Lords Sitting of 11 December 1973

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Ely):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

HONG KONG: POLICE CORRUPTION INQUIRY
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the Commission to inquire into corruption in Hong Kong will be permitted by its terms of reference to investigate the alleged responsibility of the police for charges at the Star Ferry tribunal against Mrs. Elsie Elliot, headmistress of a Christian school, after she had initiated the exposure of police corruption.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, a decision whether any corruption aspects of such a case should be considered by the Commission would of course be for the Hong Kong Government and the Commission to take when it begins operations next year. But Mrs. Elliot's complaints, if established, would have amounted to conspiracy, rather than corruption which it is the task of the new Commission to investigate.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Answer. Is he aware that I was concerned with this case seven years ago? Is he aware that Mrs. Elliot was a Christian missionary deeply respected by the European community and regarded almost as a saint by the Chinese community? Is he further aware that she first exposed the corruption which is now admitted to be taking place in Hong Kong, and that there are grounds for believing that the charges against her at this tribunal were framed by the police who are still in the service of Hong Kong? Is there not therefore a
1030
case for an investigation by this anticorruption Commission?
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, in answer to the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, I was not aware that seven years ago he was concerned in Mrs. Elliot's case. Of course the Government are well aware of her Christian aspirations. However, my Lords, the Judicial Commission of Inquiry, headed by a Chief Justice of Hong Kong in 1966, carefully considered the allegations that police officers had forced two youths to make statements incriminating Mrs. Elliot in the Star Ferry riots and the Commission rejected these allegations. Indeed, my Lords, they criticised Mrs. Elliot for her lack of candour at the inquiry.
LORD BROCKWAY: But, my Lords, is it not the case that she declined to give the source of her information because she had given a pledge that individuals would not be identified? And as a result, did not her character so improve in the public estimation that she was returned by a greater majority than ever to the Hong Kong Council?
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I have no doubt that there were many extenuating circumstances in Mrs. Elliot's case. I can only say that it was very carefully considered; it was rejected and she was very much criticised by the judge who, of course, had nothing whatever to do with the police.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that there is now a changed situation in Hong Kong compared with 1966? Then there was nothing other than suspicion—there was no certainty—about corruption within the police force in Hong Kong. Now it is evident that it was there, and indeed that it was widespread. We appreciate the noble Lord's difficulty in speaking for a Department of which he is not a member, but would he undertake to draw the attention of his right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary to the changed circumstances and to the fact that this lady has been subjected to very severe criticism over a number of years because of her continual complaint about corruption within

1031
the police which has now been substantiated? Would the noble Lord see whether ways and means could be found by which there could be a re-examination of all the circumstances surrounding this lady in her fight with regard to corruption in Hong Kong?
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I will certainly call the attention of my noble friend to the matter. The difficulty is that in the end it is up to the Hong Kong Government to decide what are the terms of reference of the Commission. I have no doubt that my noble friend will pass on to the Government the things said in this House this afternoon.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, it is true that it is the responsibility of the Government of Hong Kong, but Hong Kong is a Colony and at the end of the day it is this House, this Parliament, that has the ultimate responsibility for the good of Hong Kong. In these circumstances, will the noble Lord, without saying anything further in this matter, press on his right honourable friend the strong views that have been expressed by my noble friend and myself?
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: We will, my Lords, with this one proviso: that although we have ultimate responsibility for the Colony they are extremely, shall we say, sensitive about their rights in the matter and the Government would not want to go too far.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, they may be sensitive. Having been a Minister of State in the Commonwealth Office, with a responsibility for Hong Kong, I am well aware of it. But I think one may say to the people of Hong Kong that the Parliament at Westminster has a responsibility over and above theirs.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I think that we may accept that.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank both the Minister and also my noble friend Lord Shepherd for what they have said. May I ask the Minister this question? Is it not the case that at the tribunal the President, who was then the Chief Justice, Sir Michael Hogan,
1032
said that he was sending Mrs. Elliot to the bar of public opinion, and immediately following that she was so revered in Hong Kong that she was returned as a member of the Hong Kong Council with a greater majority than she had ever received before?
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I am quite sure that the noble Lord's information is correct.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY AND HUMAN RIGHTS
2.37 p.m.
LORD HALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will initiate at the Council of Ministers of the European Economic Communities proposals for a joint declaration of human rights based upon the European Declaration of Human Rights and seeking to reconcile the differing practices in the Nine member nations.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE): My Lords, all the Member States of the European Community, except France, have ratified the European Convention on Human Rights. I understand that the French Government have recently announced their intention to ratify. I can therefore see no reason for a declaration in the terms proposed by the noble Lord.
LORD HALE: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that Answer. Is he aware that we also welcome the news to-day from the Parliament of Europe about a long-term proposal for a Workers' Charter? Is anything more important, as a first step on the road to federalism, than a statutorily enacted Charter of the Nine preserving essential human rights and freedom from arbitrary arrest, freedom from political and economic plugging, and freedom from long detention without trial? Is it not first, necessary that we should have some careful consideration about providing a unified law on these essential matters among the Nine?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Lord's Question related to the Convention which depends on the Council of Europe, and that I have answered.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor whether, in a world where millions of people are deprived of the elementary rights set down in the Human Rights Charter, it would not be a good thing for the Council of European Ministers to reaffirm their belief in the Charter of Human Rights?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, must be referring to the Universal Declaration. The European Ministers who have ratified, and France which has announced its intention to ratify, have thereby announced their adherence to the European Convention, which is a different document.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord whether he would confirm the Answer which he gave yesterday, that there would be the right of individuals to petition the Court?—because little notice has been taken of that fundamental decision by Her Majesty's Government.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, my Lords; I confirm the Answer that I gave yesterday.
LORD HALE: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that I was the Chairman of the Human Rights Committee at the Council of Europe at a rather important period of its operation and I am well aware of and heartily support all that has been done there? But this is rather a different matter. Will he not give the matter further consideration? Might it not well be that at the height of the festive season of this joyous year, when we are all dreaming of a white Christmas, a heart-warming message from him would be singularly appropriate?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Lord's Question related to the European Convention, and I have answered it. But in answer to the last part, I wish him a happy Christmas.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, the noble Lord's Question related not only to the Declaration that he proposed but also to means whereby an attempt could be made to reconcile the differing practices among the European signatories. Does the noble and learned Lord see any other way of doing this apart from a Declaration? And, in particular, how are we going to deal with the question of detention without trial, especially in this country, relating to persons who are not accused of any offence but who are held pending their removal by the Home Secretary under our immigration laws?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Lord's question related to the European Convention, and I have answered. So far as I know, there are no differences of interpretation; and if there are any, it would be for the Commission and the courts.

THE RAIL DISPUTE
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Gowrie will be making a Statement on industrial action by A.S.L.E.F.

PROCEDURE: REPLIES TO UNASKED QUESTIONS
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, If I am in order, may I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether he is aware (as he may not be) that, through the operation of procedure, missed asking a supplementary question on Greece because the Question could not be asked? Will there be a Written Answer? And is there any rule that precludes this Question from being put down again?
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, I am aware that two noble Lords unfortunately missed the first Questions to-day because Prayers had been said earlier in the day. The normal practice in these circumstances is either for the Minister to table the answer in Hansard as a Written Answer to a Question, or, if the noble Lord prefers it, for him to put the same Question down on another day for oral answer.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, as a matter of procedure, can the noble Lord the Leader of the House say what is the objection to saying Prayers twice over?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I think that once is enough.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTER: My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will appreciate the advantage of being in their places for Prayers.

NORTH WALES HYDRO ELECTRIC POWER BILL
2.45 p.m.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 33.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, those of us who are interested in the landscape of Snowdonia, which is a particularly sensitive one, will be glad to have this further opportunity of continuing the discussion which we had on July 19 last. This matter, as I am sure your Lordships will appreciate, is most important for those of us who live in Wales and those who come to Wales for refreshment and recreation. I should not wish to go over the arguments which were adduced on Second Reading, but for reasons which were explained then, the petitioners who had petitioned in the House of Commons were, owing to lack of funds, unable to petition to any Select Committee of your Lordships' House on matters on which they had not been satisfied in the Committee stage in the other place. In those circumstances the Lord Chairman of Committees, having, I know, looked at the total situation with the greatest care and attention, came to the conclusion that he would not be justified in sending the Bill to a Select Committee, because the only points of issue on the way in which the proposition, which had been passed by both Houses in principle, could be carried forward were between the Caernarvon County Council, as the planning authority, and the Central Electricity Generating Board. As the county council is the planning authority and therefore would retain a locus standi in the matter after the Bill
1036
left Parliament, the Lord Chairman of Committees came to the conclusion that this Bill should go to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.
The position, therefore, as I see it, is that the Bill has in effect been approved in principle. There remains, however, a difference of view between the county council and the Central Electricity Generating Board as to the carrying out of this pump storage electricity scheme. I have brought with me only a small proportion of the correspondence which has reached me and which includes a fine set of photographs. As they came in only about ten minutes ago, I must admit that I have not had time to study them, but I have been to the place itself, which is perhaps equally convincing.
My Lords, as I understand it, the Bill in its present form will permit either of the rival schemes to be carried out—either that of the Central Electricity Generating Board or the alternative proposal of the county council. I think it is unfortunate that although we knew that something of the kind was in the offing the county council scheme (I have a copy of the scheme here) did not appear for public study until September of this year, which was rather late in the day. But the essence of it is that the county council's scheme, as opposed to the C.E.G.B. scheme, would provide for a somewhat lower embankment across this great valley, the Llanberis Valley. This would inevitably have some effect upon the landscape and upon the views which could be enjoyed, particularly from further up the valley towards Pen-y-Pass.
I think one should make it clear that the scheme is in two parts; namely, the damming of the lower lakes, and the pumped storage up to the height of a much higher lake called Marchlyn Mawr. I believe I should be correct in saying that among those who have opposed the Bill in principle, including the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, Marchlyn Mawr, is one of the most sensitive areas. So I think it is only right to say that, so far as either of the two schemes now under consideration is concerned, Marchlyn Mawr would be very little affected either way. So I do not thing this really enters much into the argument. The height of the embankment has, I think, in the various passages—well, not quite of arms, but of sharp opinion in North Wales,

1037
been perhaps somewhat exaggerated. The way in which the difference between the two schemes is apt to be put is that the county council scheme is for a two-metre scheme (as it is called) and the C.E.G.B. scheme is a 30 ft. scheme
I think it is only right to get this as accurately as possible. My understanding of it is that in view of the expressions of distress at the proposed high dam in this area the Generating Board has agreed to some modification of its original scheme. The Board's revised scheme would mean that there would be an embankment above the present water level of some 24½ ft., whereas under the county council scheme the embankment would be 15 ft. In other words, the real argument is about a difference in the height of the embankment of 9½ ft.; and I would suggest to your Lordships that with a difference of that order of magnitude it would really be best to leave the matter to be threshed out between the Generating Board, the county council and the other authorities who have some say in the matter. It is not true to say that the county council scheme represents a difference of only two metres—it is only two metres of water level, but they agree the embankment would have to be higher and therefore the significant height involved is 9½ ft. I do not pretend that it makes no difference to the landscape or to the distant view, but I would suggest it does not make as much difference as is suggested by some of the protagonists.
In agreeing to reduce the height of the original proposal for the dam, the landscaping consultant, Sir Frederick Gibberd, who has been advising the Central Electricity Board, makes several points. He says that by lowering the dam you flatten the grass slope of the dam and the resulting landscape gains in the valley views would be appreciable. He points out that one of the most agreeable features of the landscape—the old Dolbadarn Castle—would be seen to better advantage with even a slight lowering of the dam. He also makes what I think is the very ingenious suggestion that there would be considerable gain if the levels of the road were raised. He points out that this would bring the road level to within two or three metres of the crest, which would greatly reduce the apparent height of the dam to those who were using the road. If this could be arranged between the Generating Board
1038
and the county council, it would be a considerable added bonus; and I hope this might be done.
There remain two points of difference between the two schemes other than the fundamental one of the height of the embankment. One is that if one adopts the county council scheme with a slightly lower embankment, there would be very obtrusive works—and this represents a part of Sir Frederick Gibberd's comments with which I would agree—because there would be sluice gates which will be visible, and very much visible, under the county scheme, whereas under the C.E.G.B. scheme these sluices would be hidden in underground culverts and would not be seen at all. The line of the dam itself also under the C.E.G.B. scheme (because no mechanical devices would have to be included within it) could be very much softened, whereas with the sluice gates you would have a very hard line at the end of the lake. So on that point I would say that the C.E.G.B. scheme is infinitely to be preferred.
There is, secondly, a difference of aesthetic view about the promontory now covered with slate waste and scree, which abuts into the lake at Llanberis. This is largely a matter of subjective judgment I have read the comments of Sir Frederick Gibberd very carefully and I must say that I do not share his romantic view of slate waste. He seems to regard this as an admirable relic of Victorianism, which is a view I do not support. However, I take his point that if one moves the promontory on which the scree is now stacked it would alter the shape of the lake. Some of those who wish to have it moved say they wish to see a more regular shore-line for the lake and to have a somewhat wider but shallower lake. Sir Frederick says that in his view the promontory makes a pleasing break in the line and that if you removed it you would then open up to almost every angle of view the absolutely essential ancillary buildings which would have to be erected and the mouth of the very large outflow tunnel, which would be a part of the pump storage scheme. Under the C.E.G.B. scheme these works, even minimal works, would have to be there but they would be screened. If the promontory were removed, you would have a somewhat

1039
wider lake but you would then see all the necessary working buildings which would otherwise be veiled from sight.
It seems to me—and here I am giving only my personal view—that there are advantages in the modified C.E.G.B. scheme as opposed to the county scheme. They will lower the dam, and I understand they are perfectly prepared to go ahead with this. My view is that if you really want to improve Llanberis you must remove the extremely obtrusive sewage farm which abuts on to what is to be a country park, which is very close to the lake and which is such a blot on the landscape that almost everything else pales into insignificance. I have discussed this with representatives of the Generating Board, and they assure me that technically there is no reason why this sewage farm installation should not be moved. In their view, the sewage could be pumped to a much less obtrusive site, so it seems to me that if they could come to some kind of bargain between themselves and the county council over the total scheme and involve the possible removal of the sewage farm as an extra provision, then there would be a tremendous gain to the visual appearange of Llanberis. This could be put forward at this stage only as a suggestion, but anyone who knows that part of the world will agree this would be a tremendous aesthetic gain. I hope very much that in the discussions which will be taking place between the Generating Board and the local authority, this is a matter which will be gone into further.
I should like to mention two points which came up on Second Reading. I was very happy to find that the suggestion I made in July, that as part of the total complex the Electricity Generating Board might be prepared to consider a really first-class environmental interpretation centre for the whole of the Snowdonia area, has met with a very favourable response from the Board. I have every hope that such a scheme might be worked out. They have also been most co-operative in meeting the apprehensions of the National Museum of Wales, who have a slate museum as one of their outposts in the immediate vicinity of the dam. There were some problems, but I understand these have now all been satisfactorily met and I should like to acknowledge that.
1040
I have had my attention drawn to one small matter concerning the county alternative scheme. If it were carried out as now proposed, I understand it would make any future working of the part of the quarry which belongs to McAlpines impossible. My own guess is that it is unlikely that this quarry would be reopened on a commercial basis: nevertheless, this is a point which local people who are concerned with employment may wish to take into account as one of the possible disadvantages of adopting the county scheme as it has been put forward. I could very well go into far greater detail but I do not think it would be appropriate on Third Reading, when other noble Lords wish to speak.
Finally, I should like to refer to the letter which has been sent by the Countryside Commission to the Central Electricity Generating Board, because the Countryside Commission have a right to be consulted on these matters. I will quote briefly from this letter which was sent on November 29:
"The Welsh Committee of the Countryside Commission considered this matter recently. They concluded that what was needed now is for the two schemes (that is to say, the Generating Board scheme and the county scheme) to be worked out to a comparable degree of detail so that the impact of each on the landscape can be better assessed."
They mention the other point which arose at the Unopposed Bill Committee, when the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, received an undertaking from the Central Electricity Generating Board that the scheme would be submitted to the Royal Fine Art Commission for their opinion. There have already been consultations between the Generating Board and the Royal Fine Art Commission. It has been agreed that as these variants of the scheme have come up it is desirable that the Royal Fine Art Commission should have another look, and I understand that there is to be another meeting to-morrow on this matter.
The suggestion of the Countryside Commission is a wise and statesmanlike one, because with the best will in the world—and I have tried my hardest to study these alternatives with the greatest care and conscientiousness—it is almost impossible for a lay person to understand fully the alternatives unless, as the Countryside Commission suggest, they

1041
are worked out to a comparable degree of detail. The Generating Board has worked out its scheme in great detail with sections and height levels, and so on, so one can tell at a glance what can be seen and what change would be made in the landscape from various points of vantage. This has not been done in a comparable way in the county scheme.
I understand that work is now proceeding with bringing the county scheme up to a comparable level of detail so that when these discussions take place between the Board and the Authority, between the Board and the Countryside Commission and between the Board and the Royal Fine Art Commission, like can be compared with like. The Bill allows either scheme, or variants of either scheme, to go forward. My personal view is that on balance the C.E.G.B. scheme is probably the better of the two, but I am happy to leave it to the discussions which are to take place between the Board and the local authority, the Countryside Commission and the Royal Fine Art Commission. In those circumstances, and with the assurances that these consultations will take place, we should allow the Bill to have its Third Reading.
3.3 p.m.
LORD HUNT: My Lords, I was not able to be present in your Lordships' House at the Second Reading of this Bill; only now, when the battle appears to be lost, am I presuming to join the debate. I hope it will not be regarded as quixotic, let alone irresponsible, on my part if at this late stage I do so on a note of protest about the whole project, and not the alternative one or other of the two that the noble Baroness has explained. I do so because I have recently revisited the area, which I have known for 45 years. I have spoken with many people and I am persuaded that the protest at what the Government appear to be bent on permitting to happen in North Wales in the National Park, and on its fringes, should be maintained, if only as a warning for the future against further encroachments by industry in our national parks.
Despite the energy crisis that we are now approaching, or are in, it may be worth while if I recall, for those of your Lordships who, like myself, were not present at Second Reading, some of the
1042
facts. First of all it is worth recalling the original stated purpose of this scheme, even though the situation has changed. At a time when our supply of energy was not threatened, the purpose stated was to enable the C.E.G.B. to meet a sudden and simultaneous peak demand. This peak demand was said to arise at the end of popular T.V. programmes when viewers rushed to plug in their electric kettles and other electrical apparatus prior to going to bed. I do not wish to be flippant, but it was "convenience" energy demanded by a country which is said to be more lavish in its electricity consumption than almost any other developed nation. The project was allowed to proceed until fairly recently on the basis of this "convenience" energy.
Since then we have reached an energy crisis. In these circumstances the relative contribution of this scheme, or its milder alternative, in comparison with alternative schemes for increasing available native energy, is obviously a question of great importance. My information—and your Lordships will know I am no expert in these matters—is that the contribution it will make is minimal. This is borne out by the Government White Paper on Fuel Policy and from following the debate on fuel policy in your Lordships' House last week. Its efficiency in relation to cost and the volume of energy stored is less than that of alternative schemes. Its value in terms of reducing the cost of electricity to the customer is undetectable.
Given that, despite all these reservations, it is decided to develop such a scheme in North Wales, I hope that the alternative scheme proposed by the Caernarvonshire County Council, the so-called "two-metre" scheme, is adopted. It has commended itself to the Protection Society for North Wales, formed of various bodies to resist the scheme. As the noble Baroness has said, it is a radically different proposal for providing the water storage in the lower lake by lateral encroachment rather than by high clamming. But I defer to the greater study of the noble Baroness in her apparent preference for the C.E.G.B. scheme.
We are told that, whichever of these schemes is followed, by the time it is finished it will have cost something like

1043
£100 million of public money. But that is not the imporant aspect of the matter. The really important aspect is the cost to the amenities in the national park. There is the interim cost to the amenities presented by a seven-year state of disruption—"chaos" is hardly too strong a word to use—in the life of yet another Welsh valley. During this time a vast increase in heavy traffic, with the noise and fumes it creates, the introduction of temporary and permanent buildings and a labour force of up to 1,000 men, will disturb the peace of the Nant Penis. Of no small consequence is the incursion of foreign labour. I mean no offence (I am half Irish myself) but let there be no illusion about the effect of these strangers, many no doubt from a different Celtic origin, in a valley rightly jealous of its nationhood.
Then there is the long-term permanent cost to pay, because at the end of these seven years of travail the Nant Penis, its village, its lake, its river and its surroundings, will have been altered for all time, and not in a way a new reservoir changes, but may improve, the landscape. In this case the lake, which is the threshold to the portals of the famous Pass of Llanberis, will have become a vast tank, buttressed by high earthworks, devoid of all vegetation, ringed inside by the unsightly watermark caused by the rise and fall of more than 40 vertical feet of water. This blot on the horizontal landscape, appalling as it will be at valley level from the Northern and Southern prospects, will be infinitely worse as seen by the eye of the mountaineer and hill walker on the crags or on the flanks of Snowdon and Elidir Fawr. New roads will skirt the lake, without any character such as the present road has. One of them leads up the flanks of Elidir Fawr to reach the upper water basin, which is also doomed to be sacrificed—Marchlyn Mawr. As the noble Baroness has pointed out, this lies inside a national park. Apart from the access intrusion into this remote area, there will be a vast dam in the Marchlyn Mawr 2,000 feet in length and 130 feet in height, with a 100 foot rise and fall of water, lined inside, I am told, by black pitch. It will disfigure not only this little mountain lake—as I mentioned, it was already a reservoir, but it is and in fact inoffensive
1044
and unobstrusive—but it will also alter the whole character of the approach to this remote, least spoiled and least frequented of all mountains in Snowdonia. In sum, my Lords, the destruction of scenery, the affront to the natural order which it is the purpose of the national park to preserve, will have been successfully achieved on two fronts: on the mountain and in the valley, in the national park and on the fringe.
Then, my Lords, there are the economic factors. I have already expressed my doubts, which have been put forward by noble Lords more knowledgeable than myself, about the justification on national grounds for proceeding with this particular scheme. But there is also the matter of the local economy. Of course, there may well be an interim advancement and stimulus; but even here, I wonder whether the harmful effects on tourism and of drawing away skilled and unskilled labour from existing local industries may not more than offset any benefits. And local unemployment is no longer a problem, as it was when the scheme was first mooted. However this may be, there is a clear precedent—and I am thinking of the neighbouring town of Ffestiniog—for supposing that the end effect on the local economy may be harmful in the employment which has been temporarily created but for which there is no further use at the end of the project, and the residual immigrant labour which stays on in the locality and which will be difficult to absorb.
A good deal has been made of the eventual attraction that the project itself will be for tourists. Whatever that prospect may be, it has no place whatever in a national park: the parks were never intended as attractions for tourists to marvel at technological achievements, at the works of man. We simply cannot afford to fall for these specious excuses to whittle away our small areas of wild and natural beauty. You cannot quantify the value of these areas as you can quantify the energy generated to heat thousands of electric kettles.
My Lords, I conclude, on a note of regret and sadness—because it is clear there is no purpose in dividing your Lordships' House—but also on a note of warning. What some of us are saying to the Government, and with deep conviction, is that if they continue to be simply

1045
a passive arbiter in these crucial matters of protecting the environment; if they allow the powerful purveyors of energy, or any other form of industry using the nation's money, to dominate the argument and carry the day over the impecunious defenders of the environment, they will certainly be storing up more power but they will also be laying up store for a bleak future. My Lords, no amount of power, or heat, or light in our factories, or in our homes, can compensate for a desert outside which denies outlet to the human spirit.
3.15 p.m.
LORD MAELOR: My Lords, until I was entering the Chamber a few minutes ago, I was not aware that my name was on the list to speak. However, as a North Wales-ian I want to support this Bill wholeheartedly, and for more than one reason. In the first place, there is more widespread unemployment in this area than in any part of Britain and there is no hope of solving that dis-stressing problem unless some scheme such as this is introduced into the area. When it is commenced, there will not be a single unemployed man in the Llanberis area and for miles around. I would ask the House to support the Bill wholeheartedly were it only from that point of view. But I would also remind the House that the Bill has been thoroughly ventilated before a Special Committee of this House, and they decided, after sitting on it far days, to give it their wholehearted support. So we are in honour bound to support them.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has pointed out, the scheme will assist in solving our energy problem, which no doubt is going to be the greatest problem of the next decade. Now, we have a scheme such as this up in Blaenau Ffestiniog. That was opposed, too, by people like Lord Hunt. They said that it would destroy the tourist trade, and destroy the natural beauty of the place; but as a matter of fact, is has added considerably to the tourist trade. People go there by the thousands to see that scheme because there is nothing like it in the whole of Europe. You have to go to Canada to see schemes such as the one that is proposed in this Bill, and the one already in operation at Blaenau Ffestiniog.
1046
Lastly, the Bill has been passed unanimously by the House of Commons. There was a full debate there, and the House of elected representatives gave the Bill their wholehearted support. So, briefly, I would ask the House—I am hoping that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, will not call a Division on this Motion, because this would be a great disservice, I can assure him, to my compatriots from this area. I ask noble Lords to give the Bill their wholehearted support.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, Order!
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, does not know that Lord Holford had added his name to the list of speakers. So perhaps Lord Chorley would not mind letting Lord Holford have the next word, then I am sure we shall be anxious to hear from him.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, his name was not on the list that I saw.
3.18 p.m.
LORD HOLFORD: My Lords, I am sorry about this confusion. I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Crook is not to speak, and last week when the debate was postponed, I asked to speak. My name is not on the list, and I asked for it to be added. I have to admit some interest and also some involvement in the subject of this Bill. I intended to speak at the Second Reading, on July 14, after the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bankside, but I was unable to stay as the debate was scheduled very late. Now, like Lord Hinton, I am no longer a member of the Central Electricity Generating Board; but for 16 years I was a part-time member, and my particular responsibility was for the works of architecture and the protection of amenities on the Board's behalf.
In that capacity, I visited, more than once, the pump storage scheme at Ffestiniog to which the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, has just referred, where the power station (and since I had no hand in its design I feel free to say that it is a power station not only of interest but of a very sympathetic design) now attracts 40,000 visitors a year. And if you look

1047
at the books there you will find that most of the visitors to the power station are young people. I mention this because it shows that when a first-class work of engineering, even though it is in a national park, is visited to this extent it is not an absolute loss.
I went over the ground and assessed the possibilities of a number of schemes originally suggested in North Wales for pump storage. I had no doubt whatever that the Board should honour its own obligations under the Electricity Act 1957 by avoiding the wilder and less populous valleys which were also suitable for pump storage schemes, and should also avoid creating new lakes where lakes did not exist before. Llanberis, on the other hand, is, if I may steal a phrase from the noble Baroness, Lady White, a sort of "honeypot" area which attracts tourists for a whole number of reasons, including the mountain railway to Snow-:Jon, and so on. And it was feasible in the slate mountain there to build a power station underground.
The Board took the greatest care to assess the landscape as well as the technical problems of each site. As your Lordships know, and as the noble Baroness has again made clear to-day, the Board appointed Sir Frederick Gibberd to be their landscape architect. He paid very considerable attention both to local materials and to the local character of the site, which I think is an important point to remember when comparing his schemes for the dams with those of the county council. He looked, and I looked with him, at the two dams—the two existing lakes in fact: Marchlyn Mawr, which is remote and almost out of sight above, and to which I am quite sure everyone will agree there will be no thronging of tourists (it is a very bleak landscape now), and Lyn Penis, in the valley below, which is well known, much seen and very much visited.
Now it would be easy for me to try to persuade the House that, because, for one reason and another, this Bill reaches its Third Reading at the outset of an immediate fuel crisis and of a long-term energy shortage, a scheme like this—which uses no primary fuel but takes advantage of the off-peak electricity to pump water to the upper dam, in order that almost instant energy should be
1048
available at times when the whole generating system is fully or, as will be the case in the near future, overloaded—should be accepted, if not with enthusiasm then at least without objection. But in fact I take entirely the opposite view.
As the noble Lord, Lord Hinton, argued in the Second Reading debate, the Generating Board is accountable under the amenity clause of its own Act; and it is absolutely right that it should be challenged at all times by Press and public, in this House and in another place, to show that it is not evading or riding roughshod over these responsibilities. I hope that it does not sound two-faced or sycophantic to say this, but I actually welcome the observations made by the noble Baroness, Lady White, and by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to-day. I would go a good deal further and agree that when yet another invasion is planned by the mechanical into a natural site, a site of exceptional interest and strangeness (I cannot find quite the right term), then exceptional skills should be exercised, first to avoid insensitive and unnecessary damage by the works of man upon the face of Nature.
Secondly—and I think this is a new point—care should be taken to compensate the loss of wildness by some gain in engineering design and imagination. Therefore we must put our best endeavours into the making of an extraordinarily interesting scheme, a scheme that many young people will come a long way to visit, because it is much more exciting even than Ffestiniog, which in its day was extremely interesting. In addition, it seems to me that we should do this in a way which combines with the natural character of the site and does not stand out against it. This is where I take issue with the county council's quite interesting and obviously well-meaning proposals, that we should lower the height of the dam. I have discussed this matter with Sir Frederick Gibberd in great detail. Both of us are absolutely certain that we shall have to make out a case for the Board scheme, not only before the Royal Fine Art Commission tomorrow morning, but also before the Countryside Commission which is entitled to make observations on it. We feel in our own minds absolutely right in saying that we should have natural, apparently earthbound embankments for

1049
these dams, and that if you take 100 feet out of a 220 foot stretch at the bottom on Lyn Penis, and introduce sluice gates, you turn it from a dam of apparently natural materials into a reinforced concrete structure. This seemed to us to be entirely against the character of the site, and I hope we shall be successful in persuading the Fine Art Commission and the Countryside Commission that we are paying more attention to the character of that site than the county council would have us do.
Secondly, there is a great difficulty of dealing with the slate promontories. The slate industry in its time paid no attention to amenity whatever, but Nature of course decided that when slate was thrown out of the side of the hill it went down, as it were, in spurs following the alternate promontories and valleys of the mountain from which it was coming. Therefore it is a characteristic of the site, like the wings of a theatre, for example, that you have alternate projections from this side and that which break up the water surface and create a perspective down the length of the lake. Imagine that one said: "Well, we had to have everything tidy. We had to build a straight embankment. We had to show two parallel lines, the top being the high-water level and the bottom the lower-water level of the lake, and that should be an absolutely flat expanse of mud or scree or whatever the material might happen to be." My own feeling—and I think Sir Frederick agrees entirely with me—is that one must follow the characteristics of Llanberis and not attempt artificial, horizontal lines which draw attention to the very feature one is trying to camouflage.
Therefore, I should not like to see the slate promontory cut off. I should not like to see the lake drained and for eight months to have a waste in that area before the slate is put back again later. I should not like the extra cost involved in doing this. If it were worth doing, one would not mind the extra cost, but if, as I believe, it is not worth doing, then I think it is an added disincentive that it would cost about £4¾ million more to introduce the sluice gates system on the county council's suggestion. Therefore, if I may say this, speaking from the appearance point of view, I hope that we shall be successful, if the House allows us
1050
to proceed, to go to the Fine Art Commission and the Countryside Commission and ask that our original, careful scheme should be accepted.
3.29 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I must start by apologising to the noble Lord who has just resumed his seat for, as it were, trying to "gate crash" in on him. I had not known that his name was on the list of speakers. But it has given me the opportunity of listening to a very understanding and well-argued speech, which, if I may say so, I enjoyed very much. Nor do I criticise unduly the Central Electricity Board. It is their job to put up these schemes, and it is our job in Parliament, if they are not good or are going to interfere too much with the natural beauty of the countryside, to shoot them down. Indeed, in the discussions which have taken place, the Central Electricity Board have behaved in a very understanding and reasonable way. I should particularly like to express my appreciation of the way in which they readily agreed, when the Committee stage was held a week or two ago, to take this scheme back to the Royal Fine Art Commission. They agreed very readily indeed, without contesting it. I am grateful to them and to the noble Baroness, Lady White, has also expressed her gratitude.
I should like to say how much I agreed with the speech made by my noble friend Lord Hunt—a Second Reading speech which I had hoped to make myself had it not been that at the last moment the Bill was put back to a late stage in the evening. I could not have made the speech half as well as the noble Lord has done and I do not propose to go over the ground again. But there are one or two points that I should like to underwrite. It is particularly interesting on a day when Mr. Bernard Levin has contributed to The Times one of the most carefully argued and weighty of his pieces. Sometimes they are just amusing, but this morning it was a serious contribution to the power situation which we were arguing here only last week. He emphasised throughout that article, as the noble Lord, Hunt, has done, that we are continually putting our convenience before the higher values in this nation and we shall not be out of the wood until we can get out of that depressing habit. Quite obviously

1051
as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has said, this is almost entirely an energy convenience scheme in which the convenience of the people round about with their electric kettles, heaters and so on, has been put before the beauty of North Wales, one of the most attractive and compelling natural scenic places in the world. I hope, as the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has said, that we shall pay attention to this.
I was sorry that my noble friend Lord Maelor, whose feelings about this matter are very understandable, should have made no attempt to deal with the arguments adduced by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. He had obviously thought it out beforehand, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, gave us the information about what had happened as a result of bringing in this labour from outside. I well remember that it was said that this scheme would provide employment for people in North Wales but, of course, people have now come in and there is more labour asking for jobs in North Wales. Now the noble Lord, Lord Maelor, says, "For a few months we will employ them." He made no effort whatever to meet the argument put by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that at the end of the few months they would merely be additional mouths asking for bread in that area.
I do not want to go into the details of what happened in the Commons. In my view, the Select Committee there was badly handled and the Chairman's speech in the other place when reporting the matter to the House as a whole was very much open to criticism. In fact if I had made the speech which I intended to make on the last occasion I should have been very near unparliamentary language, because some of the argument which was used there was really beneath contempt.
Before I sit down, I should like to say that this Bill once again brings us back to the fact that the amenity societies, when a Bill of this kind comes before Parliament, have to choose, according to whether it is first discussed before a Select Committee of your Lordships' House or before a Select Committee of the other place; they cannot afford to oppose it in both Houses. In this case they opposed it in the Lower House and their arguments were dismissed with contempt, which I think was completely wrong.
1052
When the case came to your Lordships' House, where I am sure our Select Committee would have given much more favourable attention to the evidence and to the argument, the amenity societies just could not afford to oppose it again, with the result that it came before the Unopposed Bills Committee last week instead of going to a Select Committee. This has happened time after time in other cases—I am thinking of Brighton—and it was really as a result of this fact that the noble Earl the Lord Chairman of Committees said that he would consider the question as to whether there should not be a Select Committee and what could be done about presenting the argument on that occasion. Not unnaturally, he came to the conclusion that as there were no Petitions it would be unreasonable to send it to a Select Committee. But, of course, if the sinews of war had been available there would have been Petitions, and it is really time that matters of this kind, Private Bills really concerned with a wide range of extremely vulnerable public interest, should be properly discussed on the evidence of a Select Committee of your Lordships' House and not just left to a few drafting alterations made in the Unopposed Bills Committee.
I shall go on saying this as long as I am here to trouble your Lordships with it. My arguments have been reinforced by my noble friend Lord Molson (who unfortunately is not here to-day) and by other noble Lords. There should be procedural arrangements for, so to speak, underwriting those Private Bills which have a real public import of the kind which this one undoubtedly has, as I am sure the speech made by my noble friend Lord Hunt might have persuaded your Lordships. When that is done, the few thousand pounds needed should be provided so that there may be a proper investigation of the whole subject and a Select Committee of your Lordships' House—which, if I may say so, in nine cases out of ten is much better qualified to deal with a matter of this kind than a Committee of the other House—could then have the opportunity of going into it in the thorough way that it deserves. I hope eventually to see that arrangements of this kind are made and I shall continue to press upon your Lordships the importance of some arrangement of this kind being made.
3.37 p.m.
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, as a Scot I intrude into this matter which concerns the people of Wales with very great diffidence indeed, and I do so only in an attempt to assuage the fears which have been expressed this afternoon. As some of your Lordships may know, I have for many years been connected with the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board. I have had exactly the same fears expressed in relation to our work in the North of Scotland, in some of the most beautiful country in the world—even as beautiful as that which we are discussing this afternoon—and I have seen these fears completely vanish when the structure has been completed and properly treated, taking care of all the natural features in the area and, as the architects can do to-day, producing something which in itself is beautiful and almost inconspicuous. I wished just to state that fact to your Lordships, because I have seen it happen not once or twice but several dozens of times, and the fears have vanished with the completion of the work.
LoRD CHORLEY: My Lords, before the noble Lord resumes his seat, may I ask him whether he is aware that Sir Frederick Gibberd, who was referred to a moment ago by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in cross-examination before the Select Committee in another place admitted that this scheme would in fact do considerable damage to the scenery in Snowdonia?
LORD STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, I did not quite catch what the noble Lord was saying. All I am doing is to give the House the result of my experience over many years and in quite different circumstances.
3.39 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I think it would be for the convenience of the House if I were to deal briefly with two matters which have been discussed during the consideration of this Bill, both at this stage and on Second Reading. The first is procedure; the second is amenity. The main procedural question, as the noble Baroness, Lady White, rightly pointed out, was the possible reference of the Bill to a Select Committee, although it was unopposed
1054
in this House. At the conclusion of the debate on Second Reading, as the noble Baroness will remember, I undertook to consider the position of those parties who had deposited Petitions against the Bill in the House of Commons. I have done so. There were four such Petitions. Two of these were settled in another place without going to the Select Committee set up on the Bill. The two other Petitions were dealt with by the Select Committee in the course of a nine days' hearing. The North Wales (Hydro Electricity) Protection Committee wrote to me subsequently stating that when the Bill came to this House—and I am using their words:
"There remained unresolved issues going to the heart of the Bill"
and they went on—
"it was only lack of funds which prevented them from depositing a Petition in this House."
I considered the arguments in evidence submitted to the Select Committee in the Commons and concluded that the submission of the petitioners there was exhaustively ventilated, with the advantage of representation by counsel. It would have been possible, nevertheless, to refer the Bill to a Select Committee of this House in the absence of opposition, but I did not consider that this procedure would really have helped the Protection Committee, as they had by their own admission insufficient funds to pay for the representation necessary to adduce the technical evidence required to support their case. I would add that when this expedient—namely, the reference of an unopposed Bill to a Select Committee—has been adopted in the past, it has shown that our Select Committee procedure is not well suited to that sort of ex parte hearing, particularly when technical evidence has to be adduced.
In setting out, as I have done, the considerations which led me to my decision regarding the position of petitioners, I should like to express the opinion—and I think this opinion will be shared by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley—that the predicament of petitioners with limited funds might be the subject of review, to ascertain whether means can be found to save objectors to the provisions of Private Bills who have locus standi and substantial grounds of complaint from being debarred from petitioning in this House by lack of funds.

1055
The second point to which I should like to refer is the extent to which amenity interests have been met during the progress of this Bill through Parliament. In my opinion, the main points in dispute have been dealt with by agreement between the Promoters and the parties. The first, concerning the height of the dam as proposed in the Bill, has been dealt with by agreement with the Caernarvon County Council, who are in any event the planning authority and whose approval under Clause 47 is required for any works authorised by the Bill. Clause 53 has been added to the Bill for the protection of ancient monuments, and this clause gives protection to, among other places, Dolbadarn Castle, which has been referred to, the Dinorwic slate quarry workshops and the slate quarry table incline unit.
There is a new Clause 48, which provides that the Beard should have a duty to collaborate in promoting economic development and social improvement with the authority of the new County of Gwynedd.
Lastly, at the Unopposed Committee in this House the Promoters gave an undertaking, which has already been mentioned to the Committee, that they would consult the Royal Fine Art Commission regarding their proposals for the construction of the embankments and dams at either end of Llyn Penis. I hope that this undertaking may give some satisfaction to the noble Baroness, Lady White. Consultation with the Royal Fine Art Commission was suggested at the Unopposed Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley. I should like to thank him for attending and also for giving the Committee the benefit of his views.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, would he answer one question about the reconsideration of the financial means of private petitioners? Is he aware that it is not only the cost of employing counsel which is sometimes extremely burdensome, but also the cost of the transcripts which they need during the course of the hearing? Would not one means of assisting these private petitioners be to say that copies of the hearing are available to them, either free of charge or at some nominal charge, in the same way as
1056
copies of the Hansard relating to Public Bills?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I think the cost of transcripts should also be a subject of review.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether he would consider setting up a working party to deal with this matter? He gave much the same undertaking at the time of the Brighton Bill, which must have been three or four years ago, but no progress has been made there. It really ought to be threshed out in detail.
On Question, Bill read 3ª, and passed.

RAILWAYS: A.S.L.E.F. DISPUTE
3.46 p.m.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment in another place. My right honourable friend said:
"With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the ASLEF dispute.
"I have to inform the House that no agreement was reached at yesterday's meeting between British Rail, ASLEF, the National Union of Railwaymen and the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association. ASLEF refused to lift its threat of action or to refer the issues in dispute to the next stage of the industry's agreed procedure. On learning that this remained ASLEF'S position after their Executive meeting this morning, I thought it right to invite them to see me immediately. I have also discussed the situation with the Chairman of British Rail and have invited the other unions to see me.
"At our meeting I impressed upon the ASLEF Executive the extreme seriousness of the threatened action and its consequences for the community. The action proposed includes general non-co-operation, bans on overtime, rest day and Sunday working, and there seems little doubt that this could lead to a progressive and rapid breakdown of both passenger and freight services.
"The travelling public will be immediately affected and have to face

1057
considerable hardship. This is happening in the fortnight before Christmas and at a time when, because of the petrol shortage, many people are switching to rail in order to travel.
"The current shortage of energy supplies already poses a most serious threat to our prospects for economic growth, to our living standards and to employment. The ASLEF action will materially worsen the position.
"Against this background, I urged the Executive to reconsider their decision and to seek to resolve their remaining difference with British Rail and the other unions. I told them that I believed the proper course for them, in the national interest, was to refer any outstanding issues on restructuring to the Railway Staff National Tribunal, the industry's jointly established arbitration machinery, which is the next stage of their procedure, particularly since ASLEF had recently reached agreement with British Rail and the other unions on the appointment of a new independent chairman to their Tribunal, who must clearly be acceptable to them.
"The Executive undertook to reconsider their decision in the light of what I had to say and promised to let me know the outcome. I sincerely hope that they will call off their industrial act ion."
3.49 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the House will be indebted to the noble Earl for repeating this Statement which is undoubtedly very grave. We on this side of the House welcome the initiative of the Secretary of State in calling the Railway Board and the other unions to see him. Would the noble Earl confirm that the National Union of Railwaymen and the Transport Salaried Staffs Association are still negotiating with the Railways Board, and that it is ASLEF alone that is considering industrial action. As to the wisdom of referring this issue to the Railway Staff National Tribunal, I think we should await the decision of the ASLEF Executive before we make a comment.
My Lords, the last paragraph of the Statement says that the Secretary of State only hopes that the ASLEF Executive will accept this suggestion, but they have promised to let him know the outcome. Will the noble Earl say whether the Sec-
1058
retary of State expects an answer to-day? If he does, could he repeat another Statement to-morrow? If, unfortunately, ASLEF do pursue industrial action, will the Government be ready to institute petrol rationing immediately? Clearly, if there is to be a shortage of railway stock and trains, then a very serious position will arise, particularly in London and the main cities. If we do not get a settlement to-morrow, one would hope that the Government will be in a position to make a Statement on this matter. I think it would be best, at least from this side of the House, to leave the Statement as it is, to hope that ASLEF will accept the suggestion made by the Secretary of State, and that the Government will keep the House informed.
LORD WADE: My Lords, on behalf of my Liberal colleagues, I should like to join in thanking the noble Earl for repeating this Statement. I am not given to overstatement, but if this threatened action does take place at midnight, it will be a very great tragedy. Would the noble Earl agree that, taking the employees of British Rail as a whole, the majority are against this disruption? The great majority of the general public are certainly against it. It will be frustrating to the general public, damaging to the economy and to industry, and I fear it will indirectly damage the cause of the ASLEF train drivers. May I put one specific question? As we know, there have been complaints about delays in getting the claim of the ASLEF members settled. In the event of there being agreement to go to arbitration and to adopt the arbitration machinery, is it possible for the Government to say how speedy this process would be, and how quickly it would be brought into effect?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I am grateful for the way in which the noble Lords, Lord Shepherd and Lord Wade have taken the Statement. I agree with the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that we should wait and see what transpires. I understand that ASLEF are meeting this afternoon. I cannot say when their answer will reach the Secretary of State, but I can guarantee that your Lordships' House will be kept informed of this.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, mentioned the question of petrol rationing.

1059
Of course, the Statement made reference to the energy situation. I can say to him that the question of our supplies of petrol will be monitored most carefully in the light of the new situation. The noble Lords, Lord Shepherd and Lord Wade, asked me whether I agreed that the other principal unions which are involved were broadly in agreement with the offer made by British Rail. This is certainly the case.
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, does the noble Earl think that the fact that on Friday last the higher civil servants were given a rise of £20 a week contributes to the sort of social situation in which matters of pay differences can be discussed in logic?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, no; I do not agree with that.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, would not the noble Earl agree that the Industrial Relations Act, in the context of the present economic situation, is now null and void? Why do not the Government take powers under this Act now for a 60-days cooling-off period in which to hold a ballot? The Government are denying themselves the powers taken under the Industrial Relations Act, and blaming others for it.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, my right honourable friend is clear that there are direct matters of principle involved here between ASLEF and the British Railways Board, and he is convinced that arbitration should be used to resolve the differences between the two parties, as my Statement suggested. At present my right honourable friend does not feel that using the Act will more easily enable the parties to reach agreement.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, would the noble Earl say how an arbitrator can make an independent decision in the light of Phase 3 of Government policy?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I do not think that comes into it. Of course, all settlements—and this offer from British Rail is no exception—are made within the provisions of Stage 3.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, would the noble Earl convey to his right honourable friends the importance, when negotiating
1060
with trade unions, that they do not wait until the eleventh hour before getting into a tizzy? The restructuring of the pay conditions which has led to this conflict has been on the go for no less than two years—and the initial meeting did not take place until September. In those circumstances it is very difficult, at this late hour, to plead for patience. Would not the noble Earl agree that it is far better to try, as the Minister is in negotiation with the union, not to pass judgment on the actions of the unions, particularly as their feelings are exacerbated for the reasons I have mentioned? Would he also please not be jollied by pressure into taking decisions about petrol rationing? Would he bear in mind that petrol rationing in 1956 with 4 million cars was one thing, but that as a result of Government action transport facilities have been steadily run down and now there are 15 million cars, so an equitable system of petrol rationing is quite impossible to carry through.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I think the question of petrol rationing in detail is a little wide of the Statement. I have said we will monitor the situation. I think the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, agrees with me there. As to the advice he asked me to pass on to my right honourable friend, of course I shall do so.
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, can the noble Earl deal with the other question raised by my noble friend Lord Wade; that is to say, how long the Government think it would take, if the arbitration procedure was used, to submit recommendations?
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I am sure that if ASLEF would agree to use arbitration machinery that would be an encouraging sign to get this settlement quickly.
LORD AVEBURY: How long?
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, would the noble Earl agree that it is better for this House and for Parliament as a whole at this particular stage to express the hope that ASLEF will fall into line with the rest of their colleagues in the N.U.R. and T.S.S.A. on this matter? This is much more important and is something that can be settled by arbitration. Have there not been something like 45 to 50 meetings taking place in connection with this new package deal that offers

1061
a real advancement to railway men? It is on behalf of railway men, the railway industry and the nation as a whole that ASLEF should work in co-operation with their two big union colleagues in seeking a settlement at this stage.
THE EARL OF GOWRIE: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Popple-well, has absolutely judged the mood of the House on this matter. On the last point, I understand that the offer, which is well over £50 million, is the largest offer ever made in railway pay negotiations. I am most grateful to him for reminding the House of this fact.

PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT BILL
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (BARONESS YOUNG): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That is be an Instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Protection of the Environment Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order, viz.:

Clauses 1 to 55,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 56 to 88,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 89 to 96,

Schedules 3 and 4,

Clause 97.—(Baroness Young.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

SLAUGHTERHOUSES BILL [H.L.]
4.0 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on Recommitment on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee on Recommitment.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Knacker's yard licences and applications for such licences]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 4, line 24, after ("requirements") insert ("relating to knacker's yards").
The noble and learned Lord said: May I just say this in general, before coming down to the particular. All these Amendments are drafting and technical Amendments, and, so far as I know, raise no question of importance for the Committee at all. This Amendment is a drafting one to bring subsection (2) of the clause into line with subsection (3), and thereby improve the consistency of the Bill. I beg to move.
LORD STOW HILL: I do not know whether it would be of some slight assistance to the Committee if I rose on this Amendment to make the following observation. The noble and learned Lord has said that all the Amendments are drafting. I have had an opportunity of going through them and examining them. When I went through them I received exactly the same impression. I simply rise to make this comment to assist (a) the noble and learned Lord and (b) other Members of your Lordships' Committee who may have given consideration to this matter.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5 to 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Effect of court's decision]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 6, line 19, after ("licence") insert ("under section 3 above")
The noble and learned Lord said: May I thank the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, for what he has just said? This Amendment corrects a drafting slip. The words "any other decision of a local authority" do not at the moment include as clearly as they ought to a refusal of a slaughterhouse licence otherwise than under Clause 3. That is under Clause 2.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 9 to 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Power to provide public slaughterhouses]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 8, line 35, after ("in") insert ("this Part of")
The noble and learned Lord said: This is another Amendment to improve the consistency of the Bill, as Parts I and II are completely self-contained. All other references in Part I are to "this part of this Act".
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 [Management of public slaughterhouses]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 9, line 12, leave out ("of this Act") and insert ("below")
The noble and learned Lord said: With this Amendment goes the Amendment to Clause 33. This is simply a question of introducing consistency into the language of the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 17 to 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Application to Crown]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 16, line 6, leave out ("of this section") and insert ("above")
The noble and learned Lord said: I have already explained this point.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 33, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 34 and 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 [Methods of slaughter in slaughterhouses, and knackers' yards]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 18, line 13, leave out ("in the") in the second place where it occurs and insert ("to any")
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment and Amendment No. 7 are designed to correct accidental departures from the relevant section of the Slaughter of Animals Act 1958.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 18, line 18, after ("suffering") insert ("of an animal").
The noble and learned Lord said: I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 36, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 37 to 41 agreed to.
Clause 42 [Powers of entry]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 23, line 1, leave out ("(2)") and insert ("(3)").
The noble and learned Lord said: This puts right a reference to the wrong subsection.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 42, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 43 to 48 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [The Rabbinical Commission for the Licensing of Shochetim]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 25, line 9, leave out ("the British Empire") and insert ("Great Britain and the Commonwealth").
The noble and learned Lord said: This is slightly more fun! It was a point raised by Mr. William Wilson in the Joint Committee. He wanted to know whether the reference to the British Empire and the Chief Rabbi's name was still correct. It

1065
was then discovered, on looking into the matter, that he is now known as the Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregation of Great Britain and the Commonwealth.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported to the House, with Amendments.

RABIES BILL [H.L.]
4.10 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—[Earl Ferrers.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Infected areas—destruction of foxes and other wild mammals]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD FERRIER: I should like to say a word on Clause 1. I regret that I was unable to attend the Second Reading of this Bill. I should think that there are not many noble Lords who, like myself, have been bitten by a rabid dog and had to undergo treatment. My wife had the same trouble, due to our affection for animals, when a tree rat fell from a tree in Bombay; she picked it up and it bit her. Although she cared for it, it died. She had to be treated for rabies because there was at that time an epidemic in Bombay. Under this clause, subsection (1) refers to "such other wild mammals". An Indian tree rat can be a carrier, and I wonder whether a grey squirrel in this country could also be something of the sort.
LORD BALERNO: On this clause I should like to ask whether there is any proper definition of the word "captivity". It says, "being animals held in captivity". It is uncertain to my mind whether this captivity means behind bars, as it were, or whether it is behind wire fences, as in the case of a safari park, because wild animals, including foxes, do get into the safari parks.
1066
Indeed at the present moment they quite easily get into certain zoological gardens. I think the definition of "captivity" would be an important part of the Bill. Otherwise, there could be considerable litigation.
EARL FERRERS: With regard to my noble friend Lord Ferrier's question about grey squirrels, if any individual grey squirrel were infected or suspected of being infected with rabies, it could be destroyed under existing powers of Section 17 of the Diseases of Animals Act 1950. If evidence emerged that squirrels had a similar ability to spread disease as do foxes, they could be prescribed by Order under the powers to be taken under Clause 1 of the new Bill, and be subjected to a programme of destruction in the affected areas. Although I am bound to say that there is plenty of evidence that grey squirrels can be vicious animals in the many countries where rabies is established, we know of none where squirrels have shown a similar capacity to form a reservoir of rabies as, for example, foxes and bats. I can assure my noble friend that if there were such cases, the grey squirrel is in fact covered either under the new Bill or the existing Diseases of Animals Act.
My noble friend Lord Balerno referred on Second Reading to the problem of "captivity", and suggested that the only person in captivity in a safari park was the fellow in his motor car looking at the lions. I explained to him at the time that I did not think it was the purport of the Bill to cover the man in the motor car. I should like to explain, because I think it is important, why "captivity" is not defined in the Bill. It would be very difficult and almost certainly not helpful to provide for a definition of "captivity" in the Bill. Many animals are clearly in the wild and are not in captivity, and the great majority of animals, therefore, fall normally into one category or the other. But there is a grey area between the categories relating to such species as deer and wild ponies which in certain circumstances may be subject to a measure of control but which are very little more than wild animals.
It would be almost impossible to produce a workable definition which placed every type of animal in every type of circumstance clearly in either one or the

1067
other category, either in captivity or not in captivity. The approach under the Bill, therefore, has been to provide power to deal with animals not in captivity under Clause 1, and domestic animals and other animals in captivity in Clause 2, so that we can be certain that the grey areas are covered, even though we might not be able to say whether if need arose we would deal with it under Clause 1 or Clause 2. They are both covered.
Safari park animals are not in the grey area. They are clearly in captivity even though, as my noble friend has pointed out, they are free to roam within the boundary fences and those fences are not proof against small indigenous mammals with which they may come into contact. If safari park animals were threatened by rabies or actually infected we should have ample power to deal with the situation. Under Clause 2 we could require the animals to be confined and controlled and not allowed to roam, and if they were not so confined we could seize them and if necessary destroy them. If there were infected animals or animals directly exposed to infection in the park, we could destroy them under powers already available in Section 17 of the Diseases of Animals Act.
I can reassure my noble friend about the problem with which he was concerned, as to the gentleman in the motor car being in captivity, by saying that man is specifically excluded from the definition of animals under the Diseases of Animals Act 1950, as amended by Section 2 of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1972.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Powers as to quarantine and control of rabies virus]:
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD FERRIER: I do not know whether the point I wish to raise comes under Clause 3 or Clause 1. On one of my many voyages I travelled in a freighter on a regular line between Liverpool and the East. I was interested in the fact that the ship's master said that his cats were regular travellers with him, and they had a pool of them in the company's sheds at Birkenhead. They
1068
came on board and completed a voyage, then went ashore, and one might or might not get the same cat on the next voyage. Of course, the cat is a carrier. I was wondering whether there is a loophole here. I have given my noble friend notice of this point. Perhaps he will be able to reassure us. I am perfectly certain that on a voyage like the Calcutta to Liverpool run if a cat were infected with rabies it would have developed the disease on the voyage and there would be no problem. But if rabies is getting closer to this country and there are to be short runs, with freighters travelling between the Continent and this country carrying ships' cats, I should like some assurance that as potential carriers they are kept under control. One noble Lord has told me that Australia, for instance, makes a ship's captain declare the number of cats he has on board, and he has to have the same number on board when he sails. If he is short, he has to send someone ashore to top them up. Joking apart, I mention this in case it is of real importance to the protection we seek under the Bill.
EARL FERRERS: Ships cats are required by law to be closely confined at all times while on board vessels in ports in Great Britain. Article 8 of the Importation of Dogs and Cats Order 1928 refers to the detention of dogs and cats on vessels in port, and it says:
"Every dog or cat to which this Article applies shall at all times while on board a vessel in any port in Great Britain be—(a) confined in an enclosed part of the vessel from which it cannot escape; (b) or, alternatively in the case of a domestic dog, secured to some part of the vessel by a collar and chain and muzzled with a wire cage muzzle, so constructed as to render it impossible for such dog while wearing the same to bite any person or animal, but not so as to prevent such dog from breathing freely or lapping water."
When officers of Customs and Excise board vessels that are entering port, they hand to the master a notice describing the regulations concerning the Diseases of Animals Act Importation and Exportation Orders, including the requirements for cats and dogs. At the same time the Customs Officers complete a return of the animals found on board which have not been licensed to land and which should remain on board. A copy of this return is sent to the dock or other local police and to the Ministry or Department. We have occasionally received reports of

1069
difficulties encountered by port authorities with members of ships' crews attempting to take pets ashore, but the infrequency of these reports indicate that ships' pets are not a great problem. There is a responsibility on the master of the ship to ensure that any cats that he does keep on the ship should remain on the ship and not be allowed to land.
LORD FERRIER: I thank my noble friend. I think that that is an adequate assurance for the problem I have in mind.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Destruction of imported animals]:
4.22 p.m.
LORD AMULREE LORD AMULREE moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 18, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
The noble Lord said: In the unavoidable absence of the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, I am moving this Amendment on his behalf. Where Clause 5 states that an animal imported illegally "may" be destroyed, we want that changed into "shall" be destroyed. There are various reasons for this, one of which is that one would not quite know what to do with such animals if they were not destroyed; whether they would be repatriated to the country they came from, or what their fate would be. The second reason is that we thought it would be a further deterrent to people who tried to import animals improperly and illegally. The fine to which they are at present subjected is not a very substantial one, and if they thought that the animal would be destroyed that might be an additional deterrent to people trying to import their pets illegally.
At the same time, it will be necessary for extra care to be taken by the Customs now that we are a member of the European Economic Community. Many of the customs checks have been, quite properly, relaxed, and one does not want to see it made possible for pets to be brought in any more easily now than was the case in the past. As things become more difficult, when or if we get a Channel Tunnel, a check will have to be kept even more firmly on the illegal import of animals and pets.
I do not propose to press this Amendment, but if the Government are at all sympathetic to what the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and I have thought about this, we hope that it may be possible to redraft this clause in some way so as to give the Minister some kind of discretion not to have to kill an animal illegally imported, supposing that there was some good reason why it should not be killed. I beg to move.
EARL FERRERS: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, for putting my noble friend's Amendment, and I am sorry that he is not here to support it because I know that he feels very strongly about this matter. I think that I can allay the noble Lord's fears, although for the reasons that I propose to give I am not able to accept the Amendment. I am entirely in sympathy with the strong feelings which he and other noble Lords expressed at Second Reading on this question of importing animals.
May we first be quite clear on what the Amendment would do? It would remove discretion from Ministers by forcing them, as distinct from enabling them, when they make importation control measures which are expressed to be for the purpose of preventing the introduction of rabies, to provide for the destruction of animals which are landed in contravention of such an order or a licence made under it. I can say at the outset that it is the Government's intention, when new rabies importation control orders are made, to provide for the power of destruction in such circumstances. Lack of this power without question leaves a loophole in our import control arrangements which we intend to close at the earliest possible opportunity, and that is why we are seeking the powers under Clause 5. But if the Amendment were accepted, it would make no difference to the action which the Government intend to take.
I must resist this Amendment for two main reasons. The first is on the grounds of principle, because it is, I suggest, inappropriate to attempt to limit the discretion of Ministers in this way in what is essentially enabling legislation. The second reason is that it is superfluous in that, in practice, the Amendment would not restrict Ministers to any extent since it could be got round by making general orders which are not specifically stated

1071
to be for rabies prevention. The mere provision of destruction powers in orders in themselves would not prevent the exercise of discretion under them. I should perhaps make it clear on this point that although it is intended to take the powers in future orders, it is not intended to make mandatory the destruction of all imported animals in respect of which contravention occurs. These powers are required primarily to deal with illegal landing situations where no secure alternative course exists—for example, to reexport or to direct into quarantine at the owner's expense.
One has to accept that many contraventions occur unwittingly; some are purely technical, and others entirely accidental. There have also been occasions in the past where, through an oversight by the importers, quite rare exotic species have been landed illegally, without intent to smuggle. In many of these cases, it would be quite unacceptable, where there was an alternative course of action offering no animal health risk, for the authorities to be forced to exercise this sort of power. If one may think of a simple case, a child with a hamster, not knowing of the Acts, would automatically have its hamster beheaded. This would seem rather a harsh measure to take. There is a degree of severity between the one end of the scale and the other, and I would respectfully suggest to the noble Lord that, while we take his point about the importance of having measures to destroy animals, it would be wrong to make it mandatory that all animals that come into this country illegally should automatically be destroyed.
LORD AMULREE: I should like to thank the noble Earl for giving me that full explanation and reply. It goes a long way to satisfying me, and I am quite sure that the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, would feel the same way. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
4.30 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD LORD SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
(".In section 79 of the principal Act (which relates to punishment for offences
1072
against the Act), as it applies to orders made under section 24 of that Act, after the word "not" where it occurs—

(a) in subsection 1(a) and

(b) in subsection 1(b),

of the said section 79, there shall be inserted the words "less than two hundred pounds and not" and the words "less than twenty-five pounds and not" respectively.")
The noble Lord said: I apologise to the Committee for an Amendment that looks rather involved, but it has a simple application. It is to provide for a minimum penalty of £200. Under the principal Act provision is made for penalties to be imposed for the illegal importation of animals. During the Second Reading debate I think we were united in the understanding that rabies is one of the most evil of diseases. The noble Earl himself gave details of the way rabies is spreading in Europe; and I think there was a general understanding throughout your Lordships' House that the best protection, if not perhaps the only protection, is the effective control of the importation of those animals which are rabies-bearing. I cited my own experience in Singapore, and told your Lordships how rabies was brought in by a woman who smuggled a dog from Malaysia into the Island. Not only did it cause one person, I think, to receive rabies, but of course it involved the Colony in a very big expenditure of money on rabies control—and this again is a factor that we should not forget.
If control is the best and perhaps the only way, then clearly the penalties for illegal importation—and I stress the word "illegal", meaning an act done with full knowledge of what one is doing—have to be severe. In the Second Reading debate the noble Earl gave details of some recent penalties. He gave instances of fines of £25 and £30, although he did say that there were one or two cases where fines of £200 had been imposed. I am quite certain that those of your Lordships who have any knowledge of rabies and of the cost involved in rabies control would believe that magistrates were clearly failing in their duty to the State as a whole when they imposed such small penalties on people guilty of the smuggling of animals into this country.
The purpose of this Amendment is to put a minimum penalty on to the Statute Book so that there is a clear deterrent;

1073
and the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, was seeking to do this in the first Amendment. I must admit that I rather sympathised more with the noble Earl, speaking on behalf of the Government, but I think that at least we are all together, including the noble Earl, in thinking that we need an effective deterrent. I would suggest that a minimum fine of £200 would in itself be an effective deterrent, and I therefore beg to move the new clause.
EARL FERRERS: Perhaps I may say at the outset that I sympathise with the point of view of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. He is anxious to see that there is an adequate deterrent for what is a horrible disease, and in this I entirely agree with him. This Amendment is of course similar in nature to the last one; and while I am bound to say that I understand the objective behind it I must tell the noble Lord that, for the reasons which I will give, I should not be able to accept this easily.
The first is, I think, a compelling reason, and that is that there is no precedent for prescribing minimum penalties which the courts should impose. Serious though the consequences of animal smuggling might be, the Government do not see justification in this situation for a complete departure from our normal approach to the imposition of penalties, with all the wide-ranging implications which this would have. The provision of a mandatory minimum penalty for a particular type of offence implies of itself that any offence of that type which is committed is inevitably serious enough to warrant a punishment of at least a certain degree of severity. In fact, confining our attention to the field of offences against rabies importation orders, the nature of an illegal landing offence and the intentions of the offender can vary enormously.
At the worst extreme, we have the deliberate smuggler who may be fully aware of all the risks involved and who may be prepared to sedate his animal and hide it in order to avoid detection, and so put the country at risk of this appalling disease, mainly just to save the quarantine fee. At the other extreme, there are people who arrive in this country with unconcealed and unlicensed animals—including, as I suggested to the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, earlier, small animals like hamsters and gerbils—who have never heard of import controls or
1074
quarantine requirements. And there are people who may know of quarantine but not of the licensing arrangements, and who think that they simply have to hand over their animals on landing for them to go into quarantine. These people may certainly be at fault and they may be prosecuted, but I would suggest that their offence does not compare in any way with that of the deliberate smuggler; and it would take us from one extreme to the other if magistrates were forced to impose similar fines on these totally different categories of offence.
I believe that offences of this type clearly do call for the consideration of cases on their merits, and the settling of penalties accordingly. I suggest that it should be a matter for the courts to decide, which is a cardinal principle of our judicial system, within the confines of the maximum penalties involved, what should be the penalty for any particular offence. I understand the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, about this, and the emphasis that the Waterhouse Committee placed on this problem and the need which they saw for higher fines; but we shall be initiating more publicity about our regulations and the reasons for them. The power provided under Clause 5 of the Bill to slaughter illegally landed animals should make an impact on some of those who are potentially people, who will import animals and who would, I hope, find some deterrent in this. Although it is not our intention to require the slaughter of all animals illegally landed, there is a considerable shortage of quarantine accommodation, and anybody who brings in an animal without a licence will be putting its life severely at risk. That has been a rather general description of the reasons why I believe it would be undesirable to accept the noble Lord's Amendment, and I hope that he will feel that he can withdraw it.
4.39 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: I wonder whether the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, is aware of the quite elaborate and sophisticated arrangements that are apparently available to those people who want to bring animals into this country. I am not sure whether he is putting into this legislation the necessary fines. May I tell him, without I hope boring the Committee, of an experience which came within my knowledge? Someone whom

1075
I happen to know wished to bring into this country a Siamese cat from Switzerland. It was said that Siamese cats in Switzerland were quite free from rabies, and therefore she was quite justified, without contravening any ethical consideration, in going through certain procedures.
The procedures included going to the American Express Company in the Haymarket, looking at the man over the counter and indicating that she wanted to bring a cat into this country. She asked whether they could advise her as to the possibilities, putting a £5 note under the blotter on the counter and receiving a note with an address of a person who apparently kept an establishment where animals were quarantined. She was then enabled to deal with this individual and it was so arranged that when she brought her Siamese cat into Heathrow this person produced a substitute cat which the woman handed over and which went into quarantine, and she was enabled to bring out her drugged Siamese concealed in her fur coat. She thought that the animal was quite clean, as it came from Switzerland, and not therefore likely to be infected with rabies. I speak not at secondhand or third hand but at first hand. I was absolutely amazed when I was told about the procedures which apparently were available. I have wondered whether the anthorities for whom the noble Earl speaks are aware of these quite deliberate procedures, which must be widespread, and whether they have been taken into consideration when legislation is drafted.
EARL FERRERS: The noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has certainly given us a fascinating account of how to bring an animal into this country illegally. I suggest to him that that is precisely the type of case which needs to be very severely dealt with; where a person deliberately comes in with a sedated animal and goes through all the procedures which the noble Lord described to bypass the rules —even to the extent of bribery—and then gets away with bringing in the animal. I agree with the noble Lord that that is the type of person who should be dealt with very severely. On the other hand, what about a person returning from Germany, having been there on active service, and who brings his family back, and his child brings in a pet such
1076
as a hamster? I do not believe that crime is nearly as serious as the crime which the noble Lord describes, nor do t believe that it is one which should be subjected to the penalty which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, mentioned. Of course the child may be breaking the law, but he does it unwittingly and unknowingly, and I suggest that there is a great deal of difference between the two examples. That is the reason why the Government would like to see the provision for high penalties for transgressing the law kept, but not put in a minimum penalty.
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Earl said in reply to my noble friend Lord Beswick that courts ought to impose a heavy penalty. There is no indication that the courts will do anything other than what they have been doing over the range of years, imposing, in general, fines of £25 or £30.
EARL FERRERS: I think I should say, just for clarification, that I do not think I said that the courts "ought to."
LORD SHEPHERD: That was my understanding, but we will not quibble. The point is that we wish to see a real deterrent to those people who smuggle animals into this country illegally. We are not concerned with the person who brings in a hamster and declares it and admits that he was wrong. Such people may have committed an offence by bringing an animal into the country without a certificate, but they are not seeking to smuggle it in illegally. I am concerned about those people such as were referred to by my noble friend—and one hears about them on many occasions—who bring in animals under some form of cover. Their activities represent a severe threat to the country, with the increasing amount of rabies in Europe, and I do not believe the Committee can accept that the present scale of penalties is in any way sufficient or represents a deterrent.
We could have a discussion about whether the fine should be £100, £200 or £300, but the noble Earl said that it would be quite wrong to have a mandatory minimum penalty. It may be that there is no precedent for that in this field, but previous Governments have brought in mandatory penalties in respect of motoring offences. Only in this way could there be a real deterrent. There are mandatory sentences for driving under

1077
the influence of drink, so I should have thought that someone who threatened the public health by smuggling animals into the country illegally should be confronted with a very severe sentence We are at one in what we are seeking to do; it is a question of the means. I should be willing to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment if the noble Earl would give further consideration to the matter and discuss it, as I suggested on Second Reading, with his noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. I recognise that this is something to do with the law and the courts. Having said that, and if it is the wish of the Committee—
4.47 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should like to say a word about this matter. I have not done so hitherto, because I am not primarily concerned with the Bill, but before the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, seeks leave to withdraw the Amendment, if he intends to, there are two or three things I should like to say. This question of minimum penalties and mandatory penalties cannot be restricted to rabies or the Rabies Bill. It raises the general problem of our whole penal system. Although I would fully agree that in the case of murder there is a mandatory penalty, and that for treason there is a mandatory penalty, and that in drinking cases and other driving cases there is a mandatory disqualification, designed not so much only as a penalty but to put the driver off the road, in general, in England and also in Scotland, we have set our face against mandatory or minimum penalties. We cannot begin to introduce a totally new principle in the Rabies Bill because rabies is a danger to health. There are a great number of other things which are a danger to the public and a danger to health, and if one wants to start with a new principle I think one has to do it on a much more general scale.
On the other hand, I agree completely with the noble Lord that the penalties imposed by magistrates' courts, where they have an option to impose a monetary penalty, are in general too low. In my capacity as President of the Magistrates' Association I have said so to magistrates on more occasions than one, and I shall continue to press this upon them. Probably it is one of the prices we pay for a system of lay magistrates that we tend to err on the side of leniency.
1078
Personally—I am not now talking about rabies; I will come to that in a moment —I am prepared to pay that price, because on the whole (your Lordships may be very surprised to hear this, but none the less it is the case) by far the bitterest complaints I get about magistrates do not relate to the lay magistracy. It is a curious fact, but I think it is true, that this country has an extraordinary system which gives a great deal of satisfaction; but there is no doubt that in the matter of monetary penalties magistrates as a whole tend to be too lenient.
Last year when I was addressing them I drew attention to the overloading of vehicles, which also is a source of great danger and where the penalties actually inflicted were at that time quite derisory. I pointed out what were the economics of loading, and this is another instance which is still, up to a point, going on. The Diseases of Animals Act, which is the vehicle for these penalties, provides for fines of up to £400; and as my noble friend reminded the Committee, some years ago the Waterhouse Committee drew attention to the fact that the average fine imposed at the time that they reported had been about £30, which I think is much too low as an average as compared, for instance, with the cost of quarantining a dog, which is £75. There again you have the economics of smuggling as against the economics of obeying the law. Therefore it is quite unreasonable to impose so low a fine as that.
The Waterhouse Committee said that substantially increased fines would be necessary in future if prosecution was to be an effective deterrent. Since then the average cost of quarantining a dog has risen to £150, but the average fine has risen to no more than £50. There has been, I think quite rightly, a good deal of public criticism, and particularly by the British Veterinary Association, as to the level of fines. I am glad to say that magistrates are beginning to take a more serious view and I hope that they will continue to do so. At Folkestone earlier this year two people were fined £200, and that is much more like the level. But the general level is still disappointingly low. Only the other day a particularly blatant piece of dog smuggling in Scotland (I am glad to say that Scotland does not come "within my manor", as the police say; although I

1079
am called rather pompously "the Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain", they do not recognise my Writ in Scotland) which incurred a fine of only £20. Perhaps it would have been better if they did recognise my Writ. But that is the sort of thing that the noble Lords, Lord Shepherd and Lord Beswick, are quite right to complain about.
I was asked by the Minister to draw the attention of magistrates to this problem. I pointed out that I cannot direct courts under the Constitution, but I suggested that a rather good way of doing it in this case would be by an article in their trade magazine, the Magistrate. That duly appeared, and I think that in England it has been producing results. I feel that noble Lords are quite right in protesting against the level of fines imposed for this particular offence. I spoke again to the Magistrates' Association last October, and I pointed out that in these cases where people incur monetary penalties you have to take into account what the economics of the thing are, and make it thoroughly worth while for the prosecution to be brought and un-worth while for the offence to be committed.
Although I cannot promise, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asked, that we will reconsider the question of a minimum penalty solely in relation to rabies, I hope that this debate will get across to somebody, including magistrates, in the country. If you want to impose higher penalties—and perhaps the noble Lord might consider talking to my noble friend about this at a suitable stage in this Bill—the only way of doing it compatibly with our general policy is to make it optionally an indictable offence. Then you can put the penalties fairly high. The prosecuting authorities ought to proceed by indictment if they want to penalise this kind of thing severely.
I think I should say to the noble Lord that, according to my information, only a small proportion of illegal landings represent deliberate cases of smuggling.
1080
A considerable number of people, surprising as it may seem, do not appear to realise that they cannot bring an animal to this country without quarantining it. Clearly, they ought not to incur serious penalties if they make their mistake in good faith. As one knows, if one does bring an animal into this country one ought to make prior arrangements—that is to say, prior arrangements of a legitimate kind, and not of the kind described by the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, because those actions are much to be deprecated. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will feel that neither my noble friend nor myself are unsympathetic in this matter. If he feels that there ought to be an indictable offence as well, perhaps he will let my noble friend know. I hope that he will not press this particular Amendment.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for what he has said. We are in a difficulty. I fully appreciate—and I endorse what the noble and learned Lord has said—that there is a price to be paid for having lay magistrates and giving them a degree of freedom. On the other hand, one is confronted with this evil disease and its growth in Europe, and the deterrent is clearly a major factor in our one line of defence in preventing it from coming into this country. As I say, it is a difficult matter, and I should like to give careful thought to what the noble and learned Lord has said. I think at this moment I should accept his suggestion and consider whether we should make it an indictable offence, which clearly would be an indication to the courts that it is a serious offence and is to be regarded as such. However, this is a matter that I should be happy to discuss with the noble Earl between now and the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without Amendment; Report received.

DUMPING AT SEA BILL [H.L.]
4.58 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD JESSEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Restrictions on dumping in the sea]:
VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 1, leave out ("A discharge") and insert—
("A deposit which is

(a) of materials dredged by a harbour authority in the exercise of its statutory powers; or

(b) made as part of the normal execution of a work of construction, maintenance or repair; or

(c) made by the discharge of a substance in order to emulsify oil spilled on the sea; or

(d)")

The noble Viscount said: I should like, first of ail, to apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and to your Lordships, for the fact that I was unable to be in the House when your Lordships debated the Second Reading of this Bill, Had. I been here. I should have wished to extend from these Benches a warm welcome to the Bill. I might also have outlined some of the difficulties that I personally see in some of its provisions and perhaps have given both the Government and your Lordships a little more time to consider the matters I am now raising in these Amendments. This Amendment arises from a discussion that I had with the British Ports Association—that is, the body which represents the port authorities of the United Kingdom. I no longer have any formal interest to declare, but I have remained interested in ports, and we are all interested in ensuring that the ports of this country are not burdened with unnecessary expenditure which can only add to the charges that they have to levy on our exports and imports that pass through them.
In this Amendment I have suggested three categories of material which might be exempted from the licensing provisions of the Bill. The three categories, as your Lordships will see, are entirely different, each from the other, and it may be that the Government might and the Committee will think that all three categories should be dealt with in different ways, but I thought it convenient to put them together in a single Amendment. May I take first what is clearly the most difficult one, which concerns
"… materials dredged by a harbour authority in the exercise of its statutory powers".
I said that this category is the most difficult because the noble Earl reminded us on Second Reading that dredgings are specifically included in the Convention and therefore, if we are to carry out our obligations, dredgings must be controlled. The point here is that dredgings by harbour authorities are already controlled as to where they may be dumped in the sea. This control is exercised by the Department of Trade and Industry, and every harbour authority wishing to dump dredgings in the sea has to obtain the approval of the Department as to the place where the dredgings are to be deposited. It is no doubt true that hitherto the Department of Trade and Industry have not taken account of environmental factors, but I do not see any reason why they should not undertake that task in consultation with the other Departments concerned—with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in England, with the Secretary of State in Scotland and, of course, with the Department of the Environment. Provided that can be done, we can fulfil our obligations under the Convention and, at the same time, continue an existing procedure which is well understood by the people concerned.
I have seen some correspondence between the British Ports Association and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, which suggests that the harbour authorities should not only obtain a licence under this Bill when it becomes an Act, but also that they should continue to obtain approval from the Department of Trade and Industry. Frankly, that seems to be a very wasteful procedure from everybody's point of view. Surely it is much better for one Department to undertake the task of approving the depositing of dredgings and for any

1083
necessary consultations to take place between Departments in order to cover all the various factors involved. Imagine the situation that could arise if the licensing authority were to say to a harbour authority: "You must not deposit your dredgings at point A, but at point B", and the Department of Trade and Industry, which is largely concerned with safety of navigation and so on, were to say: "You must not deposit these dredgings at point B but at point A". The authority would then be in a position of complete impasse; whereas it would seem to be right that if there are differences of this kind, they should be resolved between the Departments concerned. For those reasons, it seemed to me better if the existing procedure were to be continued and if the Department of Trade and Industry became, for the purposes of this particular type of deposit, the licensing authority, obtaining whatever information it required from the other Departments in order to ensure that the best possible arrangements were made. So much for dredgings.
The second category which is referred to in this Amendment refers to a deposit which is
"…made as part of the normal execution of a work of construction, maintenance or repair".
I must say I feel very doubtful whether this sort of deposit, if we may call it that, was ever intended to be included in the Convention at all. It varies from the depositing of stone for the purpose of making a breakwater to the repairing of piles of a wharf—anything of that kind. Is it really going to be necessary to obtain a licence when somebody wants to repair or substitute one of the piles supporting a wharf? What about groins on the seashore which control movements of sand: is it intended that these should be subject to licensing under the Bill? It would certainly impose a considerable extra burden on the licensing authority. I suspect that a very large number of people would not understand that this deposit required a licence and might find themselves unwittingly committing an offence. So I hope that the noble Earl may be able to tell us that these situations do not come into the scheme of things at all.
Finally, there is category (c), which concerns a deposit
"…made by the discharge of a substance in order to emulsify oil spilled on the sea."
This is something which has to be done at very short notice, and I myself query whether it even comes into the definition of "dumping" in the Bill, because it might be said the deposit is not intended to remain permanently there. However, there seems to be some doubt as to whether or not it is included. Here again, if the noble Earl can tell me that it is not included, that disposes of the particular part of the Amendment. I think I have covered this matter as thoroughly as your Lordships would wish me to do at this stage, and I beg to move.
5.7 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: I think that probably Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 also go with Amendment No. 1. I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, for having brought this forward, because it is perhaps one of the more important of the Amendments which he has put down. On the face of it, the noble Viscount's argument has been extremely reasonable. I should like to go into it with him, if I may, because up to now harbour and other authorities have not been subject to dumping controls under the voluntary system which we have had hitherto; but the Government consider that they would be failing to carry out their duty if provision were not now made in this legislation to deal with the possibilities of such operations adversely affecting the marine environment. And of course, the whole purpose of the Bill is to control dumping which would affect the marine environment. I should explain that the disturbance of the seabed can lead to the release of substances which are hazardous to the marine environment. These can include heavy metals which have hitherto been dormant in sediment. It was precisely for this reason that the London Convention, setting out internationally agreed criteria to prevent harm to the sea and to the creatures who live in it, embraces the dumping of dredged soil. That was the reason for it.
Under the arrangements in that Convention it has been agreed that the placement of materials in the sea which would contravene the aims of the Convention

1085
should be governed by dumping controls. If we did not subscribe to this arrangement in the Bill, the Government would be unable to subscribe to the London Convention. The question of dumping of dredged material has also been discussed in the context of the Oslo Convention which unanimously agreed that control should be exercised over dredged soil.
Paragraph (b) of the proposed Amendment seeks to exempt the building of harbour works and other constructions from dumping controls. Again, I can see that this is an inherently reasonable suggestion but, for precisely the same reasons as I have given in relation to the dredgings, it is important for those charged with the responsibility of safeguarding the marine environment to be in a position to maintain an effective oversight of operations which could conceivably introduce or release heavy metals or other persistent substances into the food chain via marine life.
Paragraph (c) of the Amendment deals with such operations as the use of detergents to limit the effects of oil pollution. It is well known that in certain circumstances the use of detergents may be more toxic to marine life than oil itself. Once again we think it reasonable in the context of the Bill for a general oversight to be maintained through a licensing system of the use of materials in the sea. Having said all this, the Government do not envisage that controls through the licensing system over harbour operations, dredging or disposal of oil will be exercised in such a manner that they will put the authorities who are responsible for such matters to any significant expense or administrative difficulty. I can assure the noble Viscount that administrative arrangements will be made to co-ordinate the oversight which has to be exercised by different departments for different purposes in relation to these works so that the operational authorities will be put to a minimum of inconvenience. For the reasons I have given, I would find it difficult to assent to any arrangement which would weaken the obligations which the United Kingdom have accepted in exercising control over the dumping of materials into the sea.
I hope that will satisfy the noble Viscount. We take his point seriously, but under the existing Conventions we feel
1086
that it is right to keep a control over what may adversely affect the marine life and we believe that his Amendments would in some way minimise our support of the Conventions.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am very grateful to the noble Earl for explaining the position so fully to the Committee. I only have one or two small points that I should like to make in following up this Amendment. So far as paragraph (a) is concerned, I think I understood him to say that there would be arrangements for mutual consultation between the Departments concerned so that a single application for a licence would cover the whole operation and it would not be necessary to apply for separate permission from the Department of Trade and Industry.
EARL FERRERS: The noble Viscount is not quite right: two separate licences will be required. In the case of dredgings, a licence will be required from the Department of Trade and Industry in order to ensure that where the material is deposited will not interfere with navigation. A separate licence will be required from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to ensure that what they put into the sea does not contain any deleterious substances.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am obliged to the noble Earl. I was hoping one might get away with only a single application. I was then going on to suggest—I am afraid it is no use now—that the Department of Trade and Industry, which is used to dealing with these matters, could just as well co-ordinate from their side and, for this purpose, be the licensing authority. I take it that Governments can subscribe to the Convention provided that their deposits are licensed they do not have to be licensed by any particular Department so far as the Convention is concerned. But I take the noble Earl's point.
Regarding paragraph (b) one issue occurred to me: this Bill deals with everything from the point of view of conservation and I do not want any noble Lords to think that I am not a keen conservationist. But we have to get a balance somewhere. If there is an old wharf with timber piles, it is usual for the timber to be coated with something which has the effect and, indeed, is intended to

1087
have the effect, of inhibiting the breeding of certain small animals living in the sea. I suppose that is interfering with the ecology, and the ecologists might say: "You must not coat these timber piles with preservative because you are interfering with the breeding of particular marine life." I do not suggest that people would be as unreasonable as that; but there are circumstances in which the preservation of marine life of that kind must give way a little to other considerations which are so important to a country like ours which has to live by its trade.
So far as paragraph (c) is concerned, the occasion for spraying detergent in order to control an oil spill arises very suddenly and has to be exercised very quickly if it is to be effective. I am wondering how the timetable will work if somebody then has to apply for a licence. He cannot get a general licence because he does not know in advance the particular place where this material is to be deposited. Presumably the place where it is to be deposited is an important aspect of the conservational position. It might be suitable to deposit it in one place but not in another. I do not see how the authorities who are trying to cope with an oil spill will have time to get the necessary licence. I do not know whether the noble Earl would like to comment on those points before I withdraw the Amendment.
EARL FERRERS: Regarding the first point the noble Viscount made, he said that if timbers coated with a certain material are used this would affect the marine life. That may be so if those timbers were put in as part of construction; that would not be dumping. Dumping is the vital part. If I may take that one step further: if you had a lot of timbers which were coated with a certain product and you wanted to dispose of them in the sea you would have to get a licence. It may well be that you would be granted a licence, but it would be necessary for the authorities to determine precisely with what the timbers were coated. They might be coated with a noxious substance which it would be wrong to dump in the sea. In the particular case which the noble Viscount used, where it would not be dumping, a licence would not be required.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Viscount, but dumping is defined as anything which is permanently deposited in the sea. It does not carry the connotation we think of in dumping, dropping things in the sea.
EARL FERRERS: That would apply if you were excavating and digging out material from the sea in order to place something in the sea. You would then be dumping the sediment on the sea and that sediment may contain those things to which I have referred, such as heavy metals. It is right that there should be some control. But when I say "control" that does not necessarily mean restriction; it is not envisaged that the Government will make it difficult for the authorities to do this. They want to know what is going into the sea, and if it is harmless a licence will be issued straight away.
Regarding the spraying of detergents, it is our intention to grant a standing licence for the use of less toxic detergents. In other words, there will be certain products which it will be known in advance can be used in the event of the dispersing of oil. This will be under a general licence, so it will not be necessary to apply for a specific licence if a second "Torrey Canyon" founders.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am much obliged to the noble Earl. Having heard that, I should like to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.21 p.m.
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 40, leave out ("in relation to substances or articles dumped from a") and insert ("under section 1(1)(b) above in relation to substances or articles dumped from a British")
The noble Earl said: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name. A Convention State undertakes to license dumping, in accordance with the Convention, in respect of all vessels or aircraft loading in its territory. The purpose of this subsection is to enable the Ministry of Agriculture to accept the licences which will be issued by other Convention States as discharging his responsibility for ensuring compliance with the Convention by vessels and aircraft registered in the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, it is considered that licences

1089
issued by Convention States should not permit dumping in United Kingdom waters. The purpose of this Amendment, therefore, is to restrict recognition of licences issued by Convention States for dumping by British vessels and aircraft outside United Kingdom waters. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 1, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HAWKE: I quite understand the purpose of the Bill, but one has to be careful that it does not strike in unexpected directions. I well remember rescuing the taxidermists from the exigencies of the Rag, Flock and Other Filling Materials Bill, which was not intended to apply to them at all but, as it was drafted, in fact did. In this particular clause it seems to me that there are two possible sources of error. First of all, in subsection (2) we have the words, "permanently deposited in the sea". At the moment, we in this country are greatly troubled by the disposal of empty plastic bottles and similar objects. So far as I can see, it could well be maintained that if somebody hired a ship and dumped these plastic bottles in the sea, they would not be permanently dumped in the sea because they float; and they always float to land again. There is one possibility of error.
The other point concerns waste dumping. I know places in Cornwall where, I think still to-day, but certainly in the past, waste has been dumped down narrow cracks or gulleys leading down to coves. Such waste does not necessarily reach the sea in one move, but it gradually falls down the cliff and eventually reaches the sea and hence, by the definition of this Bill, I suppose, becomes a dumping in the sea. Whether this Bill is intended to cover that or not, I do not know, but I think the Ministry should make up their mind, if they have not done so already.
EARL FERRERS: My noble friend Lord Hawke has mentioned the dumping of plastic bottles and plastic containers. This is precisely the type of dumping that is covered by the Bill. It may be that, having been dumped, a thousand tons of plastic rubbish does not float to the bottom of the sea. However, the criterion of whether an act is dumping is not
1090
whether the object in the sea sits on the sea-bed after being deposited, but whether, in fact, it has been dumped as such. Therefore in the sort of case to which he referred, if anyone wished to dump any substance, even though it did not sink to the bottom of the sea, such action would require to be covered by licence.
LORD HAWKE: May I interrupt? I am a little doubtful whether the use of the word "permanently" has possibly destroyed the case my noble friend is making.
EARL FERRERS: I shall be happy to have a look to see whether that is the case. My understanding at the moment is that it does not affect it, but I will certainly have a look at it.
The second point to which my noble friend referred was dumping in coves. This Bill, in fact, refers to the dumping of any objects in the sea below the high-water mark. If the cove is below the high-water mark, it is covered: if it is not below the high-water mark, it would not be.
LORD HAWKE: This is rather important, then, if I may come back to the point. The stuff is dumped down a cliff and, by the force of gravity, eventually gets into the sea, though in the first instance it is not dumped into the sea. I do not want an answer from the noble Earl now, but the Ministry should look at that.
EARL FERRERS: Yes, we will certainly look at that. But I think I can give the noble Lord the answer. There is a Bill going through Parliament which refers to the whole of waste disposal. Waste disposal which is going to be done by local authorities will, of course, be considered very carefully. If such disposal is going to be permitted over the face of a cliff, then it will depend whether the waste is to be deposited above the high-water mark. If, in fact—and I would say this to my noble friend, as it were, off the cuff—the material is to be deposited above the high-water mark, then it will require the licensing under the system which is to be set up by this new Bill. It is only when it is specifically and purposely put into the sea that it will require a licence under the Bill we are now discussing.
BARONESS WHITE: I thought I might invite the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, to join us on Thursday afternoon when we go into Committee on the particulars of the Environment Bill dealing with the disposal of wastes on land. I think his point would be covered by that. The wastes would at least start off by being deposited on land, even if they ultimately end up in the sea.
LORD HAWKE: I shall be delighted, if the engine drivers permit me.
BARONESS WHITE: I would suppose that in any case the circumstances envisaged by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, would be outwith the provisions of Clause 1(2) of this Bill, because the waste would have to be
"deposited …from a structure on land constructed or adapted wholly or mainly for the purpose of depositing solids in the sea."
This I do not think would arise in the situation which he envisaged.
5.29 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: Before the voices are collected on the Question at present before the Committee, I should like, if I may, to raise one short question with the noble Earl on the form of Clause 1. The object of the Bill is to implement, in legislative terms, the obligations undertaken by this country as signatories to the Oslo Convention and the London Convention. The Bill, however, if I understand the provision correctly, departs in one respect, which I think is not unimportant, from the terms of both those Conventions. The respect is that both Conventions, the Oslo Convention and the London Convention, divide the materials to which they relate, and which must not be dumped, into two separate categories. In each Convention there is an Annex I which sets out certain materials and the materials in both the Annexes, broadly speaking, correspond with one another.
With regard to those materials specified in those two Annexes No. I, the two Conventions provide that they are not to be dumped; that is to say, there is a total and complete forbidding of dumping of any of those materials. If I understand the terms of the Conventions correctly, there is no provision at all in relation to those materials for a permit or licence to be issued for them to be dumped. Then both the Conventions set out, in Annex II to each of the Con-
1092
ventions, materials which may be dumped provided that a permit is obtained in the case of each of the materials set out in those two Annexes authorising the dumping of those materials, subject to conditions.
The Bill your Lordships have before you provides a licensing machinery, and the licensing machinery applies, if I understand the Bill correctly, to any material whatsoever. There is therefore a distinction which I submit is not unimportant between the provisions of the Conventions and the provisions of the Bill. The Conventions specify certain materials which must never in any circumstances be dumped; the Bill provides that any material can be dumped provided that one obtains a licence permitting one to dump it. I suppose the thinking which lies behind the form of the two Conventions in the particular respect to which I have referred relates to the fact that the materials specified in each Annexe I are of a particularly dangerous character and so deleterious that it is in the general interest that they should not be dumped at all.
It may well be that the Government's thinking on that matter is that if the licensing authority referred to in the Bill were asked to issue a licence permitting the dumping of any of those dangerous materials, they would refuse to do so. Maybe that is the Government's thinking. I do not raise this question in any spirit of criticism but merely to ascertain from the noble Earl what the Government's view is with regard to this particular aspect. If that is their thinking, would that thinking not be open to the criticism that, whereas normally a licence would be refused in the case of that dangerous type of material, there are bound in the course of time to arise some cases in which it is granted that the applicant is able to show that he proposes to dump only very limited quantities, or that there are other reasons which distinguish his particular case from the general case? If it transpires that over the years in this country licences are granted to dump material which other countries forbid their citizens to dump in any circumstances, is not that likely to give rise to ill-feeling and misunderstanding? That is the question I should like to put.

1093
I should have thought it preferable—but again I wait to hear the Minister's reasons—if the Bill had followed the general design of the two Conventions and in the case of these particularly deleterious types of substance had prohibited their dumping in any circumstances, as, if I understand the Conventions correctly, the Conventions prohibit it. That is the question I should like to put to the noble Earl and should be grateful if he would let me know the Government's thinking on that matter.
5.34 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lard Stow Hill, for putting his point so clearly, because it is an important point. What he is in effect saying is that here we are subscribing to these Conventions which have certain Annexes; why cannot we spell out in the Bill either the Annexes or the substances named within the Annexes? Before the Bill was drafted in its present terms, the Government carefully considered what would be the best method of securing the aims in the Conventions which we all accepted in principle and to which the United Kingdom has put its signature. The Government took the view that it was by far the best course for the legislation to spell out the general considerations which should be applied. These would of course be based on the various requirements of the two Conventions, and indeed any others which might be formulated in the future to which the United Kingdom became a party. By these means we should achieve the objective of securing safety for the marine environment in relation to dumping in accordance with the Conventions as they now are and as they could be altered by the unanimous agreement of the consenting States. At the same time, we should have the flexibility to take account of changes which might come in the future.
I should explain that when the Oslo and the London Conventions come into force. Commissions to administer them will be established. The United Kingdom will have its place on these Commissions. The Commissions will have at their disposal the best possible scientific advice. If a change in the Annexes is recommended in the light of such advice, it
1094
would have to be unanimously agreed by all contracting parties. Under this procedure the United Kingdom would then be able to modify its licensing arrangements to take account of the objective scientific advice which had been given. I would emphasise in this respect that it is only after such unanimous agreement that changes would be made in what substances may or may not be approved for dumping from this country. This arrangement would not of course prevent our applying more stringent conditions than our international obligations require, if our scientific advice showed this to be necessary.
The Government feel that it would be a mistake to attempt to deal with all the complications arising under the Annexes in the Bill itself. As a comparison of the Annexes Nos. I appearing in the Oslo and the London Conventions shows, they are not identical. It is therefore necessary to cover their dissimilarity by administrative means within the broad terms of the Bill. It would not be very easy to define in the Bill such terms as "trace elements", "rapidly converted" and "non-toxic", which are employed in these Annexes, and exclude from the prohibition on dumping substances which fall into those categories. I should like to emphasise that the Government have signed both these Conventions and would not be a party to their breach. The procedures for administration of the Oslo Convention provide for member countries to report in detail at regular intervals on the materials licensed for disposal. In this way the licensing authorities would confirm to other members that they are abiding by the terms of the Convention and no doubt similar arrangements will apply under the London Convention. But as the Bill makes it clear, it is proposed that there will be licensing authorities to authorise disposal of substances in the sea. This will be done by a central Government agreement. While inspection procedures under the Bill will rely upon local officers' work, the actual licensing arrangements themselves will be covered from London, Edinburgh and Belfast, and it is important that the overall view of disposal by dumping in the sea is maintained in this way because of the constantly changing position scientifically, and because of the need for a coordinated policy.

1095
If I may put the matter in a nutshell, what we are anxious to do is to conform and to play our part in conforming to the two Conventions which we as a country have signed. We believe that the right way to do it is to have a general power in the Bill which will enable us to conform to the complexities of the two Conventions, rather than actually to spell it out in the Bill in the way which the noble and learned Lord understandably suggested.
LORD STOW HILL: I am extremely indebted to the noble Earl for that explanation. I perfectly understand the difficulties and his reasons seem to me to be quite compelling. I am most grateful to him.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Licences]:
5.40 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 2, after ("regard") insert ("inter aiia").
The noble Viscount said: This is a quite simple Amendment. Clause 2(1) quite rightly says:
"In determining whether to grant a licence a licensing authority shall have regard to the need to protect the marine environment and the living resources which it supports from any adverse consequences …"
That, of course, is the main object of the Bill, but I suggest to your Lordships that while that must be the main concern of the licensing authorities they should take into account other factors in so far as they can ascertain what those other factors are. It seemed to me when I was first considering this that the case is rather strengthened by an answer which the noble Earl gave to the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, during the Second Reading debate. The noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, asked whether any third parties had any standing if the terms and conditions of the licence were being considered by the Review Committees—which we come to later—and he was told that they had no standing. It seems to me that if third parties have no possible way of making their needs felt it is really important that the licensing authority, in exercising its discretion in granting a licence, should consider what possible effect the granting of a licence may have in other directions
1096
than protecting the marine environment, even though that is, of course, the main object of the exercise.
So I suggest inserting the words "inter alia". I do not like them very much; I would much rather have English words, but it occurred to me that "among other things" was perhaps a little colloquial for an Act of Parliament, and if the noble Earl feels that he can accept the spirit of this Amendment no doubt the Parliamentary draftsman will think of the right way to express it. I beg to move.
EARL FERRERS: I should love to accept the spirit of the noble Viscount's argument but I am afraid I cannot because it is a rather cardinal point. What the noble Viscount has asked us to do is to ensure that a licensing authority, for the purposes of this Bill, does not restrict its considerations only to the matters of the protection of the marine environment. In other words, it should take into account considerations other than the protection of the marine environment.
Incidentally, one of the effects that the Amendment could have would be to enable a licensing authority to reject an application to dump on grounds other than the effect on the marine environment. But the point that I wish to make in regard to this Amendment is that the Bill is solely designed to take care of the effect on the marine environment of something that is dumped into the sea. That is what one has to have a licence for. If in fact they are to take into account other considerations, then the licensing system will be broadened considerably and would go outside the effectiveness of this Bill. If, for instance, account were to be taken of the effect on sea highways of the dumping of a certain substance that should not be cell-trolled under this Bill, it would need a separate licence. All that we want to do in this Bill is to ensure, not that this licence supersedes any other licence which it is necessary to have in order to dump, but that it concerns itself solely with the marine environment and nothing else. Therefore the words "inter alia", which really mean "among other things" widen considerably the scope of this Bill, and widen it in a way that I would suggest to the noble Viscount is really undesirable.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am again obliged to the noble Earl for his explanation. I had thought it might be a good idea that the licensing authority should at least have the power to take into account other considerations besides their main purpose. But in view of what the noble Earl has said, I see that I am not going to make any progress in that direction so I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.48 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 3, line 36, leave out from ("contain") to end of line 39.
The noble Viscount said: I regard this as the most important of the Amendments I have tabled, and I am afraid that I shall have to tax your Lordships' patience a little because it is a rather difficult one to explain. I often wish, and never more so than on this occasion, that there was a practice by which, in tabling an Amendment, one could also table a short explanatory memorandum, because it would he helpful to the Committee to have some advance notice of what the proposer of an Amendment is getting at instead of having to wait for his perhaps not very successful explanation.
Clause 2(6) provides that the licensing authority may, in addition to the fee which is charged for an applicant, recover such amount
"as the licencing authority may, with the consent of the Treasury, determine, towards the expense of any tests which in the opinion of the authority are necessary to enable the auhority to decide whether a licence should be granted …and in particular expense incurred in connection with any monitoring to determine the effect that dumping may have…"
I take this to mean, from the wording, that in different cases the licensing authority will charge, perhaps the whole of the cost described here, perhaps 50 per cent. of the cost, perhaps in some cases nothing at all. This certainly seems to be borne out by Clause 3(1)(c) which refers to where a licensing authority proposes "to require a payment under Section 2(6)", which obviously suggests that in some cases they are not going to require a payment. So, as I understand it the licensing authority decide, among all the applications they have,
1098
that on this application they will collect 50 per cent. of the cost, on another application they will collect 75 per cent. of the cost, and on yet another application they will collect 100 per cent. But there is nowhere in the clause any indication of the considerations which the licensing authority will take into account in deciding how they exercise this discretion.
All sorts of possibilities may occur to your Lordships. It might be the intention to charge the maximum amount to rich commercial corporations which it is thought can afford to pay, and to let off very lightly a local authority which was discharging sewage from a treatment works into the sea. It might be thought that the higher charges would be on the person who has been particularly troublesome in the way he has presented his case, as a sort of penalty for the amount of work that he has caused. It might be thought, although it does not seem to be very plausible, that it should be related to the potential danger of any particular discharge, although this does not seem to me to make sense because he gets a licence only if the project is considered to be safe.
Unless the conditions are somehow explained in the clause, how is the unfortunate applicant going to make an appeal against the amount he has been charged? He cannot make any "reasoned representation"—I think that is the term used later on in the Bill—because he does not know on what basis he has been charged 50 per cent. while his friend has only been charged 25 per cent. If it is difficult for the applicant to make representations it must be quite impossible for the Review Committee which is set up in Clause 3. If the Review Committee does not know the basis upon which these charges are levied, how can they possibly determine whether the licensing authority's decision is right? What I have been saying so far clearly applies to the whole of this clause, both to what I may call the initial expenses and also to the subsequent expenses incurred in connection with monitoring. I have put down an Amendment confined to the last part of the clause because, so far as the expenses in connection with monitoring are concerned, I cannot see on what basis this discretion could reasonably be applied.
May I make two points to your Lordships? If there is somebody who has material to dump, I think it stands to reason that the further he takes it out to sea and the deeper the water in which he dumps it, the less likelihood there is of any damage. Of course, it will be more expensive for him to do so, but so will the monitoring be much more expensive. Not only will it take very much longer—and I would remind your Lordships that monitoring is not likely to be a matter of months, it is likely to be a matter of years before any conclusions can be drawn from monitoring—but each exercise will be more expensive and there will be more of them. It seems difficult to see how, with any kind of fairness, you determine how much to charge somebody for monitoring when the safer (to put it in its simplest form) the deposit, the more expensive it will be to monitor.
There is a further point. I think we all agree that in the past there have been changes in the marine environment which we probably do not understand. There are periods when fish are quite numerous in some particular parts of the sea, and then some years later they all disappear from that area and appear numerous in other parts of the sea. All sorts of changes are going on. Who is going to say that the result of monitoring over a long period will really identify what changes are caused by the deposits that are being made—of which there may be several in the same area of the sea—and what are due to natural causes. These are the reasons that made me think it would be quite impossible to think of any sensible arrangement by which the licensing authority could exercise its discretion to charge to the particular dumper whatever percentage it might be of the total cost of monitoring. What I rather hope the noble Earl may do is to take the whole clause back to his right honourable friends and see whether they agree that there must be written into the clause some indication of the basis upon which this discretion will be exercised, and what proportion of the costs will be recovered in any particular case. I beg to move.
5.53 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: I understand the point about which the noble Viscount
1100
is concerned, and should like to start by explaining that, as doubtless he knows, there are two different types of monitoring. One is the Departmental monitoring, continually to see the effects of the contents of the sea and what is happening in the sea. This is a regular part of monitoring of the sea. The second part, which is the one to which the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, has addressed himself, is specific monitoring where an applicant wishes to dump a substance into the sea and the Department will say, "Yes, but this is such a toxic substance that we must monitor the sea to see the effects upon it which the dumping of your substance will have." The noble Viscount was worried for fear that whoever applied for the licence would have to pay for this monitoring either 25 per cent., 50 per cent., or 100 per cent. of the cost. I am bound to tell him that it is the Government's view that that is an expense which should correctly be borne by the person who applies for the licence, and that it would be inequitable for this expense to be found by the taxpayer. The person who is applying for the licence is going to dump into the sea a substance which may have a noxious effect upon the sea, and we believe it is right that if he may so contaminate the sea the effect of the material he puts in should be monitored and that that expense should be recoverable from the person who is granted the licence.
I say this to the noble Viscount: before he was given his licence there would be discussions with the person concerned, the contractor, as to what material is being put into the sea. He would be told that this material may be a very special substance and that it would be necessary to monitor the effect of its being put into the sea. This would be part of the licence; he would know in advance that he would be called upon to meet such expense as the Department is put to in monitoring the effects which the dumping of his specific substance will have upon the sea. Provision in this Bill is designed to cover not just the present types of substances which are dumped into the sea, but also to cover the effect of what will happen over the next ten or twenty years when more and more substances, some of them highly noxious, are going to be put into the sea. Of course, there is a real problem as to the effect that this dumping will

1101
have. We do not believe that it is right that the Government, or the taxpayer, should accept the financial responsibility of monitoring the effects of a specific dumping of a material.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am obliged to the noble Earl, but what he has said appears to be to the effect that the entire expense is to be recovered in each case. If that is so, I do not understand why the Bill is drafted in this way; why they talk about such contribution towards the expense as may be decided. One of my difficulties was that this seemed to be so open. It may be that the person may wonder whether he had been fairly treated and would want to know on what basis the proportion was calculated. If the noble Earl is telling me now that the charge is going to be 100 per cent. in every case, then of course I do not know the purpose of Clause 3(1)(c) which clearly assumes that these will be cases in which there would be no charge at all. The noble Earl has not dealt with the point I made, which I think is a valid one. I feel in all humility a little like the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, when we discussed the Safety of Sports Grounds Bill, when he said that the more he rehearsed his arguments, the better he thought they were. I have felt rather in the same position during the last three weeks. The point that the safer the deposit the more expensive the monitoring will be, seems to me to hurt the man who is anxious and goes to extra expense to deposit the substance in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean where the monitoring is going to have to last anything from ten to twenty years in order to discover what effect it has.
EARL FERRERS: With regard to the noble Viscount's first point, under Clause 3(1)(c)
"Where a licensing authority proposes …to require a payment under section 2(6)…",
the licensee will be told that he will be required to make a payment for what is done under Clause 2(6). In fact, what he is being required to make payment for is the monitoring of the specific substance. The licensee will be told this in advance, and also whether the particular substance is considered of sufficient character to require monitoring, and he
1102
will be told of the likely period that this will take. That will form part of his licence. If he disagrees with that, or, as the noble Viscount says, if monitoring has to go on for twenty years and the licensee feels it is unfair, he can complain under Clause 3 and make his representations. But it may well be that if the particular substance is well wrapped and is going to be dumped miles out to sea, and it is considered to be of no harm whatsoever, there will be no monitoring, in which case that will not appear on the licence. But there are now many effluents from factories and other places which are producing highly toxic waste products. It is only where some of these toxic wastes are going to be put into the sea, and where the effect on the sea is not known, that we believe it is right for the person concerned with dumping this material to have to pay for any such monitoring as may be required by virtue of the specific material.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am much obliged to the noble Earl. I do not want to carry on a duel with him, so unless there is anyone else in the Committee who feels there is more strength in my argument than does the noble Earl, I think I had better withdraw my Amendment. May I have your Lordships permission to withdraw the Amendment?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS moved Amendment No. 4A:
Page 4, line 5, leave out ("may impose conditions on such a transfer") and insert ("shall have power to include additional conditions in a licence on transferring it").
The noble Earl said: This is essentially a drafting Amendment to resolve a possible ambiguity. As the clause stands at present, it could be read to mean that before a licensing authority even agrees to transfer a dumping licence from one person to another, the authority could impose conditions unrelated to acceptable dumping procedures. The purpose of the Amendment is to provide for the different circumstances which might need to be considered because, for example, a different waste contractor was now undertaking the dumping. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.4 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 4, line 13, leave out ("is authorised in writing by a licensing authority") and insert ("has a written authorisation").
The noble Viscount said: This and the following Amendment go together, and perhaps I can speak to them together. They would have been unnecessary if the noble Earl had been able to give me Amendment No. 1. The purpose of this Amendment again returns to dredgings by port authorities. As explained in Amendment No. 1, there are port authorities who are depositing their dredgings in the sea with the approval of the Department of Trade and Industry, and the voluntary scheme which the noble Earl explained to us has not been applied to these dredgings. When the Act comes into force they would immediately become illegal dumpings, and perhaps it is really necessary to continue dredging as a long-term project.
What I am suggesting in the two Amendments is that in this particular case the authorisation given by the Board of Trade, or the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (the Board of Trade is included because it goes back to the time before the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was in existence) should count initially in the transitional period as equivalent to a licence under the Act, just as permission given under the voluntary scheme counts. It is still open to the licensing authority at any time after that either to revoke or to vary the conditions, or to call the authorisation in; but it seems to me that unless it is recognised that there is no authorisation by the licensing authority hitherto of the deposit of dredgings, and unless the authorisation by the Department of Trade and Industry is accepted transitionally as equivalent to a licence in the same way as the voluntary scheme authorisations are accepted, we shall have disruption at that stage. There seems to be no difficulty about this. I am sure that if there were any dumping of dredgings which was seriously damaging the marine environment we should have heard of it before now. This merely enables the existing arrangements to be carried on until the licensing authority can get round to examining the situation and either issuing a licence or varying the con-
1104
ditions that are at present implied. I beg to move.
EARL FERRERS: This is very much akin to the point raised on Amendment No. 1. In a nutshell, what it does is to allow permits, which have already been used and issued for another purpose, to be deemed as licences for the purposes of this Bill. With respect to the noble Viscount, I do not think that we can accept such a proposition. For example, authorisations are given under the Coast Protection Act to permit works to be undertaken subject to such guidelines as are necessary to prevent hazards to navigation. Clearly, these controls are totally different from the ones which may be required under this Act and are designed for different purposes. I understand the concern of authorities at having to obtain another licence for their operations, but under this Bill it is essential. Whatever has been dredged in the past and has not been subject to a licence because there was not an Act, it is essential to realise that in future it will be necessary to have a licence when dumping something. It may well be that the dredged material is perfectly innocuous, in which case the licence will be granted readily. It is only to ensure that there is some control over what is dumped into the sea that the Bill is necessary. But I can assure the noble Viscount—and I think this is really the nub of his argument—that administrative arrangements will be made between Government Departments to ensure the absolute minimum of delay or inconvenience. With that explanation, I hope the noble Viscount will agree that for the purposes of this Bill it is essential to have a separate licence.
VISCOUNT SIMON: When the noble Earl rejected Amendment 1, I accepted that we must have a separate licence, and the noble Earl was good enough to say that when the Bill comes into force the Departments concerned would issue licences as quickly as possible; but we all know how long these things take. If the issuing of a separate licence takes a week and the port authorities have to stop dredging for a week, all sorts of things might happen. Is it not possible to accept that, for transitional period, which could be as short as we make it,

1105
while port authorities could start negotiating for a licence, or for modified conditions, the existing permit would count as a licence until it is revoked, or notice is given of wanting to alter it?
EARL FERRERS: I apologise to the noble Viscount because I did not answer that point. The fact is that if people who are dredging are worried about what will happen when the Bill comes into, force, they can apply now under the voluntary scheme for such permission, because that will cover them over the transitional period.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am much obliged to the noble Earl for that answer, which makes the position perfectly clear. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 2, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
BARONESS WHITE: Could the noble Earl inform us whether any register is to be kept which will be open to inspection? I know one should not discuss other legislation when one is discussing a particular Bill, but the noble Earl referred to the Protection of the Environment Bill, which is also before your Lordships' House. Where waste is being deposited on land or in inland or tidal waters, registers will be kept and open to inspection by the public. It seems to me that there are two groups of persons who might have an interest in this matter. On Second Reading I mentioned the position of local authorities on coastal areas who might from time to time be interested in what happened to 'substances dumped at sea. The noble Earl was good enough to write to me on that point. He said that it was the view of the Government that the responsibility for taking action should rest with central Government. This I accept, and never wish at any time to contest. But he went on to say, in rather soothing words, that as a matter of practice and in the light of experience he would assure me that the only substances dumped near the coast were inert materials and dredged spoils which might be disposed of without harmful effects. But accidents sometimes happen, and in 1971 the Royal Navy disposed of a number of canisters of extremely toxic chemicals which landed on the Isle of Wight. In
1106
those circumstances, the local authority might have taken an interest in the matter.
Therefore, it appears to me that should any such troubles occur the local authorities should have a right to know what licences had been granted, their terms, and the nature of the substances for which the licences were given. I had first thought that we might make it a condition that they should be notified of licences, but that would be administratively too onerous. They should, nevertheless, have a right to inspect a register. There is another group of persons to whom this might be of interest, namely, the academic scientists in this country. It is not, after all, only the licensing authority who is interested in what goes on in the sea. There are scientists who are undertaking research in universities and research institutes who also should be enabled to know just what is the nature of substances which are being dumped in any waters which have any interest at all to us. Therefore, for these reasons I hoped that the Government might have considered for this kind of waste disposal the sort of arrangements which are being made in other circumstances in other legislation before us, which provide for licence details and particulars to be inspected at any reasonable time by responsible persons.
EARL FERRERS: We certainly recognise that institutes and the public are entitled to be able to obtain information on the overall quantities of material which are being dumped at sea under licences issued by the Government, provided that this can be done without risk to the need to preserve trade secrets. In fact, we think there is a risk only in the most exceptional circumstances, for which we should have to take special steps to safeguard the interests of the company. But, of course, if it were thought that a dumping at sea was affecting a local authority, we should certainly be very ready to discuss with them any problems arising. Moreover, the Protection of the Environment Bill places additional responsibilities on local authorities to ensure satisfactory facilities for the disposal of waste. Administrative arrangements are being made between the Department of the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture to ensure that the responsibilities arising under the two

1107
Bills dovetail quite reasonably. There will be a register by the licensing authority, and this can be seen by bona fide enquirers. I hope that that will meet the point the noble Baroness was concerned about.
BARONESS WHITE: I am obliged to the noble Earl. I should like to have that referred to in the Bill, and I may consider putting down an Amendment between now and Report. If it is put in other legislation, I see no reason why it should not be included here, so that the whole world will know it is possible.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: Would my noble friend say how long a licence would be deemed to run? Would it be an annual licence?
EARL FERRERS: It depends upon the licence. Some licences may be of short duration, some longer. That is rather an equivocal answer, I am afraid.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Right to make representations]:
6.17 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 4, line 32, leave out ("21") and insert ("28").
The noble Viscount said: Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 run together, with the intention of extending from 21 to 28 days the period during which written representations may be made if there is a proposal to vary or revoke a licence. In matters of this kind, it is always difficult to know why one period should be better than another, but it seems to me that 21 days (and, if I may say so, it is 21 days net, because the licensing authority has to receive the representations within 21 days; so that having regard to coastal conditions, and so on, the 21 days period is probably more like 18) is rather a short period, seeing that these representations form the basis of any appeal which the applicant is going to make.
It is not just a notice of appeal. If he is going to make any effective representations, he has to go into the matter in depth. He probably has to get legal advice. He has probably to get technical advice. It seems to me—and here again I have been in consultation with some
1108
friends—that it would be better to allow this period to extend to 28 days. There is no magic in three weeks. I suppose there is no magic in four weeks. Somebody suggested to me 42 days. I have in mind one Act in which 42 days were allowed. It is difficult to find an exact parallel. In the Water Act the period for representations is 28 days. That is just an extra week. This is not just a notice of appeal; all the grounds of appeal have to be set out. It is true that there is an opportunity to give oral representations, but anyone would be well advised to make written representations as full and complete as possible. This would be helpful to the licensing authority and to the Review Committee. I hope that the noble Earl will be prepared to consider extending this period from 21 days to 28.
EARL FERRERS: The noble Viscount has made out a very sound case for lengthening the period of time. I agree with him that there is no magic in 21 days. I think there is a lot to be said for having the longer period. I shall be more than delighted to accept the noble Viscount's Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I beg to move Amendment No. 8:
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 39, leave out ("21") and insert ("28").—(Viscount Simon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 5, line 9, leave out ("7") and insert ("14").
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment concerns a slightly different matter. Subsection (6) of Clause 3 says:
"(6) It shall be the duty of the chairman of a committee—
(a) to serve upon the person who made the representations under subsection (3) above a notice in writing requiring him to state within 7 days of the receipt of the notice whether he wishes to make oral representations to the committee …".
It could be thought that seven days is sufficient, but if one thinks about it, coming near the Christmas season, seven days might be no more than two working days. Here again, I should have thought we could allow an extra week and make the period fourteen days. I hope the noble Earl has not been so helpful on the previous Amendment that he cannot

1109
help over this Amendment, too. I beg to move.
EARL FERRERS: I am delighted to be able to continue to help the noble Viscount, and I shall be delighted to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS moved Amendment No. 9A:
Page 5, line 16, leave out ("14") and insert ("21").
The noble Earl said: In the noble Viscount's assiduity he failed to look at subsection (7), in which there is the figure of 14 days. In the Amendment which the noble Viscount has just moved and the Committee has accepted, it was agreed that it should be the duty of the chairman of the committee
"to serve upon the person who made the representations under subsection (3) above a notice in writing requiring him to state within 14 days"
whether he wished to make oral representations. Under the next subsection it says that you cannot hold a meeting within 14 days. In fact, we must give another 7 days, and so this should be 21. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Enforcement of Act]:
6.22 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 6, line 31, leave out ("are or have been present") and insert ("other than in accordance with the provisions of this Act are present or have been present").
The noble Viscount said: I had some consultation with the Chamber of Shipping over this clause. They are much concerned that enforcement officers who may not be very familiar with the operation of ships may adopt sometimes rather unreasonable attitudes, and it seems to me that it should not be necessary for an enforcement officer to go on board a ship if he has reasonable cause to believe that substances or articles intended to be dumped are or have been present if in fact the articles are subject to a licence and are already licensed to be dumped. It is not clear why it should be necessary for the enforcement officers to have this possibility, and that is why I have sug-
1110
gested including the words "other than in accordance with the provisions of this Act". It seems unnecessary for the enforcement officer to go on board and make inquiries if he has reasonable cause to believe that what is on board is perfectly all right. I am wondering whether the noble Earl is in such a generous mood at the moment that he will accept an Amendment on these lines. I beg to move.
EARL FERRERS: I appreciate the noble Viscount's concern that the Bill goes too wide in permitting an authorised inspector to examine ships and other defined places even though there may be no evidence of any infringement of the law. But we believe that it is implicit in any worthwhile enforcement arrangements that spot checks can be made as a matter of routine. The inspection arrangements, which will certainly be moderate in their application, are really intended to provide a deterrent effect to those who are tempted to dump illegally. For this reason, we think it would remove a great deal of the credibility of the enforcement arrangements we have in mind if Clause 4(5) limited it to inspection only of vessels which were thought to be about to contravene the Act or which had contravened the Act. The proposed additional words would restrict unduly the powers which are desirable for enforcement officers. Generally speaking, the enforcement officer would not have reasonable cause for believing that any offence had been or was likely to be committed unless and until inspection had been made. That is really the point.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am grateful to the noble Earl. I am not sure that I completely follow him, because this is not a spot check. The enforcement officer has to have reasonable cause to believe that the articles for dumping either are or have been on the ship. I see the point that he might perhaps be aware that articles that had been licensed were on the ship but he wanted to be sure that the conditions of the licence were being observed. I shall come a little later to the question of stopping a ship at sea. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 6, line 42, leave out ("it") and insert ("the person in charge")
The noble Viscount said: This is really no more than a drafting Amendment. It struck me when I read it that it was rather odd to say that an enforcement officer "may require it to do anything", and that the only person who could be required to do anything was the person in charge of the ship or structure. I beg to move.
BARONESS WHITE: I have every sympathy with this Amendment. There could also be an Amendment at Page 7, line 2, where it says "to require it to stop", on the assumption that a ship does not stop of its own volition either.
EARL FERRERS: I was going to say that the noble Viscount was a purist. In fact, he is absolutely right; you cannot tell "it" to do anything; you can only tell the person in charge to do it. I was going to be more than happy to accept the noble Viscount's Amendment. In view of what the noble Baroness says, she is evidently even more of a purist, and l think vie had better look at this to see whether an Amendment might be required.
VISCOUNT SIMON: As I understand it, the noble Earl will take this back and have a look at it before Report stage, having regard to the noble Baroness's suggestion.
EARL FERRERS: I would certainly accept the noble Viscount's Amendment. I will see whether an Amendment should be tabled, at Report stage, to cover the noble Baroness's point.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.29 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 7, line 2, at end insert ("However a requirement under this subsection shall not unduly interfere with the normal operation of the vehicle, ship, aircraft, hovercraft or marine structure.")
The noble Viscount said: This Amendment relates to the stopping of a ship at sea. I think it is really inherent in the whole Bill that nobody would in fact deliberately stop a ship at sea in a position where it might be in danger. But I think one has the passibility that the
1112
enforcement officer would not be aware of this. I agree that later on the noble Earl has met my wishes in Clause 6 by giving a reasonable defence.
There is another point on this, and that is that the enforcement officer can require the person in charge to do anything which will facilitate boarding. If he comes across the ship in the ocean and there is a bit of a swell running, he might well say that to facilitate boarding the first thing to do would be for the ship to put back to port; and that might be 50,100 or 200 miles away. It was really with this in view that my friends in the Chamber of Shipping thought that we ought to try to get something in this clause that would ensure that there was not an unreasonable interference with the normal operation of the ship. I am not entirely happy about the wording in the Amendment, but it seems to me that we ought to have something. The enforcement officer could say, "Let me have a pilot ladder", and then, "I do not much like the look of it in this rough weather. You had better go back to the nearest port and I will get on board there". This would be an unreasonable thing to ask, yet it appears to be covered by the provision that the enforcement officer can require the person in charge to do anything to facilitate boarding. It would certainly facilitate boarding to make him go back to the pert. It was for that reason that I put down the words,
"However a requirement under this subsection shall not unduly interfere with the normal operation of the vehicle, ship, aircraft, hovercraft or marine structure."
I beg to move.
6.32 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: Clearly, we do not want inspectors to make extortionate demands upon persons responsible for the safety of ships at sea, and the amount of inspection at sea will be limited. A ship is liable to inspection only if an enforcement officer has reasonable cause to believe that it contains, or has contained, substances that are intended to be dumped. The officers would not seek to interfere with the normal operation of vessels more than was absolutely necessary for them to discharge these particular functions. I should add that the persons who will be designated as enforcement officers are likely to be such people as master mariners. With people of this calibre holding certificates of competence

1113
and seamanship, I suggest that it would be almost unthinkable that they would act irresponsibly, or put the ship at hazard.
I would also draw the noble Viscount's attention to Clause 6(1) and to the Government's Amendment to Clause 6(2). It is implicit in the wording of this clause, with the Amendment that I have tabled to try to accommodate the noble Viscount's point of view, that inspectors will act in good faith and on reasonable grounds. Quite apart from this, it would also clearly be in their own interests to do so, because civil or criminal proceedings could be taken against an inspector if he abused his power. He must show that he acted in good faith, and that there were reasonable grounds for his action, under Clause 6(1). I should find it difficult to accept the argument that the powers of enforcement officers should be unduly circumscribed, as might be the effect of this Amendment. I would only say to the noble Viscount that when one is, as an inspector would be, in a rubber dinghy trying to get on to a ship and the rubber dinghy is pitching about like mad, the powers for making unreasonable demands are not very great.
THE EARL OF KINNOULL: I wonder whether I might ask my noble friend one short question before he concludes. The noble Viscount mentioned a possible case where a ship may be apprehended something like 200 miles from port and asked to go 200 miles back to port for the inspection to be made. Would there not be the limit of territorial waters as regards the powers that the inspectors may have?
EARL FERRERS: As I understand it, under this Bill the inspectors can make reasonable requests to the master of the ship, and if those requests are unreasonable—and the case that my noble friend has cited may be construed as being unreasonable—then of course the master of the ship has recourse, or the owners have, to civil or criminal proceedings, and the enforcement officer would take that fact into account before he made such a request. In other words, if a request is made by an officer which is unreasonable, then he may find proceedings taken against him for making such a stupid and unreasonable request.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I think that the noble Earl did not quite reply to his noble
1114
friend, who asked whether this could be done on the high seas. I do not feel that I should press this Amendment. I am still a little worried at the very wide wording which says that the enforcement officer can ask the person in charge to do anything to facilitate boarding. However, I was greatly relieved and pleased to hear that these enforcement officers would, generally speaking, or perhaps always, be master mariners. Master mariners understand very well what is involved in stopping ships and boarding ships in the middle of the sea. In view of that fact, I am happy to ask leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Miscellaneous provisions as to enforcement officers]:
6.37 p.m.
EARL FERRERS EARL FERRERS moved Amendment No. 12A:
Page 8, line 17, at beginning insert ("without reasonable excuse").
The noble Earl said: Here we come back to a point that we discussed earlier. Any suggestion that the very experienced and highly qualified inspector such as we were speaking about on the last Amendment would take action which would he detrimental to the cause of the ship is very unlikely. Nevertheless, there seems to be some doubt as to the situation, and because of this the two Amendments to this clause that I now propose would safeguard, in general terms, the rights of a person who may consider that there were reasonable grounds for not complying with the demands of an enforcement officer. I hope that this will meet the point which the noble Viscount had in mind, and I hope that he will feel that, even though we found it difficult to accept his Amendment, at least the spirit of it is contained in this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL FERRERS: I beg to move Amendment No. 12B.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 20, at beginning insert ("without reasonable excuse").—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SIMON: The last two Amendments that the Committee has accepted completely cover the point that I was making in my Amendment No. 13, so I shall not move it.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Interpretation]:
EARL FERRERS: Amendment No. 14 is almost a drafting Amendment, which I should be happy to go into if the Committee think it is desirable. If not, I will move it formally. I beg to move.
Amendment moved.—
Page 10, line 41, leave out from ("1894") to end of lane 43.—(Earl Ferrers.)
BARONESS WHITE: With respect, I think that we should be told the reason for this Amendment, because I do not understand it.
EARL FERRERS: I am sorry. The last thing I would wish to do is to "bounce" the noble Baroness. I merely thought that it might have been for the convenience of the Committee; but I will certainly tell the noble Baroness the reasons. The intention of the definition of a British ship was to control dumping by all ships which are owned by British subjects or companies, but I am advised that as drafted the definition would include such vessels which are registered in Commonwealth or foreign States. Clause 1(1)(c) provides for adequate control over such vessels when they load in the United Kingdom or in United Kingdom waters, and when such vessels load in another Convention State it will be for the licensing authority of that State to ensure compliance with the Convention. The Amendment therefore restricts the definition of a British ship to a vessel which is registered in the United Kingdom or which is exempted from such registration under the Merchant Shipping Act 1894.
BARONESS WHITE: I am very grateful to the noble Earl. He is too tall; I could not "bounce" back.
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported, with the Amendments.

SAFETY OF SPORTS GROUNDS BILL [H.L.]
6.43 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 4 [Contents of safety certificates]:
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 35, at end insert ("and means of access to any such entrances or exits").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross, I beg to move Amendment No. 1, and it may be for the convenience of the House if at the same time I speak to Amendments Nos. 2, 7 and 24. which are all basically on the same subject. The purpose of these Amendments is to remove any doubt about the scope of the present wording of Clause 4(3). It could be argued that the words "entrances" and "exits" do not include the passageways through which the public would pass in the normal course of entering and leaving a stadium. These passages would be included if they were a means of escape, but it is also important that the normal passageways should not only be clearly specified in the certificate but also be kept free from obstruction, so that no undue pressures build up in them. The Amendments do not specify passageways and the like, as such: rather, they express the idea that the important point is the utility of the passageways, and so on, in providing a means of movement from one part of the stadium to another.
It may be argued that the Amendments are open to ambiguity on the grounds that "means of access" may be regarded as including a public highway immediately outside the stadium over which the certificate holder could not be expected to exercise any control. So to meet this argument the later Amendment—that is, Amendment No. 24—will be moved, seeking to insert a new definition of "means of access" in Clause 16 which

1117
will make it clear that the responsibility of the certificate holder begins only when the public have moved from the highway into the stadium. My Lords, I beg to move.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, we are appreciative of the explanation given by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal. We think the point that these Amendments cover is a very good idea, and that it is right and proper that they should be taken together. The noble Lord has made reference to Amendment No. 24. I suppose that in point of fact the pavement comes under the use of the word "highway", does it not?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: To the back of the pavement.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I think that is the only query that I wished to raise, and with that assurance I express a welcome to this series of Amendments, which quite clearly hang together so well.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend I beg to move Amendment No. 2.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 36, leave out ("and exits") and insert ("exits and means of access").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Amendment, replacement, transfer, surrender and cancellation of safety certificates]:
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 4, line 9, leave out subsections (2) and (3) and insert—
("() A safety certificate may be amended or replaced either on the application of the holder or without such an application.
() Section 2(2) and subsections (1) to (4) of section 4 above shall apply on the amendment or replacement of a safety certificate.
() A notice under subsection (1)(a) above amending a general safety certificate shall specify the date on which the amendment to which it relates is to come into operation, and the date so specified may be a date later than the date of issue of the notice.")
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a little complicated, and if the House will forgive me I will explain it, not because I think it is a matter of
1118
utmost fascination in itself but because people might want to study the details. So perhaps I may be forgiven for just a moment or so. The background to this Amendment—and I think it can be taken best with the following one, No. 4—is an awkwardness that we have found in applying Clause 5(3). That, as it stands at the moment, while specifically dealing with amendments to or replacement of a safety certificate when the local authority do this without application, applies subsections (4) and (5) of Clause 3, which lay down requirements to specify information and a nasty penalty if you do not. On further consideration, we have come to the conclusion that it is not necessary to apply those two subsections where the local authority themselves amend or replace the certificate without an application from anybody else. Nor do we feel it necessary for those two subsections to apply where an application for an amendment or replacement is made under Clause 5(2), as at present is provided. In both cases the power to amend or replace is discretionary in the local authority, and they may choose whether or not to do it. That is a choice which is different from the one open to them on the case of an original application.
In any case where they decide to amend or replace on their own initiative, it is right, we think, that they should know their own ground, the ground with which they are concerned, and rely on their power of entry and inspection under Clause 8. if an application for an amendment or replacement was made by somebody else and the local authority asked informally for more information, it would be in the interests of the applicant to supply it; otherwise the local authority would probably not choose to issue the amendment or replacement at all, in the absence of the information for which they have asked. So to try to clear this up we propose to delete subsections (2) and (3) of Clause 5, and this has four consequences, which are dealt with in the proposed three new subsections and in Amendment No. 4. Without the first of the new subsections there would be no reference in Clause 5 to the fact that applications for amendment or replacement could be made, and it seemed to me that we ought specifically to provide for that. So the first new subsection makes it clear that this facility exists; that

1119
is, applications for amendment or replacement by the club itself as well as on the initiative of the local authority. It is also necessary to preserve the first part of the existing Clause 5(2). So it is clear that the contents of the amended Order to replace the safety certificate, both in the general terms of Clause 2(2) and also in the specific terms of Clause 4, must be dealt with in the same way as on the issue of the certificate. But only those subsections of Clause 4—subsections (1) to (4)—which relate essentially to the content of the certificate need apply in these circumstances; we do not want subsections (5) and (6). Subsection (5) of Clause 4 is embodied in a new subsection; and that is Amendment No. 4. The operative date of the certificate, or of an amendment, is necessary only in the case of a general safety certificate, since a special safety certificate is valid only for the occasion to which it relates. It is unnecessary to apply subsection (6) of Clause 4 expressly in the case of an amendment or replacement because its terms do not require it.
Finally, there remains the substance of Clause 3(3) by which a local authority is placed under a duty to send copies to and to consult the police and the building and fire authorities. The proposed Amendment to Clause 5(5), which is Amendment No. 4, will require the local authority to consult the three other authorities involved in any proposal for replacement as well as amendment or transfer. My Lords, it is a little involved, but I think it is plain, practical common sense to adapt the provisions that we have already to an application for amendment or replacement or transfer, made as well by the original club as by the local authority, and to follow this through with the necessary consequential statutory requirements to see that this is dealt with sensibly. I therefore beg to move Amendment No. 3.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I think that noble Lords on this side of the House will have no objection to the changes which the noble Viscount proposes. As I listened to them I thought that they were clearly improvements. As I understood from the noble Viscount, the general objective is to distinguish between the case in which a local authority acts on its own initiative, and
1120
therefore could be expected to rely on its own powers of obtaining the information which it requires, on the one hand, and the case in which an application is made for a change by an individual applicant, on the other, and in which accordingly he may be reasonably expected, under the provisions of the subsection to which the Amendment refers, to supply certain information to the local authority. My Lords, that seems to me perfectly logical and reasonable. Naturally, I should have liked to consider the exact pattern which emerges. It was a little difficult to follow that pattern as the noble Viscount explained it, but I thought that he made perfectly plain the general purpose of his objective. I have no objection to the change that he proposes. On the contrary, it seems to me to make a much more tidy scheme and I welcome it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 4:
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 25, leave out ("proposed amendment or transfer") and insert ("proposal to amend, replace or transfer such a certificate").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.54 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 4, line 31, at end insert ("or if a term or condition has been contravened").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, at this late hour I do not want to rehearse the arguments which we put forward from this side of the House on Committee stage. I still have not quite understood, although I considered the noble Viscount's arguments very carefully on this head, why it is that he will not accept a provision that a certificate, whether general or special, should be liable to be cancelled if—and it would seem that this would be a reasonable suggestion—its terms are not complied with. I can see from the other Amendments on the Marshalled List that he has gone to great trouble to try to consider the arguments which we put forward. But if I understand the various Amendments, none of them produces the result that the local authority can cancel a certificate if it finds that the terms and

1121
conditions contained in the certificate are grossly flouted. The certificate continues.
As we pointed out during the Committee stage, under Clause 9(2) the court has certain powers in the event of a person responsible for the conduct of a stadium grossly neglecting any attempt to comply with the terms of the safety certificate. It can say that the public is not to be admitted for a period specified by the court. I notice that an Amendment has been put down slightly to change the situation there. But still there is no Amendment enabling the court, under Clause 9(2), to cancel a certificate, which would seem to be the obvious result apart from the penalty of a flagrant and indeed criminal disobedience of the terms and conditions imposed in the safety certificate and designed to protect the public.
My Lords, the certificate continues in being. The only way in which the certificate may be brought to an end is under Clause 5(5), in the event of the applicant appearing to the local authority no longer to be a person likely to be able to secure the enforcement of the terms and conditions in the certificate. I said at the outset that I did not want to rehearse the arguments and I hope that I am not going back on my words. But it seems to me that the position as it is left in the Bill, amended as it may be in accordance with the Amendments on the Marshalled List is so extraordinarily illogical that I should like to hear from the noble Viscount, if he has made up his mind about this, as I am sure he has, why he is—I do not want to use a disrespectful term—to my thinking so very obstinate on this one point. Why on earth is not a local authority to have power to cancel a certificate if its terms and conditions, imposed for the safety of the public, are disregarded by the person who holds the certificate? Alternatively, why cannot the court do precisely that, supposing there is a criminal disobedience of the terms and conditions in the certificate?
So far as I am aware, the only other provision in the Bill which could conceivably relate to the topic is contained in subsection (4) of Clause 12, which enables the Secretary of State by Regulation to prescribe the procedure
"for the issue, amendment, replacement, transfer and cancellation of safety certificates…"
1122
I notice that there is an Amendment down to that. But I should have thought that could not possibly confer on the Secretary of State the power to prescribe by regulation that a certificate is to be cancelled. All he can do is to prescribe the procedure to be followed in the event of the power being exercised to cancel the certificate; namely, the power—the only power now contained in the Bill—that is contained in Clause 5(5). That seems to me an illogical situation. But the noble Viscount is a most conscientious Minister, and I am sure that he has thought about this. I should be grateful if he would enlarge a little on the reasons which have led him to adhere to the view which he originally put forward on this point during the Committee stage.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords. I hope that, even though we have not got to the end of all the thinking on the points raised during the Committee stage—and we have not, because there are still things going on—the noble and learned Lord may be satisfied that I have conscientiously thought about the points he made on this, and, I think, two rather closely linked subsequent Amendments. I think one has to take this—if this is not an illegitimate remark—a little broader than pure logic. As I, as a lawyer, speak to the noble and learned Lord, as a lawyer, perhaps we may both be forgiven if we do not both immediately appreciate the point. The point about football grounds—and we are talking primarily about them, though other sports grounds are involved—is that they have been going for a very long time; they are an extremely important and valued part of local life; and for the ground to be closed down for members of the public, unless there was a truly flagrant, gross, or whatever epithet the noble Lord suggested, disregard for public safety, would be a tragic disaster. We therefore considered that the cancellation of a certificate is not the sort of penalty that we should wish to build into the Bill if we can possibly avoid it. We want to try to make sure that those who run sports grounds, football grounds and that sort of thing will know that if they behave themselves, if they get their original certificate under the designation procedure, and what follows then with the local authority, they are not going to be in jeopardy by the

1123
cancellation of that certificate, which would spell complete ruin.
The noble Lord in this Amendment and in a subsequent Amendment has suggested two possible methods of handling this matter. First of all, he suggests that the local authority, if there was, as he said, a flagrant breach—though the Amendment does not actually say "a flagrant breach" —of the conditions, should be able to cancel, subject of course to appeal to my right honourable friend, which is in the next Amendment. The alternative, in a later Amendment, is that if there is a conviction on indictment, and powers that the Crown Court or the equivalent courts in Scotland are given under Clause 9 (2) are brought into effect, not only do they restrict the entry of people into these grounds but they also cancel the certificate.
My Lords, let me take those in turn. I agree that the local authority which under this Amendment cancelled a certificate for a paltry reason, for some tiny act of omission or commission, would, under the noble Lord's second Amendment, be liable to be appealed against and there would be an inquiry; and so one may, as he pointed out on a previous stage, dismiss the argument which I then put forward that this would be purely subject to the whim of the local authority. It could be argued, but I suppose it would be argued in front of some sort of inquiry which had not the full panoply of the criminal law which is perhaps condign for so serious a disaster to a local sports ground as the cancellation of its certificate. I ask the noble Lord to consider how serious this cancellation would be for anybody running a football club or some other sporting club.
The other way of doing it, which the noble Lord suggests later on, is to let the Crown Court cancel the certificate. Why? It is true that in theory, in addition to preventing the people from going into the ground at all for such period as they think fit under Clause 9(2) after a conviction on indictment—and that would be as a result of flagrant disregard of conditions—they might add to the penalty of restricting people from the whole or part of the ground for such period as they think fit actual cancellation of the certificate itself. But what does that add to it? We think
1124
that if you are going to have a conviction for one of these gross and flagrant disregards of the certificate, it ought to be the subject of criminal proceedings under Clause 10. It ought to be brought out in the higher criminal courts, no doubt in front of a jury, and it ought to result in either an acquittal or a conviction by a jury. If it results in a conviction the court is then given a further power—and we go back to Clause 9(2) —which again can be argued, whereby they can impose a restriction for a certain length of time.
My Lords, what more do we want? We want to try to keep the idea of the certificate as being basically safe, but we also want to be able to protect the public against the activities of the rogue who will not pay attention to what he should be doing for the safety of the public. The way that my mind is working at the moment on this matter is not to give the powers to cancel the certificate to the court, or indeed to the local authority (I think it should be the court if it is either) but they should be able to exercise the powers under Clause 9(2) and in a bad case impose a restriction closing the ground to spectators—which is what hurts —but not necessarily to the players, for an indefinite period, I know not what. They do not cancel the certificate. There is no reason to cancel the certificate, because what we ought to provide in a case like this—and it may not be football; it may be some other sport—is for the position where somebody decides that he has become so embroiled in a dispute With the local authority that it is time he gave up his management of this sports ground or stadium. Suppose he then sold it to somebody else: well, the certificate can be transferred, or a new certificate can be applied for and obtained. Then what we want is the opportunity for the new person to come along and persuade the court that has restricted the access of the public that it is no longer necessary so to restrict it; that he will now comply with the terms and conditions; that he will now behave himself and run this stadium properly and see that people are safe; and that the conditions which resulted with the conviction of his predecessor in title no longer apply. What, therefore, I am thinking about is whether we should not allow an application by somebody—whether to the reformed

1125
rogue or to a successor—whereby he can go back and resuscitate the life of the ground and allow people back in, subject to proper compliance with conditions.
I do not think that for the purposes of this sort of control you need the cancellation of a certificate. All you need is this control in the courts, which is there in Clause 9(2)—although I think it needs to be modified to the extent of an application to have it rescinded being made in a proper case to the Crown Court. If we are going to keep this matter in the way in which we have always tried to approach it—that we do not want to stop grounds from being open to the public; we do not want to stop sports from being played and we do not want to stop people from watching them; all we are concerned to do is to try to lay down minimum statutory requirements for them to be perfectly safe while we do so—then we think the psychology to adopt is that the certificate ought to be adequate. It ought to be able to be restricted in its use, but not cancelled, either by the local authority, even with an appeal, or by the Crown Court.
We think that the alternative machinery which we have laid down here is really a satisfactory safeguard for the public. It will prevent somebody from exploiting and behaving thoroughly badly in the sort of circumstances the noble Lord has in mind. I do not think the purest logic is really necessary to solve the problems we have, I believe, solved already in the Bill. It is really a matter of "feel". It is not a matter of what might be the tidiest way of doing it. We think the possibility of the ground continuing to be open does matter for sporting organisations. We also think that there should be strict control in the hands of the Crown Court. We think we have both in the Bill as it stands. I do not know whether I have convinced the noble Lord; I have certainly convinced myself, and I hope that I have convinced your Lordships.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I am grateful to the noble Viscount. I do not wish to give the impression that I am any kind of lawyer, and I do not want to come between the noble Viscount and my noble friend. I would say, first of all, that I am sure we appreciate the desire
1126
that the noble Viscount has expressed to ensure that grounds will keep open for sporting activities. I could have wished that he had been a little more forthcoming on another matter that we dealt with in Committee.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: That was another matter.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: But I should like to say this. I am grateful, as I am sure my noble friend is also, that we shall have on the Record what the noble Viscount has said this evening. I do not know how many other Members of the Committee will understand fully what the noble Viscount has said, though I am sure that my noble friend will have understood it. We on this side are disturbed about this matter, but the noble Viscount has said that there is still something going on.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Yes.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: Am I right in assuming that this matter is not closed and that thought is still being given to it? I think that this is something to which we shall have to return at a later stage unless we can be satisfied that the Government are prepared to consider this matter further. I am sure that my noble friend will have understood all that the noble Viscount has said, but I have the impression that there is still a considerable difference between us and that the noble Viscount has not perhaps appreciated that we still have some anxiety on this matter. It is something that we should like to see tidied up in a way that the layman could understand.
7.12 p.m.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, the noble Viscount has taken up a position that reminds me a little of the situation that used to exist with regard to the appointment of professors in Scottish universities. When a professor was appointed, certain conditions were laid down and it was made clear that he was expected to do certain things—in fact, his duties were roughly laid out. But it turned out that there were only two ways in which a professor could be removed. One was by that somewhat drastic act of death (which is also mentioned here); and the other was if he committed some gross immorality. No other reason was

1127
regarded as sufficiently cogent for removing a professor from his chair. Mere incompetence, the mere fact that he never did his duty, or that he broke all the regulations did not matter. It seems to me that the noble Viscount defends a somewhat similar position here: that the mere fact that the terms of the certificate have been violated is not regarded as important. What is important is that the person to whom the certificate was awarded must die.
It seems to me that my noble friend Lord Stow Hill has an important point here. If a local authority issues a certificate it does so with certain conditions, which means that certain things have to be done. If there is flagrant disregard of conditions, surely this is a reason for withdrawing the certificate. I cannot understand why the noble Viscount takes no other point at all on this: it seems to me so clear that the certificate is issued provided that certain conditions are complied with. If those conditions are not obeyed, then surely the certificate should no longer be valid.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I wonder whether I might, by leave, say one more word about this point, because it is obviously of importance to noble Lords opposite. Would the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, just allow me one more word on this?
LORD STOW HILL: Certainly.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I think we are dealing in semantics. I do not wish to suggest that there is any lack of feeling on this. I think that what we are all after is exactly the same. We want to prevent a ground which is unsafe from being open for the admission of the public in conditions where they will be endangered; and all we are talking about is the machinery.
The certificate itself is a valuable document because it involves an application to the local authority and negotiation with it concerning the arrangements inside the ground (and this refers to the whole of Part I of this Bill, and the provision of safety precautions, barriers, doors and signs on gangways, together with numerous other matters which are set out in the green book. The certificate will describe what, in any given condition
1128
of the ground, will be the number of people legitimately allowed in; and of course it will contain conditions about the number of people allowed in and the type of construction of barriers and other devices necessary for this purpose. Indeed, it will be a criminal offence to allow people into the ground without a certificate—and the certificate has to be negotiated.
What I think the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, has overlooked, however, is the fairly formidable recourse that the law has under Clause 10(1)(c), because if those terms and conditions are contravened a criminal offence is committed. It can involve two brands of severity. It can be a summary offence under Clause 10(3)(a), which provides for a moderate penalty. It can also be an indictable offence under Clause 10(3)(b), where there is a very severe penalty, with unlimited fines. It is this Clause 10(3)(b) offence which carries the powers of Clause 9(2) whereby the court says, "For a given period or over a given part of a ground, or both, or in any combination, there will be no people allowed in for such time as we think fit." I believe that we have here, as the result of a conviction on indictment, the centrols which will have exactly the safeguarding effect that the noble Lords opposite wish to see. How we differ and what we are talking about is how exactly we are to set about it.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, can the noble Viscount tell us how long he thinks it would take for such a legal process to work through?—because it might be that the ground remained in a dangerous state and was being used in that dangerous state for the whole of a season while the case was being tried.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: do not think so, my Lords. I have looked, in an entirely different capacity, at the length of time required for trial in the Crown Court, and on the whole, as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack will be pleased to tell the House, the waiting time for trials has been very much reduced since the Courts Act was brought into effect. I do not think there would be a wait for a whole season before such a trial took place.
I must emphasise that the purpose of this Bill is not to smite with the sledge

1129
hammer of justice the people who run sports stadia. It is intended to do what needs to be done by persuasion, by non-statutory codes, by good common sense and by negotiation. It is only in the end, as a last resort—when dealing with people who will not see sense and who are determined to disobey all the regulations, who are intending to defy the local authority and all the canons of good conduct—that we are going to get into the situation in which anybody will be prosecuted or any certificate will be cancelled.
If noble Lords can tell me why they are dissatisfied with the powers of the Crown Court, or the Scottish equivalent, under Clause 9(2) and why they think that the only possible way of doing it is to provide that the Crown Court, say, for the sake of argument, should be entitled to cancel the certificate, then I will look at it again. But it seems to me that we have here the essence of this matter and that we are at the same time protecting the confidence of the people who provide and run the stadia and look after sporting activities that they are not going to be at the whim of either the local authority or the Crown Court and are not going to have their basic certificate—the certificate on which everything depends—cancelled. They may have the certificate suspended; they may have it suspended in part or over a period of time. Or, for a great sin, the stadium may be closed; but they will not lose the basic certificate.
I believe that, in a climate of what I hope will be negotiation, common sense and discussion, and this type of approach to this whole problem, which, after all, has been the subject of negotiation and discussion for 25 years before the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, mentioned it in his Report, we ought to play this gently and not go in for swingeing penalties when we can do it rather more subtly in the way I have suggested. It is a matter of opinion. I am suggesting that we have this power in a slightly less obvious form, yet a form which is going to he just as effective. It is for that reason and because of the psychological undercurrents in this matter that we ought not to be too purely logical, too juridical and too perfect in our understanding about it. This is why I suggest the arguments that I have put forward are well worthy of
1130
further thought. I will of course listen to reasons why we should have the purity spelt out; I am not closing my mind about this though I am pretty convinced by what I have said. Certainly if I can be shown why we must have the stringency imposed that noble Lords would like I will look at it again. But at the moment I do not see that there is a better argument than the one I have attempted to put forward.
7.22 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, the noble Viscount has really thought this problem out carefully and has come to a conclusion on the balance of considerations. I thought at times that it was difficult to express. He spoke about his anxiety over the whim of local authorities and then, I think incautiously, he talked about the whim of the Crown Courts. I am not sure that we generally attribute whims to learned judges who sit in our courts. I am surprised to hear such a distinguished lawyer attribute to them that characteristic—perhaps it was per incuriam.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Yes, it was.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords. I do not want to prolong the discussion. Think of the simple, honest citizen who happens to be a football enthusiast and who has a little smattering of the law. He goes with his companion, learned in the law, to a football stadium and asks on the way whether the Government have taken precautions for his safety. He is told that a kindly Government have indeed passed an Act which provides for designation and safety certificates and take a lot of trouble over his safety. He gets to the stadium and wants to go in but is told he cannot do so. He says, "Is there a safety certificate in being in relation to this stadium?" He is told that certainly there is. He asks, "May I not then assume that it is safe for me to go in?" The answer is, "No, it is very dangerous; you cannot possibly go in." He then says, "What is the purpose of the safety certificate?" He is told that the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, having carefully considered the whims of the Crown Court thought that it would—
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I said per incuriam.
LORD STOW HILL: Having, per incuriam, considered the whims of the Crown Court, and still, having been reminded that the Crown Court is not generally susceptible to whims, treating the Crown Court as if it were susceptible to whims, not per incuriam but after mature reflection, requires the man's learned companion to say to him, "There is a safety certificate here, but it has been flagrantly disregarded and those who flagrantly disregarded it have gone broke because they had an unlimited fine imposed upon them." The public cannot go in when the safety certificate is there but it is called a safety certificate. More than that, it is called a general safety certificate and it is going to stay there because there is no way of cancelling it unless it can be shown that those who asked for it are not likely to be able to enforce it.
My Lords, we have great respect for the system of law in this country, and I hope we always shall have. We may begin to engender a sense of puzzlement at some of its provisions when they emerge after such careful and prolonged gestation as the provisions contained in this Bill have emerged. I am genuinely grateful to the noble Viscount for giving us the grounds on which he has managed to arrive at the conclusion he so firmly holds, and I certainly would not ask the House to divide upon the Amendment. We have, in effect, on this Amendment also argued the pros and cons of Amendments Nos. 6 and 14. Therefore, when we reach those Amendments I shall not seek to trouble the House by moving them.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Duties of holder of safety certificate and exclusion of other statutory' requirements]:
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend I beg to move Amendment No. 7. It is consequential on Amendment No. 1 and I have already spoken to it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 24, after ("emergency)") insert ("or the means of access to any such entrances or exits").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.]
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Powers of entry and inspection]:
7.22 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 7, line 29, leave out ("stadium) and insert ("ground").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, we can consider, if the House is agreeable, Amendments Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, 16, 22 and 23 together. These are Amendments which I hope will make the noble Lords, Lord Stow Hill and Lord Garnsworthy, happy, because they meet the points that both noble Lords were arguing about in Committee. They said that if you have a grave emergency and a totally unsafe stand, say at some arena or sporting ground which was not a designated football ground, it was unnecessary to go through the rigmarole of making reservations to extend the Bill and designating the ground before you could invoke the emergency procedure under Clause 9. Upon further thought, we think they are absolutely right and so we do away with all that and we amend vast quantities of provisions in the Bill, in this case in Clause 8, to give powers of entry to see whether the stand is dangerous, and in subsequent provisions to deal with all the other inevitable consequences of this. I hope noble Lords will now think that in the case of a dire emergency we have a first-aid procedure of going to the magistrates' court or the sheriff's court in Scotland to get the ground shut down until somebody does something about it. This is a group of Amendments which meets the points put forward in Committee. I beg to move the first Amendment, No. 8.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, the noble Viscount has met the point my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy and I sought to put forward in Committee, and I should have thought the result is a very much better scheme. I am most indebted to him.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 9.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 32, leave out ("stadium") and insert ("ground").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Court's power to prohibit or restrict use of stadium]:
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 10.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, leave out lines 36 to 38 and insert ("at a sports ground, other than a sports stadium in respect of which a general safety certificate is in operation,").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 11.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 41, leave out ("stadium") and insert ("ground").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
7.30 p.m.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved Amendment No. 12:
>Page 8, line 3, leave out ("prohibit or restrict to the extent") and insert ("by order prohibit or restrict, to the extent that the court considers").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move Amendment No. 12. This is really a drafting Amendment but there is slightly more meat in it than that. The essential point is making it abundantly clear that the decision rests with the court throughout. There are two points here, my Lords. The purpose is basically to show that the decision lies with the court as to whether the restriction of the admission of the public would be appropriate if the magistrates' court, or in Scotland the sheriff, were to make an order under the emergency power in Clause 9(1) on application by the local authority. It will be up to the court making the order to decide the extent of the restrictions to be imposed by the order. The Amendment does not, therefore, do more than clarify the position; but it brings line 3 into conformity with line 6, where it is specifically stated that it is for the court to decide the extent of the measures that might be needed to reduce to a reasonable level the risks which led to the court order being made.
The other point, my Lords, is a Scottish one which makes it clear that the court's decision is to be implemented by order. This is to remove doubts which
1134
might otherwise exist in Scotland as to the manner in which the court should proceed. I beg to move.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I should like to ask one question on this Amendment. When the noble Viscount was addressing the House on the Amendments relating to cancellation, if I caught him correctly I thought he said that the Crown Court could enlarge the time for which the public were excluded, by which I understood him to mean that the court, having fixed upon a time for, say, a year, an application could subsequently be made to the court asking them to enlarge the term when that year had expired, and decide that the public should not be admitted, say, for a further six months. He shakes his head, and no doubt I misunderstood him. I was rather doubtful when he said it. This would be the Amendment which could confer that power. But if I understood him correctly, does the noble Viscount say that it is not the intention of the Government that there should be this power to enlarge by a further application? I doubted whether this language would confer such a power.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I ought to clear up this point. I was really thinking aloud about an Amendment which is not on the Order Paper but is still being considered. It is really the other way round from what the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, said. I do not think one would find precedents for extending a prohibition of this sort by way of application. The analogy that I had very much in mind was disqualification from driving. Although it is not an exact analogy, it might help. I was suggesting that, for instance, if the wicked man who had so flagrantly disregarded the terms and conditions convinced the Crown Court or the sheriff court that he had mended his ways; or perhaps more likely had decided that the whole thing was a lost cause and sold out to somebody else who was honest and respectable, a long period of restriction might, on application, be cut down so that a new and good holder of a certificate would no longer, when he put his ground in order, be subject to the Crown Court restrictions upon allowing the members of the public in. There is no Amendment down on the Order Paper on this point at the moment. The noble Lord was thinking about something else.

1135
My noble friend Lord Kinnoull raised another point on appeals on Clause 9. Neither of these is in here at the moment. This is certainly not intended to affect it. It is, in fact, a purely technical Amendment, as my noble friend has said. We may very well see in future other Amendments which deal with the sort of topics that the noble Lord mentioned.
LORD STOW HILL: If I may have the leave of the House, I would thank the noble Viscount for that explanation, and ask him whether, when he gives further thought to this matter, he would not take into consideration the question of whether a power should be conferred upon the court that upon a further application being made to the court it could enlarge the time. In other words, to have it both ways round, give the court the power to abbreviate the time, and in a suitable case, also to enlarge the time. I am much obliged to the noble Viscount.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: moved Amendment No. 13:
>Page 8, line 5, leave out ("stadium") and insert ("ground")
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, we go back to the Amendments I know are welcome to the noble Lords opposite. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Offences—general]:
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 15:
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 30, leave out ('stadium") and insert ("sports ground")—(Viscount Colville of Cuirass.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 16:
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 35, at end insert ("or other sports ground in question")—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 9, line 23, after first ('or") insert ("without reasonable excuse").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, here again is a drafting Amendment which slightly qualifies the circumstances in which a person commits an offence for non-co-operation with someone making an entry and inspection under Clause 8. It seems appropriate that allowance should be made for reasonable excuse for failure to answer a question. Let us suppose, for instance, that there was a difficulty or a delay in the postal service. The Amendment also brings subsection (5)(d) into line with paragraph (a) where the words "without reasonable excuse" are already used. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12 [Regulations]:
7.38 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL LORD STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 9, line 42, at end insert—
('(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify considerations which are to be taken into account together with other relevant considerations if any in determining whether a sports ground has accommodation for more than 10,000 members of the public.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I can move this Amendment very shortly. The noble Viscount knows the broad argument here. The Bill when an Act may apply to grounds as distinct from stadia. The object of this Amendment is to secure some kind of uniformity to prevent the sort of feeling that everyone experiences if he sees that one ground seems to be treated differently from other grounds, there being an appearance of uniformity. Therefore it was thought by my noble friend and myself that it was desirable to give the Secretary of State, if he thought right, a power to formulate, by Regulations, the sort of considerations that would influence him and which should be generally taken into account. That is the point of the Amendment, and the case was argued before. I put it down again to see whether the noble Viscount had had further thoughts about this matter; and whether he would be so good as to indicate what further thoughts he has had, as I am sure he has.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I have thought about this again very carefully. On the last stage, the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, was really looking for general criteria which

1137
would apply, I think, to different sorts of sports ground or structures in them, not necessarily on the same basis as applies to a football stadium. But one would have different rules for race courses, if the measure were ever extended to them; and again different rules for motor racing tracks, and that sort of thing. I have thought about this. The truth of the matter is this. This really is a legal point and I now reverse the roles and go back to what is rather a technical matter. Since my right honourable friends, the two Secretaries of State, will be alone in their decision as to whether or not a ground falls within the minimum number of capacity that requires it or enables it to be designated (and this is the point I made about Clause 1(2)), any regulations that are made would have the effect only of directing my two right honourable friends as to what they themselves were to do. So they would be making regulations applying only to themselves, saying: "I make a regulation saying that I must take into account this, that and the other, and I am the only person in fact who is affected by this". As a matter of law there is only one result of this, which is to open the designation of a particular sports ground to challenge in front of the Divisional Court by way of one of the prerogative orders; and I do not think there is any point in this.
What I think the noble and learned Lord wants to know, and is entitled to know, is how in fact this would be done. I do not know whether he has his little green book. If he has, I would draw his attention to one or two things in it. I say this by way of example, because I am not saying that the decision on what is the capacity of the ground would necessarily be laid down in strict accordance with one of these little green books. We may have another little green book for racecourses and another one for motor race tracks, and goodness knows what! in due course. But if you want an example of how it would be done, let us look at section 15 of the little green book for football grounds. There we have estimation of safe ground capacity. I am not going all the way through this —it is on pages 19 and 20. For instance, you find, if you are dealing with terraces, that if you have a terrace where the
1138
viewing slope is in a good condition you reckon you can get 54 people in per 10 square metres, but if it is not in such good condition you get in only 27 persons per 10 square metres. What is or is not a good condition is looked at by relation to section 7, where one of the things found is: "How steep is the slope of the terrace?" If it is steeper than 1:6, then it is not as good as if it is 1:6, which is supposed to be the maximum.
I am suggesting that one can work out —indeed, a code has been worked out with the football authorities—a voluntary code, a code capable of being changed, but which, not necessarily for this specific purpose, gives guidance about the number of people who can safely be fitted into any terrace or stand. I am not saying that my right honourable friends will be permanently and exclusively guided by this. This is not the purpose of a non-statutory code: it is only guidance. But it gives an indication of how the situation will be calculated. They will not be susceptible to being taken to the Divisional Court, because if you work this matter out by the strict letter of the law and slide rule, you find there are two people short and therefore the ground cannot be designated, and therefore the safety requirements cannot be imposed at all—and that is not what anybody wants.
What I am saying is that we do not need to give powers to my two right honourable friends for making regulations which are only for their own benefit, when they will have the advantage of codes such as this worked out in conjunction with the sports concerned, backed up by their own technical advisers and a great deal of technical advice in the Civil Service, so that they will be able to make a fair and reasonable judgment about what is the capacity of a sports ground. I understand that the noble and learned Lord wants things to be fair. I am sure he is right, but I think we are going to be counter-productive if we try to do it by force of law. This sort of document—the little green book—is likely to be a better guide to my right honourable friends in the execution of tasks of this kind, not only in football (that is not what this Amendment is about) but in other sports where we still have other equivalent little green books to come.

1139
That is really the outcome of my considerations, and I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be satisfied.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Viscount. I see the force of those arguments, which are obviously cogent, and I ask the permission of the House to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, Amendment 19 is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 8, after ("procedure") insert ("(subject to the foregoing provisions of this Act)").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
7.46 p.m.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 10, line 13, leave out ("prescribe") and insert ("authorise the local authority to determine, subject to such limits or in accordance with such provisions as may be prescribed by the regulations,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it gives me real pleasure to move Amendment No. 20 on behalf of my noble friend Lord Colville, and, with the permission of the House, I will speak to No. 21 at the same time. These Amendments seek to meet the pleadings (if that is the right word) of the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, at the Committee stage. We know that they will meet with the approval of the County Councils Association. They would remove the power to prescribe fees, which is set out in the present Clause 12(4)(b) and replace it with the power to prescribe the limits of such fees in Clause 12(5). In other words, the local authority is to be given flexibility to charge fees for certificates within prescribed limits. The local authorities will, I am sure, welcome this flexibility.
Since we should in any case have been able to use the power in the present Clause 12(5), nothing is lost by dispensing with the more restrictive power at present in Clause 12(4)(6). The drafting of the provision in respect of these will now differ from the parent provision which inspired it: that is Section 5 of the Pools Competition Act 1971. But this seems a small price to pay for Amendments which
1140
do not weaken the discretion of the Secretary of State in any way and will at the same time be welcomed by the local authorities and, I am sure, happily be welcomed by noble Lords opposite. I beg to move.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I am very grateful indeed to the noble Lord, not only for what he has just said but because I am satisfied he has had real pleasure; and it is probably the first time that he has been able to stand at that Box and say that something which has been suggested from this side has been accepted. I realised the other evening, when he said that I had made a heartrending plea, that I had touched at any rate his heart, and I am delighted that this Amendment has come from the Government this evening. It completely meets the point I endeavoured to make at the Committee stage.
This is probably the last Amendment we shall need to discuss at any length, so I should like to take this opportunity of saying how much we on this side have appreciated the great care and, almost throughout the Committee stage, kindliness with which noble Lords on the Government Front Bench have dealt with the arguments we have advanced from this side. I would not suggest that we are wholly satisfied with the reception given to our arguments at all times—indeed, I do not think we can claim we have secured any large concession. But of such concessions as the Government have made, indeed we are appreciative. May I say that, if the noble Viscount has not conceded very much, he has nevertheless given generously of his knowledge; he has given detailed advice and given extensively from his legal expertise.
May I, for my part, say that I feel indebted to my noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill because this Bill has required a legal mind, which, as I have said on a number of occasions, I do not have? I am aware of how much I owe to my noble and learned friend. It has been a pleasure to work with him on this Bill. I am sure we have been helpful to the Government in what we have said, at any rate to some extent, otherwise we should not have been considering most of the Amendments that have been before the House to-night.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is quite right. We shall not have to discuss any of the other Amendments. All I can say is that if I have to pilot Bills through this House, and particularly as the first House, which I think is welcome to us all, I cannot wish for a more constructive collection of Opposition Amendments than those that have come from noble Lords who have taken part in this series of debates. That is, after all, the purpose of the exercise. We may not agree; we may not be able to meet noble Lords on every point. I turned them down flat on finance and so did the House on a Division, but where we are dealing with matters of detail and matters of common sense and matters of machinery I am delighted that we have been able to come to agreement with noble Lords opposite. If our hearts are tender then it is nice to know that the local authority associations possess a similar organ—or a series of organs—of this sort. It is really very pleasant to finish the Report stage of this Bill. I cannot guarantee that I shall not be able to meet some more points on Third Reading.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 21.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 19, leave out subsection (5). —(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 14 [Power to extend Act by order]:
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, Amendment No. 22 is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 40, after ("Act") insert ("which are not expressed to apply to sports grounds other than sports stadia").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, Amendment No. 23 is also consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 42, leave out ("sports grounds other than sports stadia") and insert ("such
1142
sports grounds").—(Viscount Colville of Culross.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Interpretation]:
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend I wish to move Amendment No. 24, which we have already discussed in conjunction with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 43, at end insert—
(" "means of access" includes means of access from a highway").—(Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VALUATION (STATUTORY DEDUCTIONS) ORDER 1973
7.54 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG rose to move, That the Draft Valuation (Statutory Deductions) Order 1973, laid before the House on November 15, be approved. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Valuation (Statutory Deductions) Order 1973 be approved. This Order is laid under Section 19 of the General Rate Act: its purpose is to alter the scale of statutory deductions. As noble Lords will know, these are deductions made from the gross value of certain hereditaments in order to arrive at the rateable value. They are intended to represent the costs of maintenance, insurance and repairs and were last fixed in 1962. When preparation for the recent revaluation was in hand we examined the scale to see whether it should be amended also. It appeared at the time that no change of any substance was needed—the existing scale broadly covered the costs that it was supposed to represent: indeed, in some places it was over generous. But more recently new evidence has come to light and my right honourable friend has received representations from the Local Authority Associations, from his honourable friends in another place and from others asking that a change in the scale should be made.
In the light of new evidence my right honourable friend feels it is right to alter the scale with effect from April 1 next to bring up to date the deductions contained in the 1962 Order. The properties

1143
that are affected are those with gross values between £57 and £327; at a rough estimate there are approximately 10 million of them. The extra deductions proposed in the Order before your Lordships' House will reduce the rateable values of these properties by up to £9. This is a worthwhile saving and will, of course, be effective until the next revaluation. Not only will it bring a measure of relief to a large number of householders; it will also remove a minor injustice that has crept into the rating system: that is to say, if these deductions were not brought up to date, then these householders would have to shoulder an unfair proportion of the rate burden. My right honourable friend is anxious to remove this injustice and I am sure that the House will agree that this should be done.
I think at this point it might be helpful to the House if I said something about the nature of the arithmetic that underlies the scale. It appears from the table contained in the draft Order, which speaks of 16⅔ per cent. here and 20 per cent. there, that we are dealing with a precise science: the fact is, we are not. All these deductions are supposed to do is to cover in an average way, the cost of the elements that they represent. In some cases the scale will be over generous: in other cases it may be the reverse. This is because it is impossible to fix a scale which is right in every conceivable case. If we were to try we should end up with something like 16 million scales—one for each hereditament. I know that some noble Lords think that the deductions ought to have been greater. Unfortunately that is not possible. The scale is intended to represent the cost of repairs and so forth and that is what it does. To go further and make it more generous would be to go beyond the purpose for which the scale was intended.
Noble Lords will have noticed that Clause 16 of the Local Government Bill which had its Second Reading in another place on November 12 deals with statutory deductions, and it may be convenient if I draw these various threads together and say why this is so. When the scale of deductions is changed in the context of a revaluation the new deductions are reflected automatically in the values entered in the revised valuation
1144
lists. But lists are often changed at other times: properties are built or demolished: ratepayers appeal against their valuations and some are successful. When these things happen the Valuation Office of the Inland Revenue sends a direction to the rating authority instructing them to alter the value of the particular property. The procedure is therefore complicated: to implement the Order under current legislation the Valuation Office would have to make 10 million proposals (which could all be subject to appeal) and issue 10 million directions. This would take a very long time and it would be impossible to get all the lists altered by April of next year. It therefore seemed best to ask the local authorities and others who hold copies of the valuation list to make the alterations themselves, and a circular was issued, (No. 140/73), enlisting their co-operation. All Clause 16 in the Local Government Bill will do is to give statutory authority for the lists to be altered in this way and enable the Valuation Office to give a general direction. I shall not pretend that the benefit will be great when set against the very generous help my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment proposes to give to domestic ratepayers through the new rate rebate scheme and the increased domestic element of the rate support grant. Nevertheless it will be noticeable and it will be worth while. I commend this Order to your Lordships.
LORD JACQUES: My Lords, we welcome this statutory Order and I thank the noble Baroness for her explanation. However, I am still searching for the reasons for the changes. Am I right in thinking that the cost of maintenance has increased more sharply than the rise in gross annual values and therefore the statutory deduction has, for those reasons, become out of date? Is that the first reason? And is the second reason that it is thought that there were injustices in the list already and consequently they are being put right; therefore only some of the range need alteration and not the whole range? Finally, what about the poor ratepayers in the current year, where they have the new gross annual values but do not get the new rate of deduction?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for his remarks. He asked why

1145
the change was needed and why it is being brought in at this particular moment. The reason is that when the revaluations were in hand in 1973 the statistical evidence which bore on these particular costs—that is, of maintenance and repairs and insurance—was examined and it appeared that no change in the existing scale was required. It was found to be over-generous when it was originally laid down. But more recently new information has become available which indicates that it would be desirable to change part of the scale. There seems to be evidence that this part of it had become unfair recently and that it no longer represented those particular costs adequately. Furthermore it was found that the part of the scale affected lay in the range between £57 gross value and £327 gross value. It is for this reason that the alteration is being made now, because we think it is putting right what would otherwise be an injustice to those particular ratepayers.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TRANSPORT BOARDS (ADJUSTMENT OF PAYMENTS) ORDER 1973
8.0 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG BARONESS YOUNG rose to move, That the Draft Transport Boards (Adjustment of Payments) Order 1973, laid before the House on November 29, be approved. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I think noble Lords may find it helpful if I say something about the background to this Order before describing what it does. When the railways and canals were nationalised provision was made in the Local Government Act 1948 exempting them from rates and providing for payments to be made in lieu of rates. These payments are made to my right honourable friend who distributes them to rating authorities in proportion to their rateable values. The amount of the payment is based on the rates payable by these undertakings immediately before nationalisation, adjusted to take account of a revaluation which was then due to come into effect. These basic rateable values, as I will call them, are known as "standard amounts" and are set out in Schedule 5 to the General Rate Act 1967. The figures are set out in paragraph 3 of the Order.
These standard amounts form the starting point in the calculation of the contributions that these industries should make. To arrive at the contribution the standard amount is adjusted in two ways. First. it is scaled up by a factor which represents the average rate for the preceding year divided by the average rate for 1947–48. This is to keep the payments made by these Boards in line with the burden that falls on other ratepayers. Secondly, it is adjusted to reflect changes in the activity of the industry. If the volume of traffic increases, the standard amount will be adjusted upwards, and conversely if traffic decreases. This is to reflect the fact that in a normal business if trade expands so usually will its rate liability increase. This adjustment is made to keep the contributions made by these Boards fair when compared with the contributions of other ratepayers. The figure that results from these adjustments is the sum that they will pay to my right honourable friend. This system works smoothly except when there has been a revaluation, as there was this year.
Following a revaluation, the rate in the pound falls. In 1972–73 it was, on average, 99p. This year, following the revaluation, it has dropped to 40p. If local authority expenditure did not go up, and if there were no inflation from one year to another, revaluation would have the effect on average of putting rateable values up and thus rates in the pound down, leaving the average rate payment much the same. However, if we merely used the new average rate for adjusting the standard amount then these Boards' rate payments would fall, and quite obviously that would not be fair. The purpose of this Order is to alter these standard amounts to restore the status quo. If it is helpful to noble Lords to think of it that way, it is like a revaluation. The Boards' standard amounts will be altered in a way similar to the rateable values of houses. The Order is therefore a mechanical consequence of revaluation and no more.
Noble Lords may wonder whether the time has not come for those curious formulae to be revised. I can only say now that my right honourable friend has announced that he intends to review the rating of all public utilities that have formulae of this sort. The Local Government Bill which will shortly come

1147
before your Lordships' House will provide, among its other provisions, that my right honourable friend can determine how the rateable value of these industries should be arrived at. What new formulae will be devised it is too early to say.
This may well be the last time that noble Lords have to interest themselves in arithmetic based on calculations made in 1948: but it is not contentious arithmetic, and in that spirit I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the Draft Transport Boards (Adjustment of Payments) Order 1973, laid before the House on November 29, be approved.—(Baroness Young.)
8.7 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for the explanation she has given and the background information upon which this Order has been drawn up. I notice in the Explanatory Note reference to the British Railways Board, the London Transport Executive and the British Waterways Board. The opening paragraph of the Order reads:
"The Secretary of State…after consultation with such of the transport Boards and such associations of local authorities as appeared to him to be concerned and with the local authority with whom consultation appeared to him to be desirable…"
We are told there that there was consultation. I should like to ask whether the bodies named in the Explanatory Note agreed the figures to which the noble Baroness has referred in paragraph 3. As I note, they have gone up approximately two and a half times. This, I suppose it will be said, is roughly in line with the increases that have taken place in the rateable values of domestic properties. The figures certainly show a very considerable increase. For £3,522,000 there should be substituted the figure of £8,853,000 and so on. The noble Baroness referred to the fact that these figures reflected changes in the industries concerned. Certainly so far as the railways and the Transport Executive are concerned, the impression which I think most people have is that over the period these have been shrinking industries. I should like to ask, therefore, whether these figures really do reflect the decline that has occurred in regard to these
1148
bodies which are mentioned in the Explanatory Note. Although, as domestic ratepayers, we are grateful for any relief that we can get, and are very grateful for the contribution made in lieu of rates by these bodies, we do have a duty to inquire whether they really are fair.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, for his general support for this Order. He asked me two questions, the first of which was about the consultations that have been carried out. These have, as the Order indicates, been carried out and they have had the general support of those concerned in them.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, my question was whether these figures have been agreed. The noble Baroness is using the words "general support". I wonder whether she can tell me whether the bodies named have accepted these figures as being fair?
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, my understanding of this position is that all the bodies who have been consulted in this matter have agreed to the figures. The second point that the noble Lord asked was whether or not these new figures reflect the activities of the industry. I should like to say two things about that question. The "standard amounts" are figures that are comparable to the gross value of a house—that is the way I find it easiest to think of them myself. They are the figures on which the calculations are made. When the calculation is made of the amount of rates that the industry is to pay, and ultimately the amount of rates that they will pay is determined, it depends on two things: first, on the "standard amounts "—and there is this agreed formulae for it—and, secondly, on the amount of business that the industry is doing. As I said in my opening remarks, if the volume goes up, this amount could go up; or, conversely, it could go down. As this concerns specific figures which I do not have available to me, I will write to the noble Lord on this point. But I should like to assure him that the volume and nature of the business that these public authorities are conducting should be taken into account.
On Question, Motion agreed to.