Lords Sitting of 26 October 1972

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

NAPALM BAN PROPOSAL
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their attitude towards the recommendation by the United Nations group of experts that the use of napalm and other incendiaries should be prohibited in warfare and why they declined to appoint a British representative to the group.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, the Secretary-General's Report on Napalm and Other Incendiary Weapons has only just been published. Its purpose was to provide factual information about these weapons and their effects. In common with many other countries, we did not think that we had a suitably qualified expert who could have contributed to this study. The Report is now being studied carefully and we assume that the matter will be discussed further in an appropriate international forum.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. But does not the Report go very much further than that? Does it now draw attention to the appalling suffering which napalm causes? Does it not actually recommend that napalm and other incendiaries should be prohibited, and will this not now go to the legal committee of the United Nations and come before the General Assembly? What will be the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to that recommendation?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, of course the noble Lord is perfectly right in what he is saying regarding the contents of the Report. This certainly is a most unpleasant weapon
2248
All I can tell him at the moment is that, as I said, the Report has only just been received. The Government are looking at it very carefully because it is a very serious problem, but I am afraid that I cannot tell the noble Lord at this stage what will be the outcome.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, in view of the fact that the whole world must have seen pictures of the disfiguring result of these weapons on civilians, what more have the Government to learn about them before they take some action?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I do not know whether the Government have anything more to learn. That is why they are studying the Report with the greatest possible care, to see what appropriate action can be taken.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, does the Minister really mean that Her Majesty's Government could not find an expert to serve on this committee? Is he aware that the United Nations itself co-opted an expert from this country who gave very valuable evidence to the committee? Also, why did we, France, and the United States of America boycott this committee when Governments of all characters in various parts of the world agreed to serve on it?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I do not think it is quite right to say that we boycotted this committee. What we felt was that at that particular time we did not have the right man who was suitably qualified on this particular subject of napalm. Surely the point is that this committee has produced a very valuable and a very useful Report, and it is the action which has to be taken now which matters.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, I really think that that is a most unsatisfactory answer. I do not think you need to be an absolute expert in chemical warfare to give a judgment on the question of the evidence.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Question!
LORD PLATT: I beg your Lordships' pardon. Do Her Majesty's Government think that it is really necessary to have somebody who is an expert in the use of napalm or something of that kind?

2249
Cannot people form a judgment without necessarily being experts?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, the point was that we were asked to provide an expert in this particular field of napalm; and, as I say, we did not have a suitably qualified person at that time. I should like to emphasise, because I think it is important, that this Report is what matters now. It is a very clear and factual Report, which the Government are studying very carefully with a view to taking appropriate further action.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, are we to take it from the reply of the noble Marquess that Her Majesty's Government and the Ministry of Defence have no knowledge at all about how they could protect British subjects if they were to be attacked by that weapon?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: No, my Lords; I hope I was not implying that. What I am trying to answer is the Question on the Order Paper regarding this particular Report and what the Government are proposing to do about it.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Marquess said that the Government could not provide somebody because there was no expert in this country; at least, the Government had no knowledge of one. There can be only one construction put on that, and that is why I asked the question.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, do Her Majesty's Government require any suitable names to be put forward? I should have no difficulty at all in supplying the noble Marquess with a number of names.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I should be grateful for the noble Lord's offer if the situation should occur again.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, if I take up the request, will Her Majesty's Government accept any recommendations I may make?
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, cannot the Government say that they are against
2250
the use of this horrible weapon in principle, subject to investigation?
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: My Lords, I think we are getting rather wide of the mark. We are at the moment considering this Report. It has only just been received; and I am quite certain that the whole of this subject will come up again in, as I say, the appropriate forum when the Government have had time to consider the matter.

EUROPEAN NUCLEAR DEFENCE
11.12 a.m.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any discussions have taken place between them and the Government of France on the subject of a European nuclear deterrent; and whether the West German Government have participated in such discussions and the U.S.A. Government have been kept informed.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, only to the extent that we and the French have agreed, and have both announced publicly on several occasions, that the problem of Anglo-French nuclear collaboration is one for the future.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, if that is the extent of the discussions and they are limited in character, may I ask the noble Lord why in a recent speech he referred to the possibility, as I understood it, of a European nuclear capability? Would he not regard that language, in the general circumstances obtaining in Europe, East and West, as somewhat dangerous and provocative? And has he considered the possibility of East Germany adopting a nuclear capability and what that would mean in the European connotation?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not pretend to foresee what kind of European Defence Community may arise in the next twenty years, but one has to bear in mind that Europe will he one of

2251
the largest and probably the richest Community in the world, and it seems to me that it is very unlikely to abandon the nuclear defence that it has at the present time.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, the noble Lord will appreciate that I fully recognise his responsibility in defence matters and how, from time to time, it is necessary for him to offer an observation, even if it ills of a speculative character. But would he not consider, before making statements of this character, permitting your Lordships' House to have a discussion so that our views might be ventilated on this important topic? He will bear in mind the SALT talks which are now proceeding. In those circumstances, one must be very cautious.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I suppose that in the last two and a half years I have made scores of speeches on defence, and particularly on European defence, and I have said on a number of occasions the same as I said at Blackpool. We have had a number of debates in your Lordships' House on defence, and there have been numerous occasions on which the noble Lord could have raised the matter.
LORD SHACKLETON: But how often, my Lords, has the noble Lord himself, on a highly public occasion, announced what is a fundamental proposal in the defence field, obviously without consultation with the Germans, because we know that they were embarrassed by it, and probably, since it was at his Party Conference, without consultation with his own Department, who were also embarrassed by it?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Lord is, as usual, wrong. None of these things is true. I do not think the noble Lord can have read my speech. Perhaps I can send him a copy and then he will see how wide of the mark he is.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord has said that my remarks are not true. May I say that I regard his remarks as untrue?
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, would it not be better for the whole world, if, instead of Britain and France considering a European nuclear deterrent,
2252
Britain and France should each give up their nuclear weapons and reduce their nuclear capacity?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think it would be better for all of us if we did not have these things. This is, after all, the object of our foreign and defence policy; but I do not think that I should like to see unilateral disarmament on the part of this country.
LORD GLADWYN: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that owing to the obvious inability of any nuclear Power to use or to threaten to use nuclear weapons against another nuclear Power on a first strike, the so-called Anglo-French deterrent, whether combined or uncombined, and whether strategic or tactical, will be totally useless unless we can organise a standard conventional defence?
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE): My Lords, perhaps I may enter a rather formal caveat here. It is now an accepted rule of your Lordships' House that we do not read supplementary questions.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I should very much like on the proper occasion to answer the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, but it goes very much wider than the original Question.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, for the purpose of the Record, and that alone, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will be kind enough to produce the evidence that in any previous debate in this House we have discussed precisely and specifically the possibility of an Anglo-French nuclear deterrent independent of—I repeat, independent of—the United States?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I did not say that; the noble Lord must have misunderstood. I said that there were a number of occasions when the noble Lord had an opportunity to do so.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I point out that I did not suggest that Britain alone should give up the nuclear deterrent. I suggested that Britain and France should do so.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I would rather that Britain and France,

2253
and Russia, the United States, China and all the rest should do so. But I do not think that just two out of five is a good idea.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the use of the word British "is preferable to that of" Anglo"? We are talking about the Unied Kingdom and not merely England.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I do not know any way of putting it more succinctly. If I have offended my noble friend, I apologise.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, is it not a fact that there was a Statement (or perhaps it was an Answer) given by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, in regard to the visit of the Prime Minister to President Pompidou to the effect that there had been no discussions about a joint nuclear force between England and France? In the light of what the noble Lord has said, can he say when these discussions started?
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I would ask the noble Lord to read my Answer. What I said was that there have been discussions only to the extent that we and France have agreed and announced that the problem of Anglo-French nuclear collaboration is one for the future.

E.E.C.: UNITED KINGDOM ENTRY CELEBRATIONS
11.18 a.m.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what sums have been made available to those persons responsible for organising celebrations on British entry into the E.E.C.; how much has been spent and what will be the nature of the celebrations.
THE PAYMASTER GENERAL (VISCOUNT ECCLES): My Lords, the sum of £250,000 has been made available to the Committee of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and £100,000 to the Committee of my noble friend Lord Mancroft.
2254
Almost all the funds have been committed but will not be spent until early next year. The noble Lord will have seen the Press reports of the programme which was announced on Tuesday last. I will send him copies of the programme leaflet and of the programme book which is to be published later.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for that Answer. Is it not somewhat significant—and I put it mildly and modestly—that nothing appeared in the newspapers furnishing any details about the celebrations associated with the E.E.C. until my Question appeared on the Order Paper? Was this necessary in order to obtain information to be conveyed to the public? As regards these celebrations, which the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, stated in the Press are to be non-political in character, if there are gala performances at Covent Garden or elsewhere are we to understand that provided there are any free tickets they will be available not only to pro-Marketeers but to anti-Marketeers also? May I also ask this question, because I think it is important that the public should know? May I ask whether the £250,000 available to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, is in order to satisfy his taste for music, when there is only £100,000 for the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who is, I understand, to be responsible for fireworks?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, is, of course, a man of great influence, but I rather doubt whether the date of the Press conference was due to his putting down his Question. I have a copy of the programme and there really is something for everybody. I am going to mark it before sending it to the noble Lord. For instance, there is a performance called "Out of Step". It is on Thursday, January 11, and has the support of the Rotterdamse Kunststichtung. I think the noble Lord would like that. There is a rally of veteran and vintage cars, and that is from London to Brussels. I thought that the noble Lord might volunteer for that. Anyway, my Lords, these celebrations will give a great deal of pleasure to a great many people.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether, when he says that there will be something for

2255
everybody, it means that a fair proportion of the money will be spent outside London and that this is not going to be just a "Londoners' benefit"?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that there is a very long programme of events outside London. I will send him also a copy of the programme.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, if there is something for everybody, would the noble Lord suggest that the schoolchildren of England should have a mug on which is inscribed the Shakespearean piece, "his England"? Is he aware that there is an esoteric professorial chair being established at Keele University, called psycho-ceramics, for the examination of "crackpots"?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord would also care to know that at Whitechapel Art Gallery there is an exhibition of sweets that will give the children an opportunity to look at sweets as popular art instead of just eating them.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I, with great respect, ask one further question? May I ask the noble Viscount whether it would not have been more appropriate, before having any celebrations, to wait, perhaps a few months, perhaps a year or so, and see how the E.E.C. turns out?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, normally you have a party at the time when some alliance or marriage is celebrated. If you waited for a few months after it might not be so good.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I was about to put the same question in this way. I was going to say that as the proof of the pudding is in the eating, does not common sense itself suggest that we delay a little while before we set off the fireworks?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I really think that this is a great occasion and there are a very large number of
2256
people in this country who never before have had a chance to see all these European artists who have agreed to come when we have asked them. It is going to be something extraordinarily interesting, right through the whole range of the arts.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, as we are told that the Common Market will last for ever, are these European artists going to die? Is their life expectancy so short? Will there not be plenty of years in the future when they could come here and dance?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I think that nothing really lasts for ever, but this is a good first step and I am glad that we are taking it.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, would not the noble Viscount agree that having regard to the position of the pound it might be more appropriate if we had prayers of intercession throughout the churches, rather than celebrations?
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, may I ask whether this occasion would not provide an opportunity when we could declare January 1 a public holiday?
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness; I had not thought of that. January 1, I think, is a Saturday—I am not quite sure.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I have put this question down before. It seemed to me appropriate, as more and more people normally do not go to work on January 1, because they have had an enjoyable evening the night before. As I understand it January 1 is entry day.
VISCOUNT ECCLES: My Lords, I will mention that to my right honourable friend, or my noble friend—whoever is responsible; I think it is the Home Secretary.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, is the noble Viscount aware that he is wrong again in saying that January 1 is a Saturday? In fact, according to the calendar, it is a Monday.

EUROPEAN ENERGY: E.E.C. COMMISSION'S PROPOSALS
11.25 a.m.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have received the E.E.C. Commission's proposals for safeguarding and improving petroleum supplies and its second indicative nuclear programme; and what arrangements are in hand for making these documents available to Members of both Houses of Parliament.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND INDUSTRY (THE EARL OF LIMERICK): My Lords, the Government have received the European Commission's recent proposals for energy, including proposals for safeguarding and improving petroleum supplies. Copies of the relevant documents, which are in French, have been placed in the Libraries. The Second Indicative Nuclear Programme has not yet been finalised, but when it is I will ensure that copies are made similarly available.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he really thinks it is satisfactory that documents which in one case require legislation, and in both cases are relevant to our energy policy, should simply be placed in the Library? Would he not agree that Members are entitled to know what documents are coming along and can be had on demand? Will he ask his noble friends responsible to consider arrangements whereby catalogues can be made available to us all, and that documents that we may want are available in the Printed Paper Office and the Vote Office?
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, I understand that this question of documents is under consideration, and I will see that my noble friend's remarks are taken into account. These documents of course are consultative documents, and this one was received only very recently.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, is my noble friend not aware that the Government often issue a Green Paper, or a White Paper, which is consultative and informs the public of policy purposes? Is it not the case here that we have documents not dissimilar in character, but in the European context, and we need to have them available so that we can think about, learn about and follow, and perhaps even comprehend what is proposed in Europe?
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: Yes, my Lords. But here there is a very long time-scale. This is a study document concerning certain proposals, which may be suitable for the Six, which will now have to be reconsidered in the light of the enlarged membership of the Community.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, if the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, will allow another Member of the House to take part in this exchange, may I ask the noble Earl whether he recalls that we had a debate recently on the Communities Bill in which a number of promises and indications of good intentions were declared? Would he not agree that the noble Earl's Question bears directly on points that pro- and anti-Marketeers alike pressed on the Government? When are the Government going to do something about this matter and tell us how they are going to deal with it?
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, this document has only just been received, and since it was received it has been made available in the Library.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, did I understand the noble Earl to say that the document was in French?
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: Yes, my Lords.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, is a translation being provided also?
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: Yes, my Lords; it will be provided. The position is that official translations will not be available of Papers which come up before our formal accession on January 1, but unofficial translations are being prepared and will be made available as soon as possible.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, in view of the growing burdens on our

2259
Library, and now that some knowledge of languages is needed, would the noble Earl ask the Government whether they will look into the question of the staff in your Lordships' Library, who are already getting overworked, to see whether we could have someone there who is available for translations? I think it would help in the future, since we are going into Europe—or have been driven into Europe.
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, that is another Question, but I will pass on what the noble Lord has said.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, can my noble friend tell us whether there will be only one copy put in the Library, or will there be thirty or forty, so that those interested can obtain a copy and study it?
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, there will be one copy in the Library.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALE: My Lords, does my noble friend really think that that is good enough?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, in the light of the reply that the noble Earl has given, would he consult with his noble friend the Leader of the House to see that ample copies of these Papers are available? The noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, may have the one copy and monopolise it for some time, thereby denying other noble Lords the opportunity of reading it. Will the noble Earl give an undertaking to look at that matter?
THE EARL OF LIMERICK: Yes, my Lords; I will certainly see that it is looked at.
VISCOUNT AMORY: My Lords, how long it will take us to go through these documents will depend very largely on whether they are in English or in French. I studied French for ten years but I still need to have a dictionary by my side. Perusal of the documents could take a long time.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES
Sixth Report from the Select Committee: made, and to be printed.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL
Returned from the Commons yesterday, with certain of the Lords Amendments agreed to and one other Amendment disagreed to, with a Reason for such disagreement: the said Reason printed (pursuant to Standing Order No. 48).

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (FAMILY PLANNING) AMENDMENT BILL
11.31 a.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments to one of the Lords Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments to one of the Lords Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Amulree.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS TO ONE OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill (104) as first printed by the Lords. Commons Amendments are printed in italics.]

LORDS AMENDMENT
[No. 1.]
Clause 1, page 1, line 10, leave out from "amended" to end of line 19 and insert" by the insertion after subsection (2) of the following new subsections:—
(2A) A local health authority in England and Wales may, with the approval of the Minister of Health, and to such extent as he may direct shall, make arrangements for the giving of advice on voluntary vasectomy, the medical examination of persons seeking advice on voluntary vasectomy for the purpose of determining what advice to give and for treatment for voluntary vasectomy.
(2B) A local health authority may, with the approval of the Minister of Health, recover from persons to whom advice is given, or treatment provided, under subsection (2A) above or from such persons of any class or description such charges (if any) as the authority consider reasonable, having regard to the means of those persons.'"
The Commons agreed to this Amendment, but proposed the following Amendments thereto:
[No. 2.]
Line 5, leave out "Minister of Health" and insert "Secretary of State".
[No. 3.]
Line 12, leave out "Minister of Health" and insert "Secretary of State".
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments (Nos. 2 and 3) to the Lords Amendment (No. 1). These are purely drafting Amendments to substitute for "the Minister of Health" the words, "Secretary of State", and I think it would be for the convenience of your Lordships if we were to take the two Amendments together, as they are exactly the same.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Amulree.)
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I want to make only one short comment, because I have no intention of delaying this Bill. It will be seen from the Amendment that vasectomy will be given but that the person who asks for and receives it will be subject to a means test. I would ask the Minister whether he could clear up this point at this stage. We have been told that local authorities throughout the country are now considering giving free birth control advice and are now providing the necessary equipment. Previously, this has not been the case. As vasectomy is one of the most reliable methods of birth control, may I ask that the means test which is suggested here can be removed and that vasectomy will be given free, just as other methods of birth control will be given free?
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her comments, but so far as I know the probability is that, although the local authority may recover the expenses, it is very unlikely that they would proceed to recover them in these cases. The intention is that as many people as possible should be given help free of charge.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: But would not my noble friend agree with me that if a patient is persuaded by his doctor to have a vasectomy he will have it in his mind the whole time that the law says he will be subject to a means test? In my opinion, this may deter him. If finally the local authority does not take action against him, that will leave him feeling guilty, and he will feel that he has broken the law. Surely, it would be better and more conducive
2262
to his coming forward for this treatment if he knew that it were free.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL
11.34 a.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (LORD SANDFORD): My Lords, our autumn labours on the Local Government Bill led to a total of 633 Amendments being proposed by your Lordships' House. All but one of these—to Clause 141—have been accepted by the other place. I beg to move that the Commons Reason for disagreeing to the Lords Amendment to Clause 141 be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Reason for disagreeing to the Lords Amendment to Clause 141 be now considered.—(Lord Sand ford.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS REASON FOR DISAGREEING TO ONE OF THE LORDS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill (170) as first printed for the Lords the COMMONS Reason is printed in italics].

LORDS AMENDMENT
Clause 141, page 98, line 29, leave out "otherwise" and insert" other means in the United Kingdom".
The Commons disagreed to this Amendment for the following Reason:
Because the Amendment places an unnecessary restriction on the powers of local authorities.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment to Clause 141 to which the Commons have disagreed. Their Reason for disagreeing was that,
"the Amendment places an unnecessary restriction on the powers of local authorities".
This particular Amendment was part of a package prepared after the Government had accepted the principle of what is now contained in Clause 141, which was itself a Back-Benchers' new clause moved in Committee in another place. Clause 141, as we first saw it in this House, gave local authorities the power (a) by advertisement or otherwise to encourage people to visit their areas for recreation, conferences, trade fairs and exhibitions, and (b) to provide facilities for these purposes. The main Amendments,

2263
which have been agreed in another place, consolidate the Local Authorities (Publicity) Act 1931 and the Health Resorts and Watering Places Act 1936 with the new clause, and they greatly extend their scope.
Amendment No. 191 did however preserve one feature of the existing provisions—namely, the requirement that if a local authority wishes to attract tourists from abroad it should do so through an approved agent, who is in fact the British Tourist Authority. The B.T.A. has a general responsibility for encouraging foreign visitors and spends a considerable amount of public money on this purpose. Everybody agrees that it is excellent at its job and that it has excellent relations with local authorities. When we first considered this matter we did not think it right to interfere with that relationship.
I wish to make it clear that Amendment No. 191 took nothing away from local authorities which they enjoy at present. Where some local authorities advertise abroad they do so under local Act powers. Eleven local authorities have specific powers for this purpose, and many others rely on more general powers. The package which we proposed would by itself have enormously strengthened local authorities in this field, and Amendment No. 191 did not embody any new principle.
Three things have persuaded us to reconsider the matter and change our minds. The first was the strength of feeling demonstrated in another place by representatives of resort areas, and also of some industrial areas. Clearly, many places in this country are anxious to attract visitors from abroad and to promote themselves in their own way. The second reason why the other place rejected our Amendment is the existence of those same local Acts to which I referred a moment ago. Under the terms of the Bill they are to lapse in five or ten years' time unless preserved by order of the Secretary of State. But until they lapse—and it is far too early to say how the order-making power will be used—those local authorities which have the powers may continue to make use of them, and in this increasingly competitive field it seems wrong to give this right only to those authorities which happen to enjoy the local Act powers.
2264
The third and main reason I put forward for inviting your Lordships to accept the view of the other place and not to insist on our Amendment is that our original Amendment would preserve one of those restrictions and controls on local government which in general we wish to dismantle and remove, relying rather in the future on good sense and co-operation. I am glad to say that the Chairman of the British Tourist Authority has told me that he welcomes the new proposals embodied in the whole package constituted by this clause. He is confident that his Authority and the new local authorities will be able to co-operate effectively in the use of them without continuing this particular statutory provision. My Lords, I think that, after such a Session as we have just had, there is a certain fitness in concluding the passage of the Bill through this House by considering a clause dealing with better ways of promoting the enjoyment of leisure. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment to which the Commons have disagreed. (Lord Sandford.)
11.40 a.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, it is a remarkable achievement on the part of this House to have passed 633 Amendments and to have had only one of them disagreed to by the other place. We must have done extraordinarily well in this House. Of course, we moved into the Bill some Amendments which were highly controversial, and I was delighted to see that the Commons accepted them, although I had some slight disagreement about some of them in the stages when we were considering the Bill in this House. So far as the Commons' decision on this Amendment is concerned, so far as I can see, despite the excellent explanation we have had from the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, it merely restores the position as it was when the Bill first came to us. I cannot see that we can possibly object, and I think we should certainly agree with the Commons' decision, and indeed with their Reason for it. My Lords, we bid this Bill good-bye. I am happy to see the last of it, and to see it become an Act.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until approximately 2.30 p.m.
Moved, That the House do adjourn during pleasure until approximately 2.30 p.m.—(Lord Denham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.