Lords Sitting of 23 March 1972

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Guildford.

AIR FARES AND COMPLAINTS BY PUBLIC
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is correct that, after April 1 next, the Government cease to be responsible for air fares; and that there is no provision in the Civil Aviation Act 1971 for citizens to make complaints to the Authority, as there was in the Civil Aviation (Licensing) Act 1960.]
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORT-FOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN): My Lords, as from April 1 the Civil Aviation Authority will assume responsibility for approving or disapproving IATA resolutions on air fares on international scheduled air services. The Authority will determine the control over and the level of minimum inclusive tour prices and domestic air fares. Appeals against terms of licences may be made to the Secretary of State. As to the second part of the noble Baroness's Question, there is nothing to prevent citizens from making complaints to the Authority and I am sure that the Authority will make arrangements to deal with such complaints no less satisfactorily than those arrangements made by other public corporations serving the public.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, while appreciating that the Minister must be very glad to be rid of these continuous questions, may I ask him whether he is aware that many of us still hope that a member of the
830
Authority will accept within his remit responsibility for consumer affairs? Furthermore, as it has been so difficult to elicit information in this House over a long period, I wonder whether I may ask the Minister if he has seen the statement made by the Minister of Trade in another place on March 13 last, at column 123 of the Commons OFFICIAL REPORT, when he said:
"Abuse has been widespread and the rules governing affinity group flights have proved to be largely unworkable. … There is therefore a real and urgent need to find a better set of rules which will allow air travel to be brought more widely within the reach of the public, but in an open and aboveboard way that the public can rely on."
May I ask the Minister whether this is the policy that we can now expect to be carried out, and with some urgency? After all, it is what we have been arguing about for fourteen months.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, it is certainly the policy that we should like the Civil Aviation Authority to pursue, and, as was shown in the debate that we had on Tuesday on the Guidance to the Civil Aviation Authority, a large part of that Guidance deals with the issuing of licences for air transport. Of course it will remain true that, so far as TATA matters are concerned, international agreement is necessary.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I have studied Tuesday's debate with great care. May I ask the Minister, with reference to the question that I asked yesterday concerning the coming of cheaper flights in Europe, whether the two routes which the Minister gave us then may be taken as an advance guard of the individual excursion fares sought by B.E.A.? May I ask him, further, whether there will be more of these excursion rates so that the public can enjoy them this summer?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, as to the first part of the noble Baroness's question, it is not possible to say that it will be taken as an advance guard. What I think we can say is that we should like it to be the advance guard. I am afraid I have forgotten the second part of the noble Baroness's question.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I am not really surprised. The second part of the question was

831
whether we might hope that similar individual excursion rates would be available to the public in Europe this summer.
LORD DRUMALBYN: No, my Lords: I think that is unlikely, because the negotiations are now on the verge of completion for the European side of IATA.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Lord said that any complaint made by a customer to the Civil Aviation Authority would be considered by the Authority. May I ask him what legal authority he has for making that statement? Secondly, has he compared the Civil Aviation Authority with other public authorities? Is not the difference here that with all the other nationalised undertakings that have been set up there has been a consumer council of some sort established by law to consider complaints?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, as the noble Lord will recollect, a duty is laid upon the Civil Aviation Authority to inform itself of the public's needs and to take full account of them. That is done in the Guidance. The Authority will be required to follow that Guidance. How it follows it, as I explained in the debate on Tuesday, is left to the Authority.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, will the Government bear in mind that the arrangement of charter flights is of enormous value to the travelling public?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, my Lords.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, as the noble Lord did not answer the second part of my question, may I take it that he therefore accepts that there is this difference between the Authority that we have now set up, without the legal requirement to consider representations, and other public authorities which leaves the gap to which my noble friend calls attention?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes, my Lords, to some extent. But, as I explained on Tuesday, the mere fact that there was a statutory obligation on the Air Transport Licensing Board to consider complaints did not lead to complaints being made to them. The average numbers were, I think, five a year. So we believe that it is better to leave this matter to the Civil Aviation
832
Authority to work out for itself, bearing in mind the duty that is placed upon the Authority to have regard to the interests of users no less than the interests of the providers of transport.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I apologise for pursuing this matter, but there has been some interest in it. The noble Lord is absolutely right in saying that there were few representations made to the old A.T.L.B. Indeed, I used to boast as a Member of Parliament that I had more letters on this subject within a month than the Board had within a year. But then there was a direct Departmental responsibility, and a Member of Parliament could go direct to a Minister. We have deliberately taken away from the Minister—
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, I am afraid I must ask the noble Lord to put a question to my noble friend.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that we have now taken away from the Minister direct responsibility for this matter and put it under the C.A.B., and there is no legal authority to consider complaints?
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I have explained that although there is a direct statutory duty placed upon the Authority under the Act it must have regard to the interests of users and must also have regard to the Guidance. It is very clearly stated in the Guidance that the Authority must consider the interests of the consumers—and that must obviously relate also to complaints.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, I will be very brief, but I lose the noble Lord after April 1. May I just ask him whether he is aware (and on this particular point we are probably in agreement) that I am talking now not about consumer complaints but about consumer affairs, which I think are a very different matter, although it includes complaints?

AIRCRAFT HIJACKING
3.14 p.m.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will take steps to get international agreement to deal more effectively with the crime of hijacking aircraft and in particular to refuse the landing of planes in countries which harbour those who have committed that crime.]
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the United States and Canada recently proposed in ICAO the preparation of an international Convention providing for action against countries harbouring hijackers, including the withdrawal of air services. The United Kingdom supported consideration of this proposal, but it did not receive enough backing from other countries for it to be pursued. Her Majesty's Government continue to attach great importance to the suppression of hijacking and believe that The Hague Convention, which we have ratified and which is now in force, offers the best available means of achieving this.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, in view of the fact that hijacking is almost the worst form of the crime of blackmail that can possibly be conceived, may I ask whether he will continue to press as hard as possible to get agreement on the point that I have raised? May I point out to the noble Lord that even in time of war agreements are made between the nations of the world that certain types of action shall not be taken? Would he not agree that this heinous crime is one example of such an action? I feel, incidentally, that we were lax in allowing it to start.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are very concerned about this problem and I would assure the noble Lord that we were anxious that this should be considered by ICAO. But the full Assembly of ICAO decided, by a majority of no less than 41 to 31, that they did not wish this particular proposal even to he discussed.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl what further action Her Majesty's Government are taking to get the necessary support?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, as 41 countries have actually decided that they do not want even to discuss the particular proposal to which the noble Lord, Lord
834
Janner, refers, obviously this is going to be difficult. However, I would assure the noble Lord that we believe that The Hague Convention, which has been signed by us and by I think, 81 other countries, is really the best means of getting the international action taken against hijackers that is required.

LIGHTING ON TRUNK ROADS
3.16 p.m.
LORD VERNON: 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 it is their policy to provide standard lighting on all major trunk roads (other than motorways); and, if not, what criterion is used for deciding which roads should be provided with such lighting.]
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the present policy of the Department of the Environment is to light those lengths of trunk road which present special problems to drivers at night, and priority is given to those sections where lighting would result in the greatest reduction in accidents.
LORD VERNON: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for that reply.
LORD VERNON: 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 will consider a new type of lighting and lamp standard for use on trunk roads and road junctions in or near conservation areas or areas of outstanding natural beauty.]
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, in conservation areas and areas of outstanding natural beauty, special care is taken to ensure that lighting schemes are acceptable environmentally. The D.O.E. is always pleased to learn of new techniques and design for improving both the appearance and the efficiency of street lighting.
LORD VERNON: Yes, my Lords, bur the form of lighting which is adopted has

835
two serious defects. First, there is the excessive height of the lamp standards—
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I apologise for intervening, but I must remind my noble friend to put his supplementary remarks in the form of a question.
LORD VERNON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the existing lamp standards have two defects: first, their excessive height and, second, the hideous orange glare which is thrown out by these lights, which makes it appear as though the entire countryside for miles around were on fire? Would my noble friend consider whether safety standards and the environment could not be better harmonised?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the point about height which the noble Lord has raised is related chiefly to the efficiency of the lighting. If it is in a built-up area, brackets can be attached to walls below the eaves of buildings. The Royal Fine Art Commission are always consulted by the Department in connection with lighting schemes. Local authorities are similarly consulted.
The yellow light to which the noble Lord refers is the one which is normally used because it is the easiest to run from the point of view of both economy and repair. If, however, this type of lighting is in an area where there are many pedestrians about, and they do not like the yellow light or think that it is not suitable to the area, there are other more expensive forms of white or blue light which can be, and sometimes are, used. The Department has an open mind on these matters.
LORD VERNON: My Lords, may I ask whether in conservation or near-conservation areas, and in the types of country that I have outlined, my noble friend would give consideration to using the more expensive mercury vapour type of lighting, as opposed to the sodium vapour lighting which is so ugly?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: Yes, my Lords. In places where it is thought to be appropriate we do use the high-pressure mercury vapour type of lighting which gives a bluish light.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether there is not a third matter which does not seem to have been mentioned so far—namely, the safety of the types of lamp standard and the type of light which may well overcome many of the other difficulties to which the noble Lord referred?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord. Safety is the prime factor of concern. I am happy to be able to tell your Lordships that where we have made trunk road lighting improvements there has been a reduction in the accident rate of some 30 per cent.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, would the noble Lord also agree that when it is necessary to turn on the lights the beauty of the countryside is not visible anyway?

OXFORD CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL
3.21 p.m.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Jellicoe.)
On Question, Bill read 2a; Committee negatived.
Then, Standing Order No. 44 having been suspended (pursuant to the Resolution of March 21, 1972), Bill read 3a, and passed.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
THE MINISTER or STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Clause 14 [Local Health Councils]:
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 7, line 46, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble baroness said: My Lords, I find myself in some difficulty in moving this Amendment because in a sense it is consequential on the Amendment to Clauses Nos. 16 and 18 which are in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Hughes and Lord Hoy. Their Amendments, by using the formula "shall pay to members", would impose an express duty on the Secretary of State to pay allowances to members of the national and local consultative committees and their subcommittees. Therefore, on the assumption that the House will find the noble Lords' Amendments acceptable, and in order to ensure that the provisions of the Bill are consistent, my own Amendment converts the power of the Secretary of State to pay allowances to members of local health councils into a duty. I shall later be moving Amendments with similar purposes to Schedules Nos. 1, 2 and 3. I beg to move.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for having moved this Amendment and for the indication that she is to accept the further Amendments to be moved. It would perhaps be for the convenience of the House if I confined the remarks which I propose to make at this stage of the Bill to what I am now going to say. All of these Amendments, Nos. 1 to 9, are on the same subject. At a time when we are increasingly being criticised for having a permissive society we are departing from it in this Bill because we have removed in every one of the clauses the permissive nature and we have substituted the mandatory "shall". I am grateful to the noble Baronesss for the extent to which she has accepted, and is going to accept, Amendments to the Bill. I think that we are going to send it to another place a more satisfactory Bill than it was when it was introduced. I have made such progress with the noble Baroness during the successive stages of the Bill that I almost wish that there were a Fourth Reading, because I might then get agreement to the two Amend-
838
ments which she has not yet accepted. I hope, however, that she may yet have second thoughts inside the Scottish Office and that in another place we may achieve 100 per cent. success in improving the Bill instead of the 90-odd per cent. success that we have at the present time.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 47, leave out ("and committees") and insert (",the committees and sub-committees").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Local Consultative Committees]:
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 3.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 4, leave out ("including") and insert ("and shall pay to members of such committees and sub-committees thereon").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 5, leave out second ("and") and insert ("including").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 18 [National Consultative Committees]:
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 5.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 25, leave out ("including") and insert ("and shall pay to members of such committees and sub-committees thereof").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 6.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 26, leave out second ("and") and insert ("including").—(Lord Hughes.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Health Boards and University Liaison Committees]:
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 7.
Amendment moved—
Page 35, line 13, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)
Schedule 2 [Scottish Health Service Planning Council]:
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 8.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 11, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [The Common Services Agency for the Scottish Health Service]:
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 9.
Amendment moved—
Page 36, line 42, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
An Amendment (privilege) made.
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set 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 that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EMPLOYMENT MEDICAL ADVISORY SERVICE BILL
3.30 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Drumalbyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Establishment, organisation and functions of employment medical advisory service]:
LORD SHACKLETON LORD SHACKLETON moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 18, leave out ("(4)") and insert ("(3)".)
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 1 standing in my name. I think and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, will agree that it might be convenient if we were to consider also Amendment No. 2 and Amendment No. 6. If I have done my drafting correctly, the purpose in seeking to leave out the figure 4, which relates to the Schedule, is in fact to pave the way to bring in a new clause, Clause 6, relating to penalties. Since the Schedule is concerned only with reproducing certain provisions of the 1961 Factories Act it seemed to me to be essential to have this paving Amendment. I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, whether he is agreeable, because it might save the time of the Committee if I could argue in relation to penalty rather than the technical drafting.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am perfectly agreeable.
LORD SHACKLETON: It is necessary to explain to the Committee that the Government have inserted a Schedule to the Bill, Schedule 1, which reproduces

841
certain provisions of the Factories Act in Sections 146 and 147. Among the ones they have inserted in subsection (4) of Section 146 of the 1961 Factories Act is one which lays down that the penalty for the obstruction of an inspector should be a fine not exceeding £20. I seek in Amendment No. 6 to raise that penalty to £100. If your Lordships therefore, while ostensibly debating Amendment No. 1, would appreciate that we are in fact debating No. 6, I think this will be to the convenience of the Committee.
The case for increasing the penalties is fairly obvious and I do not think the Government, although they may not wish to go into this matter too much, would necessarily wish to dispute as to whether £20 was the right amount. If £20 was right in 1961, clearly it is not right in 1972 anyway because inflation alone has rendered it out of date. But the argument that the Government, as I understand it, are likely to use in regard to this matter is that it is not logical to increase the penalty for obstructing a medical adviser to more than the penalty for the obstruction of a factory inspector. I fully grant that there is real logic in this, but I would submit that there are very powerful arguments for doing something in this Bill. First of all, we are already amending the 1961 Factories Act in certain respects by creating this new category of medical advisers. The figure of £20 is clearly a ridiculously low figure. It has been suggested, not without force, that it is so low that factory inspectors in the past have been reluctant to bring a prosecution because there really was no point if the penalty was so low, except in the case of a rather small firm. Therefore, whereas a small firm might be threatened with a penalty of this kind, it would be laughable to threaten a large firm.
I fully accept that any responsible employer would object strongly to being taken to court and convicted anyway, and that for him this is probably as powerful a sanction as there is. As somebody who has dealt with factory inspectors in industry I know that one has been able to scare line managers who have refused to take the necessary steps, because it is said, "To hell with the penalty! It is very bad for the reputation of the firm to be taken to court and to be found guilty." I fully acknowledge that this
842
is a very important sanction. But the figure of £20 is a ridiculously low one, and since we are setting up this new service—and, as we indicated on Second Reading, we on this side of the Committee, although we have reservations in certain respects, certainly do not wish to delay the Bill—we think that logically it would be right to increase the penalty. A number of penalties have been discussed. On one occasion it was suggested there should be a penalty of £500. But the Under-Secretary, replying in another place, argued that this was excessive and he gave certain other figures. We have picked on a figure which seems to us to be analogous—the figure of £100, which is the penalty (and I think it is thanks to the Under-Secretary that our attention was drawn to this fact) for obstructing a water bailiff. If someone is trying to poach a salmon and a water bailiff comes along and is obstructed, the maximum penalty is £100. If there is any relationship at all or any meaning in fines, £20 is quite absurdly low.
I have a further purpose behind this Amendment; that is, to draw attention to the whole level of penalties in the enforcement of the Factories Acts. Let me say that I know very well that factory inspectors do not operate by means of taking people to court, and that most sensible employers have good relations with factory inspectors and, indeed, look to them for help and advice, and take that advice. But the law, of course, is designed to deal with the unsatisfactory minority, and there have been instances (indeed, I know of one) where in fact a factory inspector has said. "It is just not worth prosecuting". The maximum penalty anywhere under the Factories Acts (this does not bear on this particular point) is £300, which I believe has been enforced only once. The Robens Committee and I hope looking at this matter, and I hope very much that they will, as a result of that consideration, come up with a constructive set of proposals. I am bound to say that in our legislation introduced by the previous Government, which was very similar, we also provided no change; and I freely admit that we were wrong. In fact, the former Under-Secretary who dealt with it in another place said, "I was at fault in not putting this right." We are giving the Government an opportunity now to put this right, and I shall

843
wait with great interest to hear what arguments the Government can deploy against what seems to me to be a very reasonable case. I beg to move.
3.40 p.m.
LORD JANNER: I should like to support the plea that has been made by my noble friend. Perhaps one of the important features of fixing a penalty which is not to exceed a certain amount is that the courts have discretion in deciding what the amount shall be. Those of us who appear in the courts—and there must be many noble Lords who are magistrates, or who appear in the courts in other capacities—are familiar with the right to be able to fix a penalty which is consistent with the circumstances of a particular case; and that is something of considerable importance. It may be, as my noble friend said, that the sum of £20 would be a ridiculous and derisory amount for a court to award against a person who has committed an offence. Certainly in the case of a large firm it would be one of a derisory nature, and it seems to me that at this stage we should consider whether we should not at least permit a penalty of a higher amount, so that if it happens to be a firm that is to blame and that firm is of some financial standing the amount should be more than it would be for a firm of a lower financial standing.
The question is, what in fact is the penalty? In the main, the vast majority of magistrates are reasonable and sensible people, and they take into consideration the means of the individual who is being charged with an offence and what effect the sum which is imposed as a penalty will have on him—or her, as the case may be. It differs considerably in cases where a person's livelihood is at stake. A small sum may mean a consideable amount to people who are not of a very great financial standing. In this particular instance I think we should leave the discretion with the court to decide upon a satisfactory penalty.
LORD REIGATE: I should like to support the Amendment, and I hope my noble friend will keep a fairly open mind about it. If it is true that the proposed fine is less than that for obstructing a water bailiff then of course it makes
844
nonsense; it is equal nonsense if it becomes more than the fine for obstructing a factory inspector. But we cannot change all these things at once. What we have to do is to consider what is the right penalty for the offence that we are considering at the time. I must confess that if I had been drafting the Amendment I should have put the line far higher than £100f; I should have put it at £250 or even £300. So far as I can recall, the maximum fine for a highway obstruction is £50 and I cannot think that this offence is any less heinous, or indeed that it is only twice as heinous as highway obstruction. There is no real logic running through all these things. I hope my noble friend will give this point consideration, even at the risk of inconsistency. In fact we know that in practice probably on the first offence committed no fine would be imposed; there would be a conditional discharge, or something like that. In the case of a second offence I must say quite frankly that I do not think £100 is enough and possibly there ought to be an extra penalty to cover a persistent offender. All I want is that a voice from these Benches should express the hope that the Government will not say a flat "No" at this stage.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: The Minister must see that there is general agreement from both sides of the Committee; consequently I do not want to delay your Lordships too long, but I hope that cogently and succinctly I can make a brief point. I know how busy your Lordships are, but I am sure that you have read everything in the Bill. I took the trouble to read it through and saw what the powers of the inspector were and what frustrating the inspector would mean so far as the employment medical advisory service was concerned; and this fine of £20 seems derisory. Nevertheless, a first-class and constructive point has been put by the noble Lord, Lord Reigate: that a certain amount should be fixed; but I am not too sure that I agree completely with my noble friend about leaving magistrates to wibble and wobble all over the place. I do not intend to get into a discussion with the noble Lord and I do not want to be interrupted, but I should not like to leave the penalty too open. I want a sum to be spiked down that is commensurate

845
with the magnitude of the offence. If I speak any longer I shall bore the Committee, and I am sure we have convinced the Minister that it is worth while accepting the Amendment.
LORD SEGAL: I would ask the Minister to consider this Amendment favourably. I think it is true to say that there is not one of your Lordships who is not deeply concerned about the pollution of the environment. Here we have an Amendment that is concerned with the pollution of the human factors in the environment—not a temporary pollution which can be removed but one which can have a lasting, and perhaps even fatal, effect upon the individual; and in my view even a maximum fine of £100 is quite derisory.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: I should like to make one of the briefest speeches on record, before the Minister replies. The trade union movement has always been concerned at the paucity of factory inspectors. There are not enough to carry out the duties which they are supposed to carry out, and if they are going to he offended by derisory fines of £20, at the end of the day even the small number of factory inspectors that we have will become even smaller. I am surprised that the penalty called for is only £100 in the light of the inflationary effect on the pound at the present time. Most employers join with us in maintaining safety standards so far as the work is concerned, but if a small number of employers are going to get off with derisory fines of £20 then the Act will be completely worthless.
3.48 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, said that there was general agreement, but perhaps I may be allowed to have my say before it is decided whether or not there is general agreement. I certainly agree that everyone who has spoken has been in favour of the Amendment, and I am bound to say that I have a great deal of sympathy with the motives behind the Amendment. But there are reasons, which I hope will commend themselves to noble Lords on all sides of the Committee, why I find it difficult to recommend that this Amendment should be accepted.
The first reason is a technical one and I hope the Committee will bear with me
846
while I explain it. I suspect that the Amendment does not do exactly what those who moved it intended it to do. As it stands, the Amendment does not apply any penalty for obstruction to the occupier, unless he is the person doing the obstruction. The corresponding provision in the Factories Act, which is reproduced in paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 and which the noble Lord wants to leave out, attracts a penalty on the occupier up to the general penal provision. If we were to pass this Amendment as it is drafted there would be no penalty at all on the occupier unless he was the person doing the obstruction. Of course the Factories Act imposes a much higher penalty on the occupier than on the person doing the obstruction. I quite agree that the penalties seem low 12 years after they were originally enacted, but the relativity was three times as much on the occupier as on the person actually doing the obstruction. So the effect of removing the paragraph from the Schedule and so divorcing it from the other provisions of the Factories Act is to relieve the occupier of any penalty for obstruction unless he is the person who obstructs the employment medical adviser. I do not suppose that is what the noble Lord wanted any more than it is what we should want.
The second reason is one which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has rather anticipated. It does arise from the fact that Schedule 1 is a quotation from the Factories Act, and it gives the employment medical advisers some of the powers of factory inspectors. The penalty for obstructing a factory inspector is £20. Employment medical advisers and factory inspectors will be working closely together, as I said on Second Reading, and it would be not only anomalous but I should have thought highly undesirable if the two of them were obstructed in the same factory and the penalty for obstructing the inspector was only £20 while the penalty for obstructing the employment medical adviser was £100.
The next reason is this. I have checked up to see how often the corresponding penalty in the Factories Act has been used. During the last five years there have been only three cases taken up for obstruction of a factory inspector, two in 1967 and one in 1971. I just do not know whethter the noble Lord, Lord

847
Shackleton, is right in suggesting that one of the reasons may be that the penalty was low. I merely tell the Committee that fact; but I can also tell the Committee this fact, that none of those cases related to the obstruction of a medical inspector of factories. The medical inspectors of factories are going to be absorbed into the employment medical adviser service, so this is what we are really talking about. None of those cases related to obstruction of a medical inspector of factories. Raising the penalties would have little, if any, practical effect.
I think one must also recognise that the truth is that it is very unlikely that an employment medical adviser will be obstructed. He is, after all, an adviser; he is not an inspector. A factory inspector goes into the factory to enforce the law, and he can prosecute the occupier if he finds serious non-compliance. But the employment medical adviser will not have power to prosecute as he is working for an advisory service. Of course, I suppose someone might say that I am proving too much, and of course I must add that this does not mean that the law should provide no penalty at all for obstructing an employment medical adviser. But it certainly does mean that there is no justification for imposing a higher penalty for obstructing an employment medical adviser than for obstructing a factory inspector.
I agree with noble Lords that the existing penalty of £20 may be out of date, but the time to alter this penalty—the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, really almost suggested this himself—will come when we legislate on the recommendations of the Robens Committee. It seems likely that the Committee will have considered the level of penalties over the whole field of safety, health and service, and even if they do not the time to legislate would be then and not now. It would, I suggest, be undesirable to make piecemeal changes in penalties in this field in advance of that Committee's Report, unless it could be shown that there was an urgent and pressing necessity to increase the deterrent effect of the penalty. But since there have been no prosecutions in recent years there is no such necessity in this case, and therefore I suggest to noble Lords that it is
848
better not to tinker with this in a piecemeal way but to wait for the legislation and deal with it at the same time as the factory inspectors.
LORD SHACKLETON: I am really rather surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, used the argument that there have been no prosecutions brought for obstructing a medical inspector as an argument for not increasing the penalty. The weakness of this particular logic must be entirely apparent to the Committee. It is a logical argument for having no penalty at all—not in fact a convincing one because, as I said in my opening remarks it is the existence of the penalty on those who will not co-operate which makes it unnecessary to enforce it in a court of law. It may equally, as the noble Lord admitted, be interpreted that the penalties are so low as not to be worth bothering about. I think this is not a particularly valuable area in which to speculate.
First of all, under the technical part of his argument that this Amendment is defective, I am quite prepared to accept that he is right, though I should like to look more closely at what he has said. I assume that he has in mind Section 155 of the 1961 Act. He did not explain how it was that it did not apply to the occupier of the factory as opposed to the actual person obstructing, but he need not bother; I will accept his word for that. But it would be perfectly easy to put that matter right. We know perfectly well that it is possible to draft a proper Amendment. The Opposition move Amendments and they have not got the resources for drafting, but very often if the Government accept the principle they will come back and say they will do the necessary drafting. What is a particular handicap to us is the speed with which the Government are moving. They want to take the Report stage of this Bill on the next sitting day of the House; this gives us very little time, and after then it will be too late to proceed.
I should like the Minister to say that he will accept this Amendment in principle but would ask us not to press it while he makes a suitable drafting Amendment, if ours is inadequate. I really cannot accept the argument that the time to do this is when Robens reports. That would be an argument,

849
which I am glad the Government did not employ, for not introducing this Bill at all at the moment. But they say Robens says that it is all right to do so, and they have seen fit to go ahead. This we welcome.
To argue that it is absurd to have a £20 penalty for obstructing a factory inspector and £100 for obstructing an employment medical adviser when both penalties are not necessarily satisfactory does not seem to be valid. Equality of unsatisfactoriness does not seem to be necessarily a principle that I would have thought commended itself to the present Government. I thought they believed in inequality of unsatisfactoriness. In this case, £100, which I would agree is inadequate, is nevertheless symbolic of a recognition of the importance that we attach to this matter. Furthermore, it will help to focus the attention of the Robens Committee on this matter. I ask the Government to say that they will accept this Amendment in principle. I feel strongly on a matter which is of real importance and on which there is real concern, and on which some of my trade union colleagues have spoken. I should like the Government to say that they are prepared to draft a suitable Amendment for the Report stage. I do not see how we can let this matter go on the sort of arguments the noble Lord has put forward, because I do not believe they convince any of your Lordships.
4.0 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I am glad that my noble friend has pressed this point. This has been quite a constructive discussion. We have spoken about the Robens Committee. I remember the Dale Committee Report 21 years ago that was going to introduce an industrial health scheme throughout the factory system of Britain. This, one day and very soon, we need to see. We thought this might be a stepping stone. In his heart, the Minister has accepted our Amendment; and if he is going into the technicalities and the drafting of it, all the kindly Ministers can do is to say: "I can help these noble Lords opposite and on my side who do not understand the technicalities of drafting. Do they not see they have made mistakes?" But on the other hand, so has the Minister in quoting to us made a mistake.
850
I must read our Amendment to peg out the logic of what we are asking for. We are saying in this Amendment:
"Where an employment medical adviser is obstructed"—
and we are giving him the same powers as the factory inspector—
"in the execution of his powers or his duties"—
now watch this sentence—
"the person obstructing him shall be guilty of an offence"—
and we shall put parenthesis there, then we shall say
"and liable to a fine not exceeding £100,"—
I should like to have seen a figure of £500, but I will not argue that now—
"and where an employment medical adviser is so obstructed in a factory, the occupier of that factory shall be guilty of an offence."
In other words I would have had both of them up before the "beak". That is the absolute logic of that sentence. Therefore, we need a little help here.
Let us get on with this Bill. I want to catch a train but the Robens Report is having a traumatic effect upon me. I want to assure the Committee that there are certain things that stand out in a man's lifetime. For me, for instance, Torquay stands out. I was going there for my honeymoon when I could save up enough money to pay for it. My wife and I talked about it for three years before we went. I have been hearing about the Robens Report, and that when that comes miracles are going to happen. Let us help the miracle to happen by accepting this Amendment in principle. It is not quite right, but as we agree in principle I assure the Committee that we will bring forward on the Report stage an explanation that I hope the House will accept. I make this appeal to the Minister because we can go rollicking along with the Amendments if he says "Yes".
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: I have no train to catch, but I have been trying to catch up with this problem for forty years, so catching a train does not matter very much to me. I have asked myself on many occasions in this House whether we can have civilisation without legislation, and when we were dealing with the Industrial Relations Bill I observed that those on the Government Benches were very concerned about the necessity for legislation in respect of the

851
desires they then had. I want legislation to protect our people from the evils which industry brings to them to-day. Whilst in industry I lived with my people who had gone deaf, who had developed cataracts, who had gone blind and who had suffered all sorts of penalties. Those industries are now giving out to their members multiplied penalties so far as physique is concerned. I am therefore extremely concerned about this issue.
I was concerned when the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, said that there have been no prosecutions. I would ask him to pause and think about this matter. Trade unions have come to the position when they ask themselves, "Is a prosecution going to be effective? Can we be more effective?". And if the trade unions find that a strike is more effective than a prosecution, they will strike. Can you imagine anything being less effective than a £20 penalty on an employer for destroying the health of the men whom trade unions represent? You will recognise that I could go on at some length on this matter. I am not prepared to accept anything less than a £100 penalty for this offence, whatever my Front Bench may say. I think £100 is a parsimonious penalty on those who would destroy the health of the men who sent me to the Trades Union Congress and finally to this House.
I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, who I know has a good deal of humanity about him, to think these things over and to consider in his wisdom whether he is not giving support for opposition to the Industrial Relations Act if he proposes a £20 penalty for an offence of this character. He should remember that no cases are unrelated, and if he insists in this argument now that £20 is enough, he will be in a very weak position when he sits on the Front Bench, representing the Government in this House, and comes to argue the consequences of the Industrial Relations Act. The amount shown here is so parsimonious as not to be worth a moment's discussion, much less the missing of a train, and I hope the Minister will recognise that.
VISCOUNT HANWORTH: We have of course no guarantee that legislation will follow the Robens Report at any reasonable time scale. I therefore feel
852
that we should put this matter right and get a reasonable penalty into the Bill. There are many penalties that will have to be reconsidered if they are to be effective, in this and in other fields. I should therefore feel extremely sorry if the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, withdrew this Amendment, unless he first obtained from the Minister the assurance that he has asked for.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I think I ought to put this point to noble Lords opposite, because from the way they have put their arguments I do not believe that they really understand the matter. The medical inspectors of factories and what will be the employment medical advisers work on a voluntary basis. They have statutory powers behind them. The evidence is that the kind of inspections, the kind of examinations, that are carried out in dangerous and hazardous trades, are the very ones which the employers themselves want to have carried out. There has never been any difficulty for the inspectors in getting access. I am not talking of the factory inspectors at the moment; just now, I am talking of the medical advisers. In carrying out their statutory duties here they are unlikely to have any opposition. Of course this is an advisory service and in many of their cases where they request—and "request" is the word—that they may be allowed to come in, the requests are accepted. I am not aware that orders had to be made for entry. Where the requests are made, it may very well be because a medical adviser has some reason to think that there is something wrong with the health of a particular individual which may arise out of his work. The medical adviser may have got this information from the man's practitioner. He may receive information also from the school health service and may go along in those circumstances to examine a young person. Again, he may be carrying out or co-operating in a survey to find out whether there are health hazards. In that case such and such an inspector may be selected for the purpose. But these are circumstances in which employers do co-operate. What I am trying to say to noble Lords is that I think it would he a great mistake to try to turn this Bill into a kind of punitive Bill. This is the list, and this is not a minor point—
THE EARL OF ONSLOW: If the noble Lord says that we should not turn this into a punitive Bill, may I ask why there is a penalty in it in the first place? Secondly, is the noble Lord aware that this fine is only 40 per cent. of the fine which one can have for not having a television licence?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I suppose the answer to why is there a penalty in the first place, is that this penalty is reproduced from the Factories Act. I do not ask noble Lords to look at any one of my arguments by itself, but to take the arguments together. There is the disparity that would arise with the factory inspectors and the fact that there does not appear to be any real need for an increase in the deterrent at the present time. It seems to me that in regard to the employment medical adviser—I am not talking about the factory inspector; that is not covered in the Bill—there is really no need for any increase in the fine. That being so, is it not better, rather than to deal with the matter piecemeal, to see the sort of scale of fines that Robens will suggest when he comes to report? I am always willing to consider the case that has been put up, but I am afraid that I cannot accept the Amendment to-day.
LORD SHACKLETON: The noble Lord is always perfectly straightforward with the House. He has not attempted to lure us by saying that he will consider it. Of course his argument simply amounted to saying "accept Amendment No. 1", which actually strikes out the penalty entirely, whereas of course, I am trying to insert a new penalty. I do not believe that this is good enough. I think we shall need to divide. It was said that everything is friendly and co-operative, and I do not doubt that in the majority of cases it is. But this is where the sanction of the law is sought, and presumably that is why the noble Lord's right honourable friend left this particular penalty in. It need not have been reproduced from the Factories Act. They have not reproduced all the sanctions. I think that the sum of £100 has a very important symbolic significance in this matter, and I certainly hope that the noble Lord will he required by the Committee to think heavily again by inserting this Amendment into the Bill.
VISCOUNT SIMON: Before the noble Lord puts the Question to the Committee, may I ask him a question? I take it that we should be voting on Amendment No. 1. But this is a paving Amendment for Amendment No. 6, which is the vital Amendment, and to which the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, has already referred. It was on Amendment No. 6 that I wanted to ask the noble Lord. The Amendment says:
"… where an employment medical adviser is so obstructed in a factory, the occupier of that factory shall he guilty of an offence."
But the employment medical adviser might he obstructed by anybody; it may he by a workman. Why should the occupier of the factory be guilty of an offence? I am afraid I do not follow.
LORD DOUGLASS or CLEVELAND: Is it likely that a trade unionist is going to obstruct a factory inspector protecting his interests?
VISCOUNT SIMON: It is not a factory inspector; it is a medical employment adviser. Perhaps he wants to examine the workman and the workman does not want to be examined.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: I can come in on this point because I have experience of it. That was forty years ago, and I have grown up. Not only have I grown up but the Government have grown up. This is the important thing. There was a distinct danger forty years ago that a medical examination would have put me out of a job because the medical examiner was employed by my employer and my employer did not want me. There was a distinct suspicion that he might have put me out of a job.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Of course the noble Lord realises that that situation could not arise under this Bill.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: I am answering the question asked by my noble friend on the Liberal Benches and not by the Minister. I hope that he will be my noble friend before we finish. The trade unions, knowing that these things existed thirty or forty years ago, decided that the only method of dealing with this particular problem was to make themselves strong; and strong they have made themselves. If your Lordships have

855
any doubts about this, look at the penalties under the Industrial Relations Act and compare them with the £20 penalty under this particular Bill, and observe the reaction from trade unionists when they read the two Acts and see the penalty that will be imposed for obstruction in the one case, and that in the other case when they are opposing something that the Government want in that particular Act.
LORD JANNER: Will the noble Lord excuse me for interrupting? It is a maximum penalty of £20, not a £20 penalty.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: I am bobbing up and down like a belly dancer, but I do not mind. I do not want penalties; the trade union movement does not want penalties, and it does not need them because it is strong enough now to look after itself—make no mistake about that. But this Government are asking the trade unions to co-operate with them, and God knows! I have tried to co-operate with Governments over the last thirty years as a pretty influential official inside the T.U.C. All I want is to reach an agreement that where employers will not be reasonable, there shall be a penalty on them which will be commensurate with the offence they commit.
The T.U.C. are not very much bothered if this is not done because they can look after themselves. But I ask the question: can you have civilisation without legislation? If you want legislation, so far as the trade union movement is concerned it will have to be made equal when it applies in opposite directions. If employers are going to be offensive so far as this is concerned, there has to be a penalty on the employers. The Government cannot argue that there should not be a penalty on employers when they are seeking to impose a penalty on the trade unionists. That is the point I am trying to make. If the Government introduce the right sort of legislation, the right sort of penalty on the right sort of people, then they will come much nearer to reaching agreement with the trade unions than they will if they argue, as they are arguing to-day, that the right sort of a penalty for an offence against
856
humanity is £20, and that the penalty so far as the Industrial Relations Act is concerned is hundreds of pounds. This sort of thing will not go down. I am appealing to the Government to work with us for the purpose of getting the right sort of provisions in all the Bills brought before this House.
LORD SHACKLETON: I do not think we want to continue this interesting discussion much longer. I would only say to the noble Viscount who asked a particular question that we have precisely restated the provisions that are in the Factories Act that apply in relation to the employer, the occupier, or the individual. It was pointed out that in certain respects there was misunderstanding, but rather than go further into this matter I hope that the noble Lord will accept that it is all right. I think that the Committee should now come to a decision.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Before we come to a decision I think it is only right to point out again that the Amendment is defective as it now stands.
LORD SHEPHERD: It can be put right.
LORD DRUMALBYN: It does not seem to be good sense to pass now an Amendment which is incorrect.
VISCOUNT MONCK: May I ask my noble friend one question before we go into the Lobby? There is a certain amount of restlessness in what I might call the cheaper seats, and some of us do not see why the fine for a medical offence should be five times greater than for a factory inspector offence. At the same time, the suggestion has been made that when the Robens Report is made a new schedule of penalties could be suggested. If that is so, does that mean that this Bill should be amended to conform?
LORD DRUMALBYN: Yes.
LORD SHACKLETON: The noble Lord is very optimistic in assuming that it necessarily will. We hope that it will and that this will help the Amendments in the right direction; but it may be some years ahead.
4.19 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
LORD SHACKLETON: We wish at this moment to ask the intentions of the Government; whether they intend to continue with this Bill, and indeed whether they will continue in office at all?
EARL JELLICOE: Perhaps I should rise to inform the noble Lord of what he must already know; that the intentions of this Government, as always, are entirely honourable.
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 70; Not-Contents, 59.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Reigate, L.

Amherst, E.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Amulree, L.

Hanworth, V.

Sainsbury, L.

Annan, L.

Henley, L.

St. Davids, V.

Archibald, L.

Heycock, L.

Segal, L.

Arwyn, L.

Hoy, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Auckland, L.

Hughes, L.

Serota, Bs.

Beswick, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

Shackleton, L.

Brockway, L.

Jacques, L.

Shepherd, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Janner, L.

Shinwell, L.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Jessel, L.

Silkin, L.

Chalfont, L.

Llewlyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs.

Simon, V.

Champion, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Somers, L.

Citrine, L.

Longford, E.

Stocks, Bs.

Cottesloe, L.

Loudoun, C.

Stonehaven, V.

Crook, L.

McLeavy, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Merthyr, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Moyle, L.

Vivian, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Walston, L.

Effingham, E.

Ogmore, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Onslow, E.

Willis, L.

Fiske, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Foot, L.

Raglan, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Garnsworthy, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Albemarle, E.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Moyne, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Falkland, V.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Alport, L.

Ferrers, E.

Northchurch, Bs.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Gainford, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Balerno, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Oakshott, L.

Belstead, L.

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

Rathcavan, L.

Blake, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Bourne, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Ironside, L.

St. Helens, L.

Caccia, L.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Sandford, L.

Conesford, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Sandys, L.

Courtown, E.

Lothian, M.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Craigavon, V.

Macleod of Borve, Bs.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Daventry, V.

Mancroft, L.

Sudeley, L.

de Clifford, L.

Merrivale, L.

Teviot, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Milverton, L.

Thomas, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Molson, L.

Vernon, L.

Dundee, E.

Monck, V.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Wolverton, L.

Eccles, V.

Young, Bs.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

LORD SHACKLETON: I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 25, leave out ("(4)") and insert ("(3)").—(Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.27 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL BARONESS SUMMERSKILL moved Amendment No. 3: Page 3, line 5, after ("advisers") insert (", the number of whom shall be not less than one hundred and ten full time or their equivalent,")
The noble Baroness said: I hope that the Committee will consider this Amendment with the same sympathy as they extended to my noble friend who moved the last Amendment. This is a very important Bill and these Amendments have been put down after the most careful consideration. If the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, considers with perhaps a little more sympathy what I have to say and does not accuse me of tinkering with the Bill, he may prevent us going into the Division Lobbies again. There should be no ambiguity about the purpose of this Amendment, which is simply to ensure that the number of medical advisers shall be the same as the number proposed in the original Bill. The Committee will recall that the original Bill was introduced by the last Labour Government and was in many respects similar to this Bill. But there are two matters, one of which we have just divided upon, in respect of which the Government, for some extraordinary reason—because behind the scenes many of the same people must have been concerned in drafting the Bill—have decided to adopt a different policy.
My Amendment is a very simple one. I spoke very strongly on the Second Reading of this Bill—and I have every sympathy with my noble friend behind me—because, of course, this Bill is concerned with the high incidence of industrial injuries and industrial diseases in our country. One has only to read the Annual Reports of the Factory Inspector to realise (and I am sorry to say this) that ours is a shameful record in this respect. Yet here we have a Bill which in some respects will be responsible for increasing this tragic death rate. It is a quite extraordinary thing, but there has been one very serious omission from this Bill. The Government have completely omitted to mention industrial safety. In fact, there is no mention of industrial accidents at all; the Bill is concerned only with industrial diseases.
Furthermore, when one is considering how many doctors should be used, no doubt the Treasury came into the picture, and I am really shocked to find that the Treasury decreased the original amount of £1 million, which was calculated as the cost of the provisions of the last
860
Bill, to £850,000. Everyone knows that, as a result of inflation, the Treasury, far from decreasing that £1 million, should have been concerned with increasing the cost attributed to this Bill. Is this one reason why the Government have decided to decrease the number of doctors? Under this Bill, 50 full-time doctors and the part-time equivalent of a further 50, making a total of 100, will be used. In the original Bill, 110 full-time doctors, or their equivalent, was considered the minimum number. Now the Government, in a Bill of this serious nature, have cut the number of medical advisers by nearly 10 per cent. This is an economy which should not be accepted by this House.
Then the Government say that to the 100 doctors (instead of the 110 proposed earlier) will be added some nurses. I agree that on Second Reading I said that, in the light of some of the reports on industrial injuries and industrial diseases, which are of such a serious nature, I believe that if we had nurses who had taken a course in industrial hygiene and industrial medicine, and flooded our factories with these women, they might well do better than some of the doctors had done in the past. But there is no question here of introducing 100 nurses. It seems that all the Government are doing is to introduce a few nurses as a substitute for the 10 per cent. of doctors whom they have eliminated by the provisions of this Bill. Therefore the talk of supporting staff is really a mention of the economy they have effected.
I think I have put the point as shortly and as plainly as I can. Here we have a Bill of first importance to our industrial workers, and the Government have seen fit to economise in money and, even more, to economise in medical personnel. If these two economies are effected, that must inevitably affect the quality of the service. I therefore ask your Lordships to support this Amendment. This new service will have a far-reaching effect in our great industrial towns; and nobody in this House would say that the industrial worker does not deserve the best medical service that we can possibly provide. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
LORD SEGAL: In rising to support my noble friend Lady Summerskill on this Amendment, I should like to remind the Minister of the words he himself used

861
when introducing this Bill on Second Reading. If I may quote from his remarks he said:
"We estimate that at present about one-third of the factory population have their own works medical services. To cover the remaining two-thirds would, we estimate, need some 2,000 doctors and cost about £20 million".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9/3/72, cot. 228]
How far are the Government prepared to go to meet this need, which they themselves admit? This Bill provides for only the equivalent of 100 full-time medical officers. Already the Minister has stated that there are something like 50 works medical officers employed in their own factories. We all recognise the tremendous services that have been rendered to industrial medicine by the medical officers employed by private firms. Many of them are pioneers in industrial medicine; and I would have wished that the Minister had put forward some scheme for co-operation with the existing medical officers employed by private firms. Some of them have medical provisions of so high a standard that it is bound to minimise the work done by the medical officers employed under this new advisory service. What this Amendment asks for is not the equivalent of 2,000 doctors, which we know would be quite unattainable, but merely that an additional 10 medical officers should be added to the 100 already suggested by the Government. Surely that is the most modest request that any Amendment could possibly make.
I am concerned not only with the actual quantitative provisions of this Bill by the addition of the equivalent of 50 full-time medical officers. What is far more important is the qualitative factor; and I would ask the Minister whether he could not consider inserting in this clause some provision to ensure that the medical officers he intends to recruit should be men of some experience in medical practice—preferably with about seven years' or at least five years' experience in general practice, so that they fully understand the psychological background to industrial illness especially as it relates to the family circumstances and to the whole approach to the employee's background. There are so many factors here which are of vital importance to the Bill. In the regional medical service of the Ministry of Health it is a requirement that any doctor recruited into the service should have
862
several years' experience of general practice; and in the case of this Bill I should like to see some provision made to ensure that the doctors recruited are men of some senior standing, preferably of some years' experience of medicine after qualification—and, if possible, recruited from the ranks of medical officers in any of the three Services. From my personal acquaintance I know that there is first-class material there, certainly in the medical branch of the Royal Air Force, which often has a close and intimate acquaintance with conditions in aircraft factories supplying the needs of the Service.
I would urge the Minister, when he comes to redraft some of the clauses of this Bill (which to my mind seriously need re-drafting) also to consider inserting, after the mention of there being not less than 100 full-time medical officers or their equivalent, the words, "of at least five years' professional standing". I think this factor is of vital importance to the success of this new medical advisory service, and if the Minister has set his heart on making this new venture in industrial medicine a real success, I would strongly urge him to consider the insertion of some words to the effect I have suggested.
LORD DRUMALBYN: The noble Baroness has put her case very clearly, but I think she will be the first to recognise that the case she has put is somewhat unusual. It is very rare indeed in this kind of circumstance to specify the minimum number of employees; in fact, I understand that it is never done. I think the second thing she probably does not recognise is that calculations of the work-load have always to be made. This can vary from time to time, and it is not possible to make an exact mathematical calculation. The Department of Employment has based its staffing figures on the known work-load arising from statutory periodic medical examination and on the best estimate we have been able to make of the time involved on other duties of employment medical advisers.
The noble Lord, Lord Segal, said that better use should be made of the existing works medical officers. They, too, can be used. No doubt the calculations also take into account the fact that they

863
can be used for the statutory periodic medical examination. It is not proposed to eliminate them altogether from that work. The one major change in the staffing from that proposed under the original Bill is in the employment of nurses. That is not to reduce the cost of the Bill or because we think that nurses are a cheap substitute for doctors. It is because we are sure, in accordance with current developments in medicine, that there are some things which are better done by nurses, and that they have a positive contribution to make to the work of the Service. I am sure the noble Baroness will support the Government in this and agree that the introduction of nurses is a good thing. We are starting with only a few nurses but we shall of course increase the number as the need arises.
Before the Committee makes up its mind on this matter I think it will be worth while if I explain in a little more detail the way in which the service will be organised and the basis on which these estimates were made. The service will be headed by a chief employment medical adviser and two deputies. They will work at headquarters and be supported by six other doctors, together with technical and administrative staff who will help both with the running of the service and also with providing services that need to be centralised—for example, the pathological laboratory, the planning and management surveys and an information service. The field organisation has been worked out on the basis of the distribution of industry, as I explained on Second Reading, together with the location of the Government training centres and industrial rehabilitation units and the spread of the estimated work-load. In calculating the work-load the Department is able to make a fairly exact estimate of the time which the employment medical advisers will need to spend on their statutory duties. Our estimate of the time they will spend on their advisory duties is necessarily far less precise, but it was assessed on the best available advice from works medical officers.
The full-time advisers will be based on the main centres of industry and population; the less industrialised parts of the country will be covered by the part-time advisers. Within this general structure it is proposed that there shall be substan-
864
tial groups of full-time advisers in the major conurbations. This will allow the development of a degree of specialisation among those advisers which will be of considerable benefit to the service as a whole. At this stage, it is not possible to be precise about the exact division between full-time and part-time doctors, but our estimate is that when the service is in operation there will be about 78 full-time doctors and 42 part-time doctors.
I can assure the Committee that the need for additional employment medical advisers will be considered as the service develops. But surely it would be quite inappropriate to attempt to regulate the number of employment medical advisers in the service in the way proposed, which, as I say is, to the best of my knowledge, without precedent in the Civil Service. It could have some undesirable consequences. Among others it would mean that the service could not start to operate until there were a sufficient number of full-time and part-time doctors in post to give the equivalent service that 110 full-time doctors would give. It would also mean that if the service fell below 110 it would be unable to operate lawfully. This is the reason why this kind of thing is not specified in legislation.
I can assure the Committee that the Secretary of State will keep the staffing under review to ensure that the employment medical advisory service can do its job properly and efficiently on a countrywide basis. I can see no justification for restricting my right honourable friend's discretion as is proposed in the Amendment. We feel that it is better to start the service in a fairly modest way and build up as need arises. The staffing of the service will be kept under the closest supervision, and I can assure the noble Baroness that it will be increased as necessary to ensure that it is able to cope with its functions efficiently and well.
The noble Lord, Lord Segal, spoke about the qualifications and the training required. This aspect has been looked at very carefully. The vacancies will of course be advertised, and careful note will be taken of the qualifications of those applying. It may be that some recruits into the service will be obtained from works medical officers, but I think the noble Lord may rest absolutely assured that the very greatest care will be taken

865
about this. In addition, as I explained on Second Reading, all those who are recruited will be given a period when they will go round with the existing medical adviser—the former medical inspector—and there will be special courses for them before they actually go into service. In fact there is a special allocation in the first year for this purpose. So I hope that the noble Lord will feel reassured on this score. But I am afraid that, for the reasons I have given, we cannot accept the Amendment.
LORD SHACKLETON: I agree that it is an unusual thing to put a figure like this into a Bill of this kind. If I remember rightly, it was the previous Government which introduced the manpower tag, as well as the cash tag, on Bills for the information of Parliament. But I must confess to a feeling almost of depression at the noble Lord's speech. It never occurred to me that we should want to divide on this Amendment. We have put it down in order to probe the Government's intentions. The noble Lord tells us that this figure of 100 is an estimate. I think I am fair in saying that we cannot be exact in this matter, and I think I am interpreting him correctly. If we cannot be exact, why on earth have the Government altered the original figure of 110? If this sort of thing is done, it is bound to arouse suspicion.
I entirely agree with my noble friend Lady Summerskill—indeed the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, confirmed this—and I should like to see a great extension of the use of trained nurses and sisters throughout industry. It is some satisfaction that the Bill includes certain proposals in this respect, and I welcome them. But I understand that it is not suggested (I do not think that the noble Lord used this argument) that this is meant to replace the 10 doctors, because that would be inconsistent with his argument that it is not possible to be precise. I note that there are going to be 110 supporting nursing, executive and clerical staff. Perhaps they thought it tidier to have 100 there and not to have 110 twice. I do not know.
But what is now causing me even more anxiety is another matter. The noble Lord was good enough to send me a letter with regard to a mistake that he
866
made on Second Reading. He was good enough to apologise. I fully accept that Ministers in this House who have to cover so much ground occasionally get an argument wrong. It was a bit of a "howler", but I have the fullest sympathy for him. He was seeking to explain why the million pounds to which my noble friend Lady Summerskill referred had been reduced to £850,000. What he said in the House—and I am sure he will not mind my repeating this—was this.
"One of the reasons for this is the introduction of the selective system of examining young persons. If I remember aright, the original Bill represented a continuation of the system of examining all young persons entering factories."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 9/3/72; col. 266.]
I am amazed that I (or anybody else) failed to pick that up at the time. I am sure the noble Lord will admit that it was a bit of a "howler".
Then he had to produce other reasons as to how this saving was to be made—and I shall have something to say about this on the Question, Whether the clause shall stand part? There are, for instance, reductions in laboratory costs from £200,000 to £70,000—owing partly to the development of improved methods by the medical laboratories and partly because of revised and more accurate estimates of the numbers of tests. He then said that this reduction has to some extent been offset by an increase in salary costs though this is not as great as it would have been because of the slight reduction in the number of doctors employed.
I am bound to say that I think that this is not an objective examination; it is not a decision in principle that 100 is better than 110. It is an attempt to save money at a time when it is apparent to us all that the needs are greater than we expected. There are the developing problems of particular forms of industrial poisoning such as in lead; and we have had, of course, the extraordinary examples of box girder bridges—quite apart from Avonmouth. I do not see that the Government have given a satisfactory explanation of the reduction in numbers. I really do not know what to do. I really should consult my noble friend on what to do, for the Government have given an inadequate explanation. The noble Lord has done his best. I am rather inclined to think that we

867
probably ought to divide. The Government are not going to get this Bill through very quickly. There will have to be other alterations. If my noble friend wants to divide, I think we should agree to do so, unless we can be given some reasons which we have not been given. But I think this figure is put in simply in order to make the sums come out.
LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND: May I support this Amendment? I have worked in an industry where the impact of noise on the ears has been such that 80 per cent. of steelworkers to-day suffer from industrial deafness, which is not defined by the medical profession. It is not defined because not enough doctors understand it. Here we are arguing about a handful of doctors and what they are going to cost. We on this side are arguing as to whether we can understand the problem, much less deal with it. Do we understand this particular problem? Let us take pneumoconiosis, a matter which miners always raise in discussions on industrial diseases. They do so because this is an evident example of where lungs are destroyed by dust. How many other industries have employees whose lungs are destroyed by dust? Is it not more serious now—because of the toxic materials these people are handling which have been proved to cause cancer? We do not even begin to understand that particular problem. All that this Amendment asks is to obtain enough qualified people to understand the problem—not to deal with it for that legislation will have to come after. We are talking about the cost of a handful of doctors, no more.
My feelings are so strong after a lifetime in industry and with sympathetic employers. When you come to safety matters I would say that if I put to the employer in the steel industry that I wanted to employ another half dozen doctors there would have been no question. They would have been delighted. But when we talk to the Government about employing a handful of doctors in the whole industry we get resistance. Why cannot the Minister accept the inevitability of the arguments put forward instead of quibbling technically about the cost? I appeal to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. I have always tried to be
868
reasonable in this House. I have sat silent many times when I have wished to resist. But here we are dealing with the health of our fellow men, with the existence in decent circumstances of people who are employed in industries where we do not understand the problems. We are asking your Lordships' help to understand these problems. I would divide even if the Committee were to go against us to-day because I guarantee that before the next Election the country will come with us.
LORD SEGAL: May I add a further word? The Minister's explanation of the working of this service was hardly as forthcoming as it might have been. He said that of the 100 doctors—equivalent full-time doctors—some 28 will be part-time. But will these 28 be sufficient to cope with the work that will devolve upon them? Can he give an assurance that the salaries and terms of service of these doctors will be such as to attract men of high standing and with the necessary qualifications to ensure the service will be a success? In addition, the Minister made great play of the 110 supporting staff. He spoke of fully trained nurses being able to work on their own in certain factories. What proportion of the 110 supporting staff are likely to he State registered nurses? Of those who are fully qualified nurses, how many are likely to be needed to attend with the doctors during their actual examinations? How many are likely to be given full responsibility to work on their own? Can he give us some figures? Will 20 or 30, or half the 110 ancillary staff be State registered nurses. The Minister's explanation adds to the suspicion that this service is being launched on a totally inadequate basis and that it will fail in its work. I am afraid that there may be serious repercussions throughout the working population of this country. I hope that the Minister will be more forthcoming than he has been so far.
LORD ARWYN: I should like to say a few words in support of my noble friend with reference to pneumoconiosis. I do not think that noble Lords realise that the figure for pneumoconiosis is going up in leaps and bounds. It is not only the diagnosis of the disease but its prevention. I think it is the responsibility of the Minister. I do not think that any

869
man who ever worked underground would like to start his career there again. One of the points we must watch in the recruitment of young men is that the danger of pneumoconiosis is increasing every year. How are we going to induce these young men to go down to what may be certain death or disablement?
LORD DRUMALBYN: I wonder whether I could say at this stage that it seems to me that the Opposition at the present time are putting forward a very strange argument. Are they seriously suggesting that we would start off on a scheme of this kind with the intention that it would be inadequate? That is virtually what they are suggesting.
LORD SHACKLETON: Perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord. Why in that case did the Opposition, when we intro-traduced a similar Bill, criticise it on the ground that 110 was not enough?
LORD DRUMALBYN: It may well be that Oppositions do not always understand the full considerations. One must look at this sensibly. This is a scheme that has been carefully devised to provide what is thought to be necessary at any rate to get off the ground with this system. If we were to impose a particular level of doctors, anyone who has been in Government knows that as soon as a minimum is mentioned it is apt to be taken as a maximum. That really is not good sense. I hope noble Lords will not press this Amendment because clearly it would not improve the Bill in any way. The noble Lord, Lord Douglass of Cleveland, suggested that it was I who had been talking about the expenditure. I never mentioned the expenditure. It was the Front Bench opposite and the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, who did that. What I said was that here we had worked out what the service needs to get off the ground. This surely is common sense.
Then, secondly, I gave a full assurance that we should recruit further for what was needed. What more can we do than that? I do feel that noble Lords should help us to get this service going. Clearly it would delay it if a minimum were set which proved to be difficult to attain right away. I hope that noble Lords will co-operate with us in getting this service, which is a valuable service, off the ground. It is not a service of diagnosis
870
but a service of investigation. It is with prevention in mind that we set this service up, and I hope, for that reason, that the noble Baroness, who knows these problems well, will not press the Amendment.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I must confess that it is because the noble Baroness knows the problems so well that she feels she must press the Amendment. I was very disappointed with the noble Lord's winding up. I cannot blame him, because he has no case. We are asking for 110 doctors, the number contained in the last Bill, which the noble Lord's predecessor when his Party were on this side said was not enough. Now the Government have reduced the 110 to 100. We are saying that, for the sake of these unfortunate workers, we should keep to the original number, and also return to the original £1 million instead of making this miserable reduction. In view of the noble Lord's quite astonishing refusal to accept what are humane arguments, I must press the Amendment.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Is the noble Baroness right in saying that the figure of 110 was actually written into the Bill? That is what she said.
A NOBLE LORD: No.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Then why write the figure into this Bill?
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: When the noble Lord opened his argument he almost suggested to the Committee that I was imagining the figure. The figure of 100 is in the Explanatory Memorandum. The noble Lord is quibbling. I am sure that noble Lords who were listening heard the noble Lord say that he wondered where this figure came from, and that it is not in the Bill. But here it is in the Explanatory Memorandum. That I feel was an attempt to deceive the Committee, and I am rather shocked that the noble Lord should stoop to that.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I really cannot accept that, and I am rather sad that the noble Baroness should try to end the debate in that way. Does she for a moment dispute that it is extremely unusual, not to say completely unprecedented, to put a figure in this way into the Bill? I am not talking of the Explanatory Memorandum. This, I am told,

871
is unprecedented, and it is what the noble Baroness is asking us to do. I cannot advise my noble friends to do something of that sort.
LORD SHACKLETON: Perhaps I can help the noble Lord. It was declared in the same way in the Explanatory Memorandum to the previous Bill that 110 was the figure. The point is that the Government have reduced the number. I am sure that the noble Lord need not get upset. I do not think he has deliberately deceived the Committee, but I think that
5.14 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK LORD DAVIES OF LEEK moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 11, leave out paragraph (c).
inadvertently he may have done so. I am sure that my noble friend meant nothing personal of that kind, and certainly I do not. But it was the Opposition in another place who said that 110 was not enough and pressed the previous Government on it. I only intervene to clear up the position with regard to the noble Lord.
5.6 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 3) shall stand part of the Bill?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 45; Not-Contents, 70.

CONTENTS

Gardiner, L.

Ogmore, L.

Garnsworthy, L.

Peddie, L.

Amulree, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Phillips, Bs. [Teller.]

Annan, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Archibald, L.

Henley, L.

St. Davids, V.

Arwyn, L.

Hoy, L.

Segal, L.

Beswick, L.

Hughes, L.

Serota, Bs.

Brockway, L.

Jacques, L.

Shackleton, L.

Chalfont, L.

Janner, L.

Shepherd, L.

Champion, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, Bs. [Teller.]

Shinwell. L.

Davies, of Leek, L.

Stocks, Bs.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Mais, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Evan's of Hungershall, L.

Milford, L.

Walston, L.

Fiske, L.

Moyle, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Foot, L.

I Nunburnholme, L.

I Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Falkland, V.

Northchurch, Bs.

Alport, L.

Ferrers, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Gainford, L.

Oakshott, L.

Balerno, L.

Grenfell, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Reigate, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

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

Roberthall, L.

Belstead, L.

Rochdale, V.

Birdwood, L.

Hanworth, V.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Blake, L.

Hylton-Foster, Bs.

St. Aldwyn E. [Teller]

Brooke of Cumnor, L.

Inchyra, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Jellicoe, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Sempill, Ly.

Caccia, L.

Jessel, L.

Simon, V.

Conesford, L.

Killearn, L.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Stonehaven V.

Courtown, E.

Leicester, E.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Crawshaw, L.

Long, V.

Sudeley, L.

Daventry, V.

Lothian, M.

Thomas, L.

de Clifford, L.

Loudoun, C.

Vernon, L.

Denham, L.

Mancroft, L.

Vivian, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Milverton, L.

Dundee, E.

Molson, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Monck, V.

Waldegrave, E.

Effingham, E.

Mowbray and Stourton L. [Teller]

Wolverton, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Young, Bs.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment to Clause 1 standing in my name. It would probably be appropriate if I were to take Amendments 4 and 5 together. The first of these Amendments refers to page 3, line 11,

873
leaving out paragraph (c). The second Amendment refers to page 3, line 21, inserting at the end the words on the Marshalled List. The reason for this Amendment is fairly obvious. It asks that the expenses of ordinary individuals who are working in or around factories or in places coming within the scope of this Bill shall be defrayed and also that their remuneration shall be paid by the employer in respect of the time occupied in attending for medical examination, so that they do not suffer a diminution in earnings by any such attendance. The employer should also be asked to pay any travelling expenses which may be incurred. We hope thereby to increase the amount provided for under the Bill, because, as we pointed out during the Second Reading, expenditure under the Bill has been reduced from almost £1 million to £850,000. Furthermore, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, who always looks carefully at these things, was kind enough to inform the House, when the estimate of £850,000 was given, that he calculated that there would be, in simple terms, less examination of children and that this would result in a saving. The examination is apparently about the same, but the argument now is that because of the advance that has been made and also because of the reduction in costs which has been achieved under the Bill, there has been a substantial reduction in laboratory costs from some £200,000 to some £75,000. That is largely owing to the development of improved methods by the Department's medical laboratories. A revised estimate of the number of tests has also been possible.
I do not want to prolong the proceedings unduly, but I must declare an interest here in pharmaceuticals and in laboratories with modern techniques. I am delighted to hear that such massive savings have been made in the Government laboratories—if they have really been made. To-day the electronic machines and machines which are used in radio-active isotopes, and so on, cost a terrific sum, amounting in some cases to tens of thousands of pounds. I am delighted to hear that there have been savings here, but I would nevertheless urge that any such savings should go towards improving the service and not to cutting it down. The argument is fairly obvious. We are asking that
874
workers of all kinds—trade unionists and others, blue and white collar workers, those who are erudite and those who use their hands—should not lose money by submitting to these medical examinations.
I have mentioned this before: I remember some first-class Rugby players in my Rugby-playing days in South Wales who at twenty-five years of age were finished because of having contracted pneumoconiosis, working on the anthracite seams. I remember that there were some young giants and fine players of twenty or twenty-one years of age, and many of those miners would carry on working simply because there was no other occupation open to them, although they knew that by doing so they were signing their own death warrants. I do not want to exaggerate, but there is no doubt that if a worker fears that he is going to lose a day's pay and also will have to pay his own out-of-pocket expenses (which could amount to a considerable sum) because of attending for a medical examination he will sometimes refuse to undergo an examination which is really necessary for his health. I hope the Government will try to find some answer to this problem because of the money that has allegedly been saved. Since they are finding it possible to dish out sums of money in this Budget—and I do not wish to make derogatory remarks about that—I believe that enough money could be found to pay the expenses of those who have to have medical examinations. If I said any more, I should merely be reiterating the obvious.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I only want to add to what my noble friend has stated, that any employer who questions the justice of this provision demonstrates that he is indifferent to the hazards to which workers are exposed. The exploratory investigations of an individual at a hospital will be pursued only when the doctor has already established the fact that there is a suspicion—perhaps some clinical manifestation—that the worker is suffering from some disease contracted in the course of his work. Surely if that is the case it should be the employer's responsibility to pay the man for the half-day, the day or two days which he may have to take off from his work in order to confirm that the medical adviser is right or wrong in his suspicion that the

875
man is suffering from an industrial disease which—and I want to emphasise this—has been contracted in the course of his work. Furthermore, if it is decided not to pay this man, and the man delays going for his medical examination despite his doctor's advice, his condition will be aggravated. Surely the small sums involved in this little provision are morally justified. I do not like to mention the word "morals" because it seems a little pious; but here is a moral justification for paying the man, who we have just heard is suffering from incipient pneumoconiosis, his pay for the day when he goes for an X-ray.
I hope that there will be no need to have a Division on this Amendment. This man has contracted his complaint while furthering the financial interest of his employers. Surely the employer should be the person who helps the man to obtain quickly a diagnosis and help towards treatment. This is the man who is clinically suspect before he goes to the doctor. He is not a hypochondriac; he is not a man who likes hanging around hospitals—and we all know the type—or who likes to visit every doctor that he possibly can. This is a man who the medical adviser in the first place says should have some further examination in order to confirm the diagnosis.
5.23 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: Perhaps the noble Lord does not quite understand the full ramifications of this matter, and I am sure that noble Lords would wish me to explain the situation as I see it. One has to differentiate very sharply between different sorts of examination which will be undertaken by the employment medical advisory service. First of all, wherever possible examinations will be conducted at the worker's place of employment. I understand that no difficulty has arisen about this in the past. This is the normal rule so far as statutory periodic medical examinations, designed to safeguard the health of individuals working in potentially dangerous processes, are concerned, and it will continue to be so. It will also be the normal practice for all other non-statutory examinations—they will be examined in the factory. But there will be some cases where it is not possible and the need for
876
such non-statutory examinations will arise in different circumstances.
It may be that the employment medical adviser will wish to examine workers who are working with a process which is hazardous but which is not controlled by regulations—for example, mercury—and he may also want to do so because it arises from a potential new hazard, such as, for example, enzyme washing powders. Then again there are examinations carried out for the purposes of a survey, as I have already mentioned, of a particular industry or process. This type of examination is intended to relate the medical state of workmen to environmental conditions so that the criteria for environmental control can be defined. This is a joint effort by the employment medical advisory service and the industrial hygiene unit of the Factory Inspectorate. In such a case examination of all persons engaged in a particular type of occupation is unnecessary. That would be wasteful and it would yield no more information than samples drawn on a statistical basis. There have been good examples of this. I must give the background to this matter so that the noble Lord can judge whether or not his Amendment is right. There have been two examples: first, the Surrey of Respiratory Diseases in Foundrymen. That Report was published earlier this year. Secondly a survey of workers in the pottery industry. The field work has been completed on that survey and the results are now being examined.
Also there is the matter of the examination of young persons who have been identified by the school health service as not being unconditionally fit for employment. A medical examination may be necessary to see how they are shaping up to their jobs, and in such a case they may be sent to hospital. Noble Lords will have seen that the amounts involved are not very great. It is not a question of the amount involved; it is a question of principle. We want most of these examinations—all if possible—to be undertaken with the full co-operation and help of the employers concerned. We expect that in the main that cooperation will be forthcoming. But if an employer found that he had to pay the travelling expenses and loss of earnings of a worker who was called for such an

877
examination, it might alter the atmosphere of the examination. We must consider this matter in the perspective of the type of work that the Employment Medical Advisory Service is going to do. Far from their looking on this examination as something that was beneficial both to themselves and to their workers, many employers would feel that it had turned into a penalty. This feeling might lead them to resist the proposal for an examination.
It is true that the employment medical adviser has statutory powers under Clause 3 of the Bill to require the factory occupier to permit examinations to be carried out, but we regard these as "fall-back" powers which we should not wish to invoke except in the case of necessity. We do not think we shall have to invoke them very often. Probably noble Lords have not realised that the burden of these expenses would fall very unevenly. As noble Lords know, we have decided not to charge employers for the selective medical examination of young persons who have entered their employment because it would not be fair as between one employer and another. It would be illogical if employers did not have to pay for the medical examination but had to pay for travelling expenses and loss of earnings of the employee who went for the medical examination outside the factory. In the same way, many of the other examinations which the employment medical advisers will be carrying out will be related to work carried out by particular employers, not necessarily those who are working on the most dangerous substances. I have quoted, for instance, the example of surveys covering foundries and potteries. The burden of such surveys falls not on all employers in a particular industry, but simply on those selected in the test samples. Would not it be wrong then to add to the burden of providing the testing ground by charging the cost of travelling and maintenance and subsistence to the employer?
One has to bear in mind that the results of these examinations will benefit all employers and all employees, and therefore the right thing to do is to spread them in the usual way by having them paid by the Government rather than asking the employer to pay them. Of course the point is: What is going to be paid? I will come to that. Before I do
878
so, may I ask this rather rhetorical question? I wonder what the noble Lord would do if the employer refused to pay, because the Amendment actually includes no sanction for this.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Clause 3.
LORD DRUMALBYN: No; the Amendment itself provides no sanction for the employer not actually paying this charge. Noble Lords would probably like to know the amount of the rate of subsistence and earnings which will be paid under this Bill. Of course, as usual these are general rates and I think I should say right away that they are not normally subjected to income tax. They are the standard Government rates laid down by the Civil Service Department and are payable, for instance, under National Insurance arrangements. For loss of earnings, compensation is subject to a present maximum of £2·37½ for a half day and £4·75 for a full day. These rates are kept under review and they were last reviewed in November, 1971. Fares are payable of course, as usual in Government arrangements, at the cheapest available public transport rates. This is what has been done and I do not think that the noble Lord has made out a case for changing this in these terms. Again, by far and away the bulk of the examinations will be done within the factories; there will be the occasional cases that will be sent for examination outside either in the interest of the employee or in the interest of employers and employees as a whole; in other words, for the purposes of research. In those circumstances, it would be a needless complication to start making differentiations, and I hope that the noble Lord will be prepared to leave the Bill as it is.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Before the noble Lord reclines comfortably to listen to my noble friend, may I make this point? The hypothetical question was put to this side of the Committee on a previous Amendment: what would you do if the employer refused? I presume that that would be covered under Section 146 of the Factories Act which provides for a fine. I assume it would be obstructing a medical adviser. I was considering that as a sanction if the employer refused. I do not wish to delay the Committee, but some of us have thought of the possibility of some form of sanction if

879
the employer did not pay the expenses of the workman or one of his salaried people. However, I will leave it at that at the moment.
5.33 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: In some respects I have some sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, but I have more sympathy with the general principle that has been outlined by my noble friends. I do not think there is anything between us when we say that any man or woman, an employee, who is required to undertake an examination, for whatever purpose, should not suffer as regards salary or wages; nor should he or she have to bear the expense of travel. I should think there is nothing between us. This should be paid for. But if we look at subsection (7) we see it is permissive:
"The Secretary of State may pay—

(a) to employment medical advisers … and

(b) to other persons".

Paragraph (c) deals with persons who are attending a medical examination. It is at this moment purely permissive. I wonder therefore whether the noble Lord could go some way to meet us, in that this particular subsection should not be permissive but should be mandatory; in other words, any person who is called upon to undertake an examination, not only for himself but for the company in which he is involved, shall be paid for any loss of income or any expenses involved. That perhaps would meet some of the fears that we have on this side of the Committee.
I have a feeling that where medical advisers are carrying out a survey of a particular industry it would not be unreasonable if the cost was borne by the industry itself. I think that is what my noble friend had in mind. I can however recognise the problem of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, when he was explaining that where a survey involves only an isolated number of companies—or where an industry is selected as an act of policy, or by an administrative decision—it would perhaps be unfair that a particular selected firm or industry should have to bear the cost, where others did not. I should have thought that this could be overcome if we had the mandatory payment either by the State to
880
these individuals who may be examined or, as we are suggesting in our Amendment, by the industry where it is an industrial survey. But where it is a broader scheme and where firms are being particularly selected, there could be an exemption by which in that particular case the costs are borne by the State.
It is my interpretation that there is little between noble Lords on that side of the Committee and noble Lords on this side. I certainly would not wish this issue to be pressed this evening, although I am quite willing for it to be as a matter of principle. Is it possible for the noble Lord to give an assurance that workers who are involved in an examination, either for their own sake or for the sake of a company or industry, will have their costs fully reimbursed? I think he should be prepared to see whether some flexibility is possible where an administrative decision has been taken merely to select a number of companies, and not the industry as a whole, and unfairness would be involved. I would be willing to suggest to my noble friend that we gave the noble Lord the opportunity to see whether he could meet us (shall I say?) 80 per cent. of the way; and I am certain that we should very willingly consider any suggestion the noble Lord cared to make to us.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I am grateful to my noble friend for further developing that point, because, as has been pointed out, there is not so much difference between us. But I would ask the Minister to look at subsection (7), which provides:
"The Secretary of State may pay—";
and then, in line 18:
"the Secretary of State may, with the approval of the Minister for the Civil Service, determine."
Subsection (8) provides:
"Any expenses of the Secretary of State under this section shall be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament."
In other words, we should like it to be categorically stated and made crystal clear that remuneration would be there. In view of the fact that we have had quite a useful and penetrating little debate on this issue, it would be remiss of me to press this Amendment, but before it is withdrawn completely I should like the Minister to say how far he

881
thinks he can go with us in helping a little and in answering my noble friend who has just spoken from the Front Bench.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Shepherd and Lord Davies of Leek, for their helpful attitude in this matter, and in return I can certainly give an absolute assurance that travelling expenses and loss of earnings in accordance with the agreed scale will be paid, even though the Bill is framed in a permissive way. After all, there would not be a service at all if the Secretary of State did not pay the medical advisers their salaries, and the expenses fall exactly on the same basis as the other payments.
We have some experience of this already. For example, I can quote cases where workers can have an X-ray at the instigation of a medical adviser. If the facilities of a Department of Health and Social Security pneumoconiosis medical panel are used far the X-rays, then the clerk to the panel arranges for the payment of the expenses to the worker, and the Department of Health and Social Security later recovers the sum from the Department of Employment. So arrangements of this kind are already in existence. I cannot of course guarantee that there will be no loss to any particular worker: it would be foolish of me to seek to do so. What they will get is the standard rate. In some cases these rates may be more than the workers are paid, as with the war-time allowances for a half-day and a full day. But this, I imagine, will be a matter for trade union negotiation. All I can say (and I have asked carefully about this) is that no difficulty has arisen in the past. I certainly undertake to look at this again in order to make quite certain of the situation.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for the conciliatory spirit in which he has replied to this Amendment, and consequently I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
5.43 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: This is the most important clause in the Bill, and
882
although I do not want to delay the Committee there are one or two questions that I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn; and it may be that my noble friend Lady Summerskill also has a point that she wishes to make.
When the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, was good enough to write to me about the financing of this Bill, and correcting his earlier mistake (which he did very freely; and I fully accept his apologies), he said one rather alarming thing; and this has run through some of the discussion. I mentioned it earlier, and it is the substantial reduction in laboratory costs from £200,000 to £75,000, owing partly to the development of improved methods by the Department's medical laboratory and partly to a revised and more accurate estimate of the number of tests. This is a very big reduction. I understand that testing is, if anything, getting more expensive, unless these new machines for the atomic absorption test, and so on, are so efficient that there is a real increase in productivity. But the impression we all had was first that there was a need for more monitoring—and on that I do not think any of us would disagree—and, secondly, that there was likely to be need for more laboratories because there would be more testing to he done.
The noble Lord, Lord Reigate, made an interesting speech on Second Reading in relation to the Health Service, and in the long run, no doubt, as the possibility of an occupational health service is developed, we may see a change; or it may be that other laboratories than those under the control of the Department of Employment will be involved. One is surprised that where one would expect costs to go up, rather than down, they have gone down very considerably indeed. I did not give the noble Lord notice that I was going to raise this point, and it may be that he can seek another opportunity to give the explanation. I am not suggesting that he did not understand what he wrote to me, but that he may have just accepted the figures. I am now querying the figures and asking how they were arrived at.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I should like to raise a point with the Minister. Somebody with a tremendous amount of information on this matter, a staff manager of a London office, has been

883
listening to the discussion to-day, and he has said—and I quote:
"I have found the discussion on the Bill most interesting, but it does not go far enough. I feel also that there will be practical difficulties in implementing the link-un between school medical services and careers officers and employers where school-leavers are concerned. I suspect that these will be a particular problem where private schools are involved, since, so far as I am aware, such schools are not tied in to the school medical service and rarely use the employment services."
I do not know whether the Minister can make any comment on that point about the private schools.
LORD DRUMALBYN: If I may take the second point first, there is an organisation of doctors at private schools, and I understand that that organisation has undertaken to notify all its members—who are presumably all the doctors in private schools—of the requirements. There is no statutory cover. Young people at private schools are not covered by the education authority machinery, and many of them stay on to a later age—and this Bill applies to young persons up to the age of 18. But, of course, a considerable number of them will leave before the age of 18. I think that doctors in private schools, with the advice they are given from their organisation, will be able to watch this carefully and do on a non-statutory basis what is being done on a statutory basis elsewhere. There is no reason why they should not be in touch with the employment medical adviser in their area.
I should have liked to be able to answer the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, in greater detail. I am told that the £75,000 that is carried for the extra laboratory work in hospitals will be carried on the Vote of the Health Departments. This is immaterial, because it is a cost just the same. I should like to confirm what I am about to say, but I have no doubt that the further study that has been given to this, and to the whole organisation of testing, has resulted in economies through the greater use of the Health Service laboratories. I should imagine that this is one of the things that has been done. I might remind your Lordships that on Second Reading I was pressed not to expand too greatly the laboratories of the employment medical advisory service itself. I
884
was told this would be wasteful. I should like to confirm this, but I imagine that part of the economies will come from the better organisation that has been set up here. I shall certainly write to the noble Lord and let him know anything further that I can on this matter.
LORD SHACKLETON: I am grateful. Perhaps the noble Lord ought to tell the House what the result of his inquiry is. I think what he is saying is that this saving is not really a saving but a transfer elsewhere.
LORD DRUMALBYN: No.
LORD SHACKLETON: Presumably this £125,000-worth of work that is done in a laboratory under the Health Service cannot just be done in that way without some extra cost. I do not propose to get into an argument about whether it should come under the Health Service or the Department of Employment. I happen to think at this stage that the association between factory inspectors and factory medical advisers is so close, and the Act under which they operate requires this—
LORD DRUMALBYN: I am sorry if I have given the noble Lord a false impression. There is the central laboratory of the employment medical advisory service. This has to be paid for on the Vote. What I was trying to convey was that we have tried to give the total cost irrespective of which Vote it was borne on. There is not a saving merely because costs have been transferred to the Health Service; there might be a saving because the Health Service laboratories are spread widely round the country and it may be very much cheaper and more effective to use them.
LORD SHACKLETON: The noble Lord says that there may be, but in fact he is saying it is £125,000 cheaper. I cannot really say that I am very satisfied, and I am extremely doubtful if the noble Lord is satisfied with his own answer. I think he might go into this further. We shall be having another stage. There has been concern about this. I have consulted one or two of my friends on this, and I thought it right to press it. I will not press the noble Lord further now.
On the point raised by my noble friend Lady Summerskill, I am a little bothered

885
about the private schools situation. The noble Lord says that he is sure the doctors will co-operate. If I remember rightly, we are providing in this Bill formally for the school health service—my noble friend Lady Scrota will know more about this than I do—to co-operate in this, but there is no provision for private schools. There are a very large number of children in private schools which do not come under the service, and I doubt whether their medical services are anything like as good in some cases as the public school health services. No doubt some schools have excellent services, but I suspect others may not, and particularly in the case of the day schools it will largely depend on the general practitioner. I expect again that the noble Lord cannot go much further now. I cannot honestly see the answer to this. I do not propose to complicate his life by suggesting an Amendment, which no doubt might be defective. He might perhaps give it further thought to see whether something more positive can be said at a later stage. He did mention certain action. He may be able to make it a bit stronger and convincing to everybody, and give publicity to the desirability of it.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I should be very glad to go into this matter further and on the next occasion give the House more precise information.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
LORD SHACKLETON: This Amendment is consequential on Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, or rather the other way round. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
Obstruction of employment medical adviser
".Where an employment medical adviser is obstructed in the execution of his powers or his duties the person obstructing him shall be guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding £100, and where an employment medical adviser is so obstructed in a factory, the occupier of that factory shall be guilty of an offence."—(Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 5 agreed to.
5.57 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON LORD SHACKLETON moved Amendment No. 7:
886
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause:
Buildings containing materials hazardous to health
".The Factories Act 1961 shall have effect as if in section 146(1)(a) there were inserted at the end the words "and any part of any building of which a factory forms part and in which he has reasonable cause to believe that materials are stored or used which are hazardous to health"."
The noble Lord said: I am hopeful the Government have an answer to this question. I beg to move the insertion of this new clause to amend the Factories Act so that the definition of a factory for the purposes of this Bill will include
"any part of any building of which a factory forms part and in which he"—
that is the medical adviser—
"has reasonable cause to believe that materials are stored or used which are hazardous to health".
Any noble Lord who is an employer and has wrestled with the Factories Act—and I seem to remember that Redgrave was the standard book one always consulted on this issue—will know that a factory is a remarkable thing; it covers practically everything. I remember finding once that a bacon-slicing room constituted a factory. And that is quite right. Looking through the interpretation clauses of the 1961 Act, one finds that Clause 175, which goes on through ten subsections, lists what a factory is, but I cannot find, even though there is a definition "within the curtilage of a factory", that unless it is tied to one of these many processes this particular type of storage space is necessarily included. It may be; I am not saying it is not; but it is not always automatically part of a factory. I appreciate that the medical advisers will not necessarily be going poking around, but there may be some part of what most of us would have assumed was a factory, or a building very close by, where there happens to be some very poisonous substance. May I ask the noble Lord whether or not the medical adviser would be able to go into this storage space under the power of access that he has under the Factories Act? I hope he would be able to. Before I go any further, perhaps the noble Lord would care to comment. I beg to move.
LORD DRUMALBYN: I understand that the noble Lord does not intend to press this Amendment. It has, as he may realise, technical objections with which I do not need to bother the Committee. I think the best answer I can give to the noble Lord is this. First of all the job of an employment medical adviser—and I take it that the noble Lord is moving this Amendment to cover the employment medical adviser and not the factory inspector—is not to examine the premises but to examine the people in the premises. But it will obviously be part of the duty of employment medical advisers, as indeed of factory inspectors, to be alert to the possibility of hazards to health and to advise on suitable precautions, in consultation if necessary with the public health inspector.
It looks as though this Amendment is seeking to give employment medical advisers a public health function which for many years has rested with the local authorities under the various Public Health Acts. I am told that here there really is no reason to duplicate. We have not found over the years that medical inspectors of factories—they will become employment medical advisers—have needed a power on these lines in relation to possible health hazards and this is probably because most places where materials that could be hazardous to health are stored are warehouses attached to a factory or are warehouses where mechanical power is used. They would therefore be factories under the Factories Act and the employment medical adviser would have automatic right of entry to them. So, we need not give employment medical advisers extra powers to enter non-factory premises unless we are reasonably sure that they will need them to carry out their duties; and there is no clear evidence of the need for the powers suggested in the Amendment.
We have found it difficult to envisage the sort of case the noble Lord has in mind. I do not know whether he has any particular case in mind where a danger to health has arisen over which there has been difficulty. But so far as we can see the Public Health Acts would deal with the situation, and so far as the employment medical advisers' duties are concerned it is always possible for them to ask to be admitted to any factory or warehouse where there is a person
888
employed for whom they think there is a hazard of some description.
LORD SHACKLETON: I certainly do not want to press this Amendment to a Division, because, quite frankly, I do not know quite enough about the subject to feel confident in doing so. But the basic argument is, first of all, that there might be a store containing some very poisonous substance, say, fluorocetamide. This is both very sinister and very poisonous. It is very sinister because it is extraordinarily difficult—and I just picked on this one example; I had not thought about it before—to diagnose fluorocetamide poisoning. The noble Lord will remember a particular incident arising from the polluting of land, and only a very alert vet spotted the trouble. It may be that a medical adviser is concerned with certain health factors. He may have an instinct. There may be nobody actually working in the store. I absolutely agree that this is hypothetical, and the noble Lord may be right in saying that no difficulty would arise. I have forgotten whether the industrial hygiene laboratories or groups or the local authority health people look at this.
The Amendment seemed to me to be reasonable, although I put it down mainly for testing. I was a little concerned at the noble Lord saying that they are concerned with people and not, so to speak, with premises. It is because of the nature of the premises that the risks arise to the people. Anyone who has worked with a good industrial medical officer has seen his concern in certain matters, and it would be a pity if it were considered that a medical adviser was not, so to speak, to concern himself. I note the noble Lord's emphasis—and I notice that this emphasis has been placed by Ministers throughout the progress of the Bill. I shall not press him any further, but I should like him to think this over because I think there is here a rather awkward spectrum and, in a sense, my Amendment brings it out. I certainly would not wish to press the Amendment. If the noble Lord does not want to say anything more, I would just withdraw it.
LORD DRUMALBYN: May I intervene for one moment, to say that there is a distinction of functions here, and what we visualise and what we are sure will happen is—and after all doctors are

889
people with inquiring minds; they want to find the cause and reasons—that if an employment medical adviser finds that there is some form of poisoning that he cannot account for in the factory or, for that matter, that the G.P. cannot account for in the home atmosphere, and perhaps it affects more than one person, I should have thought he would simply pick up the telephone and call in the Public Health Officer. It is this kind of link that will go on. I am told that this is not really a power that would be required and that there is the distinction of functions here but I shall, in the light of the explanation the noble Lord has given, very willingly look into this further.
LORD SHACKLETON: I am very much obliged to the noble Lord. The case I am making may be largely a theoretical one. I am very grateful. He says he will look into it. I take his point about the division of functions. I hope, indeed as lie stressed, that they will not be watertight. There will be close cooperation. There seems to me to be a principle. I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 6 to 8 agreed to.
LORD SHACKLETON: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, which is consequential on Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 6.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 32, leave out from beginning to end of line 36.—(Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with the Amendments.

ROYAL ASSENT
6.10 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE): My Lords, T have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Consolidated Fund Act,

Transport Holding Company Act,

Transport (Grants) Act,

Harbours (Loans) Act,

890

Electricity Act,

Maintenance Orders (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act,

Stoke-on-Trent Corporation Act,

University of London, King's College (Lease) Act.

DEPOSIT OF POISONOUS WASTE BILL
6.11 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. It has two purposes. The first is to deter people by penalties from depositing poisonous and polluting wastes in circumstances in which they can subject persons or animals to material risk of injury or so as to threaten water supply, and secondly it is to give local authorities and river authorities information about the nature and quantities of wastes being deposited in their areas, through a system of notification. As we have seen recently, there is an urgent need for stronger measures of control to deal with the growing quantities of industrial wastes that there are for disposal. But that is not to say that there should be a total ban on the disposal of these wastes to land in all circumstances—and I should like to emphasise that sentence. Industry must be able to dispose of As waste and, in doing so, should not be forced to adopt complex practices which may not be necessary and which might be prohibitively expensive.
Though the irresponsible dumping of wastes containing cyanide is a proper cause for concern, that is not to say that all the disposal to tips of wastes containing cyanide which have taken place in the past need be regarded as giving rise to an environmental hazard. In fact, I am advised that refuse tips do have some capacity for rendering cyanide wastes less harmful, and where these have been buried in tips for a long period they are likely to have become changed in nature and relatively harmless so far as underground water is concerned. This is a point which the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, raised with me in a Question the other day, and upon which I could go further if he were here to ask me to do so. What is important is

891
that disposal to land takes place under conditions that have regard to the best and latest advice available to us. Sites must be carefully chosen and, if necessary, specially prepared.
The Technical Committee on the Disposal of Solid Toxic Waste devoted a chapter of their report to the operation of tips receiving toxic wastes to reduce pollution from them. The Technical Committee certainly did not conclude that all such tipping should be discontinued. Indeed, they thought that such a policy would be quite impracticable to operate, at least in the foreseeable future, because other methods of disposal for all wastes which could be toxic or polluting just could not be provided on the scale that would be required. But disposal to land is not necessarily the best possible means of disposal. Industry itself needs to look to the possibilities of alternative methods of treatment, particularly for cyanide wastes.
It is not the purpose of the Bill to stop the legitimate activities of those who carry out the essential task of disposing of industrial wastes, provided that disposal does not involve the use of unsatisfactory sites or methods and that it is undertaken with full regard to the health and welfare of society at large. It is certainly not too much to ask that where wastes are being systematically and regularly deposited on land, the site should be subject to supervision and that all the recommended procedures for the carrying out of tipping operations should be observed, especially those relating to the covering of tipped material at the end of each working day. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment spelled this out in a circular which he issued in April, 1971.
For the future, it is certainly hoped that no producer of chemical waste will allow that waste to leave his premises without satisfying himself that it is being disposed of properly and that no environmental hazard is being created. Those who do not measure up to these standards will find themselves faced with local authorities who are better informed about their activities and who have effective powers of intervention and a greater readiness to invoke them when needed. There are already powers to prosecute those who pollute rivers or water sup-
892
plies, but the Bill stops up some loopholes and provides for higher penalties. It is those who are tipping in circumstances which show no regard for the public interest who have anything to fear from the Bill.
This Bill is an interim measure and does not provide the full control which could be achieved by more comprehensive legislation on waste disposal, and I commend the Bill as one to be considered in that light. It does not achieve all that one might regard as necessary, not least because it has to be recognised that not all local authorities as at present organised and staffed are in a position to exercise the degree of control which is necessary in the long run. Indeed, in this period before local government reorganisation comes fully into force, the notification procedure and the need for investigation of the operation of individual tips will put some local authorities under a good deal of pressure.
I will not attempt a detailed explanation of all the provisions in the Bill. Essentially it falls into two parts. First there are the new offences and the new heavier penalties for those convicted of committing the new offence. Clause 1 creates the new offence. That is the deposit of poisonous waste in such circumstances, in such a manner, or in such quantities as to give rise to an environmental hazard. A environmental hazard arises if the deposit of waste subjects persons or animals to material risk of death, injury, or impairment of health, or threatens the pollution or contamination of any water supply. Subsection (5) of Clause 1 provides the penalties: on summary conviction a fine of up to £400 and up to six months' imprisonment, or both; and on conviction on indictment—and here the new arrangements for Crown Courts will be important—up to five years' imprisonment or a fine, without limit, or both. One of the criticisms of the legislation on which public authorities have had to rely in this field in the past has been the inadequacy of the maximum penalties as deterrents, and this Part of the Bill put this matter right.
Subsection (6) of Clause 1 provides certain statutory defences, and we think that this is right in a measure of this kind. The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, who is going to take part later in this debate, has given me notice that he has some

893
points to raise on this subsection, but, if I may, I will wait until I have heard what he has to say before I enlarge on this subject. Subsection (7) of Clause 1 is important, not least because it excludes waste disposal activities carried out under the Town and Country Planning Acts from certain exemptions from prosecution. The inadequacy of control of waste disposal under the Planning Acts was commented on in the departmental reports dealing with wastes, and indeed this underlies the recommendations which were made for a more comprehensive control.
Clauses 2 and 3 take us to the next part of the Bill which deals with notification procedures. These procedures ensure that local authorities and river authorities have full information about the nature and quantities of particular categories of waste being generated or disposed of in their areas. The procedures do not of themselves give those authorities any new powers of control, but the availability of information will provide the opportunity for investigation if it is thought that an environmental hazard is being created. The provisions in the Bill concerning notification are somewhat complicated at first sight, but in the majority of cases the procedure should not prove quite so onerous in practice as it may seem.
Under subsection (4) of Clause 2, my right honourable friend is given power to make regulations exempting from the notification procedure wastes of certain descriptions and wastes disposed of in a prescribed manner. It would be his intention to exempt from this procedure as many activities as he can with safety. Indeed, in his speech on the Second Reading of this Bill in another place, my right honourable friend gave some specific assurances to the farming community in this connection. Subsection (7) of Clause 2 makes provision for a fine for failing to give the required notices or for giving a false statement. This provision is qualified by the statutory defences available under subsection (8) of Clause 2 to those who have acted in good faith but have, nevertheless, committed an offence relating to notices. With regard to the penalties for an offence involving a deliberate falsehood, it will be possible, where necessary, to take proceedings in serious cases on indictment under Section 5 of the
894
Perjury Act. The penalties provided under that Act are imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or a fine or both.
Local authorities are themselves required under Clause 4(3) to give notices to river authorities providing information about wastes deposited on their own tips, except where the materials or operations are exempted from the procedure. Local authorities are also required under Clause 4(4) to keep records of the description and quantities of waste which are subject to the notification procedure and which are deposited in their areas. Civil liability in respect of damage or injury caused by deposit of waste in contravention of Clause 1 is a matter on which the Government consider that express provision is desirable and will bring forward the requisite Amendments to be taken at the Committee stage of this Bill. I hope I have said enough to explain the purpose of the Bill and the manner in which it will work. I commend it to your Lordships and look forward to your comments upon it. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Sandford.)
6.23 p.m.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, this Bill is so important that I shall certainly not do anything to delay it on its way to the Statute Book, and the various weaknesses which I think will still obtain after we have passed it we can discuss when further legislation is before your Lordships' House. Indeed, if the Secretary of State would prefer, many of us would happily postpone consideration of the European Communities Bill in order to find time for wider legislation this Session. But I am bound to say that the commendable speed with which the Secretary of State has acted involves certain dangers. I think that most of your Lordships will agree with me in disliking hasty legislation, because there is always the possibility that new abuses may arise. But if the present Bill is applied rigorously and full advantage is taken of the various powers which exist in a wide range of legislation, the main problem will be under control when this Bill is passed. However, I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will agree that the situation would be only relatively mitigated and less objectionable if these

895
toxic materials found their way instead into the sea.
I fully understand the view which the Secretary of State expressed in Parliament last year, to which the Under-Secretary of State has referred, that the transfer of the new responsibilities in this sphere should conveniently await the reorganisation of local government. But events have overtaken all of us and bodies like the Royal Commission have been proved right. But I am not aware that there was any Parliamentary or newspaper criticism of the Minister's original view. I think it is only fair that we should say that, in emphasising our view that the basic legislation should be both severe and catholic in its scope when it is introduced.
I do not wish to delay your Lordships' House, but there are two points which I should like to make. One relates to the exchange of views between my noble friend Lord Douglas of Barloch and the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, a few days ago. My noble friend has written to me on this subject. I must confess that I did not feel that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, thought himself on very sound ground at the time when that exchange took place, but clearly he has gained in confidence in the few days that have intervened. But my noble friend Lord Douglas has asked me to point out that taking an occasional sample of water really cannot afford any assurance that a water supply is not at times polluted. He added that run-off from polluted sites may take place only at times of heavy rainfall, and said that recently in the United States rules of sampling have been laid down which show how many samples should be taken in a water supply serving a population of a given size. He expressed the view that we have nothing of that kind in this country, and I hope that when the noble Lord comes to reply he can allay the doubts which my noble friend Lord Douglas and I both have. I do not think any of us would want to be alarmist, but, clearly, it is very necessary that every practicable step should be taken to satisfy the public that the water they are drinking is free from contamination of that kind.
I was interested in the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, when he said that it was not the Government's purpose to stop legitimate activities. In that con-
896
text, I really am amazed at the effrontery of some of the disposers of waste in illicit dumping. I have no doubt that many of your Lordships will have studied with interest the articles in the last two issues of the Sunday Times on this subject, and I think it is hard to credit the cynical lack of any sense of social responsibility which Purle Brothers (Holdings) Ltd. appear to have shown. I say "appear to have shown", and I shall continue to believe that they have shown this cynical lack of any sense of responsibility until they issue a credible statement of their past activities. Mr. Peter Newman, described by the Sunday Times as a director, is reported as having offered the firm's drivers that Purle's would pay £25 for every new site they found which was suitable for fly-tipping, and £1 for every load they got rid of in that way. The irony is that if they deposited the loads on legal tips they had no bonus. In this way, it appears that the weekly total tipped illicitly was 150,000 gallons or 700 tons.
I confess that it is not clear to me, from the reports I have read, how much of this waste was toxic to the same extent as the loads which recently gave rise to so much anxiety, but it certainly appears to have been the drivers' disquiet at what they were being paid to do which brought about some diminution of the practice. I think it is sad to find that so well-known a firm should be resorting, through Mr. Newman, to conduct which is socially harmful and potentially dangerous to children, and indeed offering bribes to their workers to do something they knew to be illicit. One is tempted to say that we are sorry that the Bill cannot be retrospective in its effect. I am sure your Lordships will agree with the company's unfortunate Press officer, when he said:
"Our management should have checked on what has happened."
Thanks to the action which the Government are taking, there will be every incentive from now on for the management of these companies to check on what their employees and their directors are doing.
In conclusion, may I say that I hope the Government will appreciate that we strongly support the policy which they are adopting and the Bill which is before your Lordships' House. But I must say

897
again that rushed legislation is always dangerous. It may prove to be bad legislation, and we must be sure that legislation, even of an interim nature, is soundly based. I regret, therefore, that at this stage the Government are proposing Amendments to the Bill. We shall of course look at those Amendments carefully and sympathetically, but I think I should be failing in my duty to-night if I said that we should necessarily facilitate the Amendments before we have had a real chance to consider the implications of them. But with that reservation, my Lords, I warmly support the Bill which the Under-Secretary of State has introduced to your Lordships' House.
6.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I am happy to be able to extend a welcome to this Bill from these Benches, and to thank the Minister for presenting the Bill in such a clear, comprehensive and, if I may say so, concise way. The facts that have recently come to light regarding the extent of improper and unsafe tipping have rightly caused great public concern. They amply justify the urgency with which this Bill has been brought forward, although I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, that we would have wished that longer consideration might have been possible before the Bill was brought to Parliament, because, like him, I think there is some evidence of hasty drafting.
The Minister did not call attention to a fundamental difference in approach which we find in this Bill as compared with earlier legislation—for example, the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Acts, which are based on a consent procedure; that is to say, the organisation which has waste of which it has to dispose seeks and receives consent, subject to certain conditions. The offence which may thereafter be committed is the offence of discharging without consent or in breach of conditions. In this Bill, the depositor of waste is in a different position, because he remains always at risk. First of all (if I may put it in this way), he puts his head into the lion's mouth by telling the local authority precisely what he is doing, and then he has to wait to see whether he is to be prosecuted for doing it. It is true that, under Clause 1(6), if ha is charged with "causing or permitting
898
waste to be deposited" then, under paragraph (b), he has a defence if he can show
"that he took all such steps as were reasonably open to him to ensure that no offence would be committed"—
that is to say, to ensure that the deposit of the waste would not create an environmental hazard. But your Lordships will observe that if he were to be charged, not with "causing or permitting waste to be deposited" but with "depositing waste" under paragraph (a), then this defence is not available.
My Lords, when I first read this clause I thought that paragraph (a) was probably intended to refer to the driver of a lorry who was actually engaged in physically deposing waste upon a tip, and that in the event of prosecution he would have the defence that he acted under instructions or relied on information given to him which he had no reason to doubt. But if the company producing the waste—and legally a company is a person"—were charged, not with "causing or permitting waste to be deposited" but with "depositing waste" by their agent or servant, then it appears that the reasonable defence provided in paragraph (b) would not be available to them. This is a point that I mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, earlier to-day, and I hope that when he comes to sum up lie may give us some help about it. On the face of it, it seems to me a little unreasonable; and, as I shall say later, I think it is important that the Bill should be, and should be seen to be, reasonable, because if a Bill is not seen to be reasonable the great danger is that its provisions are not fully observed.
I appreciate, as has been said, that this is an interim Bill, and this is not an occasion for carping criticism. But our duty in your Lordships' House is to examine carefully legislation that comes to us, and this we must do. It seems to me that the mechanics of the Bill are unnecessarily complicated. If one looks at them in relation to a single act of deposit, if I may put it that way, they seem reasonable enough. But what of the manufacturer who is continuously producing and having to dispose of waste products?—it may be even to his own tip, or to a settlement pond within his factory. Is it really necessary to notify in advance every day's throughput?

899
I believe that in another place it was suggested that there might be some procedure of (as it was called) a season ticket nature, by which the producer of the waste could put forward a future programme with a reasonable amount of latitude as between one day's discharge and another. This would be rather in line with what is done by, for instance, river authorities when they receive effluent. They usually make an arrangement that over a period the effluent will not exceed a certain quantity and certain quality, and that on any one day there will be no more than, again, a certain quantity of effluent. It seems to me that it is causing a tremendous amount of trouble to people who are regularly discharging effluent—which may be perfectly harmless effluent—if they are required to submit, three days in advance, an estimate (and it can be no more than an estimate) of how much they will have to dispose of on a given day. It may depend on the way the works are running. Even if some "season ticket" arrangement is possible, it cannot apply in relation to Clause 3, which provides for notification to be given of material received in a tip. That clearly has to be given within three days of the material being received, and so far as I can see it would be necessary in a case like this to have practically a daily return, three or two days in arrears, of what had been deposited. I wonder whether this is really necessary. Would it not be possible to have a weekly or even a fortnightly return of what had been received?
Then there is another point. Clause 2 requires that in the notification the chemical composition of the waste shall be described. I believe that this will give rise to great difficulties. One can imagine that a great deal of industrial waste is mixed up with all sorts of things, and I should have thought it was very difficult indeed, if by "chemical composition" is meant the chemical formula applying to the mixture, to produce the information required. I was thinking of the perhaps rather extreme case, but not at all an unlikely one, of a warehouse that had been set on fire; where the fire had eventually been put out with water and perhaps some other agents, and there was a mass of mixed produce—wet, charred and possibly stained—to be disposed of.
900
Nobody could possibly say what the chemical composition of that was. It seems to me that here there is an undue rigidity. I mention these points not to suggest relaxing any necessary control, but because I always fear that if it is made unnecessarily difficult to comply with the law then there is a greater risk that the law will not be observed and that means will be found to circumvent it.
I hope that it is not out of place to suggest at this stage that when the further legislation comes forward it will follow the recommendations of the Key Report, to which reference has already been made, and also the report of the Working Party on Refuse Disposal; and that it will adopt a consent procedure similar to that which applies in the case of effluents discharged into rivers. I feel very sure that this would be a much more satisfactory way of dealing with this problem. Indeed, this is what was recommended in the Department of the Environment Circular 26/71. In this connection, I was glad to hear the noble Lord say that it is not proposed to ban altogether the deposit of toxic wastes on tips. The Key Report actually said at one point, in paragraph 353:
"… it would be advantageous if refuse disposal authorities accepted more toxic solid industrial waste for disposal than they do now."
Here again it seems to me that there is a difficulty under this Bill. It is the tip operator who is able to ensure that toxic waste is so treated on the tip as to limit its environmental hazards. But if the tip operator—who may be the local authority—fails to do so, then it is the man who provided the waste who is liable to prosecution. This seems to me to be a slight anomaly which I hope can be rectified when we come to the rest of the legislation.
The other matter I would mention from the Key Report is that if we are to be successful in disposing of toxic waste there must be more facilities for receiving them. Your Lordships will agree that in the cognate matter of oil spillage at sea one of
the first steps to progress was taken when it was made mandatory to provide facilities ashore for the reception of oily waste. In my view, it is of tremendous importance that we should see that facilities are provided for the reception of these difficult wastes. The big

901
firms may be able to provide for their own but that may not be possible in the case of the smaller firms. I am not suggesting that the facilities should be provided free of charge: they would be charged for like other facilities which are provided.
My Lords, that brings me to my last point. I hope as we proceed in our war against polution in this and other fields that we in this country will continue to keep a sense of proportion. I say "continue" because we have up to now kept a good sense of proportion. Here I agree with what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. For better or for worse we live in an industrially-based country, an industrially-based society. We could not maintain our population in these Islands without industry; and industry—and this does not apply only to large-scale industries but even to small primitive ones—cannot avoid having some impact on the natural environment. We want to ensure that the impact not only of industry but of technical advances like motor cars and aeroplanes and, if I may put the word "advances" in inverted commas, transistor radios is controlled and limited. Our aim should be to control it to such an extent that it does not inflict an intolerable burden upon us. We must accept that there will he impacts and that, in seeking to get the picture right, we shall have to accept a certain amount of industrial impact on our environment.
I think I might finish by quoting from the last words of the Key Report. These also have relevance to what Lord Sandford said. They are:
"We would emphasise that legislation and regulation cannot provide the whole answer. It is also important to foster a spirit of mutual co-operation and helpfulness, to provide more suitable and safe facilities for disposal,"—
a point I have already made—
"and not to begrudge the unavoidable cost there must be."
6.45 p.m.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I speak this evening as chairman of the Committee for Environmental Conservation which is a federation of most of the voluntary bodies which are concerned with the environment. Needless to say, we welcome this Bill. It is only a stopgap but it is urgently needed and we
902
welcome it as such. I should like to emphasise however that, having been promised a comprehensive measure for dealing with this matter by the time the new local authorities come into operation in 1974, we hope it really will be a very comprehensive and adequate measure for dealing with an ever-increasing problem.
We must look at this Bill against the background, first, of the Second Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and, secondly, against the Report of the Technical Committee on the Disposal of Solid Toxic Wastes, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, several times referred. The Second Report of the Royal Commission is, in fact, an appeal to public opinion. I do not think it is in any way an appeal to public opinion over the heads of the Government. I know from conversations with Ministers in the Department of the Environment that they are genuinely and sincerely anxious to do all that can be done; and it is of the utmost importance, if they are to be successful in that way, that public opinion should be aroused on this matter.
The Second Report of the Royal Commission deals with three matters which, it says, should be publicly discussed. Two of them are strictly relevant to the Bill which is before us to-day. There is a section in the Report which deals with the disposal of toxic wastes on land; and what they say on that subject is of very great importance. They say:
"… we have been struck by the insistence upon confidentiality over the nature and quantities of industrial wastes released into the air or into rivers and estuaries or dumped on land or at sea. We doubt some of the reasons for this confidentiality and our doubts are shared by many of the witnesses from industry with whom we have spoken. … That is why we want some public discussion about it,"
They also say at page 6 of the Report on the particular matter of this Bill:
"There is no specific or direct control by central or local government, even of a voluntary kind, of the direct disposal by tipping on land of industrial solid and liquid wastes, including toxic wastes from manufacture and processing."
The Secretary of State in another place said that these procedures do not of themselves give local authorities or river authorities any new powers of control. That indicates that this Bill—and I recognise that it is an interim measure—does very little to meet two of the

903
important recommendations of the Royal Commission which are contained in subparagraph (b) and sub-paragraph (c) of paragraph 31. Sub-paragraph (c) says:
"river authorities and river purification boards should be empowered to take action in the courts to secure an injunction to restrain tipping by anyone of such toxic wastes …"
They go on in sub-paragraph (d) to develop the same point. When we look at the 38 recommendations of the technical Committee we see how very far short this Bill falls in dealing with the problem of toxic wastes upon which the technical Committee devoted some six years. We look forward to the substantive legislation which we have been promised, and I hope that in fact it will deal very comprehensively with these matters in a way that the Bill cannot do.
Clause 2 of the Bill is the beginning of a register of notices. This may be valuable, but the problem of secrecy to which the Royal Commission referred in the quotation I read, makes one ask exactly how available this information will be to the general public. The idea of industrial secrets running out through the plug holes of waste is dismissed by the Royal Commission as being unrealistic. I am glad to know that a number of the biggest and most enlightened chemical companies are of the same opinion. They have no desire that there should be this artificial secrecy preserved in the case of their effluent. For example, the Shell Company say they,
"do not believe that disclosure of the nature of our effluents would give any useful information to our competitors."
Speaking on this Bill in another place, the Secretary of State appeared to accept this view. He said:
"I accept the basic premise … that there is no element of secrecy attaching to the great proportion of effluent from industry which is pouring into rivers and sewers."
In another passage he said:
"While there may be cases where the secrecy has to be preserved because there may be a few cases of that kind there is no ju2tification for a general miasma of security over the whole subject."
If that is the view of the Secretary of State, I would ask my noble friend why Clause 4(2) is to be found in this Bill. It imports into this new legislation the secrecy provisions of the Public Health Act 1936.
904
My Lords, the Secretary of State has said that any member of the public can bring a prosecution and that it is not confined to local authorities. Obviously, if that right is to be effective, it is extremely important that the public should have access to the notifications given to the local authorities and river authorities about the nature of the wastes which are being dumped. This Bill does not deal with the point whether the notices sent to the local authorities are to be treated as confidential or whether they are to be available for perusal by the public. I am inclined to think that under the Secretary of State's rule-making powers he can probably cover this matter, but I ask the Under-Secretary of State to give us an assurance that these notices which have to be given by those concerned with toxic wastes to the local authorities and the river authorities will be made available for perusal by the public.
Naturally, my Lords, I welcome this Bill in so far as it will increase the penalties for the dumping of toxic materials upon land. But the word "land" implies that it does not apply to estuaries or to the sea. We are awaiting a report from the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution dealing with estuaries, and there is not the slightest doubt that the estuaries of this country are at present being used as dumping grounds for toxic materials of every kind. The effect of the tide going in and out means that these toxic materials are going to and fro close to the coast. We also have to be concerned about the sea. I could hardly believe my ears, but I think I heard the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, say that he hoped that these toxic materials would be taken out and dumped in the sea.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: No, my Lords; I am afraid that the noble Lord completely misunderstood me. I said I hoped that all the powers under the various Acts would be fully used, because the improvement would be very slight indeed if, instead of being dumped on the land, the toxic wastes were dumped into the sea.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I am very glad to know that. I misheard the noble Lord. I hardly thought it possible that he was expressing that view. One of the very few respects in which the

905
Report of the Royal Commission does not support the Report of the Key Committee is on the matter of dumping at sea. The Royal Commission say that they do not share the confidence of the Technical Committee:
"We do not share the Technical Committee's confidence in the voluntary consent system operated by the appropriate Department."
I wonder whether the Under-Secretary will tell us something about the voluntary consent system and whether he is quite satisfied that it will stand up to the additional strain likely to be put upon it if this Bill is effective in preventing the dumping of toxic materials on hind. Secondly, it would be extremely valuable to know whether he can tell us anything about the prospect of a convention to control dumping in the North-East Atlantic, referred to by the Royal Commission, who say that the Government expect a convention of that kind to be signed in the near future.
My Lords, this Bill will not be effective without a general spirit of co-operation between the Government and local authorities and industry. I speak for the environmental movement and not for industry, but we want to obtain the cooperation of industry. But we think that that co-operation cannot reasonably be expected unless industry is fairly treated. As the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, has said, modern industry inevitably results in toxic residues and it would be intolerable if the community forbade the dumping of toxic materials in the wrong place without doing anything to ensure that there were proper places for this toxic material to be dumped. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State will be able to tell us that something is being done to ensure greatly increased facilities for dumping in the future, in order to make the temptation to the fly dumper and irresponsible actions by some companies less probable in the future than in the past.
There are those concerned in this industry who take an entirely responsible view in these matters. I had a letter from one of the largest disposers of toxic waste in this country only to-day, and I should like to read one paragraph from it. He says:
"The effect of the Bill will be to drive out some of the less responsible waste disposal operators. It will also cause some of the major companies to conduct their affairs in
906
a more responsible manner. The waste disposal industry, through the National Association of Waste Disposal Contractors, has been framing a code of conduct in harness with the Institute of Chemical Engineers. This Bill will give teeth to that code of conduct."
I think that that is a most hopeful prospect for the future. We welcome this Bill as a useful interim measure. In the short time available, and at a time when the new structure of local government has not yet been put into operation, we recognise that it inevitably falls far short of the needs, but we await with confidence the larger and more comprehensive Bill which the Government have promised will be introduced in good time for the new local authorities to put into operation in 1974.
7.2 p.m.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, I do not wish to take up more than a minute or two of your Lordships' time. Naturally we are all concerned that a Bill of this type should pass. I would, however, ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will pay a little more consideration to the technical matters involved. I realise that they have already given some consideration to them. But the noble Lord, Lord Molson, has already made reference to a code of practice, of which I happen to have a copy here. This is the code of practice which has been drawn up in consultation between the Institute of Chemical Engineers and the contractors involved. It is important to realise that, despite what the noble Lord indicated in the letter from which he quoted, not all members of this Institution feel happy about this Bill. They feel that the lack of definition in the Bill is unfortunate; that there is no attempt in the Bill to define what is meant by these materials; that it is essentially left as something to be decided post hoc and is not something that can be decided in advance.
In fact, the Minister in another place, when challenged on this point, said:
"I am putting a much greater onus on them. I am saying they are responsible if they dump any waste that proves to be dangerous, which is much tougher than giving a list of substances and saying 'You are guilty if you dump them'."
This is just not true, my Lords. If a list of substances is given, it is possible to define the substances which should not be dumped, or should be dumped only in certain places. This then clarifies the

907
position. But to say that a decision is taken afterwards really means it is taken because it so happens that someone spots later on that there has been a dumping of this type which has caused some trouble. Therefore it is not true to say that it is better not to define things. I feel that this is a mistake in the Bill and I would ask the Minister to look at it again. In particular, I would ask him whether he will invite the Institute of Chemical Engineers, if they have not already submitted this document to the Ministry, to do so, because I think the code of practice that they have drawn up will be of considerable importance in operating this Bill.
I do not want to delay your Lordships, but there are one or two other matters that I would mention briefly. The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, referred to Clause 2(2)(b) of the Bill and, in particular, the words, "the nature and chemical composition of the waste". This is an extraordinarily vague phrase. It sounds as though it were definite; but I happen to be a chemist, and I could express to your Lordships the formula for a substance in an entirely confusing way. It is extraordinarily easy, when dealing with an organic substance, to give its chemical composition in half-a-dozen different ways, and it takes a lot of working out to decide which is the one you are really concerned with. In other words, it is not enough to refer just to "the nature and chemical composition". I seriously suggest to your Lordships that this Bill requires considerable amendment in order to make it a serious Bill from the point of view of what we all want to do.
7.5 p.m.
LORD BRECON: My Lords, I should first declare an interest in that I am a director of a company that operates one of the largest waste disposal units in this country: it is not the one mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood. I am sure that I speak on behalf of the industry in welcoming the Bill. It will do a great deal to raise the standards of waste disposal in this country, and will help considerably to tidy up our environment. The trouble to-day is that people think that waste is cheap or of no value. The problem is to get rid of it, and this is a costly business. However, a lot of people have been doing it cheaply by fly-tipping and
908
tipping anywhere. I personally should like to see some of the regulations in the Bill apply to normal waste, because a great deal of fly-tipping of that goes on and it makes a terrible mess of the country.
The noble Lord who spoke last has left the Chamber, but he said that he had a copy of the code of practice. We should like to see the code of practice. I do not know where the noble Lord secured it from. I hope that the code of practice will be available before long so that we may see whether it is a practical code and one which can be operated in a satisfactory manner.
So far as poisonous waste, to which noble Lords have referred, is concerned, surely the time must come when there will be central stations for the disposal of such waste. The other day we heard of cyanide that had been found in the Midlands having to be taken all the way to Southampton to be disposed of. Surely a station in the Midlands would help to get rid of the poisonous waste in that area. I am sure that the industry and the responsible firms connected with waste disposal welcome this Bill, which will raise standards.
7.9 p.m.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am grateful for the acceptance that this Bill has received, and the fact that the acceptance comes from noble Lords speaking from the points of view of waste disposal contractors, industry, political opponents and conservationists is most encouraging. It at least indicates that we have the balance right. I made no claims that we regarded this Bill as perfect, or even complete. As my right honourable friend recognised, we are open to a charge that the Bill is not complete in all details, and is certainly no substitute for comprehensive legislation in due course. Perhaps I may go through some of the various points that noble Lords have raised and deal with their questions as best I can.
I think the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, as I understand it on behalf of his noble friend Lord Douglas of Barloch, require me to expand somewhat on the extent to which cyanide is rendered less harmless in certain circumstances as it lies on tips, and also to expand somewhat on the degree of guidance under which water undertakers operate as regards the frequency and

909
nature of their tests. These are matters which would require me to go on for some considerable time in each case. It might be better to deal with them in writing and, if the noble Lord agrees, that is what I should like to do. He will, I am sure, agree if I do no more than take note of what he said about some of the unsatisfactory instances to which the Press have been drawing our attention. I believe that the noble Lord agrees that although this is not a complete or a perfect Bill, we have chosen the lesser of two evils and, in the circumstances which now prevail, it would have been wrong to continue along the line we had previously chosen—that is, of waiting until the new local authorities had taken up their duties before introducing comprehensive legislation. I agree that there are hazards involved, and we have not managed to avoid all of them.
The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, asked me to say something about the defences, and I shall be glad to do this. These arise from Clause 1, subsection (6), paragraphs (a) and (b). The main purpose of paragraph (a) is to provide a defence (and the noble Lord reminded us that we are dealing here with a phrase which is deliberately ambiguous, for it covers both the firm generating the waste and the person who is an employee of the firm actually depositing the waste) for the individual person who is actually depositing the waste. Paragraph (b) provides a defence for the contractor who is undertaking the disposal of the waste on behalf of the company that generates it. I think your Lordships would agree that a defence in the terms provided by this paragraph would be appropriate for him; but I think your Lordships would also agree that when it comes to the company responsible for generating the waste being charged with depositing it in a harmful way or in a way which causes environmental hazard, neither of the defences provided here—for the driver in the first case, or for the contractor in the second case—ought to apply, because the company itself ought to be fully aware of what it is doing and take responsibility for its actions. I hope that is a satisfactory explanation, but I am conscious that this is a rather technical and detailed legal point.
The noble Lord asked me about season tickets. I would confirm that in general
910
terms the possibility of obtaining a season ticket is certainly within the legislation. There would be some circumstances in which it could not be used, as, for instance, where there were fluctuations. Where a firm or a contractor can say that they will be depositing waste at such and such a time within certain categories upon such and such a tip, then there is no reason why a season ticket should not be used: and indeed there is every expectation that it would. The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, asked me about definitions in two slightly different contexts. The fact of the matter is that there is no necessity for the detailed kind of definition that the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, referred to to be included in the notification supplied to the local authorities, to give them an indication of the nature and general harmfulness of what it is they are proposing to tip. The guiding principle is that it should be for the manufacturer to accept the responsibility of ascertaining what is likely to cause environmental hazard in waste. He should know with precision and in considerable detail how it is made up; but should specify it in a notification to the local authority in no more detail than is necessary for a layman to understand the matter and then, if necessary with professional advice, to pursue the hazards. I hope I have satisfied the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, with that explanation.
I shall not have satisfied my noble friend Lord Molson about definition, because he asked about it in a slightly different context; that is, the confidentiality of the composition of waste. There is one grade of information which can be obtained and which must be obtained by public health inspectors. The 1936 Act, to which the noble Lord referred, comes into this matter in order to protect the company from the improper disclosure of that kind of detailed information acquired by a public health inspector when he secures entry to a firm which is generating poisonous wastes or conducting particular operations which require his attention. There is a need for confidentiality in respect of that kind of detailed information which is not required in respect of the more general information to which I referred just now in reply to the point raised by the noble

911
Viscount, Lord Simon. The degree to which the public have access to this particular kind of information is illustrated by the fact that the information will appear on the agendas of council meetings of local authorities. To that extent the public will have access to it, but the main responsibility for prosecuting under this legislation will fall on local authorities. The notifications go to them, and it is for them to use the information as they see fit. It is not that the information will be deliberately withheld from the public, but neither will it be displayed and provided for them in the same sort of way as is done in planning applications, for instance. I hope I have succeeded in explaining the difference between the two kinds of information involved here: that one kind of information needs to be given certain protection and the other kind does not need the same sort of protection.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, in order that I may be quite clear, may I ask my noble friend this question? He has said that the notices required under Clause 2, subsection (1), paragraphs (a) and (b), are of a more or less general and not very detailed nature. Those are what have to be sent to the local authority and then passed on to the river authority. Those, as I understand the situation, will be available to the general public if they wish to see them. If I may just make one further point, my noble friend referred to the primary obligation which rests on local authorities of prosecuting in suitable cases. He will remember that his right honourable friend said that it was competent for any member of the public to prosecute also.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I should like to confirm that. I believe my noble friend and I are now generally in agreement on this subject. My noble friend also asked me about estuaries and the degree to which we have advanced towards an agreement about dumping in the North-East Atlantic. I should prefer, if I might, to write to him about that when I am sure that I have all the available information on the matter. I am very glad to have the view of his correspondent on the likely effect of this
912
Bill, which certainly accords with our own.
The only other point was that made by the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, who is no longer in his place, but I will, nevertheless, answer him. There is room for argument as to which is the best method of proceeding; namely, whether you start from a catalogue of the precise chemical substances which cause an environmental hazard or whether you lay the responsibility on the firm that is generating toxic wastes for them to form a view as to what is likely to cause an environmental hazard, and in what circumstances, and then take the appropriate action. I should have thought that there were pretty strong arguments in favour of taking the second course of action, because all the evidence is that so much depends on the extent to which the noxious substances are diluted, the way in which they are disposed of, the concentrations, the frequency and the way they are treated when they have been disposed of. I am aware that there is an argument to be put forward on both sides.
My Lords, I hope that I have dealt with all the points raised by noble Lords. I am particularly grateful for the comments of my noble friend Lord Brecon, coming from the source that they did. I am satisfied, and my right honourable friend is satisfied, that the Bill will have the effects which the correspondent of my noble friend Lord Molson said it would have, and for that reason I have no hesitation in commending this Bill to your Lordships.
LORD BRECON: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, as one noble Lord has a copy of the code of practice, could my noble friend make it available for others? I do not know where he obtained it from.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord is not here. When he first produced it I was not quite sure whether it was the notes of his speech or the code of practice, but I was delighted to hear that it was the code of practice.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

STUDENT UNION FINANCING
7.23 p.m.
LORD ANNAN LORD ANNAN rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether the proposals put forward by the Secretary of State for Education and Science in the Consultative Document on student union financing are still subject to consultation, and whether any other proposals will be entertained. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I find myself in the bizarre position of asking a Question to which I am quite certain I know the answer. I have never doubted for a moment the sincerity of the Secretary of State when she declared that, in issuing the Consultative Document, she was willing to consider other proposals. Perhaps this is just as well because I am bound to say that I have yet to find a friend of the solution put forward in that Document. As your Lordships know, a student union is not as at Oxford or Cambridge, simply a club and a debating society. Through the union nearly all the student clubs, societies, sports, games, entertainments and social activities get their subvention. In some urban institutions many students make little use of union facilities. In other places there is nowhere for them to relax except in the union premises. But in both cases membership has to be compulsory because there would be no way of keeping the non-members out of the bars, club rooms or off the playing fields which the other students would have paid for. That is why some well-meaning people, who want students to be free not to pay a union fee, are under a delusion. It is like saying that you buy a ticket for a cruise but you want part of your money back because you do not intend to play deck tennis. The extremist students, who at the moment are bellowing that student unions should be entirely autonomous, ought to be in favour of voluntary membership—in fact, of course, they dread it—or they ought to welcome the Consultative Document because it gives them one area of total freedom, though it is perfectly true that they will not get much money to play around in that area.
My Lords, let me come to the heart of the matter. What the Government seem to be worried most about is accountability. Are student unions improperly
914
spending the money that they receive largely from fees financed by the taxpayer? The Government seem to think that they are, because the Consultative Document sets out an ingenious scheme for controlling the unions by changing their method of finance. It recommends that student political and cultural activities be financed largely by voluntary contributions and that all union finance should be ostentatiously put in competition with the U.G.C. block grant for teaching and research in the universities, polytechnics or colleges of further education. I do not believe that there is any need to do anything so unwise. Do the Government consider that the constitution of some student unions is too vague and lax so that expenditure can be controlled by a tiny group? If that is the case, let the Department ask the authorities of universities, polytechnics and colleges, and also the National Union of Students to meet them and draw up a model constitution.
One point that everyone dislikes about student unions is the chance that a tiny minority have of taking over the machinery of the union and, through obstructive tactics, passing motions which would never get the support of the whole body of students. Why not then write into the constitution that no decision is binding unless quorum requirements are met? Any member of the union, former as well as present students, should be entitled to demand a count to see whether the meeting is inquorate. The quorum figure, I suggest, should not be less than 5 per cent. of the total student membership. I also venture to suggest that it should be not more than 10 per cent., because if you make it more you will neglect a well known fact of political life. Students are no different from ordinary citizens, and the vast majority of ordinary citizens are uninterested for most of the time in national and local politics. In just the same way, you find in trade unions a reluctance of the membership to turn out and vote on many issues. If you go beyond 10 per cent. for a quorum figure you will turn the general meetings of the unions into more of a farce than they sometimes are and totally defeat the object of the exercise. You may ask, "Will there not still be doubt whether or not payments which have been voted by the general

915
meeting of the union, or by its council, are ultra vires?"
My Lords, I know that there are those in another place who believe that all these problems could be solved by appointing a registrar. I can see that this idea, which appealed to the Select Committee, might seem attractive, but I think it rests on a misapprehension. It is true that a registrar could do what I have suggested that the Department of Education and Science, the universities and colleges could do; namely, frame and approve union constitutions. What a registrar could not do would be to rule on day to day payments and authorisations. That can he done only within the institution itself, and if the institution doubts whether a payment is legitimate, there should be provision within the constitution of the union for the authorities to challenge and delay the payment until arbitration takes place.
I suggest that the arbitrator should not be a registrar who is unlikely to know much about the way institutions of higher education work. What you need, it seems to me, is what is called a "point of reference"—a small group which would be appointed by the Department of Education and Science in consultation with the vice-chancellors, the local authorities and the National Union of Students. This group should arbitrate on all sorts of disputes, from increases in fees, for example, or ultra vires payments, as I mentioned.
Increase of fees brings me to my next point. Increase of course affects local authorities, and the Government's proposals are meant to end the present so-called open-ended commitment which local authorities face. It is an open-ended commitment because any university is free to raise the student union fee unilaterally, and clearly that cannot be permitted to continue. But have universities in fact been raising fees unilaterally and unreasonably? How many local authorities have complained of exorbitant charges? Universities have heard of none, and some have been told by their own local authority that they certainly have not been pressing for a change. I must say frankly that the picture which the Government draw of the local authorities mouthing" No
916
taxation without representation" is somewhat fanciful. Are we really to believe that Sir William Alexander is at this moment dressing up as a Red Indian and intending to prepare for another Boston Tea Party? I really must ask: Do we really have to abandon the principle of the local authorities' supporting their own students? Surely they would be willing to continue to do so provided that the universities agree only to raise fees in consultation with the Association of Education Committees, perhaps on the principle of a graduated rise which would be tied to rises in costs—just as the Tress-Brown Index operates for supplementary grants in U.G.C. finance. I believe that the Local Authorities Association would welcome such a scheme because they genuinely want some ammunition to use with their councillors in order to induce them to grant realistic fees in their unions, in the colleges of further education and the polytechnics and in the colleges of education; and that of course is certainly one of the goals of the National Union of Students.
The universities would have to give the A.E.C. sufficient advance notice so that the local authorities could make the necessary adjustments in their submissions to central Government for additional subventions. Indeed, this would be a positive advantage. Increases in university union finance would then occur at the same time, and be subject to the same rules, as increases in local authority colleges such as the polytechnics. Would the Secretary of State be prepared to think of this as an alternative? There are other reasons, I think, for preferring such an approach to that of the Consultative Document. The split fee proposal would kill so many of the good things that students do: their social work in the community, their support of good causes, their drama, their music clubs; it would kill amusements such as the "Saturday night hop", which is innocent—well, relatively innocent. It would also kill most games and sports, though I must confess here that I have seen a loophole in paragraph 13(iii) of the Consultative Document under which one might be able to squeeze the games and sports clubs in, and avoid their being thrown, as it were, to the mercies of the split fee financing proposals.
All the activities I have mentioned require central funding. That is why

917
almost everyone in higher education dislikes the split fee proposal, and I very much hope it can be dropped. But I readily admit that there is the germ of a really good idea in the Document. It gives all institutions the chance to disentangle what parts of union expenditure ought to be regarded really as part of the university budget; for it may be that the Government are worried that one generation of students might impoverish future generations by selling off property—for instance, playing fields which a few student unions own; but of course most are partly in the control both of the union and of the university or the colleges. Very well then: if that is the fear of the Government, let these premises, the buildings, the recreational facilities and the maintenance of all unions, be vested in the institution and be the institution's responsibility. The vice-chancellors, I know, as a whole dislike the merging of the union fee in the block grant. If I may make my own personal contribution here, I do not dislike it nearly so much. My own colleagues and I have worked a scheme of this kind in a university college without any difficulty at all and it has worked perfectly satisfactorily, and I believe personally that student unions will lose if they are all put on a per capita basis. I well understand that this is not the accepted view and that most universities want a firm per capita grant. But I do not think the universities or the local authority institutions would object to that part of union funds being hived off as I suggested a moment ago.
May I ask another question: are the Government worried that funds will be spent improperly despite the safeguards which I have already suggested? If that were the case, why not ask the professional auditors to certify annually that the union's funds have been spent in accordance with the aims set out in the constitution? Well, even if that fails, let the Government not forget that there is recourse to the courts. The union at the London School of Economics, for example, has been very effectively constrained in its operations by court action. Recourse to the courts is expensive. It cost, I believe, one public-spirited student at Sussex University £1,000 when he challenged in the court the legality of his union's donation to the Bangladesh Relief Appeal. That is why I advocate the point-of-reference scheme.
My Lords, I do not want to be disingenuous. All is not always well with student unions. They do silly things. But you would be surprised how often they learn by their own mistakes. Student unions can fall into the hands of self-righteous, insufferable prigs, who then find themselves outflanked by a tiny number of hooligans and poor, mentally disturbed creatures. But that happens only very rarely. And when it does, of course, vice-chancellors find it difficult to cut an heroic figure, as managing directors do when the workers come out on strike or have a sit-in in a factory. Nevertheless, I do not believe that the university and further education college authorities do all that badly. How many of your Lordships know, for example, of the six weeks' sit-in that took place in the autumn at Reading University, and ended without a single concession to the militants: a situation which was most brilliantly de-fused by the Vice-Chancellor, Dr. Pitt, who is an unassuming but extremely able man, but one who does not care to hit the headlines? When one considers how very little trouble British universities have had compared with those in America or Europe or Japan, it seems to me rather odd that the Government want to interfere in this area. Cannot they trust the good sense of the authorities and the students in both sectors of higher education?
Students demonstrate, and vice-chancellors do not demonstrate; but both students and vice-chancellors realise that what is at stake here is a freedom which student unions have won over many, many years. That freedom is the right to allocate as they see fit their income, within the terms of their constitution. I am sure that the Government would think it entirely proper for a student union to hire ten buses and take their supporters to cheer on their football or rugger team at an away match, provided of course that the payment was authorised according to the rules and constitution of the union. But would the Government agree that, with that proviso, it was just as proper to hire ten buses for students to go somewhere in order to demonstrate on some political or local issue? That is the crux of the matter.
Let me give the noble Lord another instance. A month or so ago the President of the National Union of Students invited the Secretary of State to lunch.

919
He wished to put her to as little inconvenience as possible and therefore, so I am informed, he chose a restaurant just on the other side of Curzon Street. The restaurant is called the Mirabelle. What the bill for the lunch came to is shrouded in decent obscurity. But surely the noble Lord would not be so ungallant as to suggest that here was a misuse of student union funds. And surely he does not think that the time of vice-chancellors or of dons is best spent in checking such payments?
Quite often students say things and do things of which their elders disapprove. The reaction which is all too common on the part of their elders is to stop them doing it. I remember the retort made by that great Oxford don, Sir Maurice Bowra, when someone tried to persuade him to stop some Oxford undergraduates petitioning the Privy Council. He refused. "But why should they?" he was asked. "Because they are entitled to and because they want to", he replied. My Lords, Parliament has made students by law adults. By all means remind them that being adult means accepting responsibilities. But let us treat students as adults.
7.42 p.m.
LORD GREENWOOD OF ROSSENDALE: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for giving us this opportunity I think I should emphasise that I am speaking to-night not as the pro-chancellor of a university but purely in my own personal capacity. In that capacity I have been worried for a number of months that the Consultative Paper which Mrs. Thatcher issued appears to have an inbuilt bias against students. Clearly, at times, as my noble friend has admitted, some students do foolish things. Some of them are guilty of conduct which can only be condemned and regretted by those of us who believe that a university or a college, above all other institutions, should be a place where points of view can be moderately expressed, with respect for the views and feelings of others, and where reasoned argument and not direct action should be the method of winning support for a case. I can well understand the irritation that some local education authorities may feel from time to time.
920
I thought that the noble Lord made some most interesting and constructive proposals in that part of his speech, and I hope that they will receive from the Secretary of State for Education and Science the very serious attention they merit. I entirely agree with the noble Lord that we must be careful to retain a sense of proportion. The instances to which exception can legitimately be taken involve a minority of students. I was glad that the noble Lord emphasised this; and while we emphasise the need for proper standards, we must avoid the temptation to over-react to such student misbehaviour as exists. As the noble Lord pointed out, in some instances redress through the courts can already be obtained. I think we must keep our sense of proportion and not be misled into appearing to condemn or to penalise the whole of the student population.
It is perhaps worth reminding your Lordships that when the Southampton Union refused financial support to Right-Wing Conservative groups their action was roundly condemned by the annual conference of the National Union of Students. The words of the annual conference were memorable ones. They said:
"The expression of any particular opinion, no matter how unorthodox, distasteful or unpopular, should not be inhibited by physical or mental intimidation or in any other way."
I am sure that that is the view of the vast majority of students throughout the universities in our country.
I am afraid that Mrs. Thatcher's proposals, in whatever limbo they may be at the moment, cannot have helped to create a climate in which a better relationship can be achieved. The Federation of Conservative Students described the proposals as "authoritarian"; the Committee of Vice-Chancellors said that the Government were preparing an overelaborate structure to deal with a system which was, with some exceptions, working well. And the Daily Mail gave us a salutary reminder. In an editorial it said:
"The total amount of money available to all student unions in Britain comes to about £3 million. Almost all of it is spent carefully and worthily on clubs, societies debates, recreation, catering and so on.… And only the merest trickle goes to finance political causes outside the university."
That seems to me, my Lords, to put the problem into perspective. I very much

921
hope that Mrs. Thatcher will be prepared to start all over again and that in reconsidering the Government's attitude to the student unions she will take carefully into account the views which the noble Lord, Lord Annan, has expressed to-night.
7.46 p.m.
LORD BLAKE: My Lords, I think we are all indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, for bringing this very difficult question to the attention of the House. There is no doubt that the Consultative Document has produced a great deal of anxiety. Some of it, perhaps, is of a rather hysterical and over-wrought nature, but a good deal of it is soundly based. I should like to say one thing straight away: that although I do not believe that the Document—and let us remember that it is a consultative document—gives the right answer, I do believe that it is trying to deal with a real problem and that it is not simply making a mountain out of a molehill. Student union financing may not be among the graver political issues of our time—it is hardly in the category of unemployment, inflation, Northern Ireland, or even Southern Rhodesia—but this does not mean that the problem is negligible or non-existent. As has already been indicated in this debate, it is a double problem. There is the question of the open-ended commitment of the local education authorities, and there is the quite separate question of the alleged misuse of union funds—funds which are intended for specific purposes, such as amenities, culture, sport, et cetera, but which, in admittedly few cases but cases which are unfortunately very well publicised, have been diverted to way-out political causes of one sort or another. I will not specify what they have been.
I believe that the Consultative Document made the mistake of trying to deal with these two problems by, in effect, a single solution, whereas they really should be regarded as quite separate problems requiring separate solutions. The solution contained in the Consultative Document was, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said ingenious. I think it was both ingenious and elegant. It removes the open-ended problem by making the greater proportion of the sum now raised through student union subscriptions a part of the general grant, and it tries to
922
solve the misuse of funds by making a reduction for activities more appropriately financed by voluntary subscription, the latter figure to be made up by a small increase in the student maintenance grant. I must admit that although I think this is not the best way of setting about the problems, and although, as I have said, I think they need separate solutions, I did not share the feelings of outrage which so many junior and senior members of universities appeared to entertain about the proposals—proposals that did not, and do not, seem to me to be ridiculous, absurd or malevolent. The reaction of student unions, I thought, was altogether out of proportion; indeed, at times it was almost comic. One would have thought that a proposal to make certain activities the subject of voluntary financing would have appealed to those young men of advanced liberal (with a small "1") opinions who detest authority, paternalism and coercion of any kind. Not so, however. I recall one undergraduate saying to me in tones of high moral indignation, "The voluntary principle should be crushed at all costs".
Having expressed my view about this disproportionate reaction to the document, I would nevertheless express the hope that the Government will see their way to modifying some of the proposals. If I may take the two problems, beginning with misuse of funds, I entirely agree with Lord Annan that split-level financing is not the right answer, certainly not the right answer now. If the Document could have made it clear that the vast majority of student union activities would go on being financed on a compulsory basis and it was only a very tiny proportion that would be the subject of voluntary contributions, perhaps there would have been less alarm and despondency felt when the proposals were put forward. But that is not clear from the Document. Indeed the Document can be read in various ways as to what proportion would be the subject of voluntary subscription; and this seemed a threat, as Lord Annan said, to a whole number of rather worthy activities, including cultural, theatrical, artistic and sporting activities. Hence there arose this very improbable alliance which has occurred in the student world between such bodies as the boat clubs—not normally a body of men much addicted to radical causes—with the active student union politicians of the

923
Left, and it is quite an achievement, if I may say so, for the Document, to have produced this alliance. In view of these fears, I hope that the Government will think again, even though the original proposal was perhaps not as foolish as it was made out to be.
How should we cope with the problem of the misuse of funds? I can be brief on that subject, because I find myself in complete agreement with what the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said. I am against a registrar of student unions. I think this would be an unnecessarily ponderous and provocative action at this particular moment of time. I believe it is the case that a great many of the activities which have been condemned—and, as I say, this misuse of funds has not occurred at all often—have probably been illegal anyway, but I would also agree that there are great difficulties in enforcing the law. It would be a process both expensive and extremely slow if we relied simply on getting injunctions in the courts. So my feeling on this matter would be that ground rules should be laid down, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Annan, suggested, that there should be some method of certificate of audit, if necessary. I like his idea of a point of reference; this could be worked out in more detail. I am sure that is much better than the introduction of a registrar of student unions with all the implications that this has in the perhaps rather excitable minds of students.
As for the other problem, the open-ended commitment, I do not find myself so much in agreement with Lord Annan, because I think there is a feeling of grievance about this, certainly in certain local authorities. I was a member for several years of a local authority, but not actually of its education committee, and I heard quite a lot about this particuliar grievance in one way and another; and of course it has been exacerbated by the rare case of misuse for political purposes. A lot of people who had not thought about their commitment being open-ended started thinking about it fast when unions publicised political actions of this kind with their funds. It seems to me that the Government cannot ignore this difficulty, but I am not at all clear that the right answer is to transfer the whole thing to the U.G.C. as a competing head
924
of expenditure along with other university needs. I was very interested to hear that Lord Annan has found this kind of thing not too difficult to cope with at University College, but, as he said, this is not the general view held by vice-chancellors and principals, or for that matter the heads of "Oxbridge" Colleges. Most of us, I think, have a certain apprehensiveness about such an arrangement and feel that it could be a tiresome source of disputation between senior and junior members.
In this respect, I agree with what the National Union of Students themselves have said in their reply to Mrs. Thatcher's Consultative Document. If it is felt that we must in future operate through the U.G.C., I should like to make a plea that it should be an earmarked grant. I fully recognise that my right honourable friend has not got the power, and should not have the power, to make any earmarked grant; it is a matter for the U.G.C. to decide itself and it is not a matter for the Department to impose. I also realise that earmarked grants are not very popular—the trend is the other way—but this I believe might be made an exception. But is it really necessary at all to transfer these payments from the local authorities?
Is it impossible to leave them there, which is certainly what the majority of universities and colleges would prefer, and to let the L.E.A.s, on a collective and national level, have the sort of say that they have in fixing maintenance grants? I would emphasise "on a collective and national level"; I am certainly not advocating that separate consideration should be given at each L.E.A. to each university that happens to be in its area on the question of union funds. That, I think, would be productive of a great deal of ill-temper and waste of time, and would be extremely unpopular and much resented by the universities. I am suggesting that it should be done on a collective and national level even if only informally; that the local authorities should have a say in the union subscriptions. I think Lord Annan would approve of that.
I will not detain your Lordships any longer. To sum up, I am against split level finance. I hope the Government will think again. I am against the registrar of student unions. I am in favour

925
of ground rules, audit and point of reference. On the second problem, I hope that the Government may consider again whether it is not possible after all to leave financing of the student unions in the hands of the local authorities.
7.58 p.m.
BARONESS STOCKS: My Lords, in preparation for this discussion I tried to get a copy of the Consultative Document. It was unknown in our Printed Paper Office. I went to the Commons Vote Office and it was unknown there. I failed to get it. All I know of it is the criticism that I have read in the Press and the criticism that was published by the National Union of Students, which was, fortunately, in our Printed Paper Office. I am speaking rather without the background knowledge which one should have in a debate of this sort. My feeling is that Lord Annan is right and that the Consultative Document is wrong, and it should be reconsidered. But I feel a great sympathy with poor Mrs. Thatcher, who has been most monstrously bullied over this. I think the trouble is that she is the wrong woman in the wrong place. Unfortunately, owing to tile climate of opinion in regard to women, every Government think they ought to have a woman in the Ministry. She is the woman. When they think of the job for a woman they think of education. She is a very good financier and knows more about the intricacies of social insurance than almost anyone on the Front Bench. But that is by the way. I think she has probably done the wrong thing in the wrong way, as Lord Annan pointed out.
But there is a factor we have to reckon with which really does call for some sort of restraint, possibly by audit such as has been suggested; that is, that at this moment the public image of students is extremely bad. Wherever one goes it is extremely bad. And it was not improved, of course, by the action reported in the Press of various student unions in connection with the miners' strike of supporting pickets, very obstructive pickets, and in giving large sums of money to miners to come and lecture to students unions. As an example of that, may I quote what happened to me some weeks ago when I was going out of the St. Stephen's entrance at about 7.30 p.m. and there was a very large crowd of
926
young men and young women trying to come in?
The policeman at the door said to me, "Do you want to get out, my Lady?" And I said "Yes I do; but who is this coming in?" And in a tone of withering scorn he said, "Oh! Students." I got out, pushed my way through the students and got a taxi, and as I got into the taxi the driver looked at the students and said in the same tone of withering scorn, "Students! They want grants for their mistresses!" Of course those particular students did not want that; they were protesting against Mrs. Thatcher. But you see what the taxi-driver had in mind: a debate we had in this House some months ago, if not more than a year ago, about grants to mature students. He had got that into his head, and his remark showed what he thought about students. I meet that sort of attitude everywhere, and it was not improved by reports of student activities during the miners' strike. The point is that I think the public must be reassured by some form of audit or control which will put the image right—if by now it can be put right.
8.2 p.m.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, although the student unions have recently been the subject of a good deal of public discussion, this is, I think, the first opportunity this House has had to discuss this question since my right honourable friend issued her Consultative Document last November. I am sure, therefore, that the whole House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Annan, a member, after all, of the Vice-Chancellors' Committee, for giving us the opportunity for this discussion.
My Lords, because the student community is, I am afraid, sometimes inclined to underestimate the degree of irritation which is caused when, as the public see it, they occasionally misuse, or do not properly control, the funds entrusted to them, or countenance perhaps irregularities of procedure, I think it is all the more important as the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, pointed out to keep the matter in perspective and to keep in mind the valuable work which the unions do.
The noble Lord, Lord Annan and my noble friend Lord Blake are both heads

927
of colleges. I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, has bowled me out. I am not sure of his position at the moment in the university world. I seem to remember that he was a distinguished president of one particular students' union back in 1933 at the University of Oxford. And all of them would support me, I think, when I hold that academic communities would not be worthy of the name if the only contact they had were simply the formal teaching between those who are taught and those who teach. Higher education surely needs to provide an undergraduate with a much wider range of experiences; opportunities for enjoying the society of other people, opportunities for argument and debate, opportunities perhaps for community service, the chance to profit from cultural and recreational societies, outlets for sport and drama. In all these areas student unions, and the societies and clubs which they support, have an important role to play.
The union has also a vital function of a quite different kind: it represents the students in their dealings with the government of their university or college and with the teaching staff. I believe that these points are widely recognised in this House and it has certainly been borne in upon us this evening by the expert advice we have been given. Noble Lords who have spoken have gone out of their way to acknowledge that we are discussing an essential part of the college community. I simply state this to emphasise that my right honourable friend shares this view and that whatever changes may be decided upon will be introduced against the background of the Government's wish to see student unions flourish and develop.
In seeking to provide a framework for the development of unions we have to recognise that the financial and administrative arrangements which we have inherited grew up somewhat haphazardly from a time when there were fewer students, fewer establishments of higher education and when, quite frankly, the sums of public money spent in this respect were a great deal smaller. If, on the other hand, we look to the future, we can foresee a need to improve the facilities for students, particularly in the local authority sector where they often fall
928
short—I admit it quite openly—of what is provided in the universities. The pattern then would be likely, I suggest, to be one of growing expenditure throughout our diverse range of institutions to which student unions are attached. In these circumstances, it would be surprising if an examination of the present arrangements showed them to be satisfactory, and quite unnecessary of any change in all respects.
In fact, my Lords, I suggest that signs of strain in the arrangements have been visible for some time. After all, the report of the Select Committee back in 1969 recommended that any disparities in student union financing between universities and local authority institutions should be abolished, and that minimum standards of facilities should be established. This raising of standards involves, of course, both capital and recurrent finance. On the capital side I think it is fair to remind your Lordships that my right honourable friend announced last November generous increases in the further education building programme. And at the same time as the building programme, new standards for use in the planning of these establishments were notified to local authorities stressing the need to provide adequate communal facilities for staff and for students. So I think I can reasonably claim that student unions can expect to benefit from the improvement of facilities in the further education sector as a whole.
However, it is recurrent expenditure that mainly concerns us this evening. Here the problem was not only that there has been an enormous variation in the size of the union fee. The local authorities have also found that many union fees—and not always those that were the lowest—were increasing sharply. The authorities were obliged to pay these fees even though they had no control over the rate of increase. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, perfectly fairly asked "was it really so that there were those sharp increases? Would the Government inform him?" Well, my Lords, I am afraid that I am not an expert on this sector of education, but I seem to call to mind one example where there was a rise of over 50 per cent. in a union fee. Maybe it was very much needed, but I would call this a sharp rise. It was, I think, a £7 rise. If rises in union fees are triennial it is in

929
the nature of things that they are bound to be reasonably sharp, and the answer to another remark of the noble Lord's is that I am certainly not aware that all this has commended itself to the Association of Education Committees. It was for these reasons that the factual inquiry into student union financing was instituted in 1970 by the Department of Education and Science, in consultation with the local authorities, and by the Vice-Chancellors' Committee.
The problem became acute early in 1971 when the Kingston Local Education Authority found that the regulations relating to the payment of the student union fee, as applied in the Polytechnic at Kingston-upon-Thames, were defective in that, owing to a technical fault in the Awards Regulations, neither Kingston nor, so far as was known, any other local education authority, had power to pay the union fee for the award-holders at that Polytechnic. The essence of the difficulty as I understand it was this. The payment of the union subscription as part of the student's award was dependent on union membership being obligatory. The regulations then current referred to,
"membership which is obligatory by reason of any provision of the instrument regulating the conduct of the establishment".
But the trouble was that in the case of Kingston Polytechnic neither the articles of government nor the students' union constitutions approved under it provided for obligatory membership of the union. It is likely that this defect applied to a very considerable number of institutions—though we cannot be sure how many. My right honourable friend decided that it would be wrong to make any fundamental changes without due time for consideration and consultation, and what she therefore did was simply to amend the regulations to restore the pre-Kingston situation—if I may put it that way. However, at that time a number of people expressed reservations to her about the system which these regulations embodied, and my right honourable friend felt hound to undertake that the amendment would stand for a limited time only and that, meanwhile, she would re-examine the whole question. In November of last year, she made good that undertaking by publishing her Consultative Document on the financing of student unions, in which she made certain proposals for changes.
930
My Lords, I apologise for wearying the House with rather a long catalogue of events, but I do so to show that the Consultative Document (which has been in the Printed Paper Office since last night; and I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Stocks, that when she looked it was not there) was produced by my right honourable friend to meet what the noble Lord, Lord Blake, referred to in his speech as "a real problem". The main purpose in issuing that document was, and is, I assure your Lordships, to seek the views of all the bodies within the education service concerned with student unions. Before Christmas my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State had a round of preliminary discussions with the local authority associations, the vice-chancellors and the National Union of Students. Just recently he has had a second round of meetings with representatives of the local authority associations and the vice-chancellors, and he has had discussions with some of the professional organisations concerned with higher education. A great number of letters have been received—several hundred in fact—and several memoranda have been submitted. My right honourable friend has always stressed that she would prefer to proceed by agreement, if she can, and in order to allow ample time for these talks she responded to the representations of the local authorities and the vice-chancellors by agreeing to defer the introduction of any changes in student union financing until the academic year 1973–74.
I think it is fair to say that in the course of our consultations my right honourable friend and my honourable friend have come up against two sets of problems of different kinds. On the one hand, there is the point which has been identified certainly by the three noble Lords who have spoken, the problem of the way in which the unions are financed. It has been put very strongly to my right honourable friend that it is wrong that the academic authorities and the students should between them fix a student union fee which it is then mandatory upon the local education authorities—who have no say in the matter—to pay. On the other hand, there is a good deal of concern, both in this House and among the public at large (and I would echo what has been said this evening from all parts

931
of the House) about the way in which some student unions—and it is a very small minority—conduct their affairs.
Your Lordships do not need me to remind you of the kind of thing to which I am referring: donations from union funds to causes which have seemed to have nothing to do with the purposes for which those funds were, from public monies, provided; instances of irregularities of procedure; sometimes a lack of respect for the right of the individuals and the minorities whose opinions do not accord with the majority. As I have said, I believe these faults to be relatively uncommon, but unfortunately none of us can deny that they do sometimes occur. Some of the unions also need to pay more attention to the keeping of proper accounts. All of us have to recognise that where public money is concerned absolute propriety is the expectation, and that "it does not happen often" is not a sufficient defence.
These, then, are the sorts of issues on which we have been exercising our minds for some time, and which the House has been examining this evening. I am sure that your Lordships will gather from what I have been saying—at, I am afraid, too great length—that my answer to both parts of the noble Lord's Question is most certainly, Yes. My right honourable friend is ready to consider views or suggestions arising on the Consultative Document, or any alternative proposals which would deal effectively with the defects of the present system of financing student unions. My right honourable friend intends to look very carefully at all the options before a decision is taken. I am sure that she will read this debate very closely indeed. In view of that assurance I hope your Lordships will excuse me if I do not reply in detail to all the points that have been raised. Clearly, if I were to do this I should run precisely the risk of anticipating what might be decided finally.
May I end by briefly picking up a few of the points which your Lordships have made, and attempting an answer in each case. The noble Lord, Lord Blake, recognised that the present open-ended commitment of the local education authorities is one of the gravest objections to the present system of financing. I would reply to the noble Lord, Lord
932
Annan, "Yes, this is something which the Government believe fair-minded people cannot absolutely ignore." For this reason I welcome Lord Annan's suggestion that local authorities might be associated in some way with the fixing of the student union fee. Certainly the Government are prepared to consider this or any other suggestion arising on the Consultative Document. Like my noble friend, and like the noble Lord, Lord Annan, I foresee certain practical difficulties if this suggestion were to mean consultation with the authorities about changes in the subscription of each individual union throughout the higher education system. The exact process of consultation would need to be worked out, and I am sure the House will agree that it would he necessary to know what the local authorities themselves thought about this proposal.
I also appreciate the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Annan, about the constitutions of student unions. This concern is also reflected in the Bill introduced in another place for the appointment of a Registrar. I think it is worth recalling that one of the effects of the proposals in the Consultative Document would be to encourage university and college authorities to re-examine the constitutions and rules of produre of individual unions to see whether any changes are needed or should be introduced. My right honourable friend will take note of the noble Lord's suggestion, and see what measure of agreement exists among the various interests concerned on ways and means of giving advice and guidance on union constitutions. But, at the same time, must we not recognise that the final responsibility for approving union constitutions rests at this moment with the authorities of the university or college concerned?
I also listened with great interest to what the noble Lord said about a central point (I think he referred to it as a "point of reference") to which matters of doubt or difficulty arising at a particular student union could be referred. As the noble Lord will realise, this proposal—perhaps of all proposals—raises large issues not only for the Government but for our partners in the education service. I am sure that they will have views on this far-reaching suggestion; and while our discussions with them are still in progress the noble Lord will perhaps acquit me of any discourtesy if I say that it is

933
best not to comment any further on the suggestion, which the Government have certainly taken on board.
Your Lordships will know that the proposal for a Registrar of Student Unions is at present the subject of a Private Member's Bill introduced in another place. My right honourable friend has always made it clear that she has an open mind on the appointment of a Registrar, and for that reason she included this proposal in the Consultative Document. The noble Lord, Lord Annan, said, I think, that the proposal for a Registrar rested on a misapprehension. That is as may be; but, as I see it, a Registrar would be primarily concerned with the constitutions and operations of student unions. He would not, as I understand it, be directly involved in the system of financing the unions. But, my Lords, if the Registrar is to be effective, he must have some method whereby his decisions can be enforced, and this I think is a point which certainly needs further consideration. I would therefore pose the question: can we devise simple and practical sanctions to enable a Registrar to enforce his decisions?
A further point made by the noble Lord, Lord Annan, was the suggestion that student union accommodation should be vested in the parent institution. As the noble Lord said, the premises of a student union are usually in the same ownership as the educational institution to which it is attached. Universities and colleges may subsidise their unions by providing maintenance and services free or below cost. Indeed, as the inquiry into student union financing revealed, unions are supported in a variety of ways, and the pattern varies enormously. We shall be glad to consider any proposals that emerge from the current consultations for changing or improving the present system of support.
Before I finish, may I say just a word on earmarking? Like the noble Lord, Lord Blake, I also listened with interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Annan, said about the earmarking of grants. Of
934
course distribution of total grants at universities is, as my noble friend said, a matter for the University Grants Committee whose general allocations are, as we know, in the form of block grants. It is only exceptionally that part of the total university allocation is earmarked. Therefore, my reply this evening must be that not only will the Government read carefully what the noble Lord has said, but so, I imagine, will the University Grants Committee, who will bear in mind the sort of considerations the noble Lord has raised.
I listened with great care to what my noble friend, as well as Lord Annan, and the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, said about "split-financing". There was, and is, a feeling that in principle it is no bad thing to put a little extra money into the student's pocket to spend as he or she chooses, and not always as the union decides. But strong representations have been made, not least by my noble friend this evening, to the effect that if this is done students may not in practice support the same range of activities as unions do now. I assure the House that we shall give very careful thought to these representations.
May I end by giving an indication of the timetable as the Government see it now? In this matter of timing, we have to balance two considerations. On the one hand, this is a complex matter affecting an integral part of our higher education system; and it is also, I realise, a controversial matter on which many divergent points of view have been expressed. It is important therefore that the consultations should be as wide-ranging and as thorough as possible. On the other hand, no one would wish the present period of uncertainty to be prolonged any further than it needs to be, and if changes are to be made we and our partners in the education service will need some time to put in hand the necessary arrangements. My right honourable friend therefore believes that it would be in the best interests of everyone concerned to reach a situation this summer where decisions can be made, and she intends to work towards that end.