I must revert to here is this. The nation is now in a serious emergency. This is not the time to discuss the extent to which the parties to the dispute or the Government are responsible. Some think the Government have been determined to drive the miners into the ground; some think the miners have been determined to drive the nation into the ground. But the question is whether we are going to approve these emergency powers or not. Noble Lords have criticaised us for not introducing them sooner. They cannot at the same time say that they are not now necessary. These powers are not directed against anyone. They are not designed—I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Blyton—to break the strike. They are obviously not designed for that purpose, because they are so similar to what has been introduced before. Their purpose is to protect the life of the community. It cannot be denied that there is an emergency. Everyone recognises that, in an emergency, the Government must be given powers to protect the life of the community. Everyone recognises that, in an emergency, available supplies have to be shared out. These Regulations give the powers necessary to do so. These powers are very similar to those previously given to Government in similar, though probably less serious circumstances. I invite all your Lordships to approve these powers.
On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?
6.56 p.m.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 135: Not-Contents, 53.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Arran, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Allerton, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Bathurst, E.

Amherest of Hackney, L.

Auckland, L.

Beatty, E.

Amory, V.

Balerno, L.

Beaumont, L.

Exeter, M.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Falkland, V.

Belstead, L.

Ferrers, E.

Moyne, L.

Bessborough, E.

Ferrier, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Bethell, L.

Fortescue, E.

Northchurch, Bs.

Blakenham, V.

Gainford, L.

Norwich, V.

Boyd of Merton, V.

Goschen, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Brecon, L.

Gowrie, R.

Onslow, E.

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Greenway, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Grenfell, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gridley, L.

Redesdale, L.

Buchan, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Reigate, L.

Caccia, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Roberthall, L.

Caldecote, V.

Rockley, L.

Camrose, V.

Hood, V.

Rowallan, L.

Carrick, E.

Howard of Glossop, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Carrington, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

St. Helens, L.

Chelmer, L.

Ilford, L.

St. Just, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Inchyra, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Clwyd, L.

Inglewood, L.

Sandford, L.

Coleraine, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Sandys, L.

Conesford, L.

Jessel, L.

Savile, L.

Cowley, E.

Kilmany, L.

Selkirk, E.

Craigavon, V.

Kilmarnock, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Craigmyle, L.

Kindersley, L.

Shawcross, L.

Crathorne, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Somers, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Stamp, L.

Strange, L.

Cromartie, E.

Leicester, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lothian, M.

Sudeley, L.

Daventry, V.

Loudoun, C.

Swansea, L.

de Clifford, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Swinton, E.

De L'Isle, V.

Lyell, L.

Teviot, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Macleod of Borve, Bs.

Thorneycroft, L.

Derwent, L.

Mancroft, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Dudley, E.

Margadale, L.

Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie, Bs.

Dulverton, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Vernon, L.

Dundonald, E.

Merrivale, L.

Vivian, L.

Eccles, V.

Mersey, V.

Waldegrave, E.

Effingham, E.

Milverton, L.

Windlesham, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Monek, V.

Young, Bs.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Arwyn, L.

Gaitskell. Bs.

Popplewell, L.

Bacon, Bs.

Garnsworthy, L.

Raglan, L.

Balogh, L.

Hoy, L.

Royle, L.

Beswick, L.

Janner, L.

Rusholme, L.

Blyton, L.

Kennet, L.

St. Davids, V.

Brockway, L.

Leatherland, L.

Serota, Bs.

Burntwood, L.

Lee of Asheridge, Bs.

Shepherd, L.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Shinwell, L.

Chalfont, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Snow, L.

Champion, L.

Longford, E.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

MeLeavy, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Davies of Leek, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Delacourt-Smith, L.

Maelor, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Diamond, L.

Milner of Leeds, L. [Teller.]

White, Bs.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Wright of Ashton under Lyne, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Moyle, L.

Energlyn, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Motion agreed to accordingly.

ELECTRICITY BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

MINERAL EXPLORATION AND INVESTMENT GRANTS BILL
7.6 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, as a noble Lord has given me notice that he wishes to speak on the Committee stage of this Bill I shall not move that the Order of Commitment be discharged. Instead, in accordance with Standing Order No. 43, I beg to move that the House resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Ferrers.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Baroness WOOTTON OF ABINGER
in the Chair]
Clause 1 [Contributions in respect of mineral exploration]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD DIAMOND: First, I am grateful to the noble Earl for making it possible for me to say a very few words on the question of whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill. I do so in the hope that this will be a more constructive way of dealing with the matter I wish to raise than by putting down an Amendment. I propose to deal with only one matter which was referred to during the Second Reading debate on February 3. Many of your Lordships (I think I am right in saying "many", for I think there were at least four) took an interest in a particular point. These were noble Lords, from all parts of the House, who took an interest in that aspect of the Bill concerned with the preservation of the amenities of the countryside and, in particular, with the need to consult the Natural Environment Research Council—or bodies which are, as I understand it, part of that Council—with regard to any proposal which might affect areas of particular interest. That, at least, was the first idea; but the noble Earl was good enough to say:
94
"… in all cases where an application is received, irrespective of whether it covers these particular areas,"—
the areas of special interest which I have mentioned—
"there will be consultation with the NERC"—
I say "N.E.R.C.". I prefer not to call it "NERC", because "NERC" has undertones in connection with another Act that we debated for many moons—
"because they are the people who know where the areas are and whether such a proposal is likely to affect any area in which they are interested."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2/2/72, col. 1043.]
I am delighted that the noble Earl said that. I am sure that he gave considerable consolation and relief to those who were raising this very point. But in my usual awkward way I then rose and asked the noble Earl where this compulsion was to be found in the Bill, and the noble Earl, with his usual frankness, said that it was not to be found in the Bill. He said:
"It is an assurance that I have given the noble Lord as to what the Minister intends to do."
The noble Earl is sufficiently experienced in these matters to know that it is no discourtesy to him personally to say that such an assurance is valuable, but would count for nought if proceedings were to be taken after a Minister had failed to consult in this way. Nobody could found an action against the Minister on the ground that somebody had said at some stage or other when the Bill was going through one or other House that certain consultations would take place. It is therefore necessary to strengthen that in some way, and I was wondering whether it was the noble Earl's intention to strengthen it by introducing an appropriate Amendment into the Bill. I should not have been surprised to see an Amendment put down. Of course we have plenty of time to do that.
It is an important issue, and it is completely non-contentious. The request for this kind of consultation and this kind of special interest came, I assure your Lordships—and those who were here at the time will remember this—from all quarters of your Lordships' House. I am merely doing what I think is the appropriate duty of an Opposition in drawing the attention of the Government to things that they should do perhaps a little better than they are proposing

95
to do them. They are proposing to consult; and that is fine. But they are not proposing to put into the Bill their statutory responsibility to consult. I hope that the noble Earl will be able to say that at some stage, perhaps at a later stage in the Bill's progress, such an Amendment will be introduced by the Government, in whatever form of words suits them. It is not a question of my trying to suggest a particular form of words that suits us; whatever suits the Government, in order to carry out the undertaking which they gave but which is not to be found in the Bill, will suffice.
7.4 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: The noble Lord has, with his usual clarity, made perfectly plain what he wants the Government to do. The point that he referred to was one which was considered carefully by a number of noble Lords in Committee. The noble Lord was kind enough to say that this is not a contentious matter, and he merely wants the assurance that the Government then gave—which in fact I gave on behalf of the Minister—to be written into the Bill. I hope he will recognise that when I gave that assurance, which he has repeated this evening, it was no off-the-cuff remark but was a considered assurance of what the Minister intends to do.
What we are concerned with here is the initial exploration which will be done and which may consist of a person's walking over land and taking samples, possibly of soil or rock. In doing so he may destroy or walk upon vital and unique bits of flora, and possibly disturb animals and birds. We absolutely accept that this is a very reasonable concern. It is the reason why we have given the assurance that all applications which are received under Clause 1 of the Bill will be referred to the N.E.R.C. We must remember that this particular stage of exploration is not a very expensive one. If one makes the scheme too circumscribed, I think it is well possible that the explorer may go ahead with this part of the exploration without any grant aid. In other words, he may say: "If the scheme is going to be so difficult and to be hedged about with so many things, then I would rather forgo the grant and go ahead on my own." In that case of course there
96
will be no reference of his work to the N.E.R.C. I hope that the noble Lord may feel that this in itself is one possible reason why the inclusion of this point in the Bill would be a bad thing.
Again, one must recognise that we are concerned here with only a limited range of exploration. For instance, products such as gravel, sand, hydrocarbons and coal are not covered by the scheme. Similar initial exploration for these commodities would not go before the N.E.R.C. Obviously it is just as important to protect nature reserves from this type of exploration as it is for that which is covered by the Bill. If further protection is required—and I am not convinced that it is—for nature reserves and sites of special scientific interest, I suggest that the right course would he for amending legislation to provide the protection not only for exploration under this Bill but for exploration for any minerals, and indeed for any intrusion.
I hope the noble Lord will accept the assurance that I have given him, and also the fact that we have considered the possibility of writing this matter into the Bill and have come to the conclusion that if we make the Bill too restrictive, we shall not enhance the incentive effect of the Bill but will detract from it.
LORD DIAMOND: I am grateful to the noble Earl and recognise immediately that careful consideration has been given to this matter. I am glad that he has repeated the assurance in full detail and said that it was not given off-the-cuff, because that adds weight to it, which is always welcome. I do not, however, completely give up hope that he will take this further thought and consider it. I would agree with him entirely that the only really adequate method of dealing with this matter and protecting the environment, which is an interest that we all share, is to have amending legislation which covers all kinds of exploration—sand, gravel and all the rest. It merely occurred to me that as we have this Bill here, a great deal could he done by the Government's setting a pattern which others would he expected to follow. It is not unusual for those, for instance, who may be exploring for sand and gravel to say to themselves: "It is now accepted as good business attitude for those about to explore to consult the

97
N.E.R.C. This is made clear in the latest Bill and represents the latest thinking of the Government." I find people extremely law-abiding in that sense, and they will take a hint of that kind. All I am saying to the noble Earl is that I hope he will be good enough to consider that point further.
EARL FERRERS: It would be the greatest discourtesy on my part if I were not to take a hint of that kind, and I will certainly see that the remarks the noble Lord has made, which are very pertinent and made in great good faith, are considered.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported without amendment: Report received.

PUBLICATION OF PROCEEDINGS IN PARLIAMENT
7.20 p.m.
LORD FERRIER LORD FERRIER rose to call attention to the First and Second Reports of the Joint Committee on the Publication of Proceedings in Parliament (H.L. 26 of December 3, 1969 and H.L. 109 of May 6, 1970); and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The Reports to which this refers can conveniently be described as the Pearce/Donovan Reports because, as your Lordships know, although the Joint Select Committee of both Houses was appointed in November, 1968, under Lord Pearce's chairmanship, he was appointed Chairman of the Press Council in 1969 and his place was taken by the noble and learned Lord, the late Lord Donovan. This is a suitable opportunity again to pay tribute to the memory of Lord Donovan and to his great contributions to the affairs of State, to Parliament, to industry, to the trade unions and to the law. I have it on good authority that he drafted these Reports himself, and just as we shall miss the wise and penetrating contributions which he would have made to our debate to-morrow—and indeed also today—so we miss his presence here now, when we debate this subject.
My noble friend Lord Selkirk has told me that he may not be able to stay, but I hope he will. At the same time I would like to say—and I know that he will agree with me—that the noble Lord, Lord Donovan, had expressed a desire to move a Motion of this sort last summer, but the pressure of business in your Lordships' House was too great and it seems to have fallen to me to carry it out at this time. Incidentally, I miss the presence of the noble Lord. Lord Shackleton, and I only hope that the lifts on the ski slopes are working all right. I miss the noble Lord because, in a speech during a debate in March 20, 1969, at column 1077 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, he said:
"This is a subject "—
he was referring to this problem of the broadcasting of proceedings—
"in regard to which I think the saying 'festina lente' applies. On the other hand we do not want that to be an excuse for not keeping the whole proposition alive and order active consideration, and proceeding del berately towards the formation of ideas on the whole question of broadcasting."
When I told him that I proposed to quote those words his reply was, "Fair enough".
In the penultimate paragraph of the Second Report the following words occur, and it is really on these words that I base my Motion:
"Some of the questions the Committee has had to consider are difficult and may prove controversial. In these circumstances it seemed to them better to await the outcome of the consideration of this Report by both Houses before the task is commenced of drafting a Bill to implement such of the Committee's recommendations as may be approved."
Further, in paragraph 2 of the First Report the following words occur:
"Yet the immediate cause of the previous Committee's appointment was the need to resolve the uncertainty that has been expressed in several quarters as to the application of the law of defamation to broadcasts of Parliamentary proceedings."
Your Lordships are well aware of our television experiment in February, 1968, four years ago almost to the day, and it was as a result of the Reports of our Select Committee—that is the Select Committee of this House on this particular experiment—together with the extensive Reports of the House of Commons Select Committees on broadcasting their proceedings, that the Pearce/Donovan Joint

99
Select Committee was appointed. Its Reports cover quite a variety of aspects of Parliamentary privilege and the Second Report contains (in Appendices 1 and 2) a very important memorandum by the Clerk Assistant to your Lordships' House and another by the Clerk to the House of Commons. I call to mind also the evidence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, to our Committee on televising procedures. in the course of which, as Lord Chancellor, he said that the law of privilege "needs tidying up". Although, as I have quoted, the broadcasting problem may have, as it were, sparked off this exercise, there are other facets, ranging from freedom of arrest to the privilege attaching to Ministerial correspondence. I know that this latter point is one to which my noble friend Lord Selkirk attaches great importance, as can be seen from the Minutes of Proceedings on page 24 of the Second Report.
I am, of course, particularly glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, is going to follow me—he was a member of the Committee throughout—because such matters as I have just mentioned present legal problems on which I do not propose, nor am I qualified, to speak. I also look forward to hearing the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, on another point about papers. Therefore I turn back to the problem of privilege as it affects the possibility—and it is well to remember it is still only a possibility—that Parliament may one day not only decide to have its proceedings televised on closed circuit but wish to have some sort of report presented to the people by the broadcasting media, whether by television, radio or both. When I say "some sort of report" I mean video tapes of actual proceedings.
The Committee, as I have said, referred to
"the need to resolve the uncertainty of the law"
on that subject. It is clear from the memoranda submitted by the B.B.C. and the Independent Television Authority which are set out in Appendices to both Reports, that this uncertainty is very real to them. I cannot do better than quote here paragraphs 23 and 24 of the First Report where, on page 12, we have these words:
100
"23. Having carefully considered the whole matter, the Committee have come to the conclusion that, bearing in mind the possibility of the creation of a House of Commons Broadcasting Unit which would 'publish' under the authority of the House of Commons, legislation is desirable to amend sections 1 and 2 of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840 as above outlined so as to confer absolute privilege in respect of such publication. When, however, the B.B.C. or I.T.V., having obtained their material from the House of Commons Broadcasting Unit, proceed to broadcast it or extracts from or abstracts of, it to the public, then the qualified privilege at present available to each authority should suffice, as it suffices at present for the Press."
And in paragraph 24 they say:
"The Committee's recommendation in paragraph 14 is, of course, equally applicable in the case of the House of Lords, should it set up its own broadcasting unit."
In other words, while the Committee agree that the 1840 Act requires some amendment, they are satisfied with the present position as regards the privilege of broadcasters. At the same time, as I see it, neither the B.B.C. nor the I.T.A. are satisfied, and without their being agreeable, such broadcasting—I repeat, broadcasting video tapes of actual proceedings—could not proceed.
Despite what the Press may say, the Members of another place are as well if not actually more aware of these difficulties than we are. One has only to delve into the voluminous Reports of their various Committees to appreciate this. I take the view—and I am open to correction—that this debate to-night will show that the complications are such that even if Parliament proceeds forthwith to pursue the points made in the Pearce/ Donovan Report, which we are considering, it may well be two or three years before a decision is reached and the requisite legislation placed upon the Statute Book. We see in the Press that the other place may be thinking of submitting themselves to the ordeal which was ours four years ago, although technical advances since that time will render conditions much less trying than ours were. However, this is their affair, and I am sure your Lordships will agree with me that there is no need, even if it were advisable—which it is not—for us to develop the subject.
Many of your Lordships have given this problem of broadcasting much thought and study. But, so far as I am concerned, my ideas were crystallised the

101
Sunday before last when I read in one of the newspapers words something to this effect: the television screen has now become Sunday before last when I read in one of the newspapers words something to this effect: the television screen has now become the forum for political debate rather than Parliament. This is going too far. But, reluctantly, I believe that the position is somewhat of this order so far as the public are concerned. It may even be that our Parliamentary system of democracy is being eroded in the absence of adequate Parliamentary reports on the "box". But this is not the subject of the present debate. The subject is that first of all the law of privilege requires to be overhauled, whether television is important or not. However, many people may think it is important.
One final comment. Confident as I am that the reporting of the proceedings of Parliament by all existing media, with the exception of the B.B.C. programme, "Today in Parliament", is quite inadequate, I see no good reason why some such programme as "Today in Parliament" should not come out at a more suitable time or times of the day on the country's T.V. receivers. Such a programme would be free of the complexities of the matter of privilege to which we are addressing ourselves to-night. I go so far as to hold the view that if additional hours are to be available for television. as is now the case. then such reporting might well be made an obligation. When I studied (shall I say with some surprise?) an item in The Times Diary the other day my eyes strayed across to the opposite page to a letter from the noble Baroness, Lady White. I see her point, with which, with respect, find myself unable to agree, for I trust that never will my name carry, like some gramophone records, the letters "L.P" as a suffix, though I shall risk it if I detain your Lordships much longer. I. hope that the House will agree when this little debate concludes that it has been worthwhile. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
7.34 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, the House will at once agree with the last comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier. His comment was that he hoped that this debate would be regarded as useful. I am quite sure that it is a useful debate, and we all owe him a debt of gratitude for having raised this matter which, if he had not called attention to
102
it, might possibly have tended to slip into oblivion.
In replying to his speech, and to the debate, from the Opposition Front Bench may I at the outset say to him what I know the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who was also a member of the Committee, would also wish to say: that we are most grateful to him for his reference to the late Lord Donovan. I am particularly grateful because I think I may claim to have been a close friend of Lord Donovan for even longer than a quarter of a century. It was extremely gratifying to hear what the noble Lord said with regard to him. Lord Donovan, besides being a great lawyer, was indeed a great public servant, and his contributions to the building up of our life really cannot he adequately measured. They were great and will be invaluable for years, decades and generations to come.
May I go to what the noble Lord called the Pearce/Donovan Report? The Committee was chaired by distinguished chairmenship because before the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donovan, chaired it the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearce, chaired it, until, as Lord Ferrier said, he became Chairman of the Press Council. Now he is engaged on difficult and exacting duties and I am sure that we all wish him well.
Possibly it would be convenient, and of some help to the House in considering what are extremely technical and complicated Reports, if I tried to indicate in broad outline what the Committee in effect decided, and what its approach was. It found itself discharging its task against the following background. There had been experiments in the other place and experiments in this House on broadcasting. Certain conclusions had been provisionally reached in both Houses, though I do not think I need elaborate upon them for the purpose of this debate. What I should indicate is this. The possible different forms which broadcasting of proceedings of both Houses might take really fell into three categories. In 1966, a Select Committee of the other place suggested that there might he a broadcasting unit. That was conceived of as a part, in effect, of the machinery of the House. It was conceived of as being something very close to the Hansard structure, both in its manning personnel and in its terms of reference. That was the first possibility.

103
An alternative possibility is what I believe is described in the vernacular as the "drive-in" process. By that, the broadcasting media, the B.B.C. and the I.T.V., would bring their own apparatus into either Chamber and make their own arrangements, with the leave and permission of the two Chambers, to televise the proceedings, or, in the alternative, to record the proceedings in sound without television. The third possibility was a combination of the two. The broadcasting unit would provide a feed to the television authorities. It would prepare a continuous representation of the proceedings in each House and the broadcasting media would be enabled to make use of that continuous record by way of a feed. They would derive sustenance or perhaps I should say inspiration, from it. From that sustenance or inspiration they would compose their own selections of proceedings in the two Houses and make their own commentary and edit it as they thought appropriate.
It was against those three possibilities that the Pearce/Donovan Committee felt it ought to discharge its task. Its task as formulated was to decide what changes in the law of privilege and defamation would be necessary in the event of there being a broadcasting or television scheme applicable to either or both Houses. It was a Joint Select Committee of both Houses and its consideration applied to the possible television or sound recording scheme in either House. My Lords, there had been a Select Committee which reported on Parliamentary Privilege and the Chairman of that Committee had been my honourable and learned friend Mr. Silkin in another place. That Select Committee had gone into the question of Parliamentary Privilege in great detail and had produced a comprehensive and valuable Report. In those circumstances, the Pearce/Donovan Committee felt that clearly its terms of reference were not to be construed as requiring it again to re-examine the conclusions of what I hope I may call the Silkin Committee. So far as Parliamentary Privilege was concerned, it was, we thought, called upon only to express a view as to whether any changes in the law of defamation that it recommended required corresponding changes in the law of Parliamentary Privilege and not beyond that to examine the question of Parliamentary Privilege.
104
It was against that background that we went to work. I think perhaps it would be useful if I formulated the general conclusions upon which we thought we ought to proceed. They were these. We thought that the B.B.C. and the I.T.A.. and television media should be, so far as the law of defamation was concerned, on the same footing as the Press. If there were to be the broadcasting unit of which I have spoken we thought that that should be on a rather different footing. That would discharge a function which was precisely analogous to that discharged by Hansard at the moment. Your Lordships, I know, will have considered from time to time the history of Parliamentary Privilege in so far as it affects Hansard, and your Lordships may have read the interesting case of Stockdale v. Hansard which was decided in 1837 in which a Mr. Stockdale complained in the courts in a suit for libel that Hansard, which under the authority of Parliament published Reports, detailed and continuous Reports, of proceedings in Parliament, had libelled Mr. Stockdale, I think by imputing to him libellously that he had circulated a memorandum of an obscene character to the prisoners in Newgate Prison. Precisely the subject of the libel action is not particularly relevant though not altogether uninteresting. The courts allowed that claim, and that gave rise to the passing of what is known as the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840.
My Lords, the Parliamentary Papers Act contains three sections. The first section confers absolute privilege on all publications— I abbreviate deliberately—made with the authority or by the direction of Parliament. It obviously directly covered Hansard and it is accordingly because of Section 1 of the Act of 1840 that the printing in Hansard of what is said in either House is privileged. If a Member makes a defamatory statement in the course of his speech in Parliament he is protected by Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688 which gives absolute privilege to anything said in a Parliamentary debate. Article 9 of the Bill of Rights also contains a phrase which is difficult to construe. It gives absolute privilege also to what are called "Proceedings in Parliament". There have been differences of view which we dealt with in our Second Report as to what is the meaning of "Proceedings in

105
Parliament". I will not trouble your Lordships with that. We suggested a formula which might serve as a definition of what is meant by the expression "Proceedings in Parliament"
As I have said, Section 1 gives absolute privilege to Hansard. The conclusion we reached was that if there were a broadcasting unit, that should enjoy equal privilege but it should be a unit which would be part of the structure of Parliament in the same way as Hansard is now part of the structure of Parliament, and its function should be to produce a continuous and uninterrupted record either in the form of television or sound broadcasting of the proceedings in either House. That is that conclusion. If, however, it were decided that there should be the "drive-in" system, as I described it, then it followed in accordance with the conclusion which I earlier indicated that we reached, namely, that the two media should be put on the same footing as the Press, that in respect of their drive-in activities the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. should only have the same protection as the Press now has; that is, that if they print in the course of a newspaper comment or if the television media as a result of drive-in activities reproduced in an edited programme of Parliamentary proceedings something that was defamatory, in either case they should have qualified privilege. Section 3 of the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840 confers that privilege. I leave out Section 2 for a deliberate reason. I do not think it necessary to examine it closely. It deals with "copies" and it not directly germane to the pith of this debate.
Section 3 confers the qualified privilege. Independent of it—and I hope I am not being too technical—there is at common law a qualified privilege which at the moment is slightly different in one respect, a respect in which we submit in our Report that the two should be made the same. If the Press, the I.TA. or the B.B.C. make a fair and accurate extract from a debate, and they do so without malice, under Section 3, if they can prove they did so without malice, they are immune from proceedings and action against them for defamation would fail. In common law the position is the same except that the onus of showing absence of malice is not upon the newspaper concerned and would not be upon the B.B.C.
106
or the I.T.A. but is on the plaintiff who brings the action. One of our recommendations was that it being rather foolish that there should be that difference, and the reason for the difference being difficult to ascertain, the two types of qualified privilege should be made the same in that respect. For that purpose there would have to be an Amendment to Section 3 of the 1840 Act to remove the onus of proving absence of malice from the Press or television media to the plaintiff who made the complaint against them.
That being the general purport of our conclusions, we then had to consider whether, assuming any of them required to be implemented, depending upon the type of television or broadcast recording that was decided upon, Amendments would be necessary. There would have to be an Amendment—and I will not describe the technical character of it—to Section 1 of the Parliamentary Papers Act in order to make Section 1 applicable to the broadcasting unit, if there were to be a broadcasting unit. A corresponding Amendment would be necessary in Section 2. I have described the Amendment that would be necessary in Section 3 in order to bring together the two types of qualified privilege.
That was what we concluded and that forms the major part of our Report. We had been offered drafting assistance from Parliamentary Counsel, but we came to the conclusion that really it would be unjustifiably occupying their time to call upon them to prepare the necessary; drafting Amendments until it was decided by either House or both Houses whether they wished to have their proceedings televised or recorded by sound broadcasting, or not, and, if so, which of the three systems they would adopt, because the Amendments necessary would depend upon that. Therefore, that is as far as we went. We also construed, as I have said earlier, our terms of reference as going beyond that and we made certain recommendations with regard to what I will call "Act Papers"—and I will not trouble the House with that; "Command Papers"—I will not trouble the House with that; and correspondence between Members of Parliament and Ministers and others. That involved a consideration of the meaning of the phrase "proceedings in Parliament"; and, as I have said,

107
in our Report we suggested a rather comprehensive formula which we thought might be enacted in order to define the expression "proceedings in Parliament" as used in Article 9 of the Bill of Rights of 1688.
My Lords, that is the whole of the matter. I hope I have not been too confusing. It is rather difficult to explain it with great clarity because the matter is one of some technicality. That is what we did, and our position at the moment is that we would be delighted. either ourselves or for some successor body to us, when it has been decided what the form of television or sound recording is to be —if there is to be either—then to proceed to work out the actual terms of the Amendments which, according to our thinking, would then be necessary. I do not think I can assist your Lordships further. That is what we did, and it will of course be for both Houses in due course to consider whether they think that our conclusions were justified or need amendment.
7.53 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, for having introduced this debate because it enables me shortly to draw attention to the absurdity of the practice which has grown up of what is known as "laying in dummy Act Papers". It is the Second Report, paragraphs 41 to 45, which deals with Act Papers. These are Papers laid before Parliament pursuant to a statutory obligation, and each year there are some 600 of these Act Papers. One finds that about half of them, about 300, are laid before Parliament and receive a printing order from the House of Commons, whereas the other 300 are not published pursuant to a printing order from Parliament. This seems curious; and indeed no wonder the Committee, at the end of their Report, in paragraph 44, say:
"…the Committee draw attention to the somewhat haphazard manner in which printing orders are accorded to some Act Papers, but not to others. They recommend that rules should be prescribed to regulate this matter"
The distinction here of course is that those Papers which are published pursuant to a printing order from Parliament have conferred upon them the absolute privilege which the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has explained, whereas the other 300
108
Papers, which are not published pursuant to a printing order from Parliament. receive only qualified privilege. I need not go into the distinction because Lord Stow Hill put the matter before your Lordships so very clearly just now.
Of course, a printing order from Parliament can be obtained only when Parliament is sitting; but of these 300 Act Papers a number are expected to appear during, for instance, the long Summer Recess. What happens then is that during the month of July the Paper concerned is laid in dummy; that is to say, the title page only, and nothing else, is produced and a printing order is obtained. The person concerned then goes away and proceeds to draft his Report, or whatever it may be, in the knowledge that he has the blessing of absolute privilege for it covering even matter which he might publish maliciously and not in good faith. Needless to say, this does not in practice happen, but it seems a rather absurd way of going about things.
Just briefly, three examples of the sort of thing that happens. On August 2 last, 16 Reports from Area Electricity Boards and the Report of the Atomic Energy Authority were laid before Parliament and they were not published until the month of October. If we take the Construction Industry Training Board Report, we find that that was laid on July 27 and, so far as I have been able to discover, has not been published yet. So we have this enormous delay between the laying of a document—and of course an entry appears in the Minutes—and its publication. Here is a document which has been laid, and people who are interested in the subject naturally expect that within a reasonable time they will be able to get hold of a copy of it. We cannot expect all these people to appreciate that all that has happened is an extraordinary charade and that the document concerned is not going to be published for probably weeks, perhaps months or even, I suppose, more than a year. This seems a rather senseless procedure that has grown up. There is everything to be said for a public servant's producing a complete report which can be looked at to see whether it contains objectionable matter, and, if it does not, a printing order from the House of Commons can be forthcoming; but, as against that, there is the ridiculous process of

109
producing a title page and nothing else and getting a printing order for the whole report which may not even have been drafted.
The remedy for this state of affairs can be found if we ask ourselves first the question: do these Act Papers really need absolute privilege? Is not qualified privilege for them enough? If they do not need absolute privilege, then House of Commons printing orders for them can be abolished and these Papers will be published and laid at the proper time. But suppose that absolute privilege really is necessary for these Act Papers, then surely time can be found for a short measure which will give blanket protection for them; a measure which will say that Act Papers when published shall be deemed to have been published pursuant to a Parliamentary printing order; and then, again, the result will be that the absurdity of laying in dummy, and this extraordinary delay, will no longer be necessary.
8.0 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRKM: My Lords, as a member of the Committee I should like to say a few words. First, may I say how greatly I admired the clarity of mind of the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, in repeating to us broadly the problems which the Committee had to face. I would particularly endorse what he said about the late Lord Donovan. I did not know Lord Donovan before this Committee met. Knowing him was a great privilege and I recognise fully the great loss his death is to the public. I also wish to say what a great pleasure it was to work under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearce, who has, if I may put it this way, a very strong liberal cast of mind, and I would need strong arguments to find myself differing from him in matters which concern human liberty.
I should like to endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, has said. During this examination we found an extraordinary confusion in the subject of Papers. There are enormous numbers of Papers submitted to Parliament in a great variety of forms. The noble Lord is perfectly right when he says that the matter should be looked at. For instance, some Papers were not printed and were not published. I was never wholly able to discover exactly what that meant;
110
nor, indeed, could I find a paper which fell into that category. I think it is desirable that the purpose for which papers are laid should be made much clearer. In my view, we are enormously indebted to the Officers of the House for ensuring that we do not get into a much greater muddle than in fact we do.
The other point I wish to mention concerns the matter of absolute privilege. I find it hard to say that absolute privilege should be extended at all unless there are exceedingly powerful reasons for doing so. To give someone the unfettered right to say what is damaging and untrue about another individual, which might conceivably ruin his whole life, is a Parliamentary privilege which I think should be extended only in the most limited sphere and only after very careful examination. After all, this is not really a question of justice: the purpose of absolute privilege is really to prevent somebody from having the bother of either answering a summons or going to the expense of doing so. Frankly, from a practical point of view qualified privilege would meet almost every case. The real object of absolute privilege is to block any form of action at all. It is all very well to do it under Article IX of the Bill of Rights for discussions in Parliament, which sometimes need definition. but any extension of that would require very careful examination indeed.
On the whole I believe that our Report shows that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with the present situation. For that reason I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, for raising this subject, because while there are changes which could be made I do not think any serious damage is done by the existing procedure.
8.4 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I do not think there is anything very much that I can usefully say at the end of this debate, especially since the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, who was such a distinguished member of this Committee, has so admirably answered the points that were put by my noble friend Lord Ferrier. The noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill asked whether he had spoken with great clarity: I have never known the noble Lord not to speak with extreme clarity and I thought he put the case very clearly. Since then my noble friend

111
Lord Selkirk has added his powerful voice. I am sure we should all like to thank my noble friend Lord Ferrier for drawing attention to these two Reports and for giving rise to this short but interesting debate, and I would join with other noble Lords who have spoken in paying tribute to the two Chairmen of this Joint Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearce, and Lord Donovan.
My noble friend Lord Ferrier has throughout, and for many years now, taken a deep interest in the question of televising the proceedings in Parliament, and he was a most active member of the Select Committee on televising the proceedings of the House of Lords. Your Lordships will recall that it was as a result of evidence from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that the whole form of the law relating to publication of proceedings in Parliament needed tidying up that that Committee recommended that there should be a detailed examination of the question of privilege and law involved and that this examination should be undertaken by a Joint Committee of both Houses. This recommendation was endorsed by the Broadcasting sub-committee of the House of Commons Services Committee and resulted in the setting up of the Joint Committee whose two Reports we are considering tonight. Therefore it is true to say that the Joint Committee came into existence as a direct result of the consideration of broadcasting the proceedings of Parliament, although its terms of reference were widened to include other forms of reporting Parliamentary proceedings. Therefore my noble friend Lord Ferrier is fully justified in having directed our attention specifically to the relevance of these two Reports to the televising and radio broadcasting of our proceedings.
My Lords, I am a layman without legal qualifications and I am very conscious of the fact that I am speaking about complicated legal issues. However, put briefly and in a layman's words, the conclusions reached by the Joint Committee were that the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. are already accorded qualified privilege under Section 3 of the Parliamentary Papers Act of 1840, as amended, and in this respect they are treated in exactly the same way as the Press, and this is as
112
it should be. Section 3, as amended, provides that in any civil or criminal proceedings for printing, including broadcasting, any extract from Parliamentary Reports, Papers, Votes and Proceedings it is sufficient for the defence to prove that such extract was published bona fide and without malice. The Committee concluded that this was sufficient protection for the broadcasting authorities, as it had always been for the Press. However, they went slightly further in suggesting that the 1840 Act should be amended to confer absolute privilege in respect of the broadcasting of Parliamentary proceedings by any broadcasting unit set up by this or the other House. This was in response to a suggestion by the Select Committee on the broadcasting of proceedings of the House of Commons, that the task of providing a full television and sound feed should be in the hands of a special unit to be known as the House of Commons Broadcasting Unit. As your Lordships are aware, the other place are currently engaged in a study of the pros and cons of televising their proceedings and it would be premature to take this matter any further at the moment.
The Joint Committee also considered matters of privilege concerning all other forms of reporting Parliamentary proceedings and made a number of recommendations. However, these were in a sense subsidiary to the question of broadcasting the proceedings of Parliament. The Committee themselves realised that it would be premature to start drafting a Bill until decisions had been taken in respect of broadcasting.
I listened with great interest to the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and I am grateful to him for so kindly having given me notice of the matter that he intended to raise. The Joint Committee themselves draw attention to the haphazard manner in which printing orders are accorded to some Act papers and not to others, and recommend that rules should be prescribed to regulate this matter. The noble Lord went on to draw attention to the absurdity of laying Act papers in dummy, and of course on the face of it this is an absurd practice. As he said, it occurs because of the wish of those concerned to publish when Parliament is not sitting, most often during the Summer Recess,

113
and at the same time to obtain for them absolute privilege under the 1840 Act by having them published by order or under the authority of the House. The only alternative that occurred to me would be for printing orders to be made in advance of publication, but this is a matter for the other place. I noticed that when he spoke he made another suggestion, and I will certainly see that it is carefully considered. I know that he is a good Liberal and may think it a very conservative argument, but these papers have been laid in dummy for the last 70 years without causing any undue difficulty.
I do not think there is very much more I can usefully say. We need to await the outcome of the other place's consideration of televising their proceedings before it is really worth while taking action on these Reports. Nevertheless, their existence will help very significantly if and when a time comes when some form of television or sound broadcasting of the proceedings of Parliament is permitted, and my noble friend, I am sure, has done the House a service in drawing attention to them.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, at this late hour it remains for me to thank noble Lords who have taken part in this very interesting little debate, which has fulfilled all I hoped of it although it did not start quite as early in the day as I had expected. I do not want to hold up the noble Lord, Lord Henley, any further. I am glad to think that the debate has been worth while, and we have, by discussing this matter, discharged the task laid on both Houses in the paragraph in the Report which I quoted. I am not altogether sure that what the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has said covers the whole ground, because, whatever the position may be in regard to what the Committee thought, the doubt in my mind is that the broadcasters may not be satisfied that that is sufficient to let them broadcast if, when the time comes, this task is laid upon them. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion standing in my name.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn

ADMINISTRATION OF NATIONAL PARKS
8.12 p.m.
LORD HENLEY LORD HENLEY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government: On what grounds they have rejected the recommendation of Sir Jack Longland that there should be a special authority for each national park with the sole responsibility for administering the park, employing its own staff for the purpose and meeting its expenses by precept. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper which is about the control of national parks. It may be that I should have posed my Question so as to ask why the Government have indicated, at least informally, that they would be unwilling to accept Sir Jack Longland's recommendations. It may be that in fact they have not rejected all the formidable arguments he has put forward.
The recommendations, which broadly speaking are set out in my Question on the Order Paper, were made on behalf of the Countryside Commission und submitted by them in response to the Government's White Paper on The Future of Local Government. They set forth what is I think the classic position which was originally proposed by Sir Arthur Hobhouse in 1947, that the national park planning boards should be autonomous. The recommendation, which, as I say, followed that classical position, was in line with what exists in the case of the Peak Park Planning Board to-day and has been such a success. It is also in line with most of the views that have been expressed up to now by people who are most concerned with national parks. It was in line with what Redcliffe-Maud said in 1969, and it was also in line with what the last Government said in their White Paper in 1970. And, of course, it is also in line with what all the national societies concerned with the environment have been saying all along But it has not been in line with county council opinion, which did not like what it considered derogation from counry councils' powers. Unfortunately, the view of the county councils has been the one that has prevailed, and after the Peak Park Board was set up originally, which was modified Hobhouse, a system was devised

115
for the other parks which no one now thinks was a very good one, and which I think everybody would like to see changed.
When Sir Jack Longland put up his proposal on behalf of the Countryside Commission it came to be believed that it would not be acceptable to the Government; and, of course, as I have said, it had never been acceptable in county council circles, and the classical position had always been one that they regarded with suspicion. I think they felt that autonomous bodies of this kind would make for what Mr.Hicks, who is a county councillor of the Cumberland County Council. calls "a hole in the heart of local government". Meanwhile, the County Councils Association came up with its own proposals, which I think were possibly an improvement in some respects on what had gone before, but which were still not acceptable to the Countryside Commission.
The two sides, therefore, the Countryside Commission and the County Councils Association, got together and hammered out an agreement which it was said was satisfactory to both bodies. This agreement makes the future national park authority a main committee of the county council with full delegated powers. It invests the park planning officer with, it is suggested, a statutorily defined position, and it also requires that there should be a national park plan which should be drawn up within three years. That plan would be a local plan within the development plan system which would be drawn up in consultation with the Countryside Commission, and not, of course, infringing the structure plan, though the structure plan has in any case to go before the Countryside Commission for their comments. Unless the fullest powers are delegated to this committee, it will merely repeat the shortcomings of the present administrative arrangements—that is, outside the park planning board and the Lake District—and many people are very worried that this may well be so.
First of all, can these powers, the powers that are asked for in this compromise agreement, really be fully delegated from the county council to its committee? Everything of importance, as your Lordships know, costs money, and
116
control immediately then passes back from the committee, however important a committee it is, to the county council. Secondly, if one takes an example from highways, will this committee be itself a highway authority? If not, it makes a nonsense of the whole thing, because at once matters connected with highways will be taken away from this committee and go back again to the council. Lastly, when Private Bills come up, who is to oppose them? Will it be this committee or will the responsibility again go back to the county council itself It seems to me that any kind of autonomy is going to be extremely limited.
I want to know whether Her Majesty's Government can give me specific assurances that these powers, which are now agreed between the County Councils Association and the Countryside Commission, will mean the full delegation of planning and management powers, including all development control powers, so long as they are not contrary to the overall development plan. Will they be fully delegated? Can they be fully delegated? Can I be assured also that the appointment of a park planning officer will be a statutory requirement? I think this is one of the suggestions that have been put forward in the agreement. But if the park planning officer is not statutorily defined as to his duties and exactly what he can do, one suspects that he may fall back into the position of being some other official of the county council in his spare time. If this agreement between the County Councils Association and the Countryside Commission is in any way watered down, or if in any way it does not in fact really mean what one hopes it means, then we shall be going back to where we were, and in fact where we are, with national parks being run by an unimportant and uninfluential sub-committee of the local authority. It is this fear which prompts many people who care for national parks to think that Sir Jack Longland's recommendation was the right one. I want to know, before I feel satisfied that this compromise agreement was a good one, that the Government can give me an answer which will show me that these delegated powers are in fact going to be delegated, that they can be delegated, and that the position will be defined by Statute so that there is no possibility of these powers being whittled away by either side in this compromise.
8.21 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I think the whole House is very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for asking this Question. It certainly does need asking. I am going to go further than he has; I am not going to be satisfied even if the Government can satisfy the House that these powers are going to be delegated. I am going to ask the Government to think again and to adopt the Longland proposals. I am going to argue that it was a mistake to reject them.
It is extremely difficult to remember what is the present administration of the national parks; it is hideously complicated. There are ten. Four of them lie in more than one county; namely, Brecon Beacons, Exmoor, Snowdonia, and the Yorkshire Dales. Those four are administered by separate planning committees of each of the county councils concerned; that is to say, there is one national park which is not administered by one committee but by two or three committees, each of which is a subsidiary committee of a county council. Above these groups of committees is situated a powerless advisory committee, which does not help much. Four more of the national parks lie wholly within a single county. They are Dartmoor, Northumberland, the North Yorkshire moors, and the Pembrokeshire coast, and they are administered by a committee of that single county wherein they lie. Two of them, on the other hand—and these are the two which interest anybody who knows anything about this matter—have proper, full-fledged planning authorities of their own which are independent of the county councils. They are the Peak National Park and the Lake District National Park. On all these planning authorities—whether they are committees of several councils working together or single committees of one council, or proper independent planning authorities—two-thirds of the members are appointed by the county councils concerned and the other one-third by the central Government. There is no proposal to change that situation, I am glad to see.
We now come to the heart of the matter, that it is only the two successful ones, the Peak and the Lake District, which have financial independence. It
118
is only they who are allowed, under the control of central Government of course, to precept on the county rate to secure the funds they want in accordance with their own decisions. It is noticeable also that the Peak National Park has virtually untrammelled powers to do this, whereas the Lake District National Park may precept only within narrowly circumscribed limits. Of all the national park committees, only one, the Peak, employs its own full-time staff. The others are staffed, as and when needed, by secondment of part-time county officials, and sometimes from two or three counties simultaneously.
It is not as though this were a new matter. The national parks were set up in 1949, and at that time the intention of Parliament was that they should be administered by joint boards; that is, by single, fully-fledged planning authorities, as the Peak National Park alone now is administered. The Act of 1949 said that they should be administered in this way by a single board unless the Minister was satisfied that, by reason of any special circumstances, it was expedient for securing the efficient administration of the park that another arrangement should be made. Other arrangements were made with a vengeance, my Lords! This section was invoked in the case of Snowdonia, the Brecon Beacons, Exmoor, and the Yorkshire Dales, in order to have joint advisory committees, instead of joint planning boards with proper statutory planning powers; and no special circumstances have ever been shown to Parliament why this should be done. I think there might even be a case for arguing that the Act has been quite simply ignored by successive Governments.
The situation went wrong immediately after 1949, and it is still wrong. Ever since then the present system of administering the parks (the muddle of the three different systems which apply), has been under consistent fire from the Countryside Commission, formerly the National Parks Commission. It has been under fire from all the national amenity societies and their local branches concerned; and that is still the situation. It is still under fire by those who work in this field and who, rightly or wrongly, believe that they are charged with obtaining the best arrangement they can get from the Government.

119
Several major examinations have been made. Not to go too far back, let us start with the Royal Commission on Local Government in 1969, which reported to the Government of which I was a member, the Redcliffe-Maud Report. The Redcliffe-Maud Report said that for each national park there should be a special authority with the sole responsibility for administering the park and employing its own staff for the purpose. The authority for a national park should meet its expenditure by precepting on the main authorities with territories inside the park. This recommendation was accepted by the last Government, so that in their White Paper of February, 1970, The Reform of Local Government in England, they said that it was here only (and by "here only" the White Paper meant in the national parks) that, because of the unique character of the task, the Royal Commission had recommended ad hoc authorities, which one could present as making a hole in the heart of local government, although I do not think that this is a fair way to put it.
Now we have the recent events. The last full-scale analysis of the matter was the Longland Report. Sir Jack Longland went into it in a wealth of detail which I do not think has been equalled by any of the inquiries since the original one in the 1940s. It has not been equalled in the Government's statement of their reasons for refusing the Longland proposals. He said that there should be exactly what Parliament originally intended, exactly what Radcliffe-Maud proposed, and exactly what the last Government intended—single planning authorities, with one for each national park, with power to precept. The Government would not have it, and I am sorry to say that the Countryside Commission, who of course are the statutory advisers of the Government, accepted the Government's refusal of this proposal and came to an agreement with the County Councils Association, who naturally want things to stay roughly as they are on the compromise which the Government have provisionally—though it is not yet before Parliament—accepted.
Let us look for a moment at this compromise. It is lengthy and carefully thought out. It is a County Councils Association document which bears the
120
stamp of county council thinking at every level—and I have nothing against that. The county councils should put their own case, and they have done so; but I submit to the House that the Government should not accept it. I would draw attention to one clause only in this compromise document; that is the appendix on "National Park Administration" at B2 where it says:
"The county councils should delegate to the National Park Committee"—
that is the low-level national park committee that they want—
"in respect of the whole area of the Park full powers of decision within agreed estimates"—
that is to say, the county council keeps an absolute hand on the purse strings—
"with the exceptions of the management powers under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949 and the Countryside Act 1968"—
These the county councils wish to keep themselves in main council, even if there are three of them in the national park, and here comes the point—
"and such other management functions as the councils may deem appropiate."
This means that the county councils should delegate only what they feel like delegating, and that in each place it should be entirely according to the decision—I will not say the whim—of the local county council, or county councils, what powers the National Parks Board has. This will not do. These are national parks. To a great extent they have been county council parks ever since they were set up. While the present proposals do not increase the powers of the county councils, and do not make the present situation worse—I should be the first to admit that; indeed, in certain small respects they make it better—with the Bill to reform local government we are missing a once-in-a-generation opportunity to return these parks to the status that Parliament originally intended, of truly national parks each having its own real planning authority with its own real powers and its own real finance.
It is only necessary to look at the record of the parks which have been on the ground now for twenty years to see the force of this. The one which has done best in all respects, by all standards that one can measure, is the Peak District National Park. That is the only one which has a single proper planning

121
authority with its own financial powers. Everything which has been done to the good in any national park was done first in the Peak National Park. They have spent far more on it than has been spent on any other national park. They are streets ahead, and have spent about twice as much as the next. The Lake District National Park comes along in an honourable second place, as one would expect, because it is autonomous, with its own planning powers and its own finance, though its financial autonomy is not so great. The rest, the ones that are mere appendages of county councils, lag far behind by any index one can conceive.
It is sometimes said, "Ah, but the parks which are in the multiple control of several county councils happen to be under the control of councils which are much weaker in rateable value than the Peak District National Park, which has the wealth of the industrial North Midlands and the Manchester conurbation on its doorstep, and can call on that." That is not a valid argument, because the Yorkshire Moors National Park is certainly in a wealthy local authority district and has plenty of industrial rateable value at its back. They have not found it possible to spend the money they should have spent in that national park, in spite of their wealth.
Again, it is sometimes said that the national parks differ from each other very much in the extent to which they are under pressure from public use, and that expenditure goes with pressure from public use. You need it to build car parks, to hide them, to build information centres, to regulate public use, to get access agreements and so on. One argument goes that the ones who have spent less tend not to spend much because they are far away from centres of population and there is no pressure on them. That was true until recently, and up to now that has been a tenable argument, but I do not think it is true any longer, because with the development and completion of the motorway systems there are going to be 19,000,000 people within a three-hour drive of their nearest national park. Even Exmoor, which hitherto has been about the most remote, except possibly for the Pembrokeshire coast one, is going to have a population
122
of many millions. All the Midlands conurbation is going to be able to drive for the day to Exmoor. Therefore, the pressure is going to be roughly equal on all the national parks, and soon that argument will not hold.
In conclusion, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will be able to tell us to-day that the Government are still openminded on this matter. There is not one national amenity society—there are eight in number and it would be a string of initials to name them—which does not vigorously attack the compromise now backed by the Government. Together, they are acting to promote a public campaign. There is to be a National Parks Day the week after next, with simultaneous meetings in I do not know how many cities. All voluntary opinion is dead against this compromise. The Countryside Commission themselves were dead against it, until the Government told them that they would not accept their point of view. Sir Jock Long-land, who, I repeat, has carried out the fullest and most fundamental examination of it in this age, is dead against it. I do not know anybody who is for it, except the Government and the County Councils Association.
I shall not speculate on the Government's motives, but it is common knowledge that they are not doing what the county councils want in another sphere. They are proposing to pass planning powers from the county councils downwards to district councils. In my view, this is very wrong; it should not be done. The planning powers should stay where they are, with the top-tier authorities. On this our whole environment depends. The national park powers should stay higher still in national park boards which are independent of and, in a sense, above the county councils. The Government have slipped downwards in their delegation of powers. I hope it is not too late for them to winch the whole thing upwards again, to keep normal planning powers with the top-tier planning authorities, the county councils and the conurbation authorities, as they should be, and to give national park powers to the centres of autonomous power that Parliament wanted to have them and that all informed opinion still wants to have them.
8.36 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, it is with very considerable diffidence that I rise to speak on this Question this evening, not only because of the lateness of the hour but because I feel that I come to it as a "townee" treading on the hallowed ground of a national park. I really do so because, like many people in local government, I am very concerned at the continual disappearance of functions and powers from local government to ad hoc boards. If I may reply to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, I would say that people in major cities, as well as those in county councils, are concerned about this disappearance. I speak now for the Association of Municipal Corporations, who have expressed general support for the views of the County Councils Association.
I believe that Her Majesty's Government are right in not accepting the Report of Sir Jack Longland and in saying, both in the White Paper on Local Government Reform and in the Local Government Bill, that the planning of national parks should remain with local government. Indeed, I believe that the Government have indicated general support for the joint proposal of the County Councils Association and the Countryside Commission, There are many reasons why I support the Government in this view. Both major Parties are committed to the reform of local government, and the whole emphasis of the present Bill, and I believe the intention of those who support reform, is that local government must have a responsible and effective job to do. Local government administration must be intelligible to the public whom it is designed to serve and responsive to public need. Already, local government has lost to outside boards the police in 1966; it will lose the local authority health services in 1975; there are the proposed water boards and the passenger transport authorities; and now there is the proposal that national parks should be administered by ad hoc boards.
There are many weaknesses in ad hoc boards such as the one that is proposed, for they create divided responsibility within one geographical area. It is often difficult for the public to find out who are the members of such a board. Indeed, we do not know how the Government nominees are to be appointed, nor do we
124
know to whom a board will be answerable; and, after all, a board would have powers to precept. To the public it means another separate board with separate powers. The local government principle that committees are answerable to the county council or to the city council, which in turn is answerable to the electorate, is broken.
I recognise, on reading the Report of the Countryside Commission, that there are many criticisms of the administration of national parks over the last twenty years, but under the Local Government Bill the new counties will be both larger and different in composition. They will include members from the towns within their areas, as well as the country, and therefore their committees could well have members of the "park users" as well as of the "park providers". Furthermore, these committees will have power to co-opt and could, if they so wished, co-opt members from the towns outside their counties. I believe that once the users of the parks became members of the committees, those committees could be more effective and responsive to the needs of the public. Some of the difficulties have been indicated in the Report of the Countryside Commission in paragraph 5.22, page 43.
If the proposal for ad hoc boards was agreed to, then in two new counties, Gwynedd and Cumbria, the planning for a large proportion of the geographical area of the county would be outside county administration. In all counties with national parks planning functions would be divided: national parks outside county planning committees; country parks under county planning committees. This does not seem to be a very sensible administrative arrangement. Again, it is divided responsibility, and is certainly unintelligible to the public; and the committee cannot take into account the planning needs of the county as a whole. I accept that there are many great advantages in having the appointment of a planning officer with specific responsibility for each national park, but this proposal seems to me to be completely compatible with a planning committee under the county council.
In conclusion, I should like to say just two things about precepts. I recognise that it is a long-established practice that one local authority precepts on another,

125
but there are disadvantages to this system, especially when an ad hoc board has power to precept on someone else. It can well be argued that this is a completely undemocratic system, for it is, of course, taxation without representation, and there is no public democratic accountability, as in a county council or a city council. The only accountability is by audit, and there are many people who feel that this is not really the right way to raise taxation.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness would recognise that the National Parks Planning Board as proposed by Sir Jack Longland would consist of a majority of persons nominated by the county councils, and that in their powers to precept they would be analogous to those very water boards and river authorities the disappearance of which the noble Baroness was lamenting a moment ago.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, very much for that. I entirely accept what he says, but I do not think that it invalidates my argument. The point is that even if two-thirds of the members are nominated by the counties and one-third by the Minister, the board itself is not answerable to the public, as at a county council meeting or anything like that. It has the power to raise money, but the members of the board are not themselves directly subject to election and answerable in the sense that they would be if they were members of a planning committee. I accept that my argument applies just as much to water boards and all sorts of other organisations which I feel I must not enlarge on because they are not really to the point in this particular discussion.
The second point I wanted to make about precepts will, I am afraid, disturb noble Lords even more, but it is something of concern to local government. Over the last five years or so most local authorities have undergone tremendous internal management reorganisation. There have been many reasons for these reforms; and most major local authorities have created some kind of policy finance committee, differing in name in each authority. One of the purposes of this committee is to try to resolve the priorities within the authority. Financial priorities are some of the most difficult
126
matters to resolve, and, of course, unless one has some kind of a committee system for doing it, it is very difficult to achieve a sensible decision at all. To have an ad hoc board from outside with power to precept means immediately, as Lord Kennet has quite rightly said, that someone from outside is going to get money regardless of any other priorities of the county, even if the total amount of precept is limited, as it is in many cases. In this way the whole structure of the internal reforms of local government can be distorted because some outside authority has this power of taxation.
In conclusion, my Lords, I believe that one of the most compelling reasons for local government reform is the need to improve planning in this complex society in which we live. But to take an important service and planning function away from local government at the moment when a Bill is being considered seems not only to undermine one of the basic reasons for reform but to undermine those who believe that, despite all its failings, representative democracy is still the best form of government at local and national levels.
8.45 p.m.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I am very glad that my noble friend Lord Henley has raised this subject to-night because in ally event it is time, that we reviewed the workings of the 1949 Act, and it is extra important that we should do it now in the light of local government changes ahead of us such as have been referred to by my noble friend. I would submit that whatever decisions we take this year, or which the Government take this year and we approve, are likely to stand for a long time, and that if we make the wrong decisions it is not just going to call a halt to progress within the national parks; it could mean doing them irretrievable damage.
I am not so convinced as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that we should accept Longland in toto or nearly so, but I am convinced of several things—just as convinced as my noble friend is of certain other things. The first is that we must find a way—and here I think she will agree with me—to give reasonable powers and independence to national parks authorities, maybe going beyond planning powers and such as would enable them to command the respect not just

127
of Parliament, the Department of the Environment and visitors to the park, but also of the local inhabitants and of the county councils or new main authorities, whatever their name may be; and that is not happening now. One reason is that there is no proper interlocking, and I would suggest that one simple reason why the present planning boards have not carried the weight they should have done is that they have tended to draw volunteers from the county councils in their area when surely the county councils should have made a point of sending a proportion of very responsible councillors to serve on these boards, such as the chairman or vice-chairman of their planning committee—in fact, members who really share responsibility for county council policy. Then each party would know the policy and the thinking of the other, which I do not think to date has always been the case.
I am equally convinced from experience that it would be a very grave error to put responsibility for planning in national parks in the hands of any special committee of a county council, such as that for which the County Councils Association has been pressing. For reasons of geography, as has been mentioned, this seems an attractive outcome where a park such as the Lake District National Park falls inside one local authority area. It seems absurd that the authority responsible for the centre should be separate from the authority responsible for the edge. Yet it would not serve the purpose to delegate powers for planning in the centre to a committee of the main local authority. Some other solution must be sought.
My Lords, I do not want to appear parochial, talking too much about one area, but I do know intimately one of the two areas which now have planning boards, and the noble Lord, Lord Henley, knows it, too. I have represented Westmorland in another place; I live in Cumberland, but just outside the national park, and I think that in this debate, late though it is, experience is valuable. Further, I was a member of the Select Committee of another place which considered the 1949 Act. One thing of which I am quite certain is that the principal difficulty under the present arrangements has arisen from the division of
128
responsibility between the authority responsible for highways and the authority responsible for planning. Within the Lake District the situation is absurd. The three county highway authorities have each been responsible for highways in their area of the park; there has been one planning authority which is the planning board but served by the three planning officers of the three counties, each primarily responsible for the detail of planning in the area of his own county. One need say no more beyond drawing attention to the mammoth public inquiry which is taking place in Penrith, now entering its fourth week and nowhere near the end. It is no more and no less than civil war between the highways and the planning authorities—both parts of the public sector. This should never be allowed to happen again.
My Lords, perhaps I might say just this to illustrate the difficulties that we are in—and this situation is not as easy as those who try to simplify the problem would make out. Of the three counties concerned with the Lake District National Park, I should like to refer quite briefly to the attitude of two of them—each is entirely different—because it throws light on the problem. Westmorland, the smaller county, sees advantage in a separate board. A large proportion of its leading citizens live in the park. There is a tradition in the county of small-scale, high-standard industry both in and out of the national parks, and there is great reliance on the tourist industry. It is all very like Switzerland. Cumberland, which is the larger county with a more urban electorate, has fewer of its (shall I say?) county establishment figures living in the park; and I speak in particular of the county councillors. It has a county council with a reputation with its smaller neighbours of empire building. Its chairman is a very able man, a personal friend of the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and of mine; and I hope he will not mind my saying that he has never shown any special feeling for the national park. He is a leader in the County Councils Association of the policy to bring planning in the national parks under the county councils. Further, the county council, with all its influence, so far as I can see, has never tried to check the opinion getting around that the Lake District Planning Board is out of

129
touch, undemocratic and an obstacle in the way of an economic revival of the West Cumberland industrial belt. On the other side, the Lake District Planning Board has been slow in combating these views and slow in themselves to explain their statutory duties to the people and to make much closer contact with local people, which I believe it would have been possible for them to do. That is not really a very happy state.
At the time of the debates on the 1949 Act I was apprehensive about the division of responsibility and I thought we might see too negative, too restrictive, a policy developing in the national parks. I made speeches to that effect and, I think, distressed the noble Lord, Lord Strang, who was then Chairman of the National Parks Commission. But I now admit that I was largely mistaken and I have come to the firm conclusion—and I am not alone in this—that if planning powers in the Lake District (and no doubt it applies equally to other districts) were returned to the county council, or to the successors to the county councils, there would soon be no national parks as we now know them. I am glad to see noble Lords nodding in assent. The interest is not there. "By their deeds shall ye know them." Where a conflict arises between the interests of a national park as laid down by Parliament and the supposed economic interests of other areas, particularly the urban areas of an authority outside the national park, the votes in support of the latter are more likely to win every time. This is not being critical of individual councillors or individual councils. The pressures that they would be under would be difficult to resist and by giving way on many occasions it would not be long before the erosion which resulted would do irreparable damage.
Noble Lords would do well to remember the words of the late Lord Birkett in this House when speaking in the debate about 17 years ago on the threats to Ullswater and Windermere from the Manchester Corporation. He then described the Lake District as "so small, so beautiful and so vulnerable". His words apply equally to many other areas in this land.
8.54 p.m.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY: My Lords, I cannot entirely share the views expressed
130
by the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, although I recognise the force of the arguments that he has made. I speak as a member of the North York Moors National Park Planning Committee. I started as an elected member a county councillor, for some time; but more recently I have been a Minister's nominee. The North York Moors is not quite as rich as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, described it to us. I think he was referring to the Yorkshire Dales.
LORD KENNET: Yes, my Lords, I was.
VISCOUNT INGLEBY: We are a single county park run by a committee of the county council in a proportion of two-thirds elected councillors and one-third Minister's nominees. There a certain amount of local feeling against the whole idea of a national park and for this reason I think that close connection with a county council is valuable. If we had a different planning officer for the national park, as proposed by Sir Jack Longland, and he was a different man from the planning officer for the rest of the North Riding, it might lead to difficulties. I cannot think of an occasion when we wanted to spend some money—at least, not to my knowledge—when we have been vetoed by the county council. But I feel that we ought to be playing a more positive role than we are.
I think that the composition of the committee has something to do with this. I feel that our committee could be strengthened. We do not have an active hill farmer on the Committee. By an active hill farmer, I am thinking of somebody who not only has to wrest a living from the hills, but who can also take the wider view and look at some of the problems connected with other land users in the park. I am thinking of forestry, recreation and tourism. Nor have we an active hill farmer's wife on our committee. This is a lack, too, in the sense that the people closest to the problems of life in the hills are perhaps the wives. Nor have we an active forester on our committee. If we are going to make any impression in the future on the drift away from the hills, forestry must play an increasingly important part. The Ministry of Agriculture, of course, plays a large part in the hills through the grants it gives to the hill farmers. I

131
wonder whether our committee would not be strengthened if we had a representative of the Ministry of Agriculture on it.
Then there were some useful grants which the late-lamented Northern Pennines Rural Development Board was able to give to farmers and foresters who wanted to convert accommodation for the benefit of tourists and for various other purposes. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, almost a year ago, suggested that these grants might equally well be administered by the Tourist Board. This suggestion was well received at the time by the noble Lord, Lord Denham, speaking on behalf of the Government. I wonder what has happened to those grants. Furthermore, the rural development board was able to give useful grants toward rural bus services, enabling them to make up their income to a figure at which the county council could come in and support them. I should like to know, too, what has happened to that power.
Finally, I believe that one of the most valuable things that the rural development board did was to act as a forum for public discussion of the issues involved in living in the hills. Now that we have no rural development board, I think that this is something which the national park committee ought to do.
9.0 p.m.
LORD VERNON: My Lords, I put my name down to speak, but due to some mishap it did not find its way on to the list. I share the anxieties expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Henley, Lord Kennet and Lord Inglewood, on this matter. What strikes one with most force when reading through Sir Jack Longland's Report is the extraordinary unanimity with which everybody who has looked at this problem—from the Hobhouse Committee and John Dewar in the 1940s, down to Sir Jack Longland himself, and the Royal Commission more recently—have agreed that all national parks can be satisfactorily run only by independent boards with their own planning officers, a state of affairs which at present exists only in the Peak Park. Surely "the proof of the pudding is in the eating": the Peak Park is by universal consent streets ahead of any other park in its success. This must weigh very heavily.
132
Looking ahead to the end of the century, only 25 years or so, I believe it is inevitable that national parks will become much more national in character. This was a point partially made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, when he talked about the motorways spreading out to all corners of the Island. With a 20 per cent. increase in our population, an apparently endless expansion of the economy and 50.000 acres of agricultural land being lost every year to industry and urban development, the pressures on the countryside will be getting greater all the time. As the concrete gradually takes over, the national parks will begin to stand out as the only green oases in an otherwise hideous urban development. This surely makes it all the more important that the parks should be regarded as national rather than local assets; and if they are to be regarded as national assets, they must not be administered by local authorities but by authorities specifically enjoined to preserve them against non-amenity interests.
I do not think the issue could be better stated than it is in paragraph 3.47 of Sir Jack's report, quoting Mr. Harold Macmillan in 1952:
"While the county councils have a general duty to do what they can to keep the balance between industrial needs and the development of material resources, on the one hand, and amenity interests, on the other, in those areas which are designated as national parks, amenity and access are to be given an overriding position. That really is the difference. It is just that which distinguishes the national parks from the general functions of county councils over the rest of the country."
My noble friend Lady Young talked about the importance of retaining the powers of the local authorities; but, of course, we are talking about the national parks, and are looking at what is a national park interest here. Surely what is in the interest of the national park must come first. It is imperative that these parks should have their own effective administrative offices and director and chief executive, responsible to the whole park as one environmental entity, and not having a bias to one or more constituent counties. Any attempt to weaken the park authority's own planning control where that exists would, I think, be disastrous. The need for uniform standards is obvious.

133
In conclusion, my Lords, may I just say that I happen to live on the edge of the Peak National Park, and I have seen something at first hand of the excellent work which they do, and for which they have been commended on all sides. One cannot fail to be impressed not only by their achievement, but also by the devotion and the tremendous enthusiasm of all the independent planning staff whom they employ. Would it not be better for the Secretary of State to build the future structure of the national parks on this outstanding success story rather than to open the door once again to the much slower, more cumbrous and less effective administration by one or more local authorities?
9.4 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I must apologise for not having put my name on the list of speakers; quite honestly, I did not think there would be anything left for me to say. However, there is one point on which I should like to touch. I agree wholeheartedly with the views expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Henley and Lord Kennet, and by my noble friends on these Benches, for the reason that in the national parks there are certain things which can only be dealt with by those who are experts in particular subjects: for instance, the preservation of woodlands, of wild life and so on. Those matters of course could not be dealt with by a county council. Furthermore, one must remember that there are always conflicting pressures, like roadbuilding and so on, which naturally all have to be considered. A county council would not have any particular pressure one way or the other, but a committee of a national park would naturally be out to defend its own particular interests and would have the expertise with which to do so. I think that when one comes to sum them up, those are strong reasons why national parks should be individual organisations and not under the legislation of the county council.
9.7 p.m.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, perhaps I may be permitted to intervene before the Minister replies. It had not been my intention to intervene in this debate, but there are one or two things that I should like to say. First, I wish to make what
134
may be a rather peculiar request to the noble Lord who is going to answer this Question, and that is that he should not give us an answer. I mean by that that I am anxious lest the Government should commit themselves to a rigid position on this business at this early stage. We are going to be arguing about this question as the Local Government Bill passes through its stages in this House and in the other place, and I am particularly anxious that the Government should not take up a firm and unalterable position at this stage in the debate.
May I say that I am a member of the Dartmoor National Park Committee. I have not the advantage, as the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, has, of having any democratic connections. I am a purely appointed person and have never had any democratic credentials, but I have had about ten years' experience of serving on the Dartmoor National Park Committee. The significance of that in this debate is that the Dartmoor Park Committee is the prototype being recommended under the Government's proposals for all future national parks, with of course the exclusion of the Peak and the Lake Districts. It appears to me that the weakness of this kind of park committee is that it is wholly subordinate, and indeed the creature of the county council. Theoretically, of course, park committees of this kind are, in a planning sense, autonomous bodies. But that is really an illusion, because when you come down to all matters of importance it is the county council which has the last say.
If I may give just three illustrations of what I am trying to say, I have to-day come up from a meeting of the Dartmoor National Park Committee. We had before us the consideration of an attempt to stop up a bridleway so as to prevent vehicles from using it. We were considering whether we might be able to promote an Order under an Act concerning traffic regulation and ask the Minister to confirm the Order that this bridleway should not he used by vehicles. Now it appears that if we should attempt to promote such a law we should need to go not directly to the Minister but first of all to the highway committee—because the park committee are not the highway authority, and therefore we have to go cap in hand to the highway

135
committee and ask them to suggest an Order to the Minister. Therefore we are entirely dependent upon the county council, as such.
May I give another illustration of the way in which we are dependent on the county council, the local authority? Some time ago the Dartmoor Park Committee attempted to oppose, and did indeed oppose, the proposal to establish a reservoir on Dartmoor at Swincombe. We were resolutely opposed to this idea, but as a park committee we were not entitled to appear before this House or the other House to oppose a Private Bill promoted by Plymouth. We had to go to the county council and say, "We want to oppose it but you are the only people who can, and you are the people who have to put up the money". Our Park Committee was entirely dependent upon the decision of the Devon County Council as to whether or not the Swincombe proposal by Plymouth was going to be opposed. Therefore on any financial question, whenever money is involved, park committees are wholly dependent upon the decision of the local planning authority, in fact the county council.
LORD TAYLOR OF GRYFE: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. I have sympathy with his argument, but is it not a reasonable proposition that the building of a reservoir in the park should be considered in its broader social implications, and that the county council might be the appropriate authority so to do?
LORD FOOT: My Lords, I do not think that I would dissent from that proposition at all. But the point I am trying to make is that when you are considering this proposition as to whether the park committee ought to be allowed to oppose a proposal of that kind, why should they be thwarted, as they may be, by the local authority when they are supposed to represent not only the local interest but also the national interest? If I may address these remarks to the noble Baroness, she was saying that it is right and democratic that the final decision ought to rest with the local people. I do not dissent for one moment from the suggestion that local people ought to be concerned with the matter. They are concerned and involved with
136
the matter because on our Park Committee we have twelve representatives of the local authority and only six appointed people. What I object to is that the final decision in these matters should rest entirely with the local authority when what we are talking about is national parks, and that the national interests should be submerged in the decisions of the local people.
I am not sure that this intervention is of particular use, but may I conclude as I began by asking the Minister when he replies not to take up too rigid a position about this subject, because there are a great number of people, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, was saying just now—in fact every amenity society in the country—who believe the Government, in the provisional decisions at which they have arrived, have made a serious error. I hope that this matter is going to remain one which is open to debate.
9.16 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, may I hasten to say that all interventions in this debate have been of the greatest value. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for raising this important but complex issue. I agree with the noble Lord who made the point that it is unavoidably complex. However, I should first of all like to congratulate, to thank and to encourage all those—and the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, is certainly among them—who have done so much to stimulate public interest in national parks in recent months and to bring so many minds to bear upon them. I wish them well in the rallies they propose to hold up and down the country later this month.
As some of your Lordships will know, I am currently Chairman of a Committee set up to review the National Parks. I have the great benefit of two Countryside Commissioners, one of whom is Sir Jack Longland, on my Committee. Having taken a lot of written evidence, we have begun a series of two to three day visits to each of the ten parks in England and Wales where, among other things we hold a series of public meetings. To judge from these meetings there is no lack of interest in the future of the

137
parks—not so much interest in the administration, which is what we are concerned with now, as in all the different manners in which the reconciliation of the potentially conflicting interests that need to be accommodated in the parks can be achieved. We are learning much that I hope will be of valuable application when the new authorities start work in two years' time.
By way of another preliminary, I should just like to correct quite a serious error in the leaflet produced for the Campaign for National Parks. This says that the Countryside Commission were told that Sir Jack Longland's proposals for the administration reform of the parks were unacceptable. That is not so. The Chairman of the Countryside Commission has refuted allegations that my right honourable friend expressed such a view or sought to persuade the Corn-mission to reach agreement with the County Councils Association. Mr. Cripps wrote to my right honourable friend thus on November 15, just before the Second Reading of the Local Government Reform Bill in the other place:
"I see that it is being alleged in reports of speeches and in letters to the Press that you sought to persuade the Countryside Commission to reach agreement with the County Councils Association on proposals for the future administration of national parks. This is, of course, quite contrary to the facts. At no time did you or any member of the Government request or suggest that we should have discussions with the County Councils Association on this matter."
I wanted to get that corrected and on the record.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, could the noble Lord be so helpful as to tell the House in what terms the Countryside Commission forwarded Sir Jack Long-land's recommendations to the Government and with what comment? Did they endorse them, or did they say, "Here is an interesting idea held by one of our members"?
LORD SANDFORD: I cannot recall the exact words, but I can look them up and let the noble Lord know. I was not dealing with that point: I was dealing with the allegation that we had expressed those views, or given the Countryside Commission those directions, which we had not done.
LORD KENNET: I fully understood that the noble Lord was clarifying the
138
situation about why the Countryside Commission appeared to change its mind. In order fully to understand this, one would need to know two things: first, what the Countryside Commission said about the Longland Report. Did it endorse it or did it send it in a neutral frame of mind? Assuming the former to have been the case, that it endorsed the Report, what caused the Countryside Commission to change its mind?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, that is for the Countryside Commission to say, not for me, but I will let the noble Lord know the terms in which the Report was forwarded. I am afraid I cannot do that off the cuff.
LORD KENNET: The noble Lord is prepared to quote the Countryside Commission on the latter point. He could have said that it is for the Countryside Commission to say what they had said about that. But no, he told the House what they said. I hope he will tell the House what the Countryside Commission said about the former point, too.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I cannot recall it and I have no note of the terms in which they sent us Sir Jack Longland's Report. They are not on record, so far as I know, as to what persuaded them to change, or as a result of what processes they charged, their minds. I cannot give the noble Lord any assurance about that because I have nothing I can turn up.
LORD FOOT: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? Is it a fact that there was a covering letter at the beginning of the Longland Report from the Countryside Commission saying that the recommendations which were set out in detail are unanimously approved by the Countryside Commission?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, that may be so, but I should not like to endorse it or confirm it without being able to check it. Nevertheless, I am glad of this campaign because it has concentrated minds on this problem and among other things has enabled me to write to over 100 Members of another place explaining our proposal in detail and answering their queries. That is what I must now do to your Lordships.
Last October my right honourable friend called together the Countryside

139
Commission, the County Councils Association and the voluntary amenity bodies. Shortly before that meeting, the Countryside Commission and the County Councils Association agreed a joint statement, which has already been referred to, putting forward a new solution in regard to administration of the parks. This was an arrangement entered into voluntarily by the Countryside Commission, and my right honourable friend considered it very carefully, bearing in mind the weight of responsible opinion there was behind it. He was, of course, well aware of the counter arguments for independent boards with precepting powers. But he was convinced, and I hope your Lordships will be, too, when I have finished, that the new solution advocated by the Countryside Commission and the County Councils Association will bring considerable improvements upon the present system. Those who are campaigning for independent boards do not yet appreciate the full significance of our proposals. When they do, I am sure that they will recognise that they represent a very real advance. That is why I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, for this chance of setting them out in some detail.
In the first place, we intend generally to leave the administration of the national parks with the elected bodies. While not denying the achievements of the independent boards—we propose to retain the two existing boards in the Peaks and the Lakes Parks—there is the criticism that the independent boards are not sufficiently answerable to the electors. We are in the process of planning a reorganised and strengthened local government structure and we see no reason why the administration of national parks, if carefully and properly devised, should not find its place within this system. It is highly desirable that it should do so, if only because no less than a quarter of a million people live in the parks and deserve to have their affairs dealt with by people who are answerable to them.
I should like to explain briefly but in outline what we propose to do and then to go on and show how it will benefit particular parks and their administration. These are in outline our proposals. First, we put an end once and for all to the
140
fragmented responsibility in the administration of the national parks; we provide for a single statutory body to be concerned with the administration, the management and the planning of each park. Secondly, we provide, again by Statute, that there shall be appointed for each park a single national park officer who will be of senior status, furnished with staff and specialists and supplied with the wherewithal to devote himself and his colleagues, free from other distractions, to the management of each national park. I hope that those two points answer two of the specific questions which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, asked me. Thirdly, we require, again by Statute—
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, that does not quite answer me. What I said was that a statement of good intention is not enough. What I want to know is whether in fact it is possible to delegate the powers. I know that the agreement between the two bodies is that there shall be a statutory definition of the delegated powers, but I also asked the noble Lord whether in his opinion this was possible at all.
LORD SANDFORD: Yes, my Lords; I have not quite finished. I will come on to that point in a moment. Thirdly, we are going to require, again by Statute, that that park authority shall produce with all due despatch a single comprehensive plan of their policies and a programme for action for the national park in their care; and that will certainly include development control powers. I would rather not go into further detail now, but this will all be provided for by amendment in another place to the Local Government Reform Bill.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord a very short question? Would that include any responsibility for highways? I did mention this.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I was just coming on to highways. No park authority, board or committee has so far been a highways authority, and we do not intend or propose that they should be.
The fourth main proposal which we intend to enact is to ensure that the lion's share, the greater part, of all that is needed to carry out that plan and that

141
action is furnished by the nation as a whole, through the Exchequer, for the enjoyment of the nation as a whole in the parks; and I will elaborate a little on the financial aspects. The first three of those four proposals will be secured in full and in detail by means of Amendments to the Local Government Reform Bill which is now before another place. The last one will be enacted in legislation on local government finance.
Now let me go on to illustrate how these proposals will benefit the national parks as they now are. The introduction of a single statutory body will completely remove the present fragmented committee structure, which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, outlined to us and which everybody admits is a serious weakness. For instance, responsibility for the Yorkshire Dales National Park is gravely split now between the West Riding and the North Riding, each of whom has a separate planning committee for their area of the park, not to mention the joint advisory committee for the whole of the park. Boundary changes under the Local Government Reform Bill will put most of the park in the North Riding, and the provisions relating to national parks in that Bill will secure that the small part lying outside will be treated as part of the whole park by the same authority. With Exmoor, for instance, we would expect to see the separate committees of the Devon and of the Somerset County Councils replaced by a single authority, probably a committee of Somerset County Council with representatives of Devon County Council on it. Snowdonia and the Brecon Beacons Park, each split between three county councils, will also benefit in a similar way.
The appointment of a statutory national parks officer for each park will bring together, under him and under his staff, the management of several functions now divided between different departments of different authorities. The Peak Park, as many noble Lords have already said, has the advantage—and it is the only park that does—of having a single officer who can co-ordinate management and other activities within that park. We intend that this advantage—which has undoubtedly produced great benefits for the Peak Park—will be secured by Statute for all the other parks. This will ensure a greater concentration
142
of thought and effort, particularly on day-to-day management, because he will not be distracted by any other duties. Adequate planning and management staff will be provided to enable the single authority to carry out all its particular functions, and the specialist services and the support of other council staff will be made available to the authority as they are required, as is done at the moment in the Peak Park.
The need for comprehensive plans and programmes derived from them for the national parks is evident. Exmoor and the Brecon Beacons, for instance, need to develop policies to cater for the changes and the increases in pressure on those parks brought by the M4, the M5 and the M6. Although the Yorkshire Dales Park, for instance, is large and expansive, it is subject, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet said, to immense and increasing pressures from the Yorkshire conurbation that can only be satisfied by planning and management on a substantial and comprehensive scale In the Brecon Beacons a comprehensive plan will be drawn up which will cover the whole park and yet have proper regard to the diverse characters of its separate parts as one moves from East to West, and the variation in pressure on those parts.
The Government's proposals on finance are particularly important. We do not intend to rely on precepting powers. I should have set out the reasons for this if my noble friend Lady Young had not already done so. We recognise that the responsibility of the nation as a whole for providing adequate and substantial assistance to the national parks is through the Exchequer, and at this stage we cannot say precisely in what way this assistance will be given because a radical review is now being undertaken of the whole question. But I can give this assurance. Whatever system emerges as a result of this review, it will take fully into account the demand on certain counties (I have in mind particularly the Pembroke Coastal Park and the Northumberland Park) on behalf of the nation as a whole to incur expenditure on national parks, including staff cost. We have not so far sufficiently recognised the administrative costs of national park authorities in

143
considering the proper scale of Exchequer assistance to them. There have been specific grants, but those are all for particular projects. We propose in the future to shoulder on the Exchequer the major part of the burden of the overall cost of administering the parks.
In answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, I would confirm that of course the other specific grants will continue—the agricultural grant, the tourist grant, transport grants, development grants and so on. I am sure that this will be a considerable help in getting the plans and policies for the national parks prepared and then implemented. Without substantial Exchequer assistance, Somerset, for instance, would be hard put to provide all that will be needed in Exmoor in the near future. With large parts of two national parks within its area—the Moors and the Dales—the new North Yorkshire County Council must be assured of substantial Exchequer support towards the overall cost of administering these two extensive parks. Many of the counties with responsibility for the national parks are, as it happens, among the least well endowed, and the case for the Exchequer giving the major part of support is one we are determined to meet effectively. But I am sure everyone would agree that expenditure, important as it is, is not all. Careful and sensitive control of management, sustained and patient reconciliation of the many diverse interests in each national park, will always be needed We believe that under the proposals we are about to put forward the new statutory authorities and their officers and staff will all be far better equipped and furnished to provide this care and attention that the great
144
heritage that we call the national parks needs.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord could answer one question. He has very persuasively described the advantages of doing it the Government's way. If all that is so perfect, why do the Government propose to leave the Peak District Park Committee and the Lake District Park Board as they are?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, broadly speaking, because they have worked well and because they have developed a number of devices which in practice ensure that they do operate within local government. For instance, in the Peak Park Board the Clerk of the Board is the Clerk of the Derbyshire County Council. In the Lakes Board the planning advice comes from the three county planning officers, acting jointly, and the Clerk of the Lakes Park Board is the Clerk of the Westmorland County Council. The setting of the Boards within local government has been secured by a series of sensible and practical devices.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, if the noble Lord will be so patient, may I ask why he does not avoid all this horrible national fuss and do the whole thing that way?
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, because we think the way we have described is better, for the reasons I have set out.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes before ten o'clock.