Lords Sitting of 15 May 1972

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

EXPULSION FROM RUSSIA OF "TIMES" CORRESPONDENT
LORD BETHELL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take about the expulsion from the Soviet Union of Mr. David Bonavia, Moscow correspondent of The Times.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE): My Lords, we have already informed the Soviet Government that we regard the expulsion of Mr. Bonavia as quite unjustifiable and one which is not easy to reconcile with proposals for the development of cooperation in Europe.
LORD BETHELL: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. Could she please tell us whether she has read the article by Mr. Bonavia in The Times to-day, in which he describes the harassment to which he and his colleagues in Moscow have been subjected? Is she aware of the very severe travel restrictions to which British journalists in Moscow are subjected, and will she consider whether the time has not come when we should retaliate in some way for this very unnatural situation—for instance, by imposing on Soviet journalists here the same restrictions that we impose on Soviet diplomats; that is to say, confining them to the area around London?
BARONESS TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE: My Lords, I have not yet had the advantage of reading this morning's
1204
Times, but I certainly will do so this evening. As regards the question of travel and other restrictions, we do not think that we can impose on journalists exactly the same kinds of restrictions as suggested by my noble friend, because we have, so far as possible, always supported freedom of information.

PROTECTION OF INSHORE FISHING FLEETS
2.38 p.m.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps have been taken, or are contemplated, to increase the naval protection of our inshore fishing fleets.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, we shall be increasing the effort currently deployed by the Armed Services on coastal fishery protection around the United Kingdom by some 50 per cent. during the course of this year. This will be achieved by the full-time deployment of two more minesweepers, a specially acquired fast patrol boat and the increased use of Royal Navy and Royal Air Force helicopters.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask him whether he himself is satisfied that this will afford sufficient protection to our inshore fishing?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, as I said, it is an increase of about 50 per cent., and I think we must see how we get along.

SOLIHULL CORPORATION BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
REIGATE CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH BILL
Read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

NATIONAL DEBT BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE): My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to consolidate certain enactments relating to the national debt and the Director of Savings, with corrections and minor improvements made under the Consolidation of Enactments (Procedure) Act 1949. This Bill, of course, will go to the Select Committee in due course. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

LAND CHARGES BILL [H.L.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is a pure consolidation Bill. It contains no Law Commission recommendations, and of course will go to the Joint Select Committee. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

CIVIL EVIDENCE BILL
2.43 p.m.
LORD DIPLOCK: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill gives effect to the recommendations in the Report of the Law Reform Committee on Evidence of Opinion and Expert Evidence which was published in October, 1970, and constituted the fourth and final Report made by that Committee on the law of evidence in civil cases. It thus completed the task of the Committee which was assigned to it in September, 1964, by the then Lord Chancellor, my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne. The English law of evidence had grown up at a time when all civil cases were tried by juries who were seldom sophisticated and, quite often, illiterate. As a result, it had become highly technical and complicated and, in some of its aspects quite irrational.
1206
In reviewing the law of evidence the Committee, of which I have throughout been a member, has been guided by three principles: first, that no material of probity value which would enable the court to get at the truth ought to be excluded; secondly, that the cost and length of litigation ought to be kept as low as possible; thirdly, and closely related to the first two principles, that litigation ought not to be a game of skill played with cards close to the chest, using bluff and counter-bluff to gain procedural advantages which do not reflect the merits of the parties' cases. The first three Reports of the Committee had been published by the end of 1967. I must mention briefly the first of them, because it is closely related to the present Bill.
It recommended the abolition of a technical rule, the rule against hearsay. This was the rule which excluded any statement of fact that was not made orally in the witness box, of which the most obvious instance was the statement about an accident made by a witness immediately after the accident had occurred and which was much more likely to be accurate than his reconstruction of it years afterwards in the witness box. To this rule there had accumulated between 20 and 30 exceptions. The First Report of the Law Reform Committee recommended that the rule should be abolished, but that procedural safeguards should be made to enable any party to require that if the maker of a statement was still living and available he should be called to give his oral testimony and to submit to the ordinary process of examination and cross-examination if his evidence was controversial. The Second and Third Reports I need not dwell on; they deal with other technicalities in the law of evidence in civil cases.
When these Reports had been completed the Committee embarked upon a review of the law relating to evidence of opinion and, in particular, to the most important branch of this—expert evidence. But in 1968 Parliamentary time became available for a Private Member's Bill to be introduced in another place to give statutory effect to the recommendations in the first three Reports. The opportunity was too good to be missed, and these recommendations, with some minor modifications, passed into law as the Civil Evidence Act 1968, without

1207
waiting for the further Report of the Law Reform Committee on Evidence of Opinion and Expert Evidence. The present Bill accordingly looks more complicated than it really is, because what it does is to extend to expert evidence, with proper modifications, what was done for evidence of fact by Part I of the Civil Evidence Act 1968, which deals with the abolition of the rule against hearsay.
Your Lordships will not, I am sure, wish me to deal with the actual mechanics of this matter before the Committee stage. At this stage. I think it is sufficient if I say that the Bill seeks to achieve four changes in the law of evidence. The first two of them are of general importance; the last two are concerned with relatively minor technicalities. First, Clause 1 of the Bill abolishes the rule against hearsay as respects statements of opinion as it has already been abolished as respects statements of fact. Its practical effect will be to make written reports by experts admissible in evidence without the need to call them to give oral evidence, unless, as in the case of hearsay statements of fact, the adverse party requires this to be done and the expert is available to be called.
This I believe to be quite uncontroversial. It reflects what is already the common practice in medical reports, which are far and away the commonest kind of expert reports to-day because the bulk of litigation arises out of personal injuries sustained either in industrial accidents or in traffic accidents. It will thus give formal sanction to what is already done in, I should think, nine out of ten actions for damages for personal injuries, and done at present by agreement between the parties' lawyers, sometimes—at any rate, when I was sitting to try them—under pressure from the judge. It will also enable use to be made of the report of an expert who has died before the date of the trial or who, for some other reason, is not available to give oral evidence in person in support of his report.
Secondly, the Bill provides for rules of court to be made enabling parties to be required to disclose to one another in advance of the hearing any expert report upon which they intend to rely at the hearing. I should emphasise that this is only an enabling power, and is to be exercised only in those cases where the
1208
exchange of reports before the hearing would accord with the three overriding principles I have already mentioned as having guided the Committee in all its recommendations for reforming the law of evidence. The proposal is not a new one. As long ago as 1953 it was recommended by the Evershed Committee. More recently, in July, 1968, it received the unanimous approval of the Winn Committee on Personal Injuries Litigation.
In the Law Reform Committee itself there was a difference of opinion between the majority of twelve, which included all six judges who were members of the Committee, and a minority of three. Even the minority, as I understand it, accepted that in personal injury cases, at any rate, compulsory disclosure of experts' reports was often appropriate. Where they differed from the majority was as to the detailed procedure for such exchange recommended by the majority; as to the extension of the principle to experts other than doctors; and as to the sanctions for disobedience of an order to exchange reports. These are not matters which it is necessary to go into, I venture to think, at the present stage of the Bill. The Bill does not commit this House to the detailed procedure recommended by the Majority Report, or to the criteria for determining which is an appropriate case in which the ends of justice will be best served by an order for compulsory exchange. All that it does is to empower the rules committee of the appropriate court to make provision for these matters in the cases in which it is thought fit to do so.
There are two minor matters dealt with in the Bill which I can mention much more briefly. Clause 3 abolishes a technical rule, already more honoured in the breach than the observance. that an expert witness may not tell the judge his opinion on a matter that is directly in issue in the case. For instance, if the question is whether a doctor has been negligent, an expert witness may not answer the direct question whether, on the facts before him, in his view his skill fails to come up to the normal skill of a doctor. I say it is a technical rule because the expert witness can make it quite plain to the judge what his opinion is so long as he does not say so in answer to that direct question; and it is, I venture to think, time to recognise

1209
that this is one of the bits of humbug in the law. The other matter which Clause 3 deals with is another technical rule. It is directed to this. An ordinary witness, giving evidence of what he saw, may often, in the natural way of describing it, express a view about the conduct of the party whose action he was watching. For instance, he may say, "There was nothing that the driver could do to avoid the child." Strictly speaking, he is not allowed to say that. In fact, if he is telling his story naturally, he does say that, and this reform in the law is merely to enable a witness to tell his story naturally, in the way people do when they are giving a vivid account of what they have observed.
The other minor technical matter is dealt with in Clause 4, which deals with proof of foreign law. There was an old case in 1854 which said that no one could give evidence of foreign law, which is regarded as a question of fact in our courts, unless he was qualified to practise in the courts of the country about whose law he was giving evidence. That rule has very frequently been departed from because quite often it has not been possible to find someone actually qualified to practise, although one could find a teacher of law, or indeed a judge or an ex-judge, of the country. Clause 4 abolishes that rule, leaving it to the judge, in the case of expert witnesses of law, to decide whether or not the person put forward as an expert has the qualifications to give valuable and useful evidence on that matter. The other technical matter Clause 4 deals with in proof of foreign law is that, as I have said, foreign law is regarded as a question of fact. The consequence is that even though the court had accepted on one day evidence of foreign law, if exactly the same point came up the day after the court would have to have it proved all over again. Clause 4 provides that where there has been a decision of a superior court as to what the foreign law is, that should be admissible of itself as prima facie evidence that the foreign law is what the court had previously held it to be.
My Lords, those are the four matters—two of general importance, two dealing with minor technicalities—which it is the purpose of this Bill to improve. Like the Civil Evidence Act 1968, the Bill
1210
applies only to England and Wales; Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own systems of law. It applies only to civil proceedings, but it applies to them in the ordinary courts of law; in tribunals in which strict rules of evidence are followed, and in arbitrations. I do not suggest that this Bill incorporates a major reform in our law but although it is minor and finishes up the general reform already started in the Civil Evidence Act 1968, it is not without importance. It will, I believe, bring about a significant improvement in reducing the expense, the delay and the hazards of litigation, and make the procedure of our courts more suitable to the needs to-day. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Diplock.)
2.59 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships would desire me to express on your behalf our gratitude to the noble and learned Lord for the clarity with which he has deployed to the House the purpose and scope of this Bill. It is what we should have expected from him, and he leaves me really little to add to what he has said. I should, however, like also to express—and I am sure your Lordships would wish me to do it—our gratitude to the members of the Law Reform Committee, including the noble and learned Lord, for the massive compendium of law reform which they have proposed in the four Reports which, in a sense, are before the House, although technically the House is concerned with only the Fourth Report.
I feel that I should be taking your Lordships' time without adequate justification if I were to follow the noble and learned Lord in his comments upon each of the four aspects of this Bill with which he has dealt, so I will limit myself to a short comment on one of them and perhaps a rather longer comment on a second of the four. I have always thought—and I am sure your Lordships will agree—that where the law is not administered in the letter of the law, the letter of the law should be altered. That applies particularly to that provision of the common law which was to the effect that a witness giving evidence in a civil action should speak to the facts only; he should say what he heard and saw and he should not give his opinion unless

1211
he possessed qualifications which, in the opinion of the learned judge who was trying the case, qualified him to be regarded as an expert witness having expertise in the particular matter on which his opinion was asked.
As the noble and learned Lord pointed out, that no doubt was a very salutary rule in bygone days when juries were almost always called upon to decide issues in civil cases. Perhaps he might have added, and would agree with me if I do so, that they were days in which the issues before the courts were much less complicated in the general aspect than they often are to-day. For example, we have the Restrictive Practices Court, a court which is called upon to decide broad matters of public interest; we have a variety of courts now in which juries are rarely empanelled but which are called upon to decide matters of the greatest difficulty involving a great deal of expert knowledge and deep thinking.
I go back, therefore, to the first aspect on which I should like to say a few words: the rule that witnesses should speak only to the facts and give their opinion only if they qualify as experts. The change made to this rule in Clause 3 of the Bill is, I think, a very important one. The change recognises what takes place. One can perhaps assess its importance if one asks oneself what ordinarily transpires when, for example, a court is called upon to try the question whether a driver in a motor accident case was negligent. In an assumed case, perhaps a witness who was watching what took place may say that the driver was driving at 30 miles an hour. How on earth he knows it was 30 miles an hour without forming and giving an opinion on that matter I do not know. He does not look at a speedometer; he has no means of measuring the speed; he is frankly not speaking to the facts but forming his opinion, as he watches the car proceed, as to the probable speed at which it is going. He may go on to say that on a pedestrian crossing not far away from him there was a pedestrian who obviously looked as if he were about to cross on that crossing. Is that an expression of opinion or a statement of fact? He is giving a view as to the conduct of the pedestrian and indicating that in his opinion the pedestrian looked as if he was about to cross. That is an
1212
expression of opinion and not a statement of fact.
In all the countless cases in which witnesses have given their evidence in that form, they have (and will continue to do so up to the passing of this Bill; and I hope that it is passed) transgressed the law. The learned judge who allows them to give evidence in that way will equally be failing to obey the letter of the law. If the witness says that a driver was going much too fast as he approached the pedestrian crossing, is that not expressing an opinion? Strictly, the learned judge should say, "You must not say that. That is an expression of opinion and is not admissible in this court unless you are an expert witness." The witness may say in reply that he had driven a car without accident for forty years. What the learned judge's reaction will be to that on the question of whether he is an expert qualified to give that evidence I am not sure. I think that I should say that he is probably qualified.
But that is the sort, of situation with which the courts, day in and day out, are confronted. That is the situation which is changed. I suppose that in almost everything we say we express an opinion. If I venture to make what seems to be the obvious statement of fact that night follows day, am I stating a fact or expressing an opinion? All that I am saying is that night has always followed day and I am presuming that it will do so at the end of this day as it has done for countless thousands of years. But if I say, "for countless thousands of years" am I not also expressing an opinion, since I have not lived for countless thousands of years? The situation is somewhat farcical. If we go back to the metaphysicians that we used to read in our university days, Descartes, Spinoza, Berkeley and Hume, they would tell us that we express an opinion whenever we open our mouths. If I say I am looking at noble Lords on the other side of the House, I am expressing an opinion; I may be mistaken.
But, my Lords, all that is gone, and I think it an important change although it would seem to be of a technical nature. It moves us along the road towards making law conform to reality. With regard to the rule about witnesses of foreign law

1213
having to be or have been qualified to practise in the courts of the country as to the law of which they depose, I would add no more; but I go to the second aspect to which I referred and which I regard as a matter of perhaps rather more importance than was attributed to it by the noble and learned Lord.
There has been a great deal of difference of view on the recommendations of the Fourth Report of the Law Reform Committee regarding a power to order the disclosure of expert reports. There is now, under the existing law, a power to order the disclosure of such reports in a limited category of cases; namely, motor engineers' reports about the condition in which a vehicle appeared after an accident, reports made in order to enable the court to draw inferences as to how the accident may have happened. That is a small and limited category over which we need not take time. As the noble and learned Lord pointed out, there is really not much controversy about the disclosure of medical reports by doctors who have examined persons who have been injured in accidents. I leave that on one side. But the acid contest that arises is with regard to reports other than those limited types to which I have referred. "Limited" in the case of doctors' reports, is perhaps an inappropriate term, inasmuch as the noble and learned Lord has reminded us that so much of the litigation in our courts has always been devoted to the question of ascertaining who was responsible for the inflicting of injuries in accidents on unfortunate plaintiffs. But reports other than those in type are the ones involved in the difference of views expressed. Should there be a power to order their disclosure before trial or should there not? I think I should be right in saying that the controversy in a sense can be described as a controversy between the Bench and practising lawyers belonging to both professions.
The Bar Council and the Law Society submitted an extremely valuable and interesting report raising objections to the proposal on the ground that it would involve expense and delay and a great deal of unnecessary labour without any real counter-balancing advantage. That is one view. That was the view put forward by the minority of three who were practising
1214
members of the professions and who spoke with great authority. It would obviously be presumptuous to suggest that the concerted view of the actual practising side of the two professions should not be entitled to the greatest consideration. That is a most important matter. Then Judges on the Bench who formed (as to the number of six, I think) the members of the Law Reform Committee took the opposite view, a view not directly opposite but the view which was expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock.
My Lords, their view was that there should be a power to order the disclosure of reports—and I emphasise what I am about to say—which were suitable for such disclosure. It was accepted by all the members of the Committee that there was not much point in ordering the disclosure of a report made by an expert based on facts which had not yet been really ascertained and which would be finally ascertained only when the evidence as to those facts had been given before the judge who was called on to try the case. Therefore, their proposal covered only certain types of report. Your Lordships may well wish to come back to this matter on Committee, and I apprehend that your Lordships will want to do so. Therefore I will not cite at length. But the proposal in the Majority Report was limited to cases in which it could be said of the expert's report that it would be based upon facts which were either agreed or could be ascertained with reasonable certainty by the expert himself by the exercise of his own powers of observation or that they were within his general professional knowledge or experience. They limited their proposal to reports of that sort.
The minority took the view which they expressed in paragraph 18 of their Minority Report, that to expect a Master of the Supreme Court who would have to make a decision ordinarily whether such a report was based on fact in that category was, to quote their language, "merely uninformed crystal gazing". There, my Lords, is the point of controversy. My noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner has intimated to me that he rather takes the view that the Joint Report of the two branches of the profession and the Minority Report really carry greater conviction to him. He

1215
has, of course, very great experience, as indeed have the other members of the Law Reform Committee. If I may venture to intimate my own view about it, I am very impressed with the three categories of principle outlined by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, as having guided the Committee. I think it of the utmost importance that in this day and age, in so far as it can be prevented and consistently with the robust presentation of cases before the courts by the counsel on both sides, we should not let litigation become too much of a contest. The perhaps slightly quicker apprehension of the advocate on the one side when measured against the perhaps slightly slower apprehension of the advocate on the other side ought not to be allowed unduly to tilt the scales of justice.
My Lords, I know that in a great human institution it is quite impossible to achieve perfection. But my own reaction to this problem (I put it forward with the greatest hesitation) is that, so far as it can be done without, as I say, impeding the completely free fight for his client by the advocate on each side one should try to lessen the element of surprise. It seems to me that in the case of a number of reports there would be an element of surprise if they were not disclosed beforehand, and that would not conduce to the administration of justice. After all, the report itself, and cross-examination upon it, is designed to assist the learned judge to come to the right conclusion; and it seems to me that counsel are much better qualified to cross-examine on some difficult, complicated reports if they have had notice of the contents some time before. I do not believe that that would in any way militate against the free and uninhibited doing of justice and arguing of cases.
My Lords, I take, for example, the kind of reports by economists which are not infrequently placed before the Restrictive Practices Court. We in this House have among our Members—and we are fortunate in being able to congratulate ourselves upon it—a number of distinguished economists. When we debate economic matters they generally make contributions to the debate which are of extreme value to us and help us greatly in forming our views. But would any Member of your Lordships' House who is
1216
not an economist like to undertake the task of cross-examining those distinguished economists on what they have said immediately they have sat down, without having had time to consider their speeches and read them, and perhaps to receive advice on possible weaknesses in the arguments they have propounded? I should not like to undertake the task. But, my Lords, I greatly enjoy listening to the speeches; and really, the object of compulsory' disclosure of an expert's report of the kind that qualifies in the sense I have sought to describe seems to me to conduce to the end of putting counsel in a better position to give the real assistance to the judge which the judge requires to determine the merits of the case.
I cannot help noticing—I hope I do so without the least show of impertinence—along what lines the division of opinion arose. The learned judges in the Committee are in favour of disclosure; the practitioners are against. While I believe that the view of the practitioners is extremely important, particularly on the matter of expense, I cannot help thinking that it would be a great mistake if we underestimated the very great significance of the fact that so many distinguished judges who sat as members of the Committee were in favour of disclosure. As I have said, I am sure that your Lordships will wish to come back to this point in Committee as there is real difference of opinion about it.
It is a question of avoiding the element of surprise, on the one side, and of lessening expense and unnecessary labour in the preparation of cases, on the other. I have indicated, very tentatively, what is my view. After all, the proposal is only that the Master should be entitled to order the disclosure of reports, the onus being on that party which asked for the disclosure. If he is in doubt they are not disclosed. That would be achieved by rules, made by the Rules Committee, which are themselves subject to the Negative Resolution procedure and would, as rules, be subjected to the further consideration of Parliament. My Lords, I greatly welcome this Bill, and once again I should like to express my gratitude, which I feel that your Lordships will share generally, to those whose labour has contributed to the bringing of this Bill before the House.
3.18 p.m.
LORD PEARSON: My Lords, I rise only to say a word or two on behalf of the Law Reform Committee. I wish to inform the House of what perhaps the House will have taken for granted; that is, that these matters were very carefully considered by the Law Reform Committee and in particular that interesting and indeed controversial question to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has referred. I can only say that we very carefully considered the excellent arguments that were presented to us on behalf of the Minority Group who write finally the Note of Dissent. Their points will be found very clearly set out there and they are valid points so far as they go. But we who formed the majority were in the end, I think, quite firmly of opinion that although there would be some possible disadvantages in the reform proposed, by enabling a Master to order compulsory disclosure of the expert's report, there were, so far as we could see, much greater advantages on the other side. These advantages would, in all probability, save a great deal of time and expense, and would probably enable both learned counsel to develop their arguments better and to present arguments better directed to the points in issue, the points that were really important. In the end, they would also enable the court to do better justice in the case than would otherwise be possible if there were the large element of surprise which has been so eloquently explained by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill. For those reasons, and in the anticipation that this interesting controsersial question will be fully explored at a later stage when the House goes into Committee, all I ask to-day is that the House should give a favourable verdict to this Bill on Second Reading.
3.20 p.m.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I regret to have to introduce a discordant note into what so far has been a very happy discussion. I shall not be saying anything new if I suggest that, although our Wednesday debates perform a great public service, our primary function is to give sufficient attention to the legislation which comes before us, and that this is particularly the case with a Bill which, it may be said, whether anybody was at fault or not, has not perhaps received
1218
sufficient attention in another place. This Bill, as your Lordships know, comes from the Law Reform Committee. I should like to join those who have already expressed their thanks for the valuable work which that Committee has done and the attention which it has paid to that particular subject.
I do not think that in these days a Report from the Law Reform Committee carries as much weight as a Report from the Law Commission. This is in no way the fault of the members of the Law Reform Committee. Successive Lord Chancellors appointed me a member of the Law Reform Committee for about fifteen years, so I know something of the work. But unlike the Law Commission, which is a statutory body, a whole-time body of Commissioners with a whole-time legal staff and research workers, the Law Reform Committee are busy judges, barristers, solicitors and academic lawyers, meeting usually about once a month, after a day in court, at half-past four, and by six o'clock somebody says: "I am afraid that I have to go now." The Committee has no whole-time staff; it has a member of the Lord Chancellor's Office as secretary, to do that work in addition to all the other things that he has to do.
To-day of course the same applies to the Criminal Law Revision Committee, which may consider alterations in our criminal procedure of the greatest importance to every citizen from the civil liberties point of view. But unlike the Law Commission, they do not usually consult anybody or lay opinion, whereas, as your Lordships know, the Law Commission first always get out a Working Paper, saying: "This is the law in this field. These are the criticisms which have been made. These are the alternative proposals for altering it. This is why our provisional proposals are" such-and-such. This document is then circulated not only to judges, barristers, solicitors and law schools and universities, but to our national newspapers; the whole Working Paper is usually published in legal papers, too, and they normally consult all the connected interests. This has never been the function of the Law Reform Committee or the Criminal Law Revision Committee: and no one blames them for that.

1219
Therefore, when one gets a Report from the Law Reform Committee in which there is a serious difference of opinion, obviously this is a matter which requires careful consideration. Here we have a divided Report. The majority consisted almost entirely of judges and academic lawyers. The minority consisted entirely of barristers and solicitors, who, after all, are the people who prepare the cases for trial. The question is: what is the best way of preparing for trial cases in which there are expert witnesses? Nobody has a higher regard than I have for Her Majesty's Judges, particularly when they are Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. But it is some time since they were junior counsel at the Bar, actually doing the work of preparing cases.
The Bar Council and the Law Society I understand submitted some memoranda to the Committee. I do not recollect any previous occasion on which, having, so to say, lost the day so far as the majority of the Law Reform Committee was concerned, those two bodies, who do not always agree, returned to the attack. But they did. They sent to the Lord Chancellor a joint Memorandum, which starts like this:
"Both the Bar Council and the Council of the Law Society submitted Memoranda to the Law Reform Committee opposing the suggestion that the Court should have power to require a party to disclose in advance of the trial the substance of any expert evidence he intended to adduce at the hearing. This view was not accepted by the majority of the Committee, but was nevertheless the subject of the Note of Dissent appearing at Annexe 3 to the Report. Both the Bar Council and the Law Society remain fundamentally opposed to the majority view of the law Reform Committee for the reasons set out in the Note of Dissent and hereunder."
In their Minority Report the Committee described these proposals as "impracticable and unworkable". When your Lordships consider that barristers and solicitors are the only people who prepare cases for trial, and they say that these proposals simply will not work, but will increase the cost of litigation and will make longer the preparation of cases for trial, I suggest that this observation has to be taken rather seriously.
Why do I say that the matter was not perhaps given sufficient attention in the other place? The reason is that the Memorandum of the Bar Council and
1220
the Law Society never arrived there. We are all very familiar in this House, as they are in the other place, with being sent—sometimes to all Members, sometimes to Members of a particular Party, sometimes to Members with particular professional interests—statements by those familiar with the subject of the proposed legislation; and their views, sometimes with beautiful booklets, with photographs and so on and so forth. The Law Society, in particular, have on many occasions in the past sent their views to all Members of both Houses. I have inquired from the Bar Council, and I understand from their answer—and I have been chairman of the Bar Council—that they always have very much in mind Parkinson's Law. Nearly all the work of the Bar Council is done by the barristers themselves. They have a very small clerical staff. They are not really in a position to churn out mounds of papers, or to have somebody reading Hansard of both Houses every day so as to know what is happening there.
As a matter of fact, had they tried to do that, it is doubtful what would have happened, for this reason. In the other place this Bill was given a Second Reading "on the nod" and was sent to a Standing Committee. I gather that the Standing Committees dealing with Private Members' Bills are exceptionally busy this Session. I must not say that I think my noble friend Lady Lee of Asheridge invented what I understand is rather a new practice, but I think it would be right to say that when she arranged for her Sunday Theatres Bill to be brought back to the Floor of the other place that really took the Lord's Day Observance Society by surprise. On this occasion, on April 14, sandwiched in between a Private Member's Company Bill and an adjournment debate on Goods (Double Pricing), I find this:
"Civil Evidence Bill. Ordered, That Standing Committee C be discharged from considering the Civil Evidence Bill and that the Bill be committed to a Committee of the whole House."
On the front of Hansard there of course appears the "Contents", but the Civil Evidence Bill does not appear there at all. I am not suggesting that that was a mistake. I am not criticising the other House for their procedure; that is a matter for them. All I point out is that if the Law Society—and I do not know

1221
whether they did—had somebody to look at Hansard every day and looked under the "Contents" to see whether anything had been done which might be of interest to the Law Society, no-one would have known that on this day an important step had been taken in the procedure of the Civil Evidence Bill. So when a fortnight later the Bill again appeared on the Order Paper—and in two hours the Committee stage, the Report stage and the Third Reading all took place, starting at 1.15, a time which is not guaranteed to attract the greatest numbers—nobody put down any Amendment, and nobody in the other place got a copy of this Memorandum. As I understand it, there was a short discussion on the Question, "That the clause stand part" in relation to each clause. Apart from Mr. McLaren, the honourable Member for Bristol, North-West, who introduced the Bill, the Solicitor General and Mr. Samuel Silkin from the Opposition Front Bench, only four Members of the House spoke at all. They were two Queen's Counsel and two junior counsel: I rather think they were all from the Government side. One of them objected very strongly to the Majority Report, but no Division took place and the whole matter was disposed of—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is slightly wrong about that last point. The honourable Member objected to a quite different point. He objected to the unanimous report on Clause 1. I do not think it is relevant to the point which the noble and learned Lord is now developing.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, I think that Mr. Stanbrook, who is a junior counsel, took the minority view rather than the majority view, but at all events honourable Members did not have the benefit of knowing that there was a recent Memorandum from a united profession in favour of the minority view. I am not proposing to go into the merits of the discussion as to the minority and majority viewpoints, because that is a matter for the Committee stage of this Bill. All I would respectfully submit is that where a question of practice arises and you find barristers and solicitors all saying of a proposal, "This is impracticable and will not work; it was tried in the Restrictive Practices Court and had
1222
to be given up; it was tried by a rule made with reference to a patent action and because it failed the rule had to he altered", then I suggest that these are considerations which I suggest ought to receive attention at the Committee stage of the Bill.
I should like, if I may, to make two concluding observations. On a number of occasions since I have been a Member of your Lordships' House I have heard it said—and I am not at all sure that on advice I have not said it myself—if at this stage of the Session you make some concession to a Private Member's Bill the state of things will be such that the whole Bill is likely to be lost. The second observation I should like to make is that I have never known that observation turn out to be true.
3.33 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I knew of course that when this Bill was put down for Second Reading, there would be such a wealth of expert talent at the disposal of the House that it would not be necessary for me to prepare a speech upon all the technical aspects of this matter. I therefore want first to make one or two general observations and then to deal with the one point which has excited any controversy at all about this Bill. But I should first like to join with other noble Lords who have spoken hitherto in thanking the Law Reform Committee, and my noble and learned friend Lord Diplock in particular, for bringing first the Report and then this Bill before your Lordships' House.
Since I have been Lord Chancellor I have tried to further the cause of law reform and law rationalisation, so far as I could in the light of the fact that we have had two of the busiest Sessions I can recollect in 35 years of Parliamentary life. On the whole, I think I have been almost surprisingly successful. But if I have been successful it is very largely due to the fact that I have found in both Houses private Members willing to undertake the sponsorship, under the Private Members' Bill procedure, of small measures of law reform which are within the compass of a private Member. In this case I should like to express particular gratitude both to Mr. Martin McLaren, in the other place, and my noble and learned friend Lord Diplock, in this House, for having undertaken what I believe to be

1223
a very great public service. Indeed, if this had not been done we should not have been nearly as up to date with our law reform programme as we are now.
May I also say, in passing, speaking in general terms for the moment, that this House is every bit as suitable for the introduction of Private Members' Bills of a law reform character as the other place. I do not think it would create controversy if Back-Benchers here were willing to undertake this duty. Indeed, there is one Bill, the Domicile Bill, which is now being blocked in another place for some reason which absolutely escapes me; and I cannot help thinking that if a Member of your Lordships' House had brought it forward as a Private Member's Bill here, whatever objection might have been in the minds of those blocking it would probably have disappeared by the time they came to debate it. So, with this in mind, I hope that by the next Session somebody may give me a hand with one or two Bills in this House.
I was reading the other day of the life of Lord Campbell, my predecessor, in The Lives of Victorian Chancellors by Atlay. Speaking of Bills that formed part of Lord Campbell's efforts in law reform, he quotes from Lord Campbell's not uneulogistic autobiography in these terms:
"They passed through both Houses of Parliament without one single syllable being altered in any of them. This is the only way of legislating on such a subject."—
the subject being law reform—
"They had been drawn by the Real Property Commissioners, printed and extensively circulated, and repeatedly revised with the advantages of the observations of skilful men studying them in the closet. A mixed and numerous deliberative assembly is wholly unfit for such work."
My Lords, without going to the extreme length of Lord Campbell in his appreciation of the methods of getting law reform through Parliament, I think there is some truth in what he says. This is a very well-thought-out little Bill which I hope will find its way on to the Statute Book. Incidentally, I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, was in error in thinking that Members of the other place were not aware of both sides of the disputed question. Certainly Members of the Government were, and I think it would be right to assume that Members of the Opposition Front Bench also were.
LORD GARDINER: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord forgive me for intervening? They knew of course of the difference of opinion on the Committee. What certainly the Opposition Front Bench did not know—and what I think is clear from the speeches that were made no one knew—was that since the Report of the Committee the Bar Council and the Law Society had produced this joint memorandum.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I was going to make the same point. The rival viewpoints were very fully canvassed in the Report of the Committee and were certainly well known to Members in the other place. I think it really must be assumed that when they did not put down any Amendments in a Committee of the Whole House, the numerous members of the legal profession in another place were fully apprised of the range of difference between the Parties and of their ability to put down Amendments. I do not think it would be a fair assumption to make any other case. I will come in a moment to the merits of the arguments between the two viewpoints, but I think we must remember that the majority view had met with the approval of Lord Evershed's Committee some years previously, in 1953, and with the approval of Lord Justice Winn's Committee some years afterwards. And, finally, they had been fully explored before this very important committee of the Law Reform Committee in the Report which has given rise to this Bill.
In passing, I would say just one other word of dissent to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner. I do not myself think that you should treat the Law Reform Committee or the Criminal Law Revision Committee and the Law Commission as rivals in any way. The Criminal Law Revision Committee is not my departmental responsibility; it is the departmental responsibility of the Home Office. With regard to the Law Reform Committee, when I became Lord Chancellor I made careful inquiries, both of my office and the profession, as to whether it might, in the light of the Law Commission and of its important work, be treated as a fifth wheel to a coach and amalgamated with it. They came to the conclusion quite without doubt that the Law Reform Committee had separate and

1225
important work to do. The mere fact that the two practising bodies of the profession, the Law Society and Bar Council, have found it possible to put in a memorandum on almost the only disputed point in this matter indicates that for the limited range of subjects which are appropriate to the Law Reform Committee the method of consultation by means of a working paper is not absolutely necessary in a case of this kind where technical and practical considerations are paramount, because the working bodies of the profession are fully aware of what is going on. I differ from what the noble and learned Lord said about the Criminal Law Revision Committee, whose views are being thoroughly canvassed in public and in the public Press at the same time, but that would take me too far from my present intentions.
That leads me to the Bill which has been so thoroughly explained by noble and learned Lords from the Cross-Benches and the Opposition Benches. I do not want to do more than say a word or two of general comment. I revert to the opening sentences of my noble and learned friend Lord Diplock when he introduced this Bill. One has to remember two broad facts about the law of evidence as it has developed in this country. The first is, as my noble and learned friend Lord Diplock pointed out, that until at any rate my father was a middle-aged man almost every issue of fact in this country was tried by a jury. That is to say, there were juries to decide compensation for compulsory acquisition of land; there were juries to decide whether Mr. Jorrocks was capable of managing his own affairs; there were special juries, common juries, juries in the county courts and juries in the sheriffs' court in Red Lion Square. There were juries to try almost every kind of case.
One must remember that whatever one may think of the contemporary jury scene (and perhaps we shall be discussing that a little later) as my noble and learned friend I pointed out, most juries contained a certain proportion of illiterate people and were much lass highly sophisticated than the juries who would ordinarily be stunt toned to-day because then the general level of education in the country was much lower. The result was that lawyers were extremely cautious about putting before the jury facts which might
1226
have a probative value or weight rather less than that which the jury would be inclined to put upon them. Hearsay was one of them. There are other kinds of fact which were equally closely hedged about by artificial rules. It is worth while saying, as my noble and learned friend said, that when the great mass of questions of fact, from arbitrations to every kind of litigation (other than fraud and libel) are dealt with by judges alone or other tribunals which do not include juries, we ought to free ourselves from the artificiality of the rules which grew up in a time when we had a totally different method of trial.
Secondly, the English law of evidence began by putting admissibility first. The question which was first asked in the old textbooks about witnesses was not whether they were telling the truth but whether they were competent—whether they could give evidence at all. That was because for a very long time the danger of perjury to their immortal souls was considered a matter of paramount importance in this world and the next. It was rightly apprehended that if many witnesses were allowed to give evidence at all they would commit perjury, which in fact they do. The result was that the persons accused of crimes were not allowed to give evidence in their own support, nor were their near relatives or friends. Your Lordships will remember that Mr. Pickwick was not allowed to give evidence in Bardell v. Pickwick because he was interested in the result of the action, and the result was an absurd miscarriage of justice before Mr. Justice Stareleigh, the consequences of which we all remember.
The question of competence was considered of paramount importance. This was true in relation to the kind of evidence of a written character which was put before the jury; the whole picture was different. I think that, certainly as regards civil litigation and to a much greater extent than some people do in relation to criminal litigation (which we are not discussing to-day), one should approach evidence from the rather flatfooted common-sense point of view that my noble and learned friend put forward in his opening remarks. When one is dealing with a tribunal which is intelligent enough to try the case at all, one should ask oneself whether the evidence

1227
is logically probative or not. If it is logically probative, one must trust the tribunal to give it the weight to which it is entitled. If it is not logically probative, it ought to be excluded as irrelevant and not because it is too exciting to be heard.
Having said that as my general approach, your Lordships will see that I am in broad agreement with the purposes of the Bill. I hope that it will go through in some form. I hope that we will not stand upon perfection and allow it to become the enemy of the good. I had to face this issue when I had to sanction, on behalf of the Government, the introduction of a Private Member's Bill of this kind. I said clearly to my colleagues then, and I now say publicly to the House, that I would rather have the Bill with the Minority Report than no Bill at all. Having said that, I must come down quite heavily on the side of the Majority Report and against the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, who favoured the Minority Report. In the form in which the Bill is drafted, this is to some extent a compromise. It is not an imposition of the Majority Report on the minority at all; it enables the statutory body known as the Rule Committee to introduce rules if it thinks fit. Since I have been Lord Chancellor I have been Chairman of the Rule Committee and I can tell your Lordships quite definitely that it is not by any means a mere rubber stamp. Both the Bar Council and the Law Society are heavily represented on it, as are other types of lawyer; and if the Rule Committee is enabled to do that which it could not otherwise do by this Bill the Law Society and the Bar Council will be able to argue, through their representatives or through the individuals who are members of the Committee, every point they have put in their memorandum. I would respectfully suggest to the House that the common sense way of approaching this highly technical matter is to allow that to happen.
If the House voted at a later stage in Committee for the view which has been put forward by the noble and learned Lord. Lord Gardiner, it would mean that the Rules Committee could not act at all. If the House votes for the Bill in its present form it will mean that the Rules Committee can consider the matter, which
1228
it could not otherwise do. It gives me great pleasure to find myself on the less conservative side of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner. This is not an attitude in which I normally find myself, but it is one I greatly relish adopting this afternoon. It is perfectly true, as the noble and learned Lord said, that the Bar Council and the Law Society consist of practitioners and represent practitioners and they have to prepare cases for trial and fight them. There is no greater fun for an advocate than having an ace up your sleeve and playing it with devastating effect at the critical moment. This is tremendous fun and the skill in playing it at the right moment is quite considerable. And if you regard litigation as a kind of fox hunt or game, I should be all in favour of retaining the present ace-up-your-sleeve attitude to your expert evidence.
It so happens that all the members of the Bench have been practitioners in their time too. They may have turned gamekeeper now, but they are all old poachers to a man. I can see them from the Cross Benches looking at me with a basilisk stare as I utter these words. The fact is that they know at least as much about preparing cases as do the eminent members of the Bar Council and the Law Society. What they have that the Bar Council and the Law Society have not is some experience of trying them, and they are interested in trying them according to the real merits of the case. They find, I think by an enormous weight of opinion, that if you allow the ace up their sleeve to be played at the critical moment, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, pointed out in his very illuminating and well-thought-out speech, it means that the best advocate is more likely to win, but it does not necessarily mean that the best case is likely to win. I range myself with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, in this matter and with the Bench, and with the previous Committees, and with the majority of the existing Law Reform Committee, and I come down heavily in favour of not keeping these expert opinions up your sleeve until the last moment.
Of course it is true that in a limited number of cases it may put up the cost of litigation in the short run, because if you see the other expert's report you

1229
may want to hold a conference as to whether it is right or wrong. But if your experts are sound experts, and your lawyer is a sound lawyer, and he sees that the report is right, it may cause the case to be settled altogether, or at least not fought. So whether it really will put up the cost of litigation or reduce it is a matter that may be open to discuss on. What I feel no doubt about is that it will help the decision to be a more just one in the end. There are people who think that the right result in litigation is at least as important as a cheap result, and I hope that they are still in the majority. My Lords, having said that, I have disclosed my own view of the case, and I think the House may be row in a position to give the Bill a Second Reading.
3.52 p.m.
LORD DIPLOCK: My Lords, your Lordships will not wish me to detain you for any length of time. I should, however. like to express to those noble and learned Lords who have spoken on this subject my gratitude for their welcome to this Bill, though it was perhaps a somewhat qualified welcome in the case of my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner. I should perhaps point out that this is not a matter on which the practising profession is unanimous. Two out of the five members of the practising profession on the Law Reform Committee constituted part of the majority together with the six Judges. All the members of the Committee were in favour of some procedure for disclosure of medical reports. One wonders why it is limited to medical reports, when, after all, surveyors' reports and other reports of that kind are in very much the same character. I have a suspicion that practising lawyers, of whatever political persuasion they may be, are timid creatures and nervous of any change. The only real difference between medical reports and other reports which satisfy the criteria is that lawyers are used to exchanging medical reports and are not yet used to exchanging other reports.
The matter was debated in another place. Fortunately my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner and I have exchanged experts' reports. He has seen my notes on clauses and I have seen his memorandum from the Bar Council and thy Law Society, and I am in a position
1230
to say that the memorandum does no more than to reassert what was already in the Minority Report. So when this matter was debated in another place both members of the Government and members of the Opposition were fully apprised of the arguments on either side. My Lords, this House will have an opportunity of considering the arguments on either side when we reach the Committee stage, and I hope your Lordships will agree at this stage that the Second Reading can go through promptly.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES BILL
3.55 p.m.
Viscount DILHORNE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This also is a law reform Bill, with not quite the same history as the last one and dealing of course with a very different topic. I should begin by declaring an interest, one which I am sure is shared by many noble Lords in all parts of the House, for I am very fond of fishing for salmon and trout, and was when a boy for what are I think rather inappropriately called coarse fish. This Bill deals entirely with fish and eels. The Report of the Committee on Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries, of which my noble friend Lord Bledisloe was Chairman, was presented to Parliament in May, 1961. Now, eleven years later, I am moving the Second Reading of this Bill which implements some 30 or so of their 150 recommendations. Five of them have been dealt with in Acts introduced by private Members in 1964 and 1965; some of their recommendations have been overtaken by other legislation. The Committee worked for four years and produced a very valuable and, I found it, a very interesting Report.
I am sorry that this Bill leaves a number of their recommendations not implemented, but Mr. Simon Digby, who introduced this Bill in the other place, decided—and I am sure he did so wisely—that if the Bill was to get through another place it had to be non-controversial. I think he succeeded in his object for, despite the many interests involved and affected, this Bill received its Second

1231
Reading in another place on the nod; no Amendments were moved in Committee, but some interesting speeches were made on Third Reading. It is a modest little Bill but a very useful one. It applies only to England and Wales, although no doubt it will be interesting to hear a Scottish view on what is proposed. I hope it will not prove more controversial in this House than it did in another place. I must confess that personally I should have liked the Bill to go a little further in some respects, and I may not be alone in that; but I hope that Amendments will not be made which will imperil the prospect of the Bill's reaching the Statute Book. I have clear recollections of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, when he was Lord Chancellor threatening me with the loss of the Bill if I moved an Amendment to a Private Member's Bill. I was glad to hear him confess to-day that that result had never followed from the Amendment's having been accepted.
I now turn to the provisions of this Bill. Clause 1(1) substitutes a new subsection for Section 1 of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1923, the main Act. It adds firearms, crosslines and set-lines to the list of prohibited instruments. Firearms, as so defined, include underwater guns; and so, if this Bill is passed, it will be illegal to use them to kill salmon, trout and freshwater fish. The Bill itself does not define a "setline" and a "crossline". It would be an improvement if it did; and they are, I think, well defined in the glossary at the commencement of the Bledisloe Report. Throwing stones at salmon and trout was prohibited by the Act of 1923. This Bill makes it illegal to throw stones at freshwater fish and also (should anyone feel disposed to do so) to fish which are jumping in the air. Just looking at the first clause of this Bill one might think that it prohibited the use of a gaff when one was fishing with rod and line. I hasten to say that that is not so: Section 1(4) of the 1923 Act permits the use of a gaff as an auxiliary to fishing with rod and line, and this Bill makes it lawful to possess one for that purpose.
Under the 1923 Act, provision is made for the establishment of fish passes in dams across rivers. To comply with that Act the fish passes have to be
1232
approved by the Minister, but the making of a fish pass that operates as one is by no means a certain science. It may look all right on paper, but the fish may not like it and may not use it. So Clause 2 provides that in future the Minister's approval can be provisional only, so that he need not give final approval until the fish like the pass and the pass is seen to work. If it does not, then the pass will have to be altered until the fish like it, or the obstruction removed.
Clauses 3 and 4 deal with the close times for salmon and trout. It will now be open to river authorities to make bylaws specifying the annual close season and close times for their areas, and different areas require different treatment. This provision introduces a degree of flexibility which is desirable, and I hope that the degree of flexibility may be such as to enable alteration of the by-laws to be effected speedily and temporarily so that they may be adjusted according to river conditions, and extend perhaps the close time when the rivers are low. The close season and close time must not be less in all than the minimum now provided. The by-laws will require approval by the Minister, and if no bylaws are made the present close season and close times will remain in force.
My Lords, for a variety of reasons, including disease and the effect of disease and the fishing off Greenland, I think it is true to say that the stocks of salmon in our rivers in England and in Scotland are far lower than they used to be ten years ago, and far, far lower than they used to be in the days of my youth. While those are two of the contributory factors, there is a third—and I am not at all sure that it is not the major factor—and that is the degree of netting that is now going on. I think it is true to say that far too many fish are now being caught in the nets at the mouth of the river, and from figures that I have seen, but which I do not have with me, I think it will be seen that as the rod catch has gone down and there has been a diminution of fish in the rivers, there has been a very considerable increase in the last ten years in the number of fish caught in the nets, and in particular caught at times when the river is low and fish are waiting to come up.
I am sure that in some areas it is necessary in the interests of all that the

1233
close times for salmon should be speedily extended, although perhaps only temporarily. I hear that in some rivers the position is a little better than it was last year, but from such experience as I have had this year I must say that I doubt it. Of course I welcome what is being done to prevent pollution. A few weeks ago there was some discussion in this House about salmon coming up the Thames. I hope that the water in the Thames will soon be pure enough to enable them to come up, but it is really no use taking all this trouble to prevent pollution if there are no salmon left to come up our' rivers. I fear that we are really being far too complacent about the present position. Action requires to be taken without delay. More fish must be allowed to get up our rivers to spawn and the best way of securing that is to enlarge the close times.
Clause 3 also provides that salmon and trout lawfully caught on rod and line can be sold during the close season. That removes an anomaly, for salmon caught lawfully in other ways can be sold at that time. Both the Bledisloe Committee and the Hunter Committee recommended that all fresh salmon and trout should be dealt in only by registered dealers. The Bledisloe Committee considered that an essential means of controlling illegal catching. The Association of River Authorities, the Fishmongers' Company and the National Council of Salmon Nets men are all in favour of that, but the National Federation of Fishmongers, the British Port Wholesale Fish Merchants Associations and the Inland Wholesale Fish Merchants were opposed, bodies which I should not have thought were primarily interested in salmon.
As I have said, my Lords, the Bledisloe Committee reported in 1961. Now, 11 years later, with the depletion of salmon stocks since then, I think it is even more essential that their recommendation should be adopted. Such a scheme operates in Northern Ireland but it is argued that it could not operate only in England, and that as it is not proposed in the White Paper on Fisheries in Scotland, we cannot have it here. I do not find that argument convincing. Those who catch salmon illegally in the South of England are not likely to go to Scotland to dispose of them. If an Amendment is tabled to carry that recommendation into effect—and it is one of the most
1234
important recommendations in the Bledisloe Report—I should not myself be disposed to oppose it, unless it appeared likely that if accepted the Bill would not be enacted. If we put it in this Bill, it might also find its way (one does not know) into a Scottish Bill.
I understand that views differ as to whether there should be a close season for coarse fish. Clause 4 provides that there should be one and that it should apply to all inland waters, including reservoirs and gravel pits, but it gives river authorities power to abolish the close season for freshwater fish by by-law in their areas. If they seek to do so, people in the area will have ample opportunity to make their views known and the Minister has to give approval to the by-law. It is said that in some rivers rainbow trout breed. I hope that no one will ask me which rivers they are for I have not the least idea. But if they do breed in some rivers, it is right that there should he power to prescribe a close season for those rivers, and Clause 4 does that.
Clause 5 clarifies the river authorities' by-law-making powers and extends them in two respects. One is that by-laws will be able to be made to require anglers to make nil returns. I understand it is thought that this may lead to more accurate returns. One river authority—I think it was Lancashire—has found that only 3 per cent. of fishermen in its area admit to having caught a fish in a whole season. That seems unlikely, even in Lancashire! In future, they will have to make a return, whether or not they catch a fish. I fear that in the past they have often omitted to make a return when they have caught a fish. If it is necessary that there should be proper returns, it really is essential for conservation that there should be full information as to the number of fish caught. The other extension to the by-laws is to enable by-laws to be made to authorise methods of eel catching during the close season.
My Lords, I understand that some anxiety is felt about river authorities being given power to make by-laws imposing requirements as to the material used for nets, it being felt that this would permit of monofilament nets being prohibited. I see no reason for that fear, because I do not think that the change of language in this clause really involves

1235
any change of meaning. Under the 1923 Act, river authorities can determine the description of nets that can be used. So, in my view, they can and could under that Act, if they wished, now prohibit the use of these nets.
Clauses 6 to 9 deal with licensing. In future, a licensing system will have to be established for freshwater fish and eels unless the river authority can show good reason why that should not be done. Clause 7 strengthens the powers to prevent illegal fishing and poaching. It makes it an offence to catch fish by an unlicensed instrument or to have one in one's possession with intent to use it.
Clause 9 deals with the production of licences and gives authority to require production of a licence by someone who is fishing, who is reasonably suspected of being about to fish or of having fished within the last half hour. Clause 10 makes it an offence to introduce fish into an inland water without the consent of the river authority. Clause 11 clarifies the powers of water bailiffs and enables them to search for bait, and makes it an offence to obstruct a bailiff when he is seizing objects liable to be forfeited.
Clause 12 and the second Schedule are important. They deal with penalties. Under the 1923 Act the maximum fine for an offence was £50 and on a third conviction a person might be sent to prison for not more than three months. This Bill abolishes the power to send to prison for summary offences and, as your Lordships will see from the second Schedule, prescribes maximum fines, appropriate to the nature of the offence. For the serious offences of discharging poisonous matter into waters containing fish and for using explosives and poisons, and so on, a person may after conviction on indictment be sentenced to up to two years imprisonment. I think that these increased maxima are desirable and will bring the law into a more up to date position, and I believe these provisions to be reasonable and right. But it is really not much use making these changes unless the magistrates avail themselves of the power which this Bill, if enacted, will give them.
I fear that, with the present market value of salmon, in many cases the penalties imposed for the illegal taking of salmon,
1236
for poaching, are wholly inadequate to deter a repetition of the offence, and are wholly inadequate to prevent the wholesale depletion of our stocks of salmon by gangs which operate in different parts of the country. I think I have said enough about the Bill. It is, in my view, a very useful measure, and I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Dilhorne.)
4.13 p.m.
LORD HOY: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for taking over this Bill from another place. The remarks I have to make will be very few indeed. I think this is a very useful provision, and indeed the honourable gentleman who introduced it in another place would have liked it to go very much further. As the noble and learned Viscount said, when people begin to further the scope of a Bill the less likelihood there is of it being passed during this Session; and, speaking for my noble friends, I certainly would not wish to do anything to prevent this Bill from becoming law. The House will be grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for his reply dealing with monofilament nets, because this was a point raised by the National Council of Salmon Netsmen, and when it was introduced in another place a promise was given that whoever took the Bill over in your Lordships' House would in fact make this point perfectly clear; I think the answer is reasonable indeed.
The Bill is in fact a charter for the sportsman and the angler as well as for the professional associations. Indeed, when one remembers the tremendous number of people who fish in a private capacity and for sport, anything that can be done to help them is welcome. I do not think I would even dissent from the noble and learned Viscount's criticism about what is preventing salmon getting up the rivers. We know, of course, what has happened overseas, or in other parts, and we also know that some years ago in Scotland steps were taken to prevent drift netting for salmon. But these steps have not been the answer to the problem; they may have helped but they have not provided the answer. Indeed, we have

1237
had many complaints that in fact the salmon netted at the river mouth have created an even greater problem than those that were caught by drift nets. This is a point that might well be looked at.
On the various parts of the Bill dealing with legislation, I am bound to say that I found it a little difficult to understand why certain rules are going to be made by the wider authority and some by the river authority, particularly affecting rainbow trout, which is a fish that is not altogether very well understood. I will not bore your Lordships, but I remember that when the salmon disease was first heard of the two great experts from Britain designated as the cause of this disease the rainbow trout which were being cultivated on a farm in Southern Ireland. We all know this to be quite untrue. But I am fortified in my non-belief of certain experts because of what transpired afterwards. The rainbow trout is a very popular fish. I was a little interested when the Bill was being moved in another place to hear the honourable gentleman say that it was a bit of a conundrum, nobody knew very much about it, and as a consequence we will give the problem to the river authority to decide. It seems to me that with a fish of this kind which is very popular, perhaps there might be a little more inquiry from the Government so that we may get a more complete picture of the part this fish is to play.
Secondly, while in a Private Member's Bill the question of pollution may not be spelled out, one of the weaknesses in the Bill is that it does not deal with pollution at all. True, the rivers are being cleaned up, but it is still a considerable problem and will remain so until action is taken. It may be that whoever speaks for the Government will be able to say a word or two about what they propose to do.
On the whole, I think this is a good Bill. I am certain it will be welcomed by all. The provision of even further penalties will help to deter people from doing things that they ought not to do. So therefore I welcome the Bill, not only personally but on behalf of my noble friends.
4.18 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I share your Lordships' feelings of gratitude to the noble and learned Viscount who moved the Second Reading and who gave us such a clear description of the Bill. It is indeed a peaceful, compromise Bill, avoiding conflict on many major issues which arise from the Bledisloe Report. I think the Bill is aimed at achieving the support of many but the enmity of none. It deals with about thirty-five out of a total of 151 recommendations of the Bledisloe Report. I hope your Lordships will agree that this is only a first step on a subject of increasing importance, as we enter what I would term the leisure age, where problems of earlier retirement, problems of occupation and of relaxation, of shorter working hours, are all rising before us.
We have now two million anglers; the experts forecast that by the end of the decade we shall have over three million. The boundaries between what used to be called, and still are called (I think wrongly), coarse fishing and fly fishing are down, and there are untouched problems, affecting all waters, which are left out of this Bill but which must be tackled in the future. That is why I repeat that I regard it as a welcome first step to further measures which are necessary for the preservation of our waters, for the elimination of pollution and for the continued beauty of the countryside. I personally hope that for Scotland we shall see a measure, based on the Hunter Commission Report, which will have for Scotland the same benefits as we hope this Bill will have for England and Wales.
There is one point that I should like to raise in a few words. The noble and learned Viscount who introduced the Bill hoped that there would be no Committee stage if there was any danger of such causing the Bill to be lost. I agree with him entirely, and therefore the one Amendment that he proposes will, I presume, depend for its introduction on that particular issue.
Viscount DILHORNE: My Lords, I did not propose any Amendment. I merely said that if a certain Amendment was proposed I should be in difficulties in resisting it.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will not be in difficulty resisting another Amendment that I am going to propose. This Bill proposes a number of new restrictions and penalties, to which one can take no general objection; but on one point I would seek guidance. and I think that there is possibly need for an Amendment.
Clause 1(1)(a)(iv) quite rightly prohibits the use of a gaff but, as the noble and learned Viscount said, a gaff may be used as an auxiliary for the taking of salmon. The same subsection says that no person shall
"(c) throw or discharge any stone or other missile for the purpose of taking or killing, or facilitating the taking, or killing of any salmon, trout or freshwater fish."
There is a point here which I wish to bring to the noble and learned Viscount's attention. Somebody will have to be very clever to hit a salmon with a stone, but there are times when, as any noble Lord here who is a fisherman will know, one uses an old-fashioned way of moving a "sulky" salmon. This is by throwing a rock, not at the fish but into the pool, which in fact facilitates the taking of the salmon. If this Bill were to pass as it is at present, I should perhaps be breaking the law three or four times a year. If you have what is called "heavy water", a strong stream, and you are fishing with very light tackle and you get into a big fish, it may "sulk" in the bottom for an indefinite period of time. I myself have hung on to a fish for nearly two hours, unable to do anything with it. There are two traditional ways of moving that salmon. One is to take a coin, any coin, and tap your rod several times. The vibration from that coin will go right down the line, down the trace to the fly; the fish will feel those vibrations and may well move. The second way is for either the fisherman or someone else to throw a rock into the pool, and that disturbs or moves the fish. Under this Bill that would be made illegal.
Viscount DILHORNE: My Lords, quite right, too!
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount says, "Quite right". But I do not think there is any harm in putting a rock into a pool to disturb a "sulky" fish that
1240
you can move in no other way. I agree that it should certainly be illegal to discharge any stone or missile "for the purpose of taking or killing" a salmon, but I shall put down an Amendment on Committee stage to eliminate the words "or facilitating". I sincerely hope that, with the co-operation of your Lordships, such an Amendment might be inserted.
Apart from that particular point I think that this is a good Bill. I should like, in a final word, to support what the noble and learned Viscount said in moving the Second Reading, when he pleaded for those wider questions of conservation of salmon in our rivers which will need not only national action from Her Majesty's Government but international action. On the assumption, and in the hope, that we shall have those further measures brought before Parliament, I give my full support to this Bill.
4.26 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, explained that this was a Private Member's Bill, and he said that it had been non-controversial in another place and he hoped it would be here. I can give him the assurance that, so far as the Government are concerned, we will do everything we can to expedite the passage of this Bill, even if he has a little trouble from my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye. The noble and learned Viscount said that he was a keen fisherman: I regret that I am not. As he said that, I recalled my initiation into the business of fishing, because when I was a small boy aged twelve I had a headmaster who thought it would be a good thing to encourage his boys in the art of fishing. He rowed some of us out into the middle of a loch and tried to initiate us into the art. I regret to say that, much to my surprise, and my headmaster's horror, my only catch was the Homburg which rested on the top of his head. This so horrified him, and indeed me, that I have never gone beyond that stage.
My Lords, the main legislation governing salmon and freshwater fisheries in England and Wales is about half a century old. It still works remarkably well, but it is in many respects outdated. It was written in terms of administration by small local fisheries boards with inadequate budgets. It was not designed to

1241
deal with highly organised and mobile gangs of people, to whom I think the noble and learned Viscount referred and who can make a profit of about £600 a night from poisoning a salmon pool. New methods call for new approaches, and if we are to conserve our valuable stocks, which are already threatened by disease and, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, said, by pollution and by high seas fishing, we must strengthen the hands of those who are entrusted with conservation.
The Bill also seeks to loosen the national restrictions in favour of by-law control by the river authorities. If I may give an example, under the Bill river authorities will in future be able to decide, in the light of local needs and local views, precisely when they want their close season to start and finish; and indeed, in the case of coarse fish and rainbow trout, whether they need have a close season at all. To take one other example, they will also be able to offer, if they so decide, concessional rates for fishing licences to be taken out by pensioners or children. So the Bill aims to provide that the action to be taken shall be flexible and able to take account of local needs.
The noble and learned Viscount referred to the origins of this Bill, and to the fact that the conclusions of the Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, met with fairly general approval from fishery interests and from the Government. Since that time there has been continuing discussion between advisory bodies and officials of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and it is clear from the recent consultations with all shades of fishery opinion that the proposals in this Bill command very widespread support. Within these modest limits, the Bill provides what the mover in another place described as a "new charter for fishermen of all ages", whether they are fishing for pleasure—and, as my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye said, it is estimated that there are between two million and three million anglers—or whether they are bona fide commercial men. It brings the fisheries administration up to date, and it recognises that the bodies who to-day are responsible for the day-to-day implementing of this legislation—the river authorities—are broadly based organisations commanding considerable
1242
resources and with highly qualified staffs. The Bill has the full support of Her Majesty's Government, and I strongly commend it to your Lordships.
4.31 p.m.
Viscount DILHORNE: My Lords, I should just like to say "Thank you" to all noble Lords who have spoken in support of this Bill. I was indeed interested to hear the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, in relation to netting at river mouths. I have no doubt that an increase of close times for that netting would be opposed in certain quarters, but I think that would be very short-sighted opposition, having regard to the present situation, because unless some extension is made there will be little left to net in a few years' time. The noble Lord then referred to rainbow trout. I think rainbow trout were accused of spreading the disease which they caught from a fish farm. I doubt very much whether rainbow trout ever breed in the waters of this country, but, all the same, if they do, it is right that there should be a close season for them. Then the noble Lord referred to pollution. We have recently passed two pollution Acts and I think that ordinary pollution should be dealt with by those Acts. As the noble Lord will see, under Clause 8 and Clause 9(3) of this Bill there are very heavy penalties for committing acts which would cause pollution for the purpose of taking fish.
I now come to my noble friend, Lord Balfour of Inchrye. If I may, I should like to reply to him quite briefly in the hope that I may avoid having to make a speech in answer to his Amendment on the Committee stage. I was sorry to hear that he had hung on to a fish for no less than two hours—he did not tell us whether he caught it at the end of the day—and that he had to resort to stoning it. He suggested that we should take out the words "facilitating the taking" from paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of Clause 1. He appears to be under the impression that that is new language. In fact, the only change made from the 1923 form is the deletion of the words "into any water", so as to catch people who aim stones and spears at fish which are jumping or leaping. So I am sorry to have to say, on my noble friend's own confession, that for the purpose of facilitating the taking of his salmon he committed an

1243
offence against the Act of 1923. I do not think he should be encouraged to do so. I have never found it necessary to fill up the bottom of a river in order to get a salmon on to the bank.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: One rock would do it.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: And I do not think my noble friend should be encouraged in these practices, which have been illegal since 1923. Having said that, perhaps I shall discourage him from tabling an Amendment. I am grateful for the way in which this Bill has been received. I should not like to conclude my observations without saying that I think everyone ought to be grateful to my noble friend Lord Bledisloe for the great work which he and his Committee did and which has brought this Bill belatedly before this House. Also we ought to express—and I do express—our gratitude to Mr. Wingfield Digby for piloting the Bill through another place.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

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

FERTILISERS (UNITED KINGDOM) SCHEME 1972
4.35 p.m.
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS rose to move, That the Draft Fertilisers (United Kingdom) Scheme 1972, laid before the House on 25 April, be approved. The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of this Scheme is to continue for a further year the Scheme under which farmers and growers may claim a contribution towards the cost of their fertilisers. The proposed rates, which are specified in the Schedule to the Scheme, have been reduced by approximately 60 per cent. compared with those at present in force. This follows the proposal in the Annual Review White Paper that £20 million of the proposed subsidy should be used to provide resources in other ways. The total cost of the subsidy in 1972–73, if the House approves this Scheme, is now expected to be about £13 million. In
1244
all other respects the Scheme itself is similar to the one which is due to expire on May 31.
In the 20 years during which the Scheme has been in force the use of fertilisers has more than doubled. Originally 830,000 tons of nutrients were supplied, and the figure has now risen to 1,825,000 tons. The subsidy was certainly helpful, particularly in the early years, in encouraging the greater use of fertilisers, though other factors have also played an important part. Since 1960 it has been customary to compensate for increases in consumption by adjusting the rates of subsidy from time to time, so as to keep the overall annual cost at about £32 million. Without such adjustments, the cost of the subsidy would have risen to an unreasonably high level. This year's proposals reduce the total subsidy to about £13 million.
A cut of 60 per cent. in the rates of fertiliser subsidy, which is equivalent to a cut of about £4 to £4·50 a ton, may strike noble Lords as severe, and some noble Lords may, understandably, fear an adverse effect upon the level of consumption. This was of course carefully considered, and the Government are confident that the Annual Review determinations as a whole will provide all the necessary encouragement towards the efficient use of fertilisers. Farmers and growers are in no doubt about the need for, and the use of, fertilisers and, given the resources and the right opportunities, I believe that they will use them effectively. In the light of present conditions in the farming industry and the promise of the future, we think it is no longer necessary or desirable specifically to encourage the use of fertilisers by means of a direct subsidy at the present high level. I trust that your Lordships will accept these proposals. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Fertilisers (United Kingdom) Scheme 1972, laid before the House on April 25, be approved.—(Earl Ferrers.)
4.38 p.m.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I am sorry that I cannot be as pleasant over this proposal as I was over the last one. It is really getting a little difficult to understand the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries and the language they use.

1245
Indeed, I had to complain, when the noble Earl introduced an Order to deal with new subsidies for the fishing industry, that he used the words—which his brief provided—" We are now restoring the subsidies to what they were." In fact what the Ministry was doing was cutting the fishing subsidies by something like 5 per cent. or 10 per cent., so that a restoration and a cut of 10 per cent. did not seem to go together. Then, when the Statement on the Price Review was repeated in this House by the noble Lord, Lord Denham, I took a little exception to the language which was used.
We must remember that by this Order the Government are doing one thing, and one thing only; they are cutting the fertiliser subsidy by 60 per cent. The noble Earl said that this will give the industry greater flexibility in the application of resources, which I find it difficult to understand, as, I am sure, will every other noble Lord. To take away 60 per cent. of somebody's subsidy and then to say that this will give greater flexibility in the application of resources is difficult to understand. You do not take away 60 per cent. and give greater flexibility. I think most noble Lords will agree that this is a piece of nonsense. What the Government are saying is, "We are going to take £20 million off you". Farmers cannot have greater flexibility—the noble Earl cannot argue that—because any farmer in this country could decide at any time whether to use fertiliser or not. Farmers have always had that flexibility; but that flexibility in the past was made worthless by the absence of some subsidy to make it possible for them to use it. Indeed, when the subsidy for 1970–71 was increased the argument then put by the farmers' unions and everybody else, including the noble Lords opposite—who of course now occupy Government Benches and not Opposition Benches—was that the one thing which was scarce in the farming industry was liquidity. Indeed, the Government of that day provided those extra millions for that purpose, to give extra liquidity. Now the Government have taken away two-thirds of it; so there cannot be greater flexibility. One will want to know in a short time, certainly in the course of some months, what effect this action has had on the use of fertilisers, because to say that people have
1246
flexibility just does not answer the case at all.
May I take the matter one step further? I do not know what the proposal is, but I am certain that the noble Earl will not object to my asking the question. In the case of horticulture, the noble Earl said, when introducing the White Paper, that the fertiliser change will be offset by increasing the combined grant rate under the Horticultural Improvements Scheme from 35 per cent. to 40 per cent. Of course, it is not offset at all by this method, because the fertiliser subsidy is a recurring subsidy, whereas this is an increase from 35 to 40 per cent. in capital investment. I see nothing about that in this Order, and perhaps the noble Earl will be able to say one or two words concerning it.
I want also to raise the question of the hill farmer, because he is losing the subsidy as well; but as I understand it there is to be another Order to-morrow dealing with the Scottish hill farmer—I do not know what has happened to the others—and perhaps I may postpone my question until then. So I simply conclude by saying that this is an Order cutting fertiliser subsidy by 60 per cent. for every farmer in the country, and I do not believe that that can have a good effect on agriculture. I hope that the noble Earl will not repeat the statement that by taking away 60 per cent. of the subsidy greater flexibility will be provided.
LORD NUNBURNHOLME: My Lords, before the noble Earl rises to reply, may I ask him by what amount he expects the total amount of fertiliser used will be reduced as a result of cutting the subsidy by 60 per cent., and what the premium to be paid is going to be in the labour situation on the manufacturing side of the fertiliser industry? How many people are going to be thrown out of work by this? These two questions need careful consideration, especially when we have over one million unemployed.
4.43 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I should have liked to say that I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, for his welcome, but I do not think it was much of a welcome. In fact, he rather took the Government to task over the fishery

1247
grant, because he said that the Government had said that they were restoring the grant to what it was before, whereas in fact they were making a cut. The noble Lord complained that under this Order there is a cut of 60 per cent., and asked how, therefore, could the Government say that that would give greater flexibility. I would respectfully say to him that he has taken this matter slightly out of context, because admittedly the fertiliser subsidy is being cut by 60 per cent.—a cost of £20 million—but through the February Price Review that sum of money has been put on to the end prices of agricultural products, so that the recoupment at the last February Price Review was to the tune of £72 million. In addition, the sum of money which had previously gone to the fertiliser subsidy has been added, so that the total available recoupment includes the subsidy which has been removed from fertilisers.
LORD HOY: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl for a moment? The noble Earl says that this sum has beep switched to another source. It may well be that there has been an exchange, but this is a fertiliser subsidy. Indeed, when the statement was made it was said that this amount would now have to be recouped from the end price. Where is the end price met? Is it not the consumer who pays the end price?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, this is a re-allocation of resources. The noble Lord looks surprised, but perhaps he will try to follow me a little. As he well knows, at the February Price Review annual determinations are carried out. On this occasion, the determinations were increased by £72 million, which is the highest amount by which they have been increased since 1948, and the amount which had previously been allocated to fertiliser subsidy was also allocated to the general determinations. The noble Lord asks: How does this create greater flexibility? The answer is that although the fertiliser subsidy has been reduced, this has nevertheless gone on to the end prices which the farmer is guaranteed, and he is therefore entitled to choose how he should best spend such resources as he has. It is our belief that the subsidy has done an extremely good job of work in encouraging fertiliser use over the
1248
last 20 years, but that it is better at this juncture to remove that part of the subsidy and place it to other uses.
The noble Lord, Lord Nunburnholme, asked: How much will this reduce the use of fertilisers, and how much will this therefore reduce the amount of employment in fertiliser manufacturing concerns? My Lords, any farmer who is engaged in his business knows full well the use of fertilisers and that if he wishes to get maximum output from his crops he has to use the optimum fertilisers. We believe that the farming community know their job and are not going deliberately to reduce the use of fertilisers simply because part of the subsidy has been removed. We believe that fertilisers play a very great part in the prosperity of agriculture, and I do not think for one moment that farmers who know their job are going to cut down the use of fertilisers because of this subsidy. I do not blame the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, for making his point—I expected him to do so—but I think he will agree that this is not a direct cut for which there is no other benefit, but that the other benefit has in fact gone on the general determination of guarantees.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOVERCRAFT (APPLICATION OF ENACTMENTS) ORDER 1972
4.49 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY (THE EARL OF LIMERICK)THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY (THE EARL OF LIMERICK) rose to move, That the Draft Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) Order 1972, laid before the House on May 4, be approved. The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of the Order is to apply to hovercraft, with modifications in some instances, certain enactments and instruments relating to ships, aircraft and motor vehicles. This is being done in order to continue, and almost to complete, the process of giving the hovercraft an existence in its own right. The process was started by the passage of the Hovercraft Act 1968, the enabling powers in which this draft Order uses. The Act gave a definition of the hovercraft and provided for its treatment as a distinct type of vehicle. Before the passage of the Act, there had been much

1249
uncertainty. The hovercraft was frequently treated as a ship or an aircraft, and yet it was not possible to say definitely that it was one or the other. But it has still been possible, since the Act was passed, to treat the hovercraft as a ship or an aircraft, for what it is worth. Indeed, not only has it been possible to do so, but for certain purposes this has been the practice.
Under a separate Order, the Hovercraft (General) Order 1972, provision is made for the registration and safety regulation of hovercraft including certification by the Civil Aviation Authority. This latter Order was made on April 28 and was laid before this House under the Negative Resolution Procedure on May 8. Having now provided a separate system of registration and safety regulation for hovercraft, it is desirable that any remaining doubt about the status of hovercraft, in United Kingdom law, should be removed.
This the present Order will help to do by applying to hovercraft, where relevant, the law relating to ships, aircraft and motor vehicles. Any remaining doubt that the hovercraft is a distinct type of vehicle will be removed when yet another Order has been made bringing into operation Section 4(3) of the Act, which provides that a hovercraft shall not be treated as a ship, aircraft or motor vehicle unless this was already specifically provided for when the Act was passed. It is intended to make such an Order, which is not subject to Parliamentary approval, to come into operation on the same date as this Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) Order.
I turn now to the enactments and instruments which are applied to hovercraft by this Order. These are given in Articles 4 to 9, which are to be read in conjunction with Schedules 1 to 4. They fall into a number of categories. First, there are enactments and instruments dealing directly with shipping and navigation. For example, the Order applies to hovercraft parts of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894 dealing with the avoidance of collisions at sea, with the carriage of dangerous goods and with the investigation of casualties. It also gathers together the provisions in a number of enactments and instruments relating to wreck, salvage and distress and
1250
applies them, with modifications, to hovercraft.
Secondly, the Order applies to hovercraft a wide range of enactments and instruments relating to animals and plants which in general regulate the carriage of animals and plants in ships and aircraft. Next, the Order applies parts of enactments relating to the Army, Navy and Air Force and applies the National Insurance legislation to hovercraft in much the same way as it applies to ships. I should mention, in this connection, that a minor printing error appears on page 11 of the draft Order, where the reference to "paragraph (2)" of Part I of Schedule 1 of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1965 should be to "paragraph 2", without the brackets. The bracket starting with the words "as modified"' on the same line should be closed after "1972" three lines below. These slips, together with two trifling spelling mistakes, will be corrected when the Order is made.
Some of the aviation legislation which the Order applies to hovercraft includes Section 52, subsections (3) and (5) of the Civil Aviation Act 1949, thus giving harbour and conservancy authorities certain powers to make by-laws; Section 55 of the same Act enabling the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to make regulations concerning the registration of births, deaths and missing persons on or from hovercraft; and Section 27 of the Civil Aviation Act 1971, thus requiring the Civil Aviation Authority, in connection with the functions it is being given in the Hovercraft (General) Order 1972, to consult with the Airworthiness Requirements Board on technical matters connected with the safety certification of hovercraft.
Finally, the Order applies the Insurance Companies Acts 1958 to 1967 to hovercraft, thus enabling the business of insuring hovercraft to he classified for the purposes of those Acts; and substitutes the word "hovercraft" in certain existing enactments where the term "hover vehicles" has been used. I beg to move.
Moved. That the Draft Hovercraft (Application of Enactments) Order 1972, laid before the House on May 4, be approved.—(The Earl of Limerick.)
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Earl for explaining

1251
this Order. I should like also to thank those responsible for the way in which they have contrived to comb through all the conceivable legislation which ought to be applied to hovercraft. I am bound to say that my researches into the Poultry Pens, Fittings and Receptacles (Disinfection) Order and the Landing of Unbarked Coniferous Timber Order 1961 have not been very thorough: and I have not gone very closely into the Glanders or Farcey Island Order 1900. But I take it that all this has been properly researched and that, with one or two minor misprints, we are confronted with a good piece of legislation. I understand from the noble Earl that the process of giving the hovercraft a character and personality, legislatively speaking, in its own right is now almost completed.
I understand therefore. I hope correctly, that the C.A.A. now have the responsibility of certification of hovercraft. May I ask whether it is proposed to carry the analogy of the air transport industry any further and whether it is intended to require the holding of an operator's certificate for hovercraft? Is it at the moment possible for anyone to take a certified hovercraft and ply for hire or operate on a scheduled service? And when the legislative process is completed, will an operator's certificate be required? The only other point I would put is this. As I understand it now, the responsibility for safety rules and regulations will rest with the Department of Trade and Industry. I am also right (am I not?) in saying that the authority responsible for accident investigation will also be the same Department. In the past, there has been a certain amount of doubt and apprehension when the same authority and the same Department have been responsible both for the drawing up of safety legislation and its implementation and for its investigation in the event of an accident. I wonder whether this point is under consideration.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, I can reassure the noble Lord on the first of his questions, and I hope also on the second. The answer to the first point is that certification and safety are dealt with under the Hovercraft (General) Order 1972. There is in that Order a requirement that operators of hovercraft used for reward or in connection with trade
1252
or business must have operating permits. These are similar to air operators' certificates but not exactly so, since there is less examination of the operator's past record and more emphasis on the future safe operation of hovercraft. In view of the comparative newness and safety record of the industry, it has not been thought necessary at this stage to place any further restriction on operators.
The noble Lords second question dealt with the investigation of casualties. Investigation of casualties will be dealt with under the merchant shipping procedure, as I mentioned in introducing the Order. The noble Lord will see that Article 9, which is to be read in conjunction with Schedule 4, applies, with modifications, the appropriate sections of the merchant shipping legislation. Under this procedure, casualty investigations can be carried out in two stages. In the first stage, a preliminary investigation is carried out by an officer appointed by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. This will normally be a technically qualified marine surveyor from the Department of Trade and Industry. In the second stage, a formal inquiry may be ordered by the Secretary of State; and independent wreck commissioners are appointed by the Lord Chancellor to conduct any such inquiry. The situation in the case of hovercraft is broadly similar, except that the first reference will be to the civil aviation authority which, of course, is independent of the Department of Trade and Industry; so that there will be more independence in the case of the investigation of accidents to hovercraft than in the case of accidents to shipping. I am not aware that the shipping procedures have in the past given rise to any particular problem.
5.0 p.m.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl to explain what is the nature of the vehicle to which this Order is to apply. It is described as "Hovercraft". but I have not been able to find in this Order any definition of "hovercraft". The only definition which seems to be available is in the Hovercraft Act 1968. Is that correct? If so, I find the definition as given in that Act not very helpful. It says:
"'hovercraft' means a vehicle which is designed to be supported when in motion wholly or partly by air expelled from the

1253
vehicle to form a cushion of which the boundaries include the ground, water or other surface beneath the vehicle."
That refers to only two surfaces, and it is not possible to insert a cushion of air between two surfaces. The side surfaces have been excluded completely from this definition. If you think of the side surfaces, there is then the possibility of the hovertrain, but that is deliberately excluded by this Order. In other words, the Order has modified the original definition or hovercraft by saying that the hovertrain is not to be included. But it does not make any reference to the fixed-wall type of vehicle, which is one that has a propeller normally working in the water. Is this to be regarded as a hovercraft?
It seems to me that this is rather a serious matter. The fixed-wall type of hovercraft cannot, I believe, operate over land because it has no flexible skirt but has a fixed wall. Therefore it is really entirely a water-going! vehicle and is in no sense amphibious. I find the present definition, as it is given in the original Act, so loose that it is difficult to understand the type of vehicle to which this Order will apply. I suggest that it is very undesirable for us to adopt an Order which is not clear and definite in its purpose. I hope that it will be possible for the noble Earl and his Department to consider this matter to see how they can modify the definition of "hovercraft" in order to make it more clear. I must say also that, without any understanding of the finenesses of legal terminology, I find the Order rather difficult to understand because it seems to me that it ends by making a hovercraft liable to every conceivable type of regulation rather than defining clearly the sort of regulation's which are applicable to hovercraft. If the noble Earl could help us on this matter I think it would be very valuable.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, with the leave of the House I will give what help I can. On the last point I think that what the application of these many regulations does is to apply to hovercraft legislation which is already applicable to ships operating in a comparable manner. On the question of definition, a hovercraft, as the noble Lord stated, is defined in the Hovercraft Act. Article 2 of the Order we are considering limits the application. It is indeed
1254
Intended—this I can confirm—that the Order should apply to fixed-wall or side-wall hovercraft. The side-wall craft has certain affinities to other amphibious types of hovercraft. It is a little difficult to predict the various forms which the ingenuity of man will take. We now have situations where a hovercraft is defined as a hovercraft. No doubt it will emerge in various forms, and I think we may have to rely on the proposition that, although we cannot sit down and define it with great accuracy as with an elephant we shall probably recognise it when we see it.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, would not the noble Earl agree that the fixed-wall type of hovercraft is in no sense amphibious? The ordinary hovercraft with the skirt, and with a propeller or air screw above the water, is amphibious; but the fixed-wall one has a propeller in the water, and therefore cannot be amphibious.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, this is so. But I do not see that it creates any great problem. The side-wall vehicle is defined as a hovercraft and will therefore be subjected to what is laid down in the Order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONTROL OF ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS (No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
5.6 p.m.
LORD JANNER: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Janner.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 11 [Supplementary provisions as to the register]:
LORD JANNER: My Lords, this Amendment has been put down to comply with a suggestion made by the Minister on Second Reading. We thought it a reasonable and proper suggestion. I beg to move Amendment No. 1.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 16, at end insert—
("(4) All fees prescribed under this section shall be subject to the approval of the Minister.")—(Lord Janner.)
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS): My Lords, the only quarrel that I have with the noble Lord, Lord Janner, is that I suggested it on Committee and not on Second Reading. It would be churlish of me if I did not say that of course we accept it in principle.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The Schedule [Constitution of the Council and Supplementary Provisions]:
LORD JANNER LORD JANNER moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 7, line 15, at end insert—
("() one person who shall be nominated by the President of the Royal Society;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, before I move this Amendment may I offer my apologies to the Minister and to the House for having referred to the Second Reading rather than to the Committee stage in respect of the first Amendment.
This Amendment is a rectification which arises from the fact that, unfortunately, the other Sponsors and myself omitted the apparent formality of extending the courtesy to the Royal Society of asking whether they would be agreeable to having one of their members on the Council. We have now heard from the President of the Royal Society that he is quite agreeable.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE or CULROSS: My Lords, this question is now entirely satisfactorily resolved. I suppose that the only slight sadness is that my noble friend Lord Cranbrook is not here publicly to discard his white sheet and show that all is now in order.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I think I should correct something that my noble friend Lord Janner said. It is not that the Royal Society shall nominate someone from the Society to be a member, but that the President should consult with the Government about whom he should nominate. There is a certain difference.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND HISTORIC RELICS
5.10 p.m.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL THE EARL OF KINNOULL rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have considered the possibility of extending
1256
the various safeguards which may apply to buildings of special historical or architectural interest to other things—for example ships, vehicles and installations or machinery of various kinds—which may be thought to form part of our national heritage; and what action they intend to take following the Report and Recommendations of the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries on the preservation of technological material. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I should like at the outset to apologise for the lack of strength in my voice. My Question this evening has a rather narrow theme, but covers a somewhat wide subject. It is basically whether our historic relics, whatever they may be, however ancient or modern, that form part of our national heritage for both present and future generations, are being sufficiently safeguarded.
More precisely, the purpose of the Question is to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they consider that the machinery that has grown up over the years to act as a safeguard and watchdog of our national relics now needs an overhaul, in the first place to give greater co-ordination between Government museums, corporate bodies and individuals; secondly, to make available a more comprehensive centre of information and advice for all interested parties, particularly to give guidance as to what is and what is not an item of historical interest; thirdly, to be able to monitor with reasonable accuracy what, and how much, is being lost to the nation every year; and finally, to improve public relations, so that everyone, from the large company to the private individual, who may own a valuable relic knows exactly whom to approach and what steps to take.
Much of my rather limited knowledge of this vast and intriguing subject comes from the excellent Report, published last year by the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries and entitled The Preservation of Technological Material. The members of the Commission responsible for this Report included no fewer than five distinguished Members of your Lordships' House, and I feel that both they and their colleagues should be thanked for producing a most valuable and authoritative document, pinpointing certain weaknesses in the present system I of preservation. While expressing thanks

1257
to those responsible for the Report, perhaps I may be allowed also to recall that the Report was requested by a previous Minister with special responsibility for the Arts; namely, the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge, and a great deal of credit is, I am sure, due to her personally for her unfailing efforts and interest.
Perhaps naturally enough, the first recommendation of the Report is for more Government funds. It is in fact for the Government to set up an annual grant of some £200,000 towards the purchase of industrial material (and also, I think, for the transport of that material) the scope of which is to include industrial monuments in situ; relics of industrial social life; ships and relics of the ship building industry; art connected with industry and archives, including photographs, sound and film records. It is recommended in the Report that this grant should be administered by the Science Museum, with the aid of an advisory committee, and that the grunt would not exceed 50 per cent. of the net purchase price.
The purpose of this new grant, one understands, is to separate the at present general responsibility laid on the Victoria and Albert Museum of administering a general grant given by the Government, running, I understand, at about £150,000 a year, for the purchase of all kinds of objects, not excluding industrial material. The Report emphasises that available funds are extremely limited and tend, rather naturally, to be earmarked for purchasing works of art rather than industrial material. The £200,000 annual Government grant suggested in the Report could not, I believe, be termed excessive, but could clearly act as a valuable spur to the purchase and preservation of objects which face either being exported and lost to the nation or perhaps being demolished and destroyed and so lost to the world.
My Lords, my noble friend may be moved to reply to the suggestion of a new grant for industrial relics that the Government already donate generously to the cause, both through the work carried out under the Ancient Monument Acts for preserving industrial monuments, and in the extensive building programme for museums to which they are committed by the recent White Paper. Valuable as both of these are, the grant being called
1258
for is to assist the purchase of relics, without which the new extensions to museums may seem like a jilted bride. I hope that my noble friend, when he comes to reply, will have something encouraging to say on this proposed grant.
Another important recommendation in the Report which strikes one of the need for overhauling the central machinery is the aspect of co-ordinating effort between Government, national museums, local museums and individuals to avoid wasteful duplication, but without destroying the important local enthusiasm. A need for a central advisory service for collected information and supply of information is, I suppose, the dream of preservationists; and certainly such a service would seem vital if an accurate record was being kept of what was being saved or lost to posterity. Having just been to the B.O.A.C.'s highly successful computer service, known as Boadicea House, one would envisage that collected information could be handled very adequately by such a system. Perhaps, again, my noble friend will let us know later of the Government's thinking on this matter.
The part that nationalised industries and public corporations do and could play in the preservation of historic material is a matter that obviously concerned the authors of the Report. It seems a curious situation that records of certain nationalised industries are public property, while the majority are not. For those whose records are not public there is no obligation either to keep historical archives or to offer to the Secretary of State any historical relic which is about to be destroyed. It seems a little strange for successive Governments that are clearly anxious to preserve for posterity all that can reasonably be done, not to correct this by simply issuing a directive to all nationalised concerns requesting them to preserve historic relics, to liaise with the Public Records Office as to what is and what is not an historic relic, and to open their archives—this I think is most important—for research and educational purposes. Perhaps, again, my noble friend will comment on this subject later on.
In suggesting the, a general Government directive should be issued, I would say that the obligation would of course

1259
be for the purpose of ensuring continuity and to avoid any future slip, however unintentional. It would not be to suggest that many nationalised industries or public corporations are not meticulous with their archives and do not spend a great deal of money on them. The B.B.C. would be a case in point. A considerable amount is spent every year on their written, technical, engineering and programme archives, all of which I understand is available for researchers.
From time to time certain historic relics attract the public gaze, either because they are about to be exported or because they are to be destroyed. There are such cases as London Bridge being sold to a Californian entrepreneur, with the rather distasteful spectacle of a Lord Mayor of London, with all the dignity of his office, his robes and finery, attending the charade of opening the bridge in the middle of the Californian desert. From my own experience, I can say that one has seen the late Donald Campbell's "Blue Bird" car, that once proudly held the world land speed record for Britain, lying forgotten in Suffolk and about to be sold abroad. I have not yet been able to check on what has happened. More recently, one has read of the retirement of the "Brighton Belle" and the Railway Board's declaration that it would be split up and sold to the highest bidder.
There were certain examples in the Report of other monuments and relics which have been lost for ever, including the Doric portico at Euston Station, the London Coal Exchange and the Sudbrook engines. But on the brighter side the items which have been saved include the s.s. "Great Britain", the Tasker Collection and, more recently, H.M.S. "Belfast". This, because of the tenacity of a few, has brought considerable joy to many people. It is cases of this type that make one wonder how good is the protection of what could be deemed material of historical value, forming part of our heritage. There are of course countless items—and probably the majority are of a specialist character—which are not considered newsworthy but are very worthy of preservation and are now in need of protection.
Cartoonists sometimes portray this House, and perhaps its Members, as
1260
having something of an affinity for museums. Certainly I believe that we devote a great deal more time and attention to museums in this House than is done in another place. We are lucky to have in this House a Minister responsible for the Arts who is not only a very experienced and helpful Minister but a powerful advocate for the Arts. I hope that he will be able to shed a little more light and charity on both the recommendations of the Report I have referred to and also on the steps that the Government will continue to take to preserve as many of our historic relics as possible for future generations.
5.22 p.m.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I follow the noble Earl opposite in his intense desire to safeguard records in this country. As one who was invited by the Smithsonian Institute to write the story of the evolution of the machine as the American heritage, I am not unconscious of the fact that we in this country have not only a very substantial, but almost a unique British heritage of technology. I think it has been a matter of reproach to all of us that we have sometimes neglected this, partly because the obvious is always there and we look at it without seeing it. There is also the fact that we have been building up over the centuries records of a material and technical civilisation which ought to be safeguarded.
With the indulgence of the noble Earl opposite, I should like, if I may, to extend his references a little further. As President of the British Sub-Aqua Club which now has something like 500 branches in Britain, I am also very anxious to safeguard and protect the other records which we have as a trust—because I regard it as a trust—in the stewardship of this nation. It is a fact that we have around the coasts of Britain more wrecks or more evidence, as it were, of the evolution of history than any other country in the world. Therefore we have a very great responsibility not only in respect of what we have contributed, if one might put it so, in the nature of these wrecks, but in respect of their whole historic significance. Many of us—certainly those of us who are concerned with the British Sub-Aqua movement—regard it as very regrettable that adequate safeguards are not available to prevent

1261
these records from being exploited, expropriated, abused, dispersed and in fact lost to the story of history. I believe this to be tremendously important, and I would ask the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, to allow me to follow him in going beyond the land-based technologies into the vastly important region of marine technology, which in fact is the capsulised history of Man the maker—and even more so because I am going to speak of what are in fact time capsules.
Any ship which went down at any given moment of time carried with it an exact record of its period and experience, and once such wrecks become dispersed or are unscrupulously disturbed or blown up, as has been done in the past by these—call them for this purpose "treasure hunters". but that is almost giving them too much credit. We have I think lost (and we shall lose even more with the greater extension of facilities for discovering and disturbing wrecks) a very substantial part of the history of mankind. These are time capsules, and although I do not ask him to reply in concrete terms. I would ask the Minister to recommend to his colleagues the tremendous importance of these things. Of course this is not just a question for the Minister; it also concerns the Department of Trade and Industry, which since 1970 has had sitting a Committee on Wreck. I like that, because it has a single noun "wreck". This Committee has been set up to discover what should be done in the light of modern conditions to protect wrecks of historical and archaeological importance.
We now have in this country a significant movement in which the younger generation participate together with the active generation which is represented by members of the British Sub-Aqua Club—we have a very active natural archaeology. I cannot imagine any way in which we could better encourage the understanding of this kind of history than to invite the people who are in fact concerned to safeguard that archaeology. May I on behalf of my colleagues in the British Sub-Aqua Club say that we are concerned not with the disturbance or destruction of these things, but with encouraging a generation of seekers to go out and discover and, above all, to protect and safeguard them. I agree that the Committee on
1262
Wreck should be called upon to report with rather more urgency than seems to be occurring, because I believe—and I think that most of us realise this—that a great deal of quite serious activity is going on which is basically unscrupulous and certainly irresponsible, to put it no higher. Records are being lost—they are being discarded, sold or dispersed—and the continuity of the record is being lost.
If I may, I should like to stress the importance of these wrecks: we must never forget that they are time capsules in situ and they have been preserved as they were when they went down. These wrecks include perhaps the most famous one of all, the "Mary Rose". which went down in the Solent in full view of Henry VIII. Could we ask the B.B.C. to tell the story not of the king's wives but of this great event, which in fact marked a great moment in time? We do not know what happened: we do not know the significance of the "Mary Rose", except that she was a great historic ship which we might try to recover.
5.29 p.m.
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, the House is indebted to the noble Earl for raising the subject of this Report and also to my noble friend who spoke so eloquently about the work of the British Sub Aqua Clubs. He mentioned the "Mary Rose" and I think it is the hope of all of us that if and when the venture succeeds we shall have an exhibit which is historically every bit as important as the "Vasa" which has been raised in Stockholm. This Report does not deal exclusively with hardware; on the contrary, a substantial part of it deals with the compilation and protection of historical records, manuscripts and other material which will amplify the physical material to which most of the Report refers.
In the Report the Committee accepted that they would have to look into matters dealing with the social life of those who worked in the industry. I should like to address a few remarks to that particular matter. If I have some criticisms of the Report it is because it seems to me strange that the great industries were never mentioned—though perhaps I should call them collections of people working in a particular area of industry, rather than refer to industries. But nowhere in the Report, so far as I can

1263
see, is there reference to the role of the trade unionists in the build-up of our great labour force during the Industrial Revolution. Although the function of finding material and the collection and preservation of material upon which to work will come within the ambit of the Advisory Committee's secretariat, I should have thought that even at this stage in the compilation of the Report it would have been helpful to find out what contribution could have been made by the trade union movement of this country, which has immense resources of historical value to contribute.
To mention one small point, my Lords, take great trade unions like the National Union of Mineworkers. Every lodge right from the early days had its banners. Even now, when there is any activity involving a public demonstration, these banners are brought out. Some are very old, many are beautiful. I was consulting one of my colleagues in this House earlier and he told me that he thought that probably stored away in the offices of many of the old lodges which have now become defunct, having been absorbed by new and more vital lodges, there could be items of documentation, and banners which are worthy of a place in any museum the function of which will be to demonstrate what happened at the time and during the course of the Industrial Revolution. If in due course the Advisory Committee, if it is established as is now recommended, were to approach either individual unions, like the miners or the engineers, or the Trades Union Congress, to carry out a survey of the material that I am talking about, it would be of great benefit to those who are interested, not only with regard to the hardware of the Industrial Revolution period but with regard to the social life of the people who had to work sometimes in terrible conditions.
There is one other omission from this Report. There is no particular reference to the rural industry—the agricultural industry. It may well be that dotted about all over the country there are pieces of machinery which were developed at the time of the great agricultural innovations—one has in mind the work of Coke in Norfolk and similar people. They are lying derelict, not regarded as important, yet they are of immense interest to those
1264
who realise that the Industrial Revolution was not confined to the great urban areas but affected the rural areas as well. Indirectly, the whole pattern of employment in this country was affected by these innovations. In about 1820, according to G. D. H. Cole, some 8,000 to 10,000 women were rendered unemployed in Suffolk alone by the mechanisation of weaving and the virtual disappearance of cottage weaving. These are all elements in the Industrial Revolution. I believe that relevant hardware could be found and put on exhibition.
On page 16 of the Report there is one conclusion (I hope I read it correctly) dealing with a regional structure. I am personally doubtful, if I read the recommendation correctly, whether it is entirely necessary to locate the museum in the area where a given industry was chiefly located—for instance, in paragraph 36 the Report talks about a National Coal Industry Museum in Durham or Wales. I can see the logic from one point of view, yet how much better informed the public would be if a great industry like coal or steel was demonstrable in some museum form, not in that particular area but in an area where the rest of the great public in this country is rather ignorant of the social and economic effects of an industry. I agree that what I am saying is not necessarily wholly logical; but in view of the great ignorance of the people in the South of England about what has gone on in the past in the coal mining and other industries I should have thought that there was a case to demonstrate more clearly what the conditions of work were like in the period that we are talking about, and not only in coal but in engineering as well.
The trade union movement played its part in finding the people to work the new machines—and they lived too often in deplorable housing conditions. It would be a great thing for a museum dealing with the Industrial Revolution, the development of which I take to be the primary function of the recommendations of this Report, to deal with the documentary evidence that exists scattered all over the place, in Home Office papers, in the Public Record Office and elsewhere, with regard to people who fought for the trade union movement and who in their own way contributed

1265
to the Industrial Revolution—people like Francis Place the tailor who succeeded from his little tailor's shop in London in securing political action in Parliament to repeal the Combination Laws of 1799 and 1800.
I make these suggestions with great humility because this is a vast subject. The public are only just beginning to understand the importance, the beauty and the evolutionary interest that should be created by a comprehensive demonstration of all that went on. Too often school books in our own lifetime have been too gloomy to read and did not paint the true picture at all. Reverting for a moment to the rural side, I do not wish to cloud the issue by suggesting the setting up of a number of small rural museums—a great number exist already. But I am sure that there exist items which ought to be collated, brought together in some form, and which at present are lying rotting away unappreciated because they are not known. Only last Saturday I saw a double furnace in East Anglia built in about 1800, which is the subject of a demolition order. Some of the equipment is still there, and these are the things which I suggest should be brought together to demonstrate that the people in rural areas had their part to play in the Industrial Revolution in this country.
5.40 p.m.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (VISCOUNT ECCLES): My Lords, my noble friend has raised a Question which is undoubtedly of increasing importance. We are all very glad that this technological aspect of museums is coming to the fore. The two noble Lords who followed him showed that the subject is very wide and one man has one particular kind of material he wants to collect while another has another. I will try to give them the best Answer I can, but I hope they will understand when they have heard what I have to say that this has to be an interim Answer because we are at this moment considering a number of important decisions and have not yet quite reached our conclusions. Your Lordships will certainly agree that objects such as the noble Earl and the other noble Lords wish to see identified, listed and preserved are part of our history, just as much a part as books and manuscripts and works of art are for those who for
1266
so long have cared much more for the traditional type of museum.
I am not quite sure why this has suddenly come about. I believe that a study of the past shows that in periods when their power has suffered some diminution nations usually look backwards over their shoulder at their own history. That may be one reason why we are doing it now. But I think another reason is that we always have been, at any rate for the last 150 years, predominantly an industrial society. We like engines and ships and machines and things that work, and we are interested in what we like and in the preservation of what has been characteristic of the rise of this country.
It is no accident that the Science Museum in South Kensington is much the most popular of all our museums; that is to say, with our own public. The tourists, of course, do not come in quite such numbers to the Science Museum. And in the Science Museum the exhibits which are the most popular are those which work. It is the same in the British Museum where we have the horological collection unrivalled in the world, and one sees dozens and dozens of visitors, young and old, coming there, not primarily I think to look at the beauty of the cases of the clocks or their faces but to see them work; to tell the time and hear them strike. In recent years two ships (the noble Earl mentioned ships in his Question), the "Cutty Sark" and H.M.S. "Belfast", have been converted into museums and opened to the public. H.M.S. "Belfast", for example, which charges 30p for adults, 20p for children and 15p for pre-arranged school parties, in the first seven months had 300,000 visitors. That is far more than the Wallace Collection and the Wellington Museum in Apsley House put together and doubled. It is very interesting that these are the kind of museums which are attracting most people. When we take so much trouble, as we do and I hope always will, about our great national galleries and museums of art, we ought also to spare a thought for these other museums which in terms of attraction to the public in general are at least as interesting.
It must be right to preserve and display objects which give so much pleasure and instruction. The trouble with these objects

1267
is that, although they may be inexpensive to acquire—indeed the owners are very often glad to give them away—the cost of their transport, erection and preservation can be very considerable. The noble Lord, Lord Burntwood, spoke about rural exhibits. But surely all over the country now—I can think of Lincoln as a fine example—farmers are delighted to give museums their old wagons which have been getting in the way and their old ploughs, et cetera, and they are making extremely attractive exhibits. Of course they need a lot of space, but everywhere rural technology is something which is becoming collected. The trouble is that when a building or an object of this kind becomes available, often no one is there who will shoulder the burden of the expense of giving it house room or even of putting it in the open and looking after it.
In London, we have the Science Museum and the Imperial War Museum, both with fine collections of technological objects. Neither of them can expand without more space either on their existing site or in some subsidiary museum. As an example of the latter, your Lordships know that the Clapham collection of railway material is being rehoused in York and will there be cared for by the Science Museum. I have no doubt that there are other such moves that would be of advantage. Most of the objects which my noble friend had in mind were made and used outside London. Here I think I differ from the noble Lord, Lord Burntwood. There is a considerable case for saying that these objects should be preserved outside London and, if possible, as part of the local history where the industry concerned grew up. I would rather think that these museums serve to strengthen the character of the local people and their pride in the past than just try to educate some city dweller who did not know anything about coalmining.
LORD BURNTWOOD: My Lords, I particularly did not mention London. I take the view that London is, as it was in the 18th century, the Great Wen. I think London ought to be forgotten to a certain extent. I am not opposed to the Transport Museum going to York. I would merely argue that there is a case for taking it away from the immediate area where the industry was.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's case but I am not quite sure that I share it, especially as lie said, I think quite rightly, that trade unions might be able to contribute very much, if not in objects at any rate to the archives and so on, and they would need to be near where there was a tradition of families working in the industry. But this is an open matter. I am going this very Friday to open a new museum at Beamish in County Durham. There one will see among other things 50 pit wagons which were just saved from destruction and no doubt are of peculiar interest to the people of County Durham.
What is happening now is encouraging, but I agree that we need a comprehensive policy. In working towards this policy we have the help of two Reports. one of which has been mentioned already: the Report from the Standing Commission; and the other, which came out only a few months before, entitled Victorian Technology and its Preservation in Modern Britain, is also extremely interesting and useful. The authors are Mr. Norman Smith and Professor Rupert Hall, who did an excellent job, and I have noted two of their points. They stress that we must have better communications between museums and private persons who are interested in technological material. This is undoubtedly right. But there is a good deal of sorting out that should be done between who should preserve what and who can, by exchange possibly, help someone else. Then they emphasise the depth and sincerity of interest in technological preservation outside London. I am glad they did that because I think there are people in London who concentrate on our national museums and who are not perhaps aware of the strength of the growing interest outside London in this kind of museum.
The Report from the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries for which the noble Baroness, Lady Lee of Asheridge, asked, came out at the end of last year and by that time, as I think your Lordships know, a Committee were at work on the whole field of policy for the provincial museums. I do not think we could frame a satisfactory policy for technological material alone, and therefore we are very fortunate to have these two reports to help us to fit this kind of

1269
material into the general picture. It will be a little time before the Committee report but I can assure my noble friend that they are asking exactly the same questions that he asked me this evening, and that these two Reports are part of the working papers of the Committee.
I cannot anticipate the Committee's Report but there are two general observations that may help. The first is that it is becoming very clear that the role of the private museum is very important in this technological field. We have the splendid example of my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, who has accumulated a finer collection of antique motor cars than is to be found anywhere else in the world and who, with that judicious blend of showmanship and a real interest in his material, is making an enormous success of his museum; and I do not doubt that other kinds of technological museums could be equally successful. I know that my own grandchildren are not only willing to pay to see giraffes, they also want to see generators; and some children, of course, prefer machines to monkeys: they would rather see a technological exhibit than a zoo, although other children will take other views. At the moment we are not catering for the technologically minded child, as I think we should.
My second observation is that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is waxing enthusiastic about the preservation of technological material. For example, he is treating outstanding industrial structures on all fours with traditional monuments and buildings. That never happened in my time when I was at the Ministry of Works, and it is a great improvement that it should be done now. My right honourable friend is prepared to give these industrial structures their share of available resources, and their resources are increasing. Recently he has taken into his care, or is negotiating for, half a dozen important industrial monuments, including the iron bridge at Coalbrookdale. He is very ready to co-operate with an advisory committee on industrial buildings and objects, if one were set up as envisaged in the Report of the Standing Commission.
My noble friend raised the question of export control of industrial objects of
1270
exceptional national importance. These objects are usually in private hands, and by far the most common danger is not that they will be exported but that they will disappear altogether. I think it would be difficult to frame rules to guide a reviewing committee as to what technological material was of real national importance. It is not quite the same thing as rules for works of art over one hundred years old, which come within the scope of the present Committee. It is fairly well known after one hundred years, which artists are important, hut to say whether fossils or foghorns or locomotive plates or wrecks around the coast of Britain—the British Sub-Aqua Society which is so dear to the heart of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder—really are of supreme national importance would, I think, be difficult. It is better that we should move towards some kind of advisory committee backed, I hope—though I have no reason to make any commitment—with some resources and a campaign to persuade local authorities and private persons to do more in this field.
There was a question about archives. I must apologise to your Lordships; I had not realised that the subject of archives was going to be raised in the Question, but in the course of the weekend my noble friend added the Report of the Standing Commission which mentions archives. It is very difficult to instruct bodies to protect archives. It is necessary to know what proportion of the total paper that passes through their offices really is worth preserving. A moderately sized firm of stockbrokers told me last week that they used one ton of paper a week. What about the National Coal Board, or the British Railways Board? We should need some very careful thinking and advice from those who are concerned with archives before we laid down a rule. I myself am always worried that so much television material is lost and is not preserved. In a way I feel that the right of deposit which the British Museum enjoys for all printed material ought really to be extended to some other forms of historical material, but it seems that we have not yet reached that stage.
LORD RITCHIE-CALDER: Hear, hear!
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I will certainly talk to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Department of Industry about wrecks, and I will tell him with what eloquence the noble Lord pleaded the case. The noble Lord mentioned "encapsulated time"; that is all right, so long as there are a few doubloons and other attractive articles in the wrecks. Then I can understand that it must be a very exciting sport indeed.
Finally, I would say to my noble friend Lord Kinnoull that we understand the importance of this Question; we are giving it full consideration in the committee reviewing provincial museums, and if he will be patient I hope that some time before the end of the year we shall come out at any rate with an interim report.

MERSEY TUNNEL BILL
Reported with an Amendment.