Lords Sitting of 3 December 1974

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Manchester.
The Viscount Margesson—Took the Oath.

IMMIGRATION: REFUGEE PROCEDURES
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I apologise to the House for being absent yesterday when I had a Question on the Order Paper, as circumstances arose which made it impossible for me to be present. I beg leave to ask the Question which now stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will adopt the practice of Scandinavian Governments of reporting cases of immigrants claiming to be political refugees to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees before resorting to deportation; whether they will require immigration officers to inform the Home Office before making decisions for deportation in all immigration cases; and whether they will give instructions that all immigrants awaiting decisions shall be transferred to Harmondsworth detention centre.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH): My Lords, I assume that my noble friend is referring to the removal of passengers who have been refused leave to enter the United Kingdom and not to formal deportation. I have been unable to substantiate that the practice of Scandinavian Governments is as my noble friend has stated. The power to give or refuse leave to enter the United Kingdom is vested by Statute in immigration officers, but they are required by the Immigration Rules to obtain the authority of a chief immigration officer or an immigration inspector before refusing entry.
58
Where a passenger claims political asylum it has long been a standing instruction that he is not to be removed from the country without reference to the headquarters of the Home Office. The London representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is consulted in appropriate cases.
As to the last part of the Question, it would not be possible to accommodate at Harmondsworth all those detained at the ports, and in many cases to move them there would delay their removal from the country.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that long reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that Sweden, Norway and Denmark have a joint arrangement, not only for consultation between them but with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, before they deport a person? May I ask whether the Minister has been in touch with the United Nations High Commissioner on the proposal in this Question and, if so, what has been his view?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, there are two parts to the noble Lord's supplementary question. With regard to the first part I fear that as a result of researches which we undertook after he had tabled this Question, we did not discover that the procedure in terms of consultation in Scandinavia was as he described it in the Question. So far as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is concerned, we do consult him in doubtful or difficult cases. I cannot give a guarantee that it is done in every case but it is done in many cases.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that there have been at least three recent cases where applicants have said that they wished for asylum but the immigration officers have originally not understood this and therefore the cases have not been referred to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees? Therefore would not the noble Lord think it worth while issuing fresh instructions to the immigration officers, that where there is any doubt whatsoever that persons wish to apply for refugee status this should be referred to the Home Office and, through the Home

59
Office, to the United Nations High Commisioner? In regard to detention at Harmondsworth, does the noble Lord not appreciate that it is particularly important, in the delicate cases that we are talking about now, that access to would-be refugees applying for political asylum should be as easy as possible so that they may speak with their advisers and with the United Nations High Commissioner or his staff, and therefore it is quite wrong to detain them in out-of-the-way places where such access is more difficult?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, on the last point, I am afraid there is just not always accommodation at Harmondsworth; it is as simple as that. On the earlier points raised by the noble Lord, first, if the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees does support a particular application for political asylum, normally his view is accepted. The only other point I would make is that in the case which I believe led my noble friend to put this particular Question on the Order Paper, concerning a Pole, in fact the man did not claim political asylum when he entered the country.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, with regard to the later parts of my Question, may I ask the Minister whether it is the case that over this last year there have been at least 20 instances where the immigration officers have refused admission, but when I have taken up the case with the Home Office that permission has been allowed? Does not that indicate that there is some desire that the immigration officers should communicate with the Home Office before these decisions for deportation are taken?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, on the last point raised by my noble friend, I have already made it clear that the headquarters of the Home Office have to be consulted before any person claiming political asylum is ejected from this country. With regard to the last point raised by my noble friend, while I do not know about the other 19 cases, in the case to which I alluded a few moments ago the man did not claim political asylum when he entered the country but, as a result of the substantial amount of publicity that
60
took place over the facts of that case in the national Press, he became a self-created refugee and on that basis, and on that basis alone, the case was reconsidered.
Earl COWLEY: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House how many political refugees have in fact been allowed into this country this year, and from which countries they have come?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I cannot do so, I' fear, without notice.

EEC AND OIL PRICES
2.44 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the countries associated with the EEC are taking united action to deal with the increasing cost of oil from Arabian countries, and what measures are being taken.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, arising out of the increasing cost of oil, the united action of the EEC countries is taking three forms. First, they made joint representations to the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries on the inflationary consequences of oil price increases. Second, they are formulating a scheme under which the Community would borrow funds from external sources and re-lend to members who are in difficulty. In addition to its value to EEC countries, the scheme could play a part in meeting the worldwide problem of recycling oil surplus funds. Third, ways and means of reducing the EEC's dependence on oil imports are under discussion. These will be one of the items to be discussed at the Summit proposed for this month and the meeting of the Council of Energy Ministers on December 17.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he is aware that what he has just told your Lordships' House sounds all very well, but what have been the beneficial results so far? If there is unity in the EEC on the subject of an approach to the solution of

61
the oil problem, is it not somewhat strange that the right honourable gentleman Mr. Lever has proceeded to Iran to discuss the matter with the Shah? Is that united action, or a more desirable unilateral action?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the countries of the EEC are taking two different kinds of action. Some actions arc collective and united; others are actions which they take on their own account. I was asked about collective action, and I have answered the Question on these grounds.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, do we understand from that answer that this unity is variable in its operation, that it is possible for any country in the EEC to take unilateral action without dissent from the EEC?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, as I understand it, none of the countries of the EEC has taken any unilateral action to which there could be strong objection by the other members of the EEC.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, would not the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, and the Government agree that in any united action taken by European countries it should not be a question of confrontation between Europe and the Arabs? It should be presented as a genuine effort between the consuming countries and the producing countries to find a solution to a problem which may have the severest repercussions on all of them.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I wholly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that tonight in another place there is a debate on an EEC Regulation which lays down that through an agency they will take over British coal, British oil and the natural gas in the North Sea? Does not my noble friend consider this monstrous?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, that is another question, but if it is true I would consider it to be monstrous.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, has my noble friend seen the report in yesterday's issue of The Times which indicates that a House of Lords Select Committee
62
after considering the Energy Report from the EEC has expressed doubts about its validity? In effect, the House of Lords Select Committee have rejected it. What has my noble friend to say about that?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I have not seen the report to which my noble friend Lord Shinwell refers, so I can make no comment.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, would my noble friend mind if I sent him the report? I have it in my hand now.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I never mind receiving reports.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us when Her Majesty's Government are to play their part in starting to give a lead on the saving of oil in this country?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, in relation to the EEC, they may well do so at the meeting that is to take place on 17th December.
Lord HAWKE: But, my Lords, has not the crisis been with us for nearly a year?
A Noble Lord: My Lords, another Government was in power then.

JORDAN: AID AND ASSISTANCE
2.48 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, in the hope of getting a more satisfactory Answer, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government to state the total sums made available to the kingdom of Jordan since 1958 either in cash or in the provision of armaments.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS): My Lords, since 1958 we have made available to Jordan, in both grants and loans, a total sum of the order of £51 million. Of this, a sum of the order of £24 million was grants, £25 million development loans, and the

63
balance of some £2 million military assistance.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, can my noble friend tell us whether there have been any beneficial results? What have we gained from these financial concessions which this country could hardly afford, and which King Hussein and his friends put to ill use by, so far as can be ascertained, actually selling some of the equipment to other countries without our consent?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, our relations with Jordan are long and close. They date at least from the 1946 Anglo-Jordanian Treaty, to which my noble friend was a party as a member of the Government that concluded it. Since then, over a long period of years, the amount of aid made available to this key country in the Middle East has not been excessive. In the matter of military assistance it has been very small indeed, and over the past seven years since 1967 there has been only one relatively minor contribution by this country to the military might of Jordan.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, since my noble friend has recorded an item of military history with which I am, of course, familiar, would he not agree that the personalities of that period, and particularly Abdullah, were much more sincere and wholehearted friends of the United Kingdom than King Hussein?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I would very much hope that my noble friend, on reflection, might agree that Jordan under King Hussein may prove to be one of the moderating influences in this very troubled and difficult region.
Several Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many of us admire the courage of King Hussein?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I share in that admiration personally.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I want him to exclude me from that piece of flattery
64
from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham?
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, however long and close our association with Jordan has been—and it has been long and close—does it entitle us today in our present parlous financial condition to supply arms to it in order that Jordan may supply those arms to other countries?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we are not making available anything like excessive aid to Jordan, or indeed to any other country. Indeed, the question of aid is constantly under review and is based on the criterion of development. As to the provision of arms, I agree with my noble friend that this is a very difficult question. Successive Governments have attempted to strike a balance which it was hoped would conduce to a settlement of this problem and the attainment of a just and durable peace.
Lord ROYLE: My Lords, in his original Answer, my noble friend said something like "of the order of" a large sum of money. We are hearing this term very often. Will he give any indication as to what "of the order of" means, when it is related to large sums like this?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I used the phrase "of the order of £51 million". However, if it would assist my noble friend and the House I would endeavour to give this in somewhat more precise detail. But I think the picture given of a total sum of £51 million or so in a substantive Answer is most helpful to the House.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, can the Minister say whether it is a fact that part of this military aid to Jordan has been sold to the Republic of South Africa and conveyed to Rhodesia?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, none of it was conveyed to Rhodesia. We have had assurances from the Jordanian Government to that effect. Unfortunately, some of it was resold to South Africa. May I take this opportunity of stressing once more that it is a normal condition that when our Ministry of Defence makes available to overseas countries any equipment from this country it shall not be re-sold to any other country.

65
If it is not needed, then it should be offered back to the firm providing it from this country.
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords, would the noble Lord say whether this aid is still continuing, and, if it is, would he say whether any additional conditions will be tried to stop the transfer of any of the arms or equipment from Jordan to any other country?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: This condition, of course, has been, and will continue to be, imposed on all provisions, all sales, of arms from this country to other countries. We have received assurances from the Jordanian Government that they will not in the future place themselves in the position in which they found themselves a few weeks ago, and we accept their assurances.

MISPRISION OF TREASON
2.55 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is the view of the Government that misprision of treason is still a criminal offence.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, although the existence of a common law offence is a matter for the courts, I have no reason to doubt that this offence still exists but there have been no recent cases where such offences have been charged.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply to the Question, which was put down before the recent legislation. May I ask whether the noble Lord agrees that persons who conceal the whereabouts of, or information regarding, terrorists or members of illegal organisations in return for interviews or for other reasons may render themselves liable to penalties, either under the recent legislation or at common law?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, on the first point, as I have
66
indicated in the reply which I gave to the substantive Question, the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions could consider at any time the formula suggested by the noble and learned Lord in his Question. But as a result of very substantial research in the Home Office which has taken place as a result of his Question, I can give him one piece of information which I do not think he necessarily possesses. The last occasion that we can discover when this charge was made was in 1820 at the time of the Cato Street conspirators, who were also charged with treason at the same time. To prevent a flood of letters to the Daily Telegraph or The Times, may I say that there may well be subsequent occasions when such a charge was made. As the noble and learned Lord has indicated, as a result of the passage of last week's legislation the Director and the Attorney-General will most carefully consider any situation of the kind he has in mind.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, in rejoicing to think that my Question has caused the Home Office to look into the history of our criminal law, would not the noble Lord possibly agree that we are approaching once more the same sort of situation which obtained in the Cato Street conspiracy? And will the noble Lord accept the assurance from this side of the House that should there be any such conspiracy again in St. Marylebone I will do my best to suppress it.
Viscount MONCK: My Lords, will the noble Lord, or, failing him, perhaps my noble and learned friend, who was so helpful when he sat next to me at school, tell us—most of us on this Bench—what "misprision" means?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, that is one question to which I hesitate to give an answer, particularly in the presence of one Lord Chancellor and one former Lord Chancellor. But I will gladly give the most detailed definition I can to the noble Viscount. I have several extracts from various views of what the definition is. They are rather lengthy, and I will send them to him with the greatest pleasure.

BREAD SUPPLIES: INDUSTRIAL ACTION
2.59 p.m.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question of which I have given Her Majesty's Government Private Notice. The Question is as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they intend to take to ensure that there are adequate supplies of bread for the nation.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Lord BESWICK): My Lords, I understand that the independent Conciliation and Arbitration Service has been discussing the situation with both sides today. The Government will be keeping in close touch with events.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that Answer. Would not he agree that, even if the Government are not a party to the dispute, they have, as all Governments have, a direct responsibility to ensure that there is adequate food, and particularly this commodity, which affects those who are least well off?
I would ask the noble Lord three questions, if I may: first, what positive action will the Government take if the dispute is not settled by the weekend, because there must be contingency plans? Secondly, what arrangements are being made to ensure that there are adequate supplies of flour to the shops, because people will now start to bake their own bread? In view of the fact that baking flour and yeast have gone up by 500 per cent. already, I should be grateful if the noble Lord could reply to that question. Thirdly, as shops are already short of sugar, salt, flour, bread, and even water biscuits, what assurance will he give that cakes, and other biscuits, will also not end up in short supply?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, on the latter part of the question I can give no assurance, and the noble Earl is aware that I can give no assurance. When I made inquiries about a quarter of an hour ago the talks were still continuing. I do not believe that it would be helpful for me to speak about contingency planning at this stage.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, does the noble Lord mean that there are no plans for the supplying of bread or alternative foods before the weekend, or afterwards?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, the noble Earl has rightly said that the Government have a responsibility, but they have not a responsibility to intervene in an industrial dispute of this kind. There is an industrial dispute and efforts are being made to solve it, and I should have thought that the noble Earl would agree on reflection that it would be better to see whether we can get a solution to the problem.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that it is the Government's duty to see that food of the most common and essential kind is available to all kinds of families in this country?; Is not this a further justification for prudent housewives to store food when the Government have failed to ensure adequate supplies?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I recognise that bread is an emotive subject, and obviously one would like to think that the poorer families in the country, who, after all, eat most bread, will be supplied. The production at the moment appears to be about 25 per cent. of normal. This would not provide the sort of supply necessary for any system of rationing. As I have already said, the answer to this problem must be to get some solution to the industrial dispute. There are discussions going on, and I suggest that we leave it at that for the moment.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that if there is a shortage they ought to see Mrs. Thatcher, who is now food hoarding? Can my noble friend assure us that there will be a plentiful supply of flour, so that working class people at least can bake their own bread?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, instituting a system of rationing is not something that can be done overnight, and I am sure that everyone will agree about this. I understand that many of the shopkeepers are in fact already voluntarily carrying out a system of rationing of their own, and I should have thought that this was the right way to go about it at the present time.
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, while of course I understand why the noble

69
Lord does not want to say anything about intervening at this stage in an industrial dispute, could not he answer the simple question put by my noble friend? If this dispute goes on, have the Government any plans, or have they no plans, for seeing that supplies will be available?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I do not think at this point I ought to add anything to what I have already said. The best way of dealing with this is by encouraging a solution of the wages dispute.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I agree with the sentiments expressed by my noble friend Lord Blyton in regard to adequate supplies of flour? Coming from an industrial area, I can say that our womenfolk are able to bake their own bread, given the accommodation and if they can find the yeast for sale on the shop counters. Is my noble friend further aware, arising from the original Question, that the noble Earl should be reminded that "man does not live by bread alone"?
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, may I ask the Government, seriously, if there is an industrial dispute and this is the reason for the shortage of bread, whether some consideration is being given by the Government to offering financial support to those families that cannot afford to buy alternative foods, because if they cannot buy bread they will have to buy something more expensive? Will the Government take into consideration the financial situation caused by the shortage?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords as the noble Baroness knows, the Government have already taken into consideration the cost of bread to the families of this country and there is already a subsidy. This subsidy does not command, I might say, universal support in this House, but we have done something there. Certainly if there was a possibility of a prolongation of this dispute, then something would have to be done.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, surely the noble Lord knows that there is only a subsidy on the bread you buy, and if you cannot buy it the subsidy is ineffec-
70
tive. What you want is money in the pockets of the person who cannot buy bread now, and who must buy something else.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, if the noble Lord feels that he is unable to add to his Answer today, will not he take into account the manifest anxiety of the House in this matter and promise to make a further Statement tomorrow?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, certainly I will promise to make a further Statement.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, can the noble Lord say something about the position with regard to flour? Are the supplies adequate, or not?
Lord BESWICK: My Lords, I am not sure what the noble Earl means. Adequate for what? If he means, are they adequate to replace the amount of bread which would be needed tomorrow, and if he is asking me whether that flour is in the shops now, I should have thought that the answer was probably, No.
Lord STRANGE: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that this is a very good moment to make the bakers return some of the valuable by-products they are taking out to make the bread white and selling for other purposes, and that these by-products should go to the people they are designed for?
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord SHEPHERD): My Lords, I suspect that that is a rather different Question to the one put by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. I hope that the noble Earl, in responding to the answer of my noble friend about a future Statement, will allow for some consultation as to whether a Statement is appropriate. I would certainly undertake to have consultations through the usual channels.

DEFENCE REVIEW
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Winterbottom will be making a Statement on the Defence Review.

TABLE OF THE HOUSE
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion that stands in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Clerk of the Parliaments be authorised, at his discretion, to call upon any Clerk in the Parliament Office of the rank of Senior Clerk or above to sit at the Table of the House in addition to the Clerks already appointed for that purpose.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ARBITRATION BILL [H.L.]
Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

EDUCATION (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
3.8 p.m.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In moving the Second Reading of this Bill for the third time, I feel somewhat inhibited. To make my speech too short would be presuming that your Lordships would do what you have done twice already and give it an unopposed Second Reading, and I do not wish to be presumptuous; by the same token, I never want to be too long. However, I am now dealing in this matter with the fourth Minister. The first was the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, then the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, God rest his soul, then the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and now the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt. I welcome him, not least because he comes from my alma mater, Oxford, but more specifically because he comes from Exeter College, with which my family have had connections going back 400 years. Doubtless, today, he will try to educate me in the bureaucratic reasons for not doing what I and my friends consider to be eminently suitable and desirable. I shall endeavour to educate him in the social necessity and justice of my cause.
The Bill aims to allow a small, often isolated, community whose only village centre is the school hall to retain it rather
72
than allow it to be sold to the highest bidder and the proceeds to go elsewhere in the diocese. There are dozens of examples in my file from all over the country, but I will quote again to your Lordships as an example our local community; and remember that I can quote, as I have on other occasions, many other examples where it can be proved that the villagers themselves built and paid for the hall in the first place.
In 1856 a certain Mr. Templer gave a plot of land to be a site for the village school hall. I produced the deeds for your Lordships at the first Second Reading. The local inhabitants clubbed together, my ancestor giving about the biggest dollop, and provided the school hall. To cut my story short, for 118 years that hall has been the meeting place of everything to do with the parish—the parish council, the youth club, the Sunday School (a part specifically mentioned in the original deed for the gift of the land), the keep-fit class, the Women's Institute, in fact the lot. We have no other meeting place. There is nowhere else to go in the evening except the pub, and the bar there is not large enough to hold the Women's Institute—not that I think it would be suitable anyway. The bus service to Newton Abbot runs twice a week in the afternoon.
In July, 1973, they closed the school and under the rules of the Education Act 1944 the school hall, our parish hall, was to be handed over to the diocesan board of finance to sell to the highest bidder. We all know that the 1944 Act was repealed by the 1973 Act, but Section 2 of that Act carries on the same function. My first complaint was, and is, to ask what right anyone has to hand over somebody else's hall to the diocesan board of finance? If one asks the bureaucrats the answer one receives is, "It's the law". That was the answer which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, gave when I asked a question 18 months ago. The noble Earl, Lord Onslow, then rose and said, "Then change the law". This is what this Bill is trying to do. But it is no use the Minister saying (when I say the Minister I am referring to the collective body) on 18th January at column 102, that the Church does not like being cast in the role of Shylock when the parrotlike answer I received from the solicitor to the diocesan board of finance, as well

73
as from each Minister in turn, was "It's the law". I can refer your Lordships to the Merchant of Venice, Act 1, scene 4, which contains the words:
"I stand here for the law; you know the law; I charge you by the law.…."
Secondly, my Lords, I should like to know what moral right anyone has to take away the heart of a small community? The great grandson of the James Templer who gave the land on which we built the hall wrote to me as follows:
"I can only say that my great grandfather who was by no means a wealthy man would turn in his grave if he knew the sacrifice he made for Ideford … was to be sold to the highest bidder without any regard to the local community."
While I appreciate that he was not the largest contributor he did contribute the only asset he had, which was land. To sell the land now under these Acts can be described only as immoral and little short of legalised plunder.
My Lords, there are many such places—small, isolated, comparatively impoverished—and many of them felt in a hopeless situation until the BBC in an item on Nationwide showed the village, including the only centre, the activities that go on there, and an interview with myself explaining what I was hoping to achieve by this Bill. Since then we have been inundated with examples from all over the country. People I do not know have come up to me to ask me, "Has the village saved its hall?" I am sure that I must be looked on as a pain in the neck by the bureaucrats for persisting in this, but if they and the Minister have any heart—which I begin to doubt-surely they must see what a worm I would feel if I let down these small communities and people, if I did not make one last attempt to persuade big brother Govemment to listen to the pleas of the far off peasantry.
In the last Second Reading I quoted Kipling's description of Norman and Saxon. He said:
"The Saxon is not like us Normans,
His manners are not so polite;
But he never means anything serious till he,
Talks about justice and right;
When he stands like an ox in the furrow,
With his sullen set eyes on your own;
And grumbles ' This ain't fair dealing,
My son leave the saxon alone'."
74
My noble friend Lord Fortescue, having read of the intervention of the Bishops, finished it off by sending me another couple of lines from the same poem. It reads:
"Be polite, but not friendly to Bishops Be kind to all poor parish priests."
In our case our local rector has been in the forefront of our fight to save the hall. For one thing he would have nowhere else to go for his Sunday School; this was a point specifically mentioned in the deed of Mr. Templer.
That brings me to the point which I should have thought would really appeal to the present Front Bench. When the Tories were to bring in museum charges, the Labour Party argued again and again that many of the exhibits were given by private donors for free exhibition to the local populace. I agree with that argument, especially when applied to this case. I am sufficiently old fashioned to believe that wills and trusts should not be interfered with and that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. I quoted previously what was said by the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord De L'Isle, when writing to me on the subject. He wrote:
"Government departments simply love engrossing property which is originally the result of private charity."
Surely the Minister should be warned.
My Lords, I have a long list of similar places which have been lost, which are being lost and which could be lost to local communities, and it would take me a month of Sundays to go through all the letters I have about these problems. But I should like to read one letter—an umbrella to the lot—from the Secretary of the National Association of Local Councils, formerly the National Association of Parish Councils. He writes:
"Education (Amendment) Bill.
Dear Lord Clifford, I understand from the village halls department of the National Council of Social Service that you are reintroducing your Bill to enable communities to have special preference in purchasing for community use a disused school to which the community has in the past subscribed Our Association would very much support such a provision because we have seen examples of schools which have been very suitable for a village hall being sold at the market price, to the anger of all the inhabitants, and at considerable expense in fund raising or borrowing, although the original cost of the building has been subscribed by the inhabitants. The price at which the school is sold is then

75
not devoted to charitable purposes in the village but over some much wider area. If we can help you in any way with the campaign for your Bill please let us know. (Signed) Secretary."
My Lords, it would take too long to read all the letters, but I may have a go at place names when I am winding up if the Minister should suggest that I am referring only to isolated cases, although I suggest he take my word and avoid an all-night Sitting. On a point which I think was originally raised by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, one barrister writes from 11, New Square, Lincolns Inn, that having often dealt with cases within the School Sites Act he has no doubt that inequitable and often successful efforts are made to defeat the statutory reverter under the third proviso to Section 2 of the 1841 Act. I quote:
"Sometimes such efforts are made or fomented by diocesan boards of finance. Their reputation does not I think stand well with many a well-intentioned successor of Victorian donors."
That, I would reckon, was the understatement of the year. He goes on:
"Nevertheless it is dangerous stuff"—
here he is referring to a certain Bishop's maiden speech—
"seemingly to put administrative convenience before the ethic of equity."
I should like to repeat that statement:
"… seemingly to put administrative convenience before the ethic of equity."
He goes on:
"It is noted that the Education Department Under-Secretary drew a distinction between school sites which revert and those that do not. In the former alternative, however, he failed to acknowledge the unedifying efforts made by authority to defeat the reverter and in the latter he made a false point of law."
This letter was dated 30th January, so your Lordships can work out which Second Reading the writer was referring to, but the advisers are still the same. He then encloses the solicitor's letter for the National Society published in Law Notes of 1956, and further comments:
"You will observe the devious machinery commonly employed to ensure that the statutory reverter under Section 2 is defeated by an unintended use of Section 14 of the 1841 Act."
My Lords, I feel that this is not the time or the place to argue the niceties of the law. But I think that this is the time and place for us to take the advice given in our previous debates by several
76
noble Lords such as the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, and, during the Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Raglan; that is, that all parties concerned should come together to solve this problem under Government aegis and that if this Bill is wrongly drafted it is for the Government to have their experts draft it properly. It is because this advice has not been taken that I am left with no alternative but to go on with my Bill (poor thing though it may be; but 'tis not solely mine own) if only not to let down the large number of people who look to your Lordships' House to right an injustice. To my mind legalised robbery of the heart of a small community stands very high in the list of crimes against society. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)
3.24 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord CROWTHER-HUNT): My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, for the kind remarks he made about myself and about our joint West Country links. May I say, too, how much I appreciate both the determination and the restraint with which the noble Lord is carrying on this fight from Minister to Minister. We are like a series of moving targets for him, but I appreciate both the determination and the restraint which he is displaying.
As the noble Lord said, this is the third occasion on which the House has been asked to give a Second Reading to the Bill which he has introduced for the amendment of Section 2 of the Education Act 1973. Both the principles of the noble Lord's Bill and the very substantial practical problems to which it gives rise have been fully debated on both previous occasions. Like the noble Lord, on this occasion I think I shall be justified in putting the Government's views before the House in a rather shorter form than might have been appropriate if this had been the first occasion on which we had been considering the matter. I will do my best in this context to avoid "bureaucratic arguments", against which the noble Lord carefully warned me.

77
I do not want to follow on the question of the merits of the case which has given rise to the introduction of the Bill. The decision of which the noble Lord complains was taken 25 years ago under a Statute which is now repealed, and was done in accordance with a practice which, as my predecessor explained from these Benches on the last occasion when the Bill was debated, the Department has subsequently and substantially modified. A further point is that there is now pending a statutory public inquiry into an appeal against the refusal of planning permission to develop the land on which the school is situated. So those are good reasons for not going into these points now.
But, in any case, this is not a private local Bill to put right what may or may not have gone wrong in the village of Ideford some 25 years ago. It is a public General Bill of general application and I want very much to deal with the general issues which it raises, which, of course, was also the import of the noble Lord's speech. I shall have to refer to what happened at Ideford, and, in particular to the trusts on which the village school there was held, in order to deal with some of the specific points which have been raised. But I do not accept that one can usefully generalise from what happened there. What is true of a voluntary school in the rural areas of Devon is not necessarily true of a voluntary school in the heart of Mayfair—and there is a voluntary school in the heart of Mayfair—nor is it true of a voluntary school in what was a rural area and has now become part of an urban complex.
In what I say, my Lords, I shall be critical of the provisions of the Bill that the noble Lord is bringing forward, and I want, therefore, to make it clear at the outset that what I have to say is not intended to imply any lack of sympathy for the community at Ideford with which the noble Lord is concerned. I gladly repeat, with all the emphasis which he gave them, the words of my predecessor, that the Government fully recognise the importance of that part played in community life by village halls and community centres. In particular, the Government recognise that the buildings of the village school often serve this purpose out of school hours.
78
So I come to the general issue raised by the Bill. The Bill, as the noble Lord said, amends Section 2 of the Education Act 1973. That section reproduces the substance of Section 86 of the Education Act 1944, which was enacted for the specific purpose of retaining within the public sector of education the endowments (including the proceeds of the sale of premises) of discontinued denominational voluntary schools. Statutory provision was required for this, because the ordinary law of charitable trust would have required the endowments of closed Anglican schools to be applied for purposes of denominational education in the village or parish in which the school had been situated; that is, that generally speaking they would have had to be applied for the purposes of a Sunday school. The same problem did not arise with Roman Catholic and Free Church schools which were to be discontinued, because the trusts under which such schools are provided are not usually limited in the geographical area of their application. This would have meant that as village schools closed there would have been a serious loss of the investment of the Church of England in the public sector and, indirectly, a serious loss of public funds spent on the maintenance of the schools concerned since the commencement of the dual system.
Section 86 of the 1944 Act accordingly enabled schemes to be made for the endowments to these schools to be applied by the appropriate diocesan committee or board for the purposes of aided schools elsewhere in the diocese. As I have said, Section 2 of the 1973 Act reproduces this provision of the 1944 Act, and the present position therefore—and this is the starting point, it seems to me, of the consideration we need to give to this Bill—is that when the premises of denominational voluntary schools are closed the Secretary of State can make a scheme authorising the local diocesan authority to sell the premises and apply the proceeds of the sale to the provision and maintenance of other denominational schools in the diocese. That is our starting point in looking at the changes which this Bill proposes.
In many cases buildings on the sites of schools established in the 19th century were financed by public subscription, and what the Bill of the noble Lord,

79
Lord Clifford, would do is to enable the scheme made by the Secretary of State to require the diocesan authority in such cases to offer the premises to the representatives of the local community at less than the market price, and provide for the use of the premises for purposes which are neither educational nor religious. By definition these schools are Church schools, and their endowments are held for the purposes of denominational education. As a practical matter, practically all the schools with which these schemes are concerned are schools provided in the 19th century which have been maintained wholly or partly at public expense throughout the whole of the 20th century. They represent a substantial investment by the Churches in the public sector of education, and a great deal of public money has been spent on them.
If no special provision had been made for them in 1944, as the schools closed and were replaced by modern schools, in the great majority of cases this investment in the public sector would have been lost. So that Section 86 of the 1944 Act was enacted for the specific purpose of retaining within the public sector of education the endowments of discontinued denominational voluntary schools which would otherwise have become available to the community in a very limited sense only. The importance of Section 86 to the dual system was recognised in 1973 when, with some amendment, it was re-enacted as Section 2 of the 1973 Act.
The Churches had, and have, an important part to play in the provision of education in the maintained sector, and these schools represent an important part of their capital provision for that purpose. The anxiety of the Churches that their ability to participate in the dual system should not be undermined by economic difficulties is obviously understandable. They are under very great pressure in this respect at the present time. This is partly why, two weeks ago, the other place gave a Second Reading to an Education Bill enabling my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to increase the rate of grant payable to, among others, the schools maintained by the Churches. Clause 2 of that Bill, which was introduced in another place, enables the Secretary of State to make capital grants and contributions of 85 per cent.
80
of the cost of certain expenses to the managers or governors of the voluntary schools. At present, my Lords, the limit is 80 per cent., so this is an increase of 5 per cent. in the grant which the Government will be able to make when this Bill has been passed.
The specific purpose of that provision is to enable the Churches to continue to play their full part notwithstanding the pressure of inflation, and I have no doubt that when that Bill comes before your Lordships it will be welcomed in this House. I also have no doubt that your Lordships will therefore recognise today that it would be quite inconsistent with that Bill—because here we would be increasing the charge on public funds for the benefit of the denominations—to take away from the Churches, as is provided in the noble Lord's Bill, an important source of their own funds. It would be inconsistent with the idea of providing additional State funds to pass this Bill and take away funds which themselves would otherwise belong to the Churches.
Section 2 of the Education Act 1973 is concerned with endowments,
"held wholly or partly for or in connection with the provision at"
a voluntary
"school of religious education in accordance with the tenets of a particular religious denomination".
We are therefore concerned by definition with trusts for the provision of denominational education at voluntary schools. It is a fundamental principle of charity law that property given for charitable purposes must be held for those purposes in perpetuity. If it is no longer possible for that property to be applied for the particular charitable purposes for which it was given, it is the duty of the trustees of the charity to take such steps as are necessary—in practice, this usually means an application to the Charity Commissioners for a scheme—to enable the property to be applied (as the legal phrase is) cy-prés; that is, for purposes as like as possible to the original ones. It does not follow from this that the school premises forming part of an endowment for denominational education must themselves be used for the purposes of a school in perpetuity. But it does follow that, when the school premises are sold, the proceeds of sale must be used for those

81
purposes for which the original endowment was enacted. The whole purpose of the noble Lord's Bill is to enable the representatives of the local community to buy the trust property at less than its full value. To the extent that the price which they pay is less than the price which the trustees could obtain for it if they were free to sell to anyone willing to pay, there is therefore a diversion of the assets of the trust to purposes not covered by the trust.
So far, my Lords, I have dealt with the principles of the Bill, but finally I must say something very briefly about the practical problems which it would create. In our view, the Bill is in certain respects unworkable, and in any event would involve the Department in very considerable additional administrative burdens. It would be necessary, for example, to make detailed inquiries into the way in which every school whose premises fell within a scheme under Section 2 of the 1973 Act was financed. Such inquiries, it would seem, would even have to extend to the religious beliefs of the original subscribers to funds out of which the schools were built; and the application of any such criteria would lead to indefensible anomalies between one school and another, according to whether or not the information could be discovered.
It is right that I should acknowledge that the Bill now before the House does, in fact, meet a number of the technical objections which were made from these Benches to its predecessor. There are, however, I suggest, serious objections of principle to the Bill. The provisions of the existing law which it seeks to amend are an essential part of the statutory provision for denominational schools. The Bill provides for endowments for denominational education to be applied for purposes which are neither denominational nor educational. In practice, it would be difficult to work the proposed legislation satisfactorily or fairly, and therefore I have to tell your Lordships that I cannot, and the Government cannot, commend this Bill to your Lordships' House.

DEFENCE REVIEW
3.39 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall now repeat a Statement which is being made
82
in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The Statement is as follows:
"Mr. Speaker, this Statement will be somewhat longer than is normal at this hour. I apologise for this but I am sure that the House will acknowledge the importance of the issue.
"On 21st March I announced the start of the most extensive and thorough review of our system of defence ever undertaken by a British Government in peace time. The proposals which I will now outline are the result of a careful study of all the relevant considerations—defence, political, industrial and financial. They are designed for the circumstances which we must expect over the next ten years. They take account on the one hand of our economic situation and on the other of the threat to our national security, the overriding importance of NATO, our position as a leading European Power and our responsibilities overseas. They will provide for a modern and effective defence structure and will make a significant contribution to establishing our economic health and thus to strengthening the Alliance.
"The Government have decided that they should reduce defence expenditure as a proportion of the gross national product from its present level of 5½ per cent. to 4½ per cent. over the next ten years. The long-range estimates of defence expenditure as they stood in March, 1974, would have amounted to 6 per cent. of the gross national product in 1978–79 and 5½ per cent. in 1983–84. By comparison with those plans, our decision will save £300 million in 1975–76, about £500 million a year by 1978–79, and some £750 million a year by 1983–84—or a total over the whole period up to that date of about £4,700 million. This is fully consistent with our repeated pledges to reduce the cost of defence as a proportion of our national resources.
"In addition to deciding the general scale of the programme needed to meet our future defence requirements and the level of resources we can devote to defence, the Government have reached provisional conclusions about the force levels involved and the implications for our commitments, for the Armed

83
Forces, and for industry. We are today beginning our consultations with our allies in NATO. These consultations will be thorough and genuine. They are likely to last into the New Year. We are also consulting our Commonmonwealth partners concerned and the other Governments in other parts of the world who will or might be affected. We shall also now consult both sides of industry.
"First I will describe the general principles that we have followed in conducting the Review. NATO is the linchpin of British security and will remain the first charge on the resources available for defence. We therefore propose to concentrate as a first priority upon those areas in which we believe that we can most effectively contribute to the security of the Alliance and of the United Kingdom itself. These consist of our contributions of land and air forces in the central region of Europe; of sea and air forces to the Eastern Atlantic and Channel areas; and in the defence of the United Kingdom and its immediate approaches. We shall also maintain the effectiveness of our Polaris force.
"We shall, however, be discussing with our NATO Allies all aspects of our contribution, including particularly our force declarations to NATO in the Mediterranean and the specialist reinforcement forces that we committed to the Alliance in 1968. In the NATO area we propose to maintain our land and air contribution to the Allied Command Europe Mobile Force but to reduce our other NATO declarations of specialised reinforcement forces to an airportable Brigade Group and a Royal Marine Commando Group, with the necessary accompanying sea and air elements. These latter declarations would be available for the central region or the Northern flank of NATO, with the Commando Group specially trained and equipped for Arctic warfare.
"The priority we are giving to our NATO contribution necessarily requires a contraction in our commitments outside the Alliance. We have reviewed these commitments case by case, bearing particularly in mind the decisions taken by the Labour Government in
84
1968 about the reduction of the British presence East of Suez. We have concluded that substantial reductions in our forces and defence facilities can be made. But we shall not act precipitately and we shall discuss our proposals in detail with our allies and partners in the Commonwealth and elsewhere before taking final decisions, recognising that the timing and method of the changes we propose may be of particular importance.
"Subject to these provisos I wish to tell the House what we have in mind. We shall, of course, maintain our obligations towards our remaining dependent territories. We intend to keep our forces in Hong Kong, although we propose to make some reductions in them and to seek from the Hong Kong Government a larger percentage of their cost when the present cost-sharing agreement runs out in 1976. In accordance with the military facilities agreement concluded in 1972 with the Government of Malta, we shall remain there until 1979. In Cyprus, we propose to make some early reductions, particularly in our air forces stationed there. We propose to withdraw our forces stationed under the Five Power Defence Arrangements in South East Asia, with the exception of a small group which we shall continue to contribute to the Integrated Air Defence System. The consultative provisions of the Five Power Defence Arrangements would, however, remain in force and it would certainly be our intention to maintain close links with the armed forces and defence authorities of our partners. We would, of course, maintain our membership of CENTO and SEATO but without declaring specific forces to either. We propose to withdraw from Brunei the Gurkha battalion at present stationed there. We would withdraw our forces from Gan and Mauritius. We do not think it would be right in present circumstances to make any changes in the arrangements we have with the Sultan of Oman. We intend to enter into negotiations with the South African Government with a view to terminating the Simonstown Agreement.
"Given the effects of these decisions in the Indian Ocean area and the Soviet naval presence there, we have decided

85
to agree to proposals from the United States Government for a relatively modest expansion of the facilities on the island of Diego Garcia which they enjoy, jointly with us, under an existing agreement with Her Majesty's Government. Their use of the facilities other than for routine purposes would, however, be a matter for joint decision of the two Governments. We and the United States Government have also agreed to pursue consultations with the aim of developing realistic progress towards arms limitation in the Indian Ocean.
"In working out the implications of these principles in terms of force levels and their effects on the three Services, priority has been given to maintaining as far as possible the level and quality of our front line forces. We shall equip them in a manner commensurate with their roles and responsibilities, and restructure and reduce the support area to match the new size and shape of the front line. The effects of our proposals on the forward plans of the three Services as they stood in March 1974 would be broadly as follows.
"The Royal Navy's planned numbers of frigates, destroyers and mine countermeasures vessels would be reduced by about one-seventh; of conventional submarines by a quarter; and of afloat support by one-third. Planned new ship construction would be reduced accordingly, including the abandonment of plans to replace our amphibious ships with new purpose-built vessels; and ship refitting would be concentrated on the Royal Dockyards, all of which will be retained. The nuclear powered submarine and the cruiser programmes would be continued. We would reduce the numbers of the Royal Marines by one-seventh, disbanding one Commando in due course.
"The Army's re-equipment plans would be substantially modified to reduce the growth of their cost. Measures would include the cancellation of the Vixen wheeled reconnaissance vehicle; withdrawal from the collaborative RS 80 project for long-range rocket artillery; and reductions in the planned purchases of light helicopters and reconnaissance vehicles.
86
"The Government attach great importance to the negotiations between NATO and the Warsaw Pact countries on the mutual reduction of forces and armaments in Central Europe. We are committed to seeking an outcome which, while preserving undiminished security for all the countries concerned, would help to create a more stable relationship in the area at a lower level of forces. We hope that the negotiations will be successful in achieving this objective. We do not propose, however, in advance of mutual and balanced force reductions, to reduce the forces which we maintain in Germany in accordance with our Brussels Treaty obligations. In adjusting the size and shape of the Army to meet the framework of priorities I have described and the demands of economy, the Government will make every effort to avoid a significant impact on the regimental system with its historic loyalties and traditions. The Brigade of Gurkhas will be retained, mainly serving in Hong Kong. We shall maintain the size and roles of the Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve.
"In the case of the Royal Air Force, we intend to preserve, and in some instances improve, the combat air forces committed to NATO on the Continent and in the United Kingdom, and to continue with the multi-rôle combat aircraft collaborative programme, though we may have to make a reduction in the planned rate of deliveries over the period. However, in accordance with the revised tasks envisaged, there would be some reduction in maritime patrol aircraft, the RAF transport force would be progressively reduced by a half and the planned helicopter force by a quarter. There would also be some reduction in the RAF Regiment; and some 12 Royal Air Force stations in the United Kingdom would be closed. We shall reduce planned expenditure on research and development by some 10 per cent. and continue vigorously to support the efforts being made within the Alliance to increase standardisation in equipment and eliminate duplication in research and development.
"Our proposals would involve reducing manpower by about 35,000

87
Servicemen, as compared with the strength in April this year, and by about 30,000 directly employed civilians, about half of whom would be civilians locally entered abroad. In the interests of efficiency, and equally of the well-being and morale of the forces themselves, the changes we propose will be carefully planned and introduced progressively over the next few years. Reductions will be achieved by normal wastage as far as possible; but some redundancies, both Service and civilian, will be unavoidable if the Services and the headquarters and out-stations of the Ministry of Defence are to be adapted to the new range of commitments, and if the balance of ranks and ages necessary for a satisfactory career structure is to be preserved. Those who have to be made redundant will be offered fair terms, and time in which to plan their future employment. We shall be examining ways in which the Government can help with resettlement into civilian life.
"The reductions in the planned defence programme are likely to reduce employment in the defence industries by only some 10,000, or 4 per cent., over the period up to 1978–79, but there will be problems in certain areas and for certain firms. But the changes in our equipment programme will be made as smoothly as possible and with the maximum of notice to enable industry to adjust its plans. I am confident that these problems are manageable; and I am in close touch with my right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Employment and the Secretary of State for Industry, on these aspects of the review. The views of both sides of industry will of course be taken fully into consideration.
"Our decisions will, I repeat, save £300 million in 1975–76, about £500 million a year by 1978–79 and some £750 million a year by 1983–84. But in conclusion I wish to emphasise one point. No such process of adaptation by the Armed Forces, or any other organisation, to a modified range of commitments and capabilities with a lower level of resources can be made without difficulty. But after we have completed the process of consultations on this thorough and wide-ranging
88
review and taken our final decisions, I am confident that Britain will continue to play her full part in preserving the strategy and cohesion of the NATO Alliance, and in meeting effectively her remaining commitments outside NATO. The Royal Navy, the Army, and the Royal Air Force will remain highly effective forces, equipped to the highest standards as required by their frontline NATO tasks; and the Services and the Ministry of Defence, despite the changes we will be making, will continue to offer a wide range of fine career opportunities in the years ahead.
"Early next year, when our consultations with our allies and with industry have been concluded, I will publish for Parliamentary consideration a White Paper setting out our decisions in detail and saying how they are to be put into effect. But before this we wish not only to consult our allies and partners but to learn the views of right honourable and honourable Members upon these matters; and the Government will be ready to arrange through the usual channels for an early debate."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
3.37 p.m.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, the House will wish me to thank the noble Lord for repeating that Statement, if for nothing else. I cannot even thank him for having given me an advance copy of the Statement, because two pages are missing. But I suppose that we must be thankful for small mercies. In the opening sentences of the Statement, the Government say that this has been the most extensive and thorough Review of our system of defences ever undertaken by a British Government in peacetime. I have heard that phrase so often now that I should like to put it on record that it is totally untrue. I have been present, once at the Ministry of Defence and once at the Admiralty, when a Review just as extensive and just as important was undertaken by the Government of the day. What the Government are really doing is seeking to clothe with respectability a decision taken in advance to reduce the Forces. We shall have an opportunity to debate the subject, and the Statement which the noble Lord, Lord

89
Winterbottom, has repeated is a long one which we shall have to study.
A lot of it seems to be vague and fairly meaningless. For example, it is totally meaningless to talk about a saving of £750 million annually in ten years from now, or about a total saving of £4,500 million. Long before that, I hope that we shall have had a change of Government with a different set of priorities. However, what is important is the statement which the noble Lord has made that next year the Government intend to save £300 million, and I shall seek to discover from him how it is proposed that that shall be done. Maybe it would be better to do that in debate on 17th December, but certainly it is something which the House will want to know. However, I have a number of questions of a more general nature which I want to ask the noble Lord this afternoon.
May I ask whether, in the noble Lord's opinion and in that of the Government, the proposals which he has outlined this afternoon will make Britain more or less secure? In his opinion, and in that of the Government, will the proposals that have been made make our contribution to Western defence less or more considerable? In his opinion, and in that of the Government, will the proposals mean that the Services will be better or less well equipped? My Lords, the answer to those three questions, if the noble Lord will answer them honestly, is, less. May I ask him, then, what encouraging factor in the international scene has suggested to the Government that it is sensible or safe to cut the Navy by one-seventh, considerably to reduce the Royal Air Force front line and to postpone or cancel the re-equipment of the Army at the same time as cutting the total numbers of the Services by 35,000? May I further ask him why the Government have singled out defence for these cuts, while no comparable savings were announced by Mr. Healey in his Budget in another place three weeks ago on any other civilian Vote? Is there a rational sense of priority in a Government which for six months specialised in hand-outs to all and sundry in order to secure its re-election, but which is prepared as its first and, seemingly, its only economy to weaken our security?
4.0 p.m.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. I should like also to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, because I seem to have one of his missing pages. I would ask the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, three questions. First, why have the Government calculated these reductions on the basis of GNP when we know that, so far as GNP is concerned, we appear to be spending more than our allies, but when we take it on a per capita basis we are in fact spending less? Secondly, could not we save much more money more effectively by embarking on a genuine programme of true standardisation of equipment? A slight reference is made to this but no quantification. It must be possible to save a very considerable amount of money if we adopt that course. Finally, may I ask what will be our total troop withdrawals from NATO? There is no indication as to what this amounts to in terms of quantity or manpower. Arising out of that, do these withdrawals include 3 Division and 38 Group RAF? If so, this is quite an important factor.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, may I begin by apologising for confusion in the Department for which I am answering, which seems to have caused the noble Lord, Lord Byers, to have two of everything while the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is minus two. I shall try to find out why this mistake was made. I apologise for the confusion involved.
I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has quite grasped the significance of the Statement. This is not a Statement from on high. He mentioned that it was vague and meaningless. In point of fact, it is in a sense a document that we hope both Houses of Parliament will discuss and which we shall discuss with our allies, and with all the members of national groups and alliances which are affected by this Statement of Intent. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, will, I hope, apply his respected intelligence to dissecting this document and, when we come to debate it in the near future—I believe this will be before Christmas, though I must not pre-empt my noble friend's ruling on this matter—then we can get down to analysing the implications of our

91
proposals. The hard core is, of course, firm, but around it is a wide area which we are discussing not only in your Lordships' House and in another place but also with our allies. So this is not a proposal laying down the last word. It is not the last word but the beginning of a discussion.
The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, asked me three basic questions. First, as a result of these proposals, will Great Britain be more or less secure? I should imagine that the least secure Britain is a Britain that is financially "broke". Therefore, such a bankrupt Britain could not plan rationally ahead for any time at all, let alone for 10 years, which is the basis of the present document. The second question was: will our capacity be less or more considerable? Let us remember that we are not fighting the Warsaw Pact alone but as a member of NATO, and what we are doing is making to NATO that contribution which we can in fact most effectively and skilfully bring about. The final question—an important one—was: will the Services be better or less well equipped? These are value judgments. They will certainly not be less well equipped, because every major programme lying ahead—for instance, the new cruiser, the improved tanks and a whole number of other projects which I will list when I make my speech later in the month—are in fact retained. What we shall lose will be a number of obsolete ships and aircraft, but the hard core and the advanced weaponry will be retained. As regards the noble Lord's last question, as to why defence was singled out, I can only agree with him and I say I wish the cost benefit analysis that was applied to defence could also be applied to all Departments.
Turning now to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Byers—and I thought his questions were quite pertinent—he first asked: why is the calculation made on the basis of the gross national product? The answer is that I suppose it is the only tool we have to work with. A yard, in terms of gross national product, is not a yard: it is a very flexible instrument of measurement. But it is all we have to use, and I may say that all the forward estimates are made on the basis of constant prices. Turning to the second point, I could not agree more as regards
92
standardisation. It is estimated that the effectiveness of our NATO Alliance would be increased by 30 per cent. if we could have standard equipment. As for total troop withdrawals from significant areas, the answer is, nil.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, my noble friend in fact said that this is not the last word, and he added in the course of his observations that there were to be consultations across the board. In the light of these two statements, can he explain why his right honourable friend has injected into this Review definite and specific figures of reductions—£300 million next year, £500 million in the subsequent year, and £700 million later on? If he has made up his mind about specific figures, then why are we talking about this not being the last word? Are we to understand that these figures are subject to reconsideration and possible reduction?
May I further ask him whether his right honourable friend has taken into consideration these two possibilities: first, that before 1978–79 the GNP will have increased to our advantage, instead of having weakened. Secondly, taking the cost in manpower, even if reduced, and the cost of equipment, taking into consideration the need for more modern equipment particularly in the nuclear field, then why this Review and why specific figures? Ought not the noble Lord to ask his right honourable friend to arrange for further consultations across the board, before coming to a definite decision?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has a very great deal of experience. I recall that he was Secretary of State for the Army and has in fact a few more years' experience in these matters than I have.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, may I remind my noble friend that I also undertook a Review, not when I was Secretary of State for War but when I was Minister of Defence. I undertook a Review which resulted in an increase in our expenditure, but the subsequent Government, under the late Winston Churchill, reconsidered the matter and reduced that expenditure.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, needs no

93
defence from me! I am grateful for his intervention. He asked me about the precision of this Statement. As we all know, this is, in a sense, an act of faith. We do our best to peer into the future, but who knows what will happen? We might very well find ourselves with an extension of the Northern Ireland crisis in this country, which might very well cause us to reconsider all our defence plans. He is quite right in mentioning the growing national product.
I hope that I shall not be shot down if, in answer to my noble friend, I just tell your Lordships of a little calculation that I did when studying my brief. Of course we shall get out of the problems that we are in, and of course our national product will grow. In fact, the whole calculations are based on the assumption of the 3 per cent. per annum growth of our gross national product, which means that in 10 years' time we shall be having a 1 per cent. reduction of the 30 per cent. greater gross national product.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, inadvertently the noble Lord did not answer a question that I posed. I asked him what encouraging factors in the international situation the Government saw which made them think it sensible or prudent to do this.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: Not encouraging factors, my Lords, but discouraging factors at home with our present economic problems.
Viscount MONCKTON of BRENCHLEY: My Lords, I have three small questions. First, is the Sultan of Brunei paying for the Gurkha battalion there? If so, why pull out? Secondly, does the noble Lord think the career of the soldier 'twixt Belfast and München-Gladbach will be glamorous enough to get recruits? Thirdly, is the noble Lord really saying that there is morality in defence, and that is why we are going from Simonstown? There is no morality in defence, my Lords.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I will write to the noble Lord about his question on the Sultan of Brunei. I do not know whether we pay or not.
Viscount MONCKTON of BRENCHLEY: He is paying.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: Is he? He may be feeling short of money at the moment, too. The second point was glamour. I know that a nice posting in the sun is fine, but most individuals who undertake the service of the nation in the Armed Forces—although one likes a little jam on the bread—will accept the rigours of military life out of a sense of duty. If the jam is the sun and the sun disappears, we at least have the opportunity of offering money. That is the function of the "X" factor.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, could my noble friend clear my mind? I am not a defence expert. On both sides of the House we have people who claim to be defence experts, as other people claim to be foreign affairs experts. Did my noble friend say that 35,000 people engaged in Her Majesty's Armed Forces are to be dispensed with? If that is so, how many of these people will be discharged due to wastage? Secondly, could he explain the position of any members of the Armed Forces who have signed on for periods of 5, 10, 15 and 20 years who are so affected? My last question to my noble friend is this. This is a most serious Statement—and I am not a pacifist because I believe in the security of this great country—but what effect will this have on recruiting? Through the mass media advertisements have constantly been encouraging young people to join the Forces of the Crown, to make it their career, to travel the world and so on.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I said in the Statement that a reduction in the Armed Forces over a ten-year period of 35,000 and a reduction of civilian personnel of 30,000 would, in the main, be brought about by wastage. We all know that if a man's contract of service is broken, if he is of that element that cannot be dealt with by wastage and has to leave prematurely, he will be well looked after. That has been done in the past and will be done again. The reason why we cannot let wastage cover the whole of the need to reduce the Armed Forces, as my noble friend has said, is that there is the question of the age structure of the Armed Forces. We may have too many people of middle rank who have not reached the point of retirement, and they will have to retire prematurely so that young people can come in. The career which the media

95
offer may be somewhat different in four or five years from now. But, as I said earlier, the career is still a good one.
4.15 p.m.
Lord FRASER of LONSDALE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord opposite to thank his right honourable friend and the Government for having said that they will consult South Africa about Simons-town, and for not having arbitrarily arrived at a decision already? I hope I am right there. When they consult South Africa about this important lifeline, will they bear in mind that it is not so much the legal terms of an agreement about the base that matter, but the use in practice of this base—one of the very few in the Southern Seas—by ships of America, France and Britain, when they require a rest from their important duties watching the Communists?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, is correct. Consultations are starting and they are consultations, not a diktat. The facilities of Simonstown, and of course other ports on the Southern African coast, will be available to the Royal Navy when circumstances are appropriate. But no decisions have yet been reached on the so-called Simonstown Agreement.
Lord CHALFONT: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether there is something missing from the Statement that he has repeated; that is, a mention of the threat to the security which any defence policy is meant to meet. May I ask a serious question about this? May I have an assurance that if the forces of the Warsaw Pact, which the noble Lord mentioned in one of his supplementary answers, continue to increase over the coming years, as they have increased in the past three or four years, and if there is no agreement with the Soviet Union on mutual and balanced force reductions in Europe, the Government will reconsider this proposal to reduce our defences?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, this is a sophisticated House; we have all heard of the Warsaw Pact and know what it is up to. The whole of this policy predicates that the threat continues. We are not going to make any fundamental changes until—should it so happen—there is some agreement about mutual and
96
balanced force reductions. I should not think that that would happen tomorrow. We are not doing anything precipitate or final; this is a gradual shift in equipment and policies. If the situation vis-à-vis the Warsaw Pact countries, or within any of our allied countries, altered there would be time for it to be reviewed. This is a very slow, deliberate process of readjusting ourselves to what we believe is a new situation.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Statement he has made is another chicken that has come home to roost? The label on the chicken's leg is the 1957 White Paper which presents any Government—it presented this to the previous Government and will do so to any Government that may succeed this one—with a proportion of expenditure on pay and allowances in non-effective Services of between 55 per cent. and 60 per cent., the consequence being that the Government do not have the resources to buy equipment. The result is that we enter into a phase of increasing weakness. If we were truthful about it we would say that the Government were committed—although they do not admit it—to following a policy of unilateral disarmament, without making any serious attempt to secure the political advantages that could be obtained if that were a deliberate and conscious policy. Is the noble Lord sure, when he forecasts the savings in any particular year, that he will be able to offer the pay, allowances and amenities which will enable him to recruit on a sufficient basis to maintain the target figures that he has laid down?
I was staggered that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, did not pick up this point. As I understand it, the Government—I presume as part of the price they had to pay for the First Sea Lord's not resigning—are going to continue with the through-deck cruiser. But will the noble Lord be good enough to tell us what is to be on it? One of the problems which faced the noble Lord, Lord Carrington—and he, with his outstanding courage, never really faced up to it—was what they were going to do about the maritime area. This involves an expenditure of vast sums of money. Do we take it that the through-deck cruiser is to sail around the seas with no effective aircraft to place on it?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the House knows the views of the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, which he has forcefully expressed and which are carefully thought through. But my role today has been to make the preliminary Statement and to answer a few concrete questions. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, will extend and expand his views in the debate which will take place shortly before Christmas.
Lord HOY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend two questions? May I return to the question of standardisation of equipment raised by the noble Lord, Lord Byers. Is my noble friend aware that only ten days or a fortnight ago, when the North Atlantic Assembly was meeting in London, this question was raised very acutely, and, indeed, the estimates of savings for all countries inside the Assembly would have been so great that one could hardly believe them. If in fact the Secretary General of NATO is correct, I should like an assurance from my noble friend that something positive is being done to meet this situation. Secondly may I ask my noble friend this question. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said that he had been associated with two Statements in which decisions had been made——
Lord CARRINGTON: Two Reviews, my Lords.
Lord HOY: Two Reviews. But the noble Lord went on to say that decisions had been made to cut the troops and this was a kind of apologetic Statement—the consultations were not really taking place. All I want to ask my noble friend for is an assurance that this Statement is different from the two for which the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was responsible; that when he comes to this House, as his right honourable friend went to another place, he really seeks consultation; and that we shall be allowed to put our points of view—and we do have points of view—and they will be taken into consideration.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, may I thank my noble friend Lord Hoy for the second part of his contribution which underlined what I said. I hope that noble Lords opposite have something positive to contribute before Christmas. On standardisation, I can only repeat what I said regarding an estimated 30 per cent. increase in efficiency by stand-
98
ardisation if we could have the same common infrastructure as have the Warsaw Pact countries.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, the Minister has made a very comprehensive Statement and quite clearly we cannot deal with it before the debate. He will not be surprised that many of us, while welcoming some of his proposals, are deeply disappointed by others. Did I hear him correctly to say that there was no intention at all of ending the nuclear submarines with their warheads which this Government now possess? Is he aware that many of us regard these nuclear submarines as ineffective in defence, as insignificant in attack, and inviting the destruction of our whole population if war should occur?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am well aware that certain individuals hold the views expressed by my noble friend; but others hold different views.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware, as an old submariner, that if we do not develop our submarine force with nuclear submarines then we may as well give up trying to safeguard ourselves at sea?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I suspect that my noble friend Lord Wigg has been trying to get in a second supplementary. For my own protection I suggest that we allow him to do so, and then move to next business.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, if we are to have a realistic debate before Christmas, would it be possible for the Government to produce an abridged White Paper so that we might know their mind on such matters as the one I have raised about the maritime Harrier? There is a further point which to my mind goes to the heart of not only our military problems but many of our social problems. We are now members of the EEC. All the other countries in the EEC have compulsory military service. I should very much like the Government to introduce a Paper outlining what the effect would be, in terms of both cost and military consequences, if they introduced a policy of military service.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I understand that through the usual channels it has been arranged that we

99
should have a debate by 17th December, and by then, quite clearly, it would not be possible to produce a Paper of the kind my noble friend has in mind. But if there is any other information that is not classified which we can give the noble Lord, I will certainly see what steps can be taken to help.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, I am much obliged for that. The noble Lord the Leader of the House could use his influence here, using what channels of communication he wants. He can write to me as a dummy and publish the letter giving the answers to the questions I have raised. But if the Government are profoundly sincere in wanting to take account of the opinion of the House—and I am sure they are—we must be given the information upon which we can put forward opinions. I realise they are somewhat politically awkward, but we need to know the Government's mind on these points.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I will see what can be done, but clearly, taking into account the date of the debate, I cannot give any promise.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, I am much obliged.

EDUCATION (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
4.26 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
The Lord Bishop of MANCHESTER: My Lords, I feel sure there will be very general sympathy for the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, that he has for a third time been compelled to move the Second Reading of this Bill. I venture to hope that a little sympathy might be reserved for myself since I do not start with the advantage of those friendly expressions which were offered to the Minister on this issue. Bishops, it seems, are excluded from such friendliness ex officio. On a question where it is easy to represent confrontation as one between David and Goliath, the rights of small communities as ever against the unsympathetic forces of Church and State, it would be much more agreeable to be cast in the role of Jonathan than that of the armour-bearer of the
100
Philistine. What is more, it falls to the Bishop of an overwhelmingly urban diocese to reply to what is essentially a case urged on behalf of rural communities. I may remark in passing that it seems to me one of the serious objections to the Bill that it is so widely drawn as to apply to situations where it would hardly be appropriate. In the case of large cities the definition of "the local community" would become a great deal more difficult than previous critics of the Bill have already alleged it to be in the case of villages.
It may not, however, be altogether irrelevant to illustrate some of the statements which were made by the noble Lord, Lord Crowther-Hunt, and to mention two considerations applying to the diocese of Manchester, an area where church schools have traditionally made a large contribution to the educational system. The first consideration is that we have a very fair sprinkling of schools no longer used as such which are available to the parishes concerned as halls and which give a good deal of service to the local community as a whole. The second consideration is that since the passing of the 1944 Act we have in one diocese alone built 65 new schools, or parts of schools, and carried out major adaptations in another 84 at a cost to the Church of £1½ million; and in the meanwhile a great many school sites have been taken over by local authorities. Yet even after so great an effort it appears very likely that there will be a continuing movement in change of status from aided to controlled schools, because of the serious financial consequences of decisions made by national or local government, comprehensive reorganisation, raising of the school-leaving age, addition of nursery units and so forth.
I mention these instances of difficulties which recur in every part of the country, not in order to manifest any sense of ingratitude towards successive Governments for the great measure of assistance that the Church has received from them, and is about to receive in greater measure; but I think that they would serve at least to rebut any charge of mere denominational selfishness or unnecessarily callous behaviour in our showing resistance to the terms of this Bill. What is ultimately at stake is the preservation

101
of the dual system, even on a very modified scale, or else its total collapse in an age of serious inflation. I hope that even those who may wish for its abolition would not wish this to come about in quite such a lamentable and unpremeditated manner.
It would be improper for me to comment upon local situations of which I have no knowledge such as that out of which Lord Clifford of Chudleigh's personal concern has arisen. I also think it unnecessary to deploy again all those arguments which my right reverend brothers on these Benches and successive Ministers have already put forward. On the 2nd April the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, declared that the euphemistic language of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Saint Albans cut no ice. In that case the Scotsman, to whom euphemistic language comes less naturally, may perhaps be excused from employing any more of it. It does not seem to me that this Bill as it stands is capable of achieving the end with which any right-minded person should sympathise; namely, the giving of as much opportunity as possible to a village community to have some say in the use of its local buildings when these are to be disposed of. It has already been shown more than once that the Bill is too widely and imprecisely drawn and that its effect would be to drive a coach and horses through the law affecting religious and educational trusts. The noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, said that he had objection to tampering with trusts, but surely that is an argument that cuts both ways in this debate.
Having said this, however, I am far from wishing to end on a purely negative note towards the intention of the Bill. Having made inquiries, I am satisfied that the Church authorities concerned would be most willing to hold a conference with representatives of the Secretary of State in order to see what can be done to meet what this House has already shown to be a strongly held point of view, without thereby sacrificing the legitimate interests which the Church of England holds in trust. It happens already in a good many places that, although the official duty of the trustees is to obtain the highest price for a disused school, arrangements are made by which a local
102
organisation, or the local church, can purchase the property. My hope is that if this Bill should not succeed, the Minister himself will be willing, sooner or later, to initiate legislation of a more precise kind in order to achieve some, at least, of the objects for which the Bill was framed.
4.32 p.m.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, this is a small Bill, and it has been presented very often, as small Bills so often are—so often, in fact, that my noble friend Lord Clifford of Chudleigh has put himself in the same relationship to this House as a tailor to a Regency Beau, in that whenever your Lordships come to town there is the noble Lord, Lord Clifford, waiting upon you with his Bill; and as often as he presents it, your Lordships, led by the Government, go back to the country and he has to re-write it and present it again. One might leave the matter there if this were not a somewhat larger and more complex matter than the brevity and simplicity of the Bill suggests, and if it were not a matter of interest and even of importance to a much larger number of people than are likely to follow its progress through the columns of Hansard.
My noble friend's concern, which is quite widely shared up and down the country, and, I believe, up and down the Benches of this House, is with the buildings of endowed schools which were endowed by members of the community for the benefit of that community but which are no longer either needed or used as schools. However, the fact that they are no longer required or used as schools does not mean that they do not still have an important role to play in the functioning of a rural community. I specify "the rural community", as have the last two speakers, because I do not think that the same problem exists in the towns. In the village the schoolroom is very often the only focus of communal secular activity and, indeed, of a great deal of communal church activity as well—none of it strictly educational and most of it ordinarily taking place out of school hours, even when the school is no longer used as a school. Many a Parliamentary election campaign meeting attended by your Lordships has been enlivened by the art of infant and junior classes attractively, and occasionally appositely, displayed behind the candidate's head.

103
When the school ceases to be used for teaching, its other function, as a focus of community activity and spirit, still has to be discharged—bazaars, jumble sales, W.I. meetings, whist drives, harvest suppers, and PCC parish council and charity trustees' meetings. I am sure that I could add to the long list which the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, has himself presented of activities which go on there, including Sunday schools, evening classes and the like. They all need a place in which to happen, and if they do not happen a valuable aspect of village life will rapidly be lost. The only place in which they can happen in many villages today is the village school.
If your Lordships will forgive a very brief discursus, from the earliest times the English village has centred on a meeting place. When the Angles seized the land their first action was to throw up a stockade of stakes and thorns and begin immediately to build the fire-hall of their chief; and in the body of that building, even after their own huts were built, the villagers could come for warmth, revelry and justice. In fine weather they could go to the moot-place or the green. In the Middle Ages they could go to the hall or the church. But with the gradual retirement of the gentry into a more private life, and with the church being reserved more exclusively for worship, there was again a need for a meeting place warmer than the green and bigger than the pub. From the end, or, indeed, the middle of the 19th century, it was supplied either by a village hall which was purpose built or by the accommodation of the village school.
I hope that your Lordships are actually as well as theoretically aware of the important, indeed the crucial role played by a central meeting place of this kind in any small rural community. It is, after all, common ground to Catholic, Protestant and Nonconformist, to drinker and to teetotaller, to lettered and to unlettered and—to put an old phrase to modern use—to the gentle and the simple alike. It is the only place in which all folk can meet on an equal footing and be equally at home and equally at ease. All other meeting places—chapels and the like, or pubs and the like—are the home ground of one or other of the
104
social, religious and economic groups that make up the rural community. None of them of itself promotes the sense of community and interdependence which is by far the most precious attribute of a rural village. And, my Lords, what a rare thing and how precious is such a sense of community and interdependence in this day and age. Is it not precisely for that which the leaders of both the main Parties in another place have been so loudly crying for the last few months? Does not its absence lie at the heart of our present national malaise? Is it not, where it is still to be found, something to protect and shelter like the embers of a dying fire? I believe that it is, and I hope that your Lordships will agree with me.
Having said that, I do not wish to suggest that this Bill is necessarily the way in which that problem, so identified, can be solved in its present form. There are problems and they are several; and they are not, except at first sight, superficial. I shall mention only three, and that briefly because they have been touched upon already. In the first place, there is the difficulty of establishing definitions—of establishing who were the original benefactors of an endowment and what was, and what is now, the community and whether they are co-terminous still. Was that community, for instance, principally a congregation or a population? And what happens if two ecclesiastical parishes have been merged and the administrative and secular parishes have not?
In the second place, we have the difficulty of establishing values. I believe that the duties laid upon the Secretary of State in the top paragraph on the second page of this Bill—namely, establishing the relative values of donations made perhaps 100 or 150 years ago—would call upon the resources of an economic historian of tremendous power; and one could be sure that there would be another economic historian, and only one, with diametrically opposed views to deal with him when he made his statement. Therefore I think that this is a very difficult field.
In the third place, we have the difficult moral problem—it has been treated hitherto in this debate as a legal problem—of what I would call breach of trust. If, as is usually the case, the

105
school was built and endowed to provide a local community with elementary education under the supervision of the Church of England, then it can be argued that to sell the school to the highest bidder, with unrestricted use—that is crucial to this Bill—and to use the cash so raised to further the cause of a similarly supervised school on a larger scale and at a greater distance will still benefit the community and will carry out the educational intentions of the benefactors as well. It can further be argued, and with force, that to forgo the maximum capital benefit of the sale by selling it at existing use values only, and to restrict the benefit to the local community to non-educational activities, would be a breach of trust in two senses. It would be a failure to maximise capital and it would be a failure to extend the sphere of influence of the Church in education at a time when its influence is, I believe, sorely needed.
My Lords, not all village schools were church foundations, but we have here a widely applicable and a nice balance of interest. On the one hand, we have the needs of the village as a rural and increasingly isolated community. Those needs, let us face it, are shared by the parish church since we do not today countenance jumble sales, let alone whist drives, in the chancel and since it is very expensive to heat the whole church for occasional and administrative functions. Quite apart from that, how useful it is pastorally for the rector or vicar to be able to meet members of his parish who are not of his communion, on equal terms and equal footing on neutral ground. On the other hand, of course, there is a great need for capital to cater for the education of children who would have been taught in that very school had it not been closed as a result of a recent and, I think, unfortunately pursued vogue for concentrating elementary (that is to say primary) education in larger and larger and more and more distant units. That is another subtle attack on the sense of community that I mentioned earlier on. The selling of half a dozen Victorian schools for conversion into dwellings is one way of financing Church-sponsored education that arises as a result for the village commuter school children.
So, my Lords, there is a problem and there are difficulties obstructing its solu-
106
tion, and I do not think that solution is entirely resolved or presented in this Bill as it stands. If this were the first time that a debate in your Lordships' House had directed the attention both of the Department and of the General Synod to it, I should be content to let matters rest while they reflected. But my noble friend Lord Clifford of Chudleigh embarked upon this Bill in October, 1973. It has had its fourth First Reading and this is its third Second Reading debate, and I should not like to see the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, going down for the third time.
I doubt whether the Government wish either to be, or to apear to be entirely obstructive in this matter and I am certain that the Church do not. Indeed, I am certain that what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester called "denominational selfishness" is not a motive which would be imputed. But I think inertia is one that is very likely to be laid as a charge at the doors of the Church, if they are not careful. Therefore I would propose to your Lordships, although the Bill in its present shape is not capable of resolving the problem, that we give it a Second Reading. We already know from remarks made yesterday by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, that the pressure of Parliamentary business is such that amendments to the Social Security Amendment Bill would put its completion back beyond the Recess, and since then we have had an addition of business resulting from the Defence Review Statement. There can therefore be no great hurry to rush this little Bill through all its stages, and the proper thing to do, I believe, perhaps with the initiative of the Minister, is for those representing the Church and those representing a rural interest—and here I think one wants perhaps to reflect upon the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, or the Parish Councils Association or some similar body—and of course the redoubtable noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, himself, to consult together and produce either an improvement on this Bill or a substitute for it, probably of a legislative nature as the right reverend Prelate suggested, but quite possibly in the form of a Concordat.
In that light I think we can proceed to better things and to the benefit of a great many communities. To reject the

107
Bill now would be a great error; it would remove from the administrative machinery, both temporal and spiritual, the pressure which alone makes it turn smoothly, and would condemn perhaps a dozen more village schools beyond reprieve. There I will close my remarks, except to welcome the introduction of this Bill by my noble friend Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, and to wonder whether he was wise in his passionate claims in favour of justice on behalf of Saxons in the face of Normans, or whether he should have reflected on the Norman origins of his own family.
4.43 p.m.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, I apologise for not having put my name down to speak, but matters have occurred during the course of the debate on which I should like to comment. I am speaking as one who was for ten years the chairman of a diocesan board of finance of a semi-rural, semi-urban area, and was in receipt of much obloquy from parishes of the nature of my noble friend's parish, on which he based his speech. Most of us in the Church of England—but not all—believe that the retention of Church schools is of very great importance, because by retaining the Church schools the governors have the power to appoint the teachers and they have hopes that they can appoint teachers who are Christians and who will remain Christians. Therefore, they want to keep as many school places as possible in Church hands, even when streamlining and rearranging by the local education authority is taking place. The State pays a very large proportion of the capital sum for any new schools which are erected, but the Church, if it wishes to retain its interest, has to produce a fraction. I cannot remember the precise amount—I think that in my day it was 20 per cent.—and they are dependent upon only two sources of income. There is the schools pool, into which all such sales as the noble Lord has spoken about are put, and the quota which is levied on all the parishes of the diocese and which is met with a series of groans from most parishes.
If there were widespread action to sell the village schools to the villagers and so on at below market price, instead of
108
selling them at the top market price, which has produced a very valuable source of revenue indeed in the diocese of Chichester for the schools fund, then the schools pool would be very much more deficient that it is at the moment. Speaking for the one with which I had something to do, we were in a constant state of acute penury of debt. I dare say that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester had plenty of money up there but it did not exist in Sussex.
I think that the proper remedy for this is for the village which wants to keep its buildings with a change of user to make arrangements to buy at what could be considered a reasonable market price and possibly get help from the diocese to pay by instalments. It would be perfectly possible in some cases, if the capital amount was not too big, for the diocese to lend the amount free of interest on condition that it was paid back over a period of, say, ten years, by equal instalments. That would meet the least bad of all worlds because the schools pool would get this money over a period of years and the parish would have an easy method of re-paying for it. I believe it would be a mistake to pass this Bill because it would deal a serious blow to the schools pool, at all events in the more rural diocese.
4.48 p.m.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, in summing up may I pick up a few points which have been made by other speakers. Starting with the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, I really do not think he realises the situation in which so many of these small villages find themselves.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, I know it only too well.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: Very well. Does the noble Lord suggest that there is an alternative place for the people of the village to meet? Does he suggest that a hamlet of 60 families can afford to buy a new hall even if they have obtained the money by means of a loan?
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, the noble Lord is entirely misunderstanding me. He is suggesting that they should buy it at some special price; I am suggesting that they should buy this building at a more

109
or less market price and borrow the money from the diocese and then repay by instalments.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, is missing my point, which is that in this case and in hundreds of others which I have in my file, the one and only village meeting place is (or was) the original school which was built by the local population. We have the list, we know the percentage they paid and we know what the contributions were. It seems completely unjust to the local villager that this hall, which over the years he has considered to be his own, because he, his father and grandfather before him had paid for it and had considered the hall as being theirs already, should be paid for again. The argument put forward is that they should now go and buy the hall again, having already provided it. I really think that is missing the point.
My Lords, if I may now turn to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, I greatly appreciated the way in which he finished, because it was exactly the same way, I think he will agree, in which I ended my own speech. Since I first introduced this Bill, I have recognised that it contains imperfections. But I wanted to achieve the object. I have had support from inside and outside the House. All I have asked of successive Governments—and this has been asked for by other noble Lords as well as the noble Lord, Lord Sandford—is that we should get together and produce something which would have the effect we are aiming for; that is, that we do not lose our small local centres. The noble Lord said that there were difficulties in definition. But I say that in our case we know exactly what was contributed by whom. I should have thought it was easy enough to say, "Right, if it was 100 per cent. then, it is 100 per cent. now; if it was 50 per cent. then, it is 50 per cent. now".
My Lords, I return to the question of what has been spent on the buildings since the 1944 Act, when they were taken over by the local authority. The village has paid rates, and part of these rates has been spent on upkeep, so I do not think there is any difficulty there. Turning to what was said by the right reverend
110
Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, I noticed that he made reference to the episode of April 2. One of the Bishops sat next to me at tea afterwards. I was glad to know that, no matter what was said in Hansard, on the whole the Bishops realised our predicament. Fundamentally, they were only saying what they were told to say, to keep hold of this gratuitous gift that arose from the 1944 Act. I would say to the right reverend Prelate that an urban community would not want to take advantage of a Bill like this. The operative word is "may".
My Lords, we have heard many times from the Minister phrases like, "We are sorry"; "We are full of sympathy", and, "We have no use for it so we must turn it down". What is suggested now by the noble Lord, Lord Elton—and it was suggested before him by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and before that by the noble Lord, Lord Raglan—is that we must save these local centres. Why cannot we get together? Why will they not get together? Why will they not allow some meeting whereby we can put forward a workable Bill, or find some other way of achieving the object? There are many small communities in the country who are, or may be, in danger in the future of losing their own village meeting centre if the present system is allowed to continue.
One reference was made to the question of trusts. Surely it is still educational, adult education particularly; and surely it is charitable because it is not run for a profit. It is religious, and religious denominational, if you like, in this and many other cases. Where else could the rector have his Sunday school? So I do not think it is going against the trust at all. I hope your Lordships will give this Bill another Second Reading. I have not pretended that it is perfect. I have taken advice. If there is anything wrong, if, as successive Ministers have said, they are in sympathy with what I am trying to achieve, then please do what the noble Lord, Lord Elton, suggested. But since I have not had that offer from the Government, I hope your Lordships will agree to give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SAFETY OF SPORTS GROUNDS BILL [H.L.]
4.56 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Applications for certificates]:
On Question, Whether Clause 3 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I were to say that in the light of the reorganisation of local government that has already taken place in England and Wales, and which is due to take place in Scotland next year, we have been looking again at the various places in the Bill, of which Clause 3(3) is an example, in which separate mention is made of the local authority and the fire authority. In fact, the local authority and the fire authority are, or will be, one and the same. Some re-drafting may be necessary on this account. I hope to put down appropriate Amendments on Report for the consideration of your Lordships.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
After Clause 4.
Lord WIGG Lord WIGG moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 4 insert the following new clause:
"The Secretary of State may out of moneys to be provided by Parliament make available such sums whether by way of grant, loan or otherwise and on such terms as he thinks appropriate after consultation with the Sports Council to those responsible for the conduct and management of any designated sports stadium to enable them to comply with the terms and conditions contained in any
112
safety certificate issued in relation to such sports stadium."
The noble Lord said: The Amendment which stands in my name on the Marshalled List is the same Amendment, in identical wording, as that which was moved a year ago tomorrow on behalf of the Labour Party from those Benches. I do not want to weary your Lordships. I should have liked nothing better than just to read the speech I made a year ago, because the arguments I put forward then are the arguments I put forward today. I believe them to be true. I thought that members of the Labour Party, many of whom sit on these Benches today, who went through the Lobby believed them, too. That belief was emphasised because when the Bill went to another place, the identical Amendment—suitably amended, of course—was put down there. The Labour Party en masse went through the Lobby. Senior Members who sit on these Benches, like my noble friend Lord Balogh, voted for that Amendment a year ago. I sincerely trust they will vote for it today.
Having made that point, I wish to make a second. My interest in this matter is confined to what I say. I speak for nobody but myself, except for the organisations which I mentioned on Second Reading—the Football League, the Football Association, the Central Council for Physical Recreation, and many clubs or organisations which have sent messages to me, including one telegram I had as I came into the House, from the chairman of the Middlesbrough Football Club, who hopes very much that your Lordships will listen particularly not to what I have to say, but to what others have to say. That includes, I am glad to say, the noble Lord, Lord Westwood, who spoke on that occasion and voted; and he as chairman of Newcastle United and with his long membership of the Football League and the Football Association speaks with very great authority. Indeed, let me say that there is no difference between supporters and opponents on one particular point. I cannot do better than read what Lord Westwood said in regard to the licensing of sports stadia:
"… as it is of paramount importance that the safety of the public should be safeguarded at all times".—[OFFICIAL REPORT,20/11/73, c. 951.]

113
That is basic. Everybody accepts the necessity of this Bill; the Conservative Party accepted it when they were in Government, the Labour Party when they were in Opposition, and now the positions are reversed; judging by the speeches of the spokesmen, we all accept that.
What is at issue is how it is to be paid for. When the Bill was debated a year ago I expressed my dissatisfaction or—let me put it more mildly—my lack of complete satisfaction with the form of words on the Marshalled List. I have the same doubts today. The late Lord Garns-worthy said that the Amendment was not perfect. That is not what we are after. On Second Reading I made the same point. All that we ask for is that the Government honestly and sincerely—with a mind to the great issues involved here—look at this problem. It is no good the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, coming along and saying, "I was not here then". If I may say to him with great respect, his opinions on any subject are of great importance but are not all that important. We are not asking the noble Lord, Lord Harris, we are asking the Government—and he is the spokesman of the Government—to explain to us what it was that converted the Labour Party from their view in Opposition to their view in Government that football clubs are commercial undertakings.
I excuse the noble Lord who spoke on Second Reading. I intended, if he had been here, to argue a little with him about his somewhat juvenile views, but as he is not here it would be unfair, not having given him notice, to argue with what he said. But let us take what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said. He said:
"It is a long-established principle that those who, in the course of a commercial enter- I prise, put the public at risk should themselves bear the cost of any statutory safety measures which thus become necessary. The Government see no reason to depart from this principle in the present case. But while no grants or loans from public funds will be made to the football clubs, we have been considering whether there are other ways in which help may be given."—(OFFICIAL REPORT, 19/11/74, Col. 986.)
Let us consider for a while the extent to which football clubs are commercial undertakings in the fullest sense of the word as advanced by the noble Lord and another noble Lord on the other side. First of all, all dividends are limited to 10
114
per cent. Directors cannot receive any remuneration either as directors or employees of the club. Of course, there is another fundamental difference, and it is this: football is a highly competitive business for a very few. The noble Lord, Lord Westwood, made this point. There are not eight or ten clubs in the country which are commercially viable. Nor can that number ever be exceeded, because only eight or ten clubs can reach the highest honours, but in order to reach the highest honours they must have other clubs to beat. So the game of football—as practised and followed by some 35 million people a year—is a game in which there can be very few winners, but in order that the game shall have life blood and shall be meaningful to the thousands who go through the turnstiles there have to be many losers. Therefore, it is quite impossible to maintain or sustain the argument—if it is asserted—that it is a commercial undertaking.
What I want to ask is: if the Government hold the view that this is a principle which has been long maintained, why did not they cite it both in this place and in the House of Commons a year ago; because if that principle is eternal, as enunciated by Lord Harris, it was equally as valid on 4th December 1973, as on 3rd December 1974. I have not asked for large handouts, although what I said was caricatured. I am asking for nothing of the kind. I am not even asking for any money. But I want once again to remind noble Lords of a few basic facts.
Your Lordships will perhaps have a little personal sympathy with me, because I fought the battle on my own at one stage in two particular fields. The revenue from betting and gaming when the Labour Government came to Office in 1964 was £33 million and no more. When the case was made that it ought to be looked at there was a stout denial. No, this was impossible. Winston had failed; when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, he had tried to tax gambling, and he had failed. The late Mr. Iain Macleod, in the course of the debate on the Finance Bill in 1966, forecast failure. He was kind and generous enough at a later stage to admit he was wrong.
But what is it today? The Chancellor of the Exchequer in a supplementary Statement on the recent Budget debate forecast that this year there will be £240

115
million from gambling. For football I used a figure a year ago which was not far out; I projected the amount in respect of football would be of the order of £72 million. This year it is not less than £85 million. On the general betting duty, which concerns horseracing, dogs and the like, it is of the order of £130 million. These are great sums. But I am not making the mistake, and I do not assert, that this money is taken from football or taken from racing. It is no more taken from racing or football than it is taken when a man pays tax on a gallon of petrol or a packet of cigarettes. I reject the principle of hypothecation and I said that I renounced it in 1961. Again almost on my own, when the Bill was going through the Committee stage in the House of Commons, I voted against my own Party five times in order to establish the levy.
However, when the Minister comes along and says: "We cannot give any money. This offends against the basic principle which has just been dug out of the archives in the Home Office or possibly the lower dungeons of the Treasury", I do not believe him. When he says, "Yes, we are going to give a little help by way of football pools and possibly through lotteries", how very kind of him! In 1968, Sir Norman Chester presented a Report which had been called for by the Minister of Sport; he was then a junior Minister of State in the Department of Education. In paragraph 64 there is a recommendation that there should be a levy on football.
The Minister, when he was replying, said: "We cannot give much help. We cannot do it this way but we can do it in other ways, football pools and lotteries." He said, "The Government are under difficulties, but the matter is under consideration and we shall be reporting as soon as possible". If it takes from 1968 to 1974—and remember that the present Home Secretary was Chancellor of the Exchequer when the Report was presented so he could have done it then if he had wanted—if six years is as soon as possible, would he be kind enough to tell me how long is "as long as passible"? It has taken six years and I the truth, although the Minister may not know it, is that there is as much chance of getting a levy on football as there is
116
of a celluloid mouse going through Parliament. There is no chance at all!
For this reason I ask noble Lords to go back and read a very erudite speech by Enoch Powell on the Peppiatt Report. Remember, my Lords, that the Government of Mr. Butler was in difficulties about getting their legislation on betting and gaming through this House, and they set up a Committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Leslie Peppiatt. When the Report was presented, Enoch Powell got up and put forward the traditional view of the Treasury, "No hypothecation. No assignment of revenue in advance". It is for that reason that the recommendation of the Norman Chester Committee has never been accepted. If, as I say, it has hung about for six years, what chance has it now?
We now come to another argument. I had a really rough ride, because I had the temerity to oppose piecemeal legislation on the interdepartmental committee that had its basis in this document which was presented to Parliament in 1973. Its basis was dishonest, because the Conservative Government were in difficulties. They were in difficulties because they had put a limit on bingo—or the Gaming Board had done so—but there was no limit on football. So they got it out of their court by setting up a departmental committee under the chairmanship of a very able civil servant, and they produced a Report which was debated in this House.
Then a Private Member's Bill went through the House of Commons, and when the Government failed to defeat it it came to this House. I spelled it out as clearly as I could, not that I was against the principle of the Bill, but that there should be no piecemeal legislation. It was no good approaching this complicated and controversial subject piecemeal. It had to be done by a Government which took this Report, accepted what parts they wanted, and came not only to the House but to the country as a whole—because the consequences of this are extremely far-reaching.
I noticed with interest that with an act of sublime political courage, when I divided the House and I managed to persuade the House that the Bill should not be read a second time, all the Members of the Government Front Bench

117
abstained from voting. I also noticed a Question that was answered in the House of Commons on 21st November last by Dr. Summerskill, who was the Minister, a departmental colleague of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, who on the Second Reading of this Bill had accepted this Report in principle, although it had never been accepted by either the Conservative or Labour Governments, and who said on the subject of lotteries:
"The Working Party's Report is fairly complicated. It deals with a wide range of subjects some of them very controversial. It is necessary to consider the whole of football pool legislation and not deal with it piecemeal."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 21/11/74; col. 1509.]
So we are not to have it dealt with piecemeal. It is to be looked at as a Government measure. Yet both in the field of football pools and in the field of lotteries, the only hope that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, could give, not only to football but to sport as a whole, was that, "We have discovered a principle. We are looking to see whether we can give help in one of two fields." Yet the Government know perfectly well that nothing will ever come out of the first, and the chance of getting more than 2p out of the second are extremely remote.
On 25th July, I wearied the House with the exercise that had been done by the GLC on the question of lotteries. They had worked it out that what they would get were a few thousand pounds, but they forgot to take into their calculations that lotteries would be subject to 40 per cent. pool duty, so that at the end of the day if they ran lotteries the chances were not that they would make anything, but that they would not get anything at all. The positive case that I am putting to the Government is this. The financing of sport and the wellbeing of sport are of major national importance, and it is no good the noble Lord, Lord Harris, coming like an echo from the 1930s, with the real old voice of laissez-faire, the authentic voice of Chamberlain and all he stood for, and saying, "We cannot do it now." I would not laugh. I would hang my head in shame if I had to advance arguments of that kind. What does it mean to the young whose chance may come?—"Nothing for you my son. We cannot afford it." My generation suffered from that. This country as a whole suffered from that. Education in this
118
country was so neglected that when the war came we did not have the manpower to handle the technical equipment that was available. That is the price you pay if you turn around and say, "No, we cannot afford it."
Of course it is difficult. Of course in a time of great financial stringency you cannot give vast sums of money that will benefit people who go to Ascot, those who go to football matches, or those who play squash and the like. What you could do is to look at the problem as a whole, face it squarely and examine the basis of the finances of sport in this country. If the Government want an alibi, do not say, "We are leaving the question under review and we will get a reply as soon as possible. It may be football pools and it may be lotteries", when they know very well it will not. Set up a Select Committee to examine the financing of sport in the professional sense, from the point of view of the safety of spectators or the integrity of the sport, and also look to see what facilities should be provided for our young people in participant sports. Look at it as a whole. See how you can raise the finance. You have taken £240 million. You are bleeding the industry white, and it has no means of recouping this.
The noble Lord, Lord Westwood, will tell your Lordships that at the present time, because of the lack of social discipline which is largely occasioned, in my judgment, by successive Governments' refusal to face the problem, it costs more at many football matches to pay for the police than it does to pay for the team. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Westwood, would use that argument. It is an argument of validity. The behaviour of young people is very much occasioned by the way they behave at sporting functions. I think it is a crime if any racecourse in this country, any stand in this country, any facility in this country is not used to the maximum.
What is wanted here is not only money. What is wanted is intelligence, vigour and the abandoning of laissez-faire. I should have thought that this problem was too hot for any Minister. It is too hot for the Home Secretary because he, like the noble Lord, Lord Butler, is concerned only with the social aspects of the problem. I have no doubt whatever that the

119
present Home Secretary has protested against the decision of the Treasury not to provide money for sport. I am sure, too, that the present Minister for Sport, while he has said one thing in Opposition, is forced to say another in Government. But the matter needs to be looked at right across the board.
My plea is this. You are not going to get anything unless you exercise pressures. Do not get taken out for lunches; do not get taken into conferences; do not listen to the soft words of the noble Lord. Lord Harris, reading from a departmental brief which is not completely intellectually digested. Do not take any notice of that. What we want to do is to make a case, and to understand our case ourselves, for all sport in this country to get around the table—certainly the Football League and the Football Association—if you like under the chairmanship of the Minister for Sport. They should go to the Prime Minister and say, "If you do not provide the facilities—if you do not look at the position of this country vis-à-vis the other countries who lay claim to greatness in terms of the sporting facilities which are available—it is a crime, not only against this generation but against generations to come". Therefore, in the name of logic I certainly ask all those who last year voted on the same issue when they were sitting opposite (including the Minister, because men are judged not only by what they say but by what they do) to go through the Lobby chis evening if we do not receive a satisfactory reply from the Minister. I appeal to other Members of your Lordships' House who were not present on that occasion—or who may even have been persuaded to vote against—to join in on a non-Party basis, and the Government for all their power, if they do not like it, to take it to another place and say to another place that here on this issue on a non-Party basis we are agreed that this problem should be looked at and we should not be given the sob stories that were given on Second Reading. I beg to move.
5.21 p.m.
Lord DOUGLASS of CLEVELAND: I cannot claim that I have as much interest in football as my noble friend Lord Wigg who, although he declared he had no financial interest, betrayed a
120
tremendous interest in the game and the sport itself. Perhaps I should declare that my interest is that the same manager of Middlesbrough Football Club who was in touch with my noble friend Lord Wigg was also in touch with me, probably because he is my nephew, Charles Aymer, a man who has risen from very humble beginnings, like myself, and who has made no money out of Middlesbrough Football Club. My guess is that it has cost him quite a lot of money so there is no financial interest there. My interest, I think, is the same as his. I have not been to a football match for years, although I rarely miss Match of the Day on television on a Saturday night, as do thousands more in this country. But I travel round the country and see various football pitches on which amateurs are playing and enjoying the sport and trying to emulate the skill of those they see when they go to professional football matches.
When I first looked at this Bill I wondered how much money we could ask the Government to put into an industry—I think it is now an industry—which was paying such tremendous transfer fees for the players and which reflected an impossible financial situation so far as the industry was concerned. This money merely circulates within the football industry; it neither comes in nor goes out. I have often questioned the ethics of buying and selling the footballers as if they were animals inside this industry and the footballers themselves receiving so little from the proceeds at the end of the day. But I was impressed when I listened to Jack Charlton on television talking about football to a group of very young people who were intensely interested and were concentrating on the large amount' of money people were making—players, managers and people of that character. I believe I said that my nephew is a manager: he is chairman of that club. I must correct that point for the record. Jack Charlton pointed out that very few people were receiving these high salaries for playing football and that thousands of professional people were receiving very low wages for playing the game simply because they loved it.
I am more interested in this from the point of view of safety because of

121
my experience in the industrial world. For over half a century I have fought for safety inside the industrial groups of this country and have always had problems in getting through legislation. The trade union movement has spent millions of pounds in getting through legislation in respect of safety. But it is no good passing safety regulations, or any other regulations, unless there is power to enforce them. I remember that when the Industrial Relations Act went through we informed the Government that there was very little hope of their being able to implement the legislation that they were passing. In the event it proved to be so. When one is dealing with masses of people one finds that legislation becomes inoperative if they do not want to abide by it. So one must be wise and see that one's legislation is sensible from the beginning. America learned this many years ago when she introduced prohibition; it was impossible to apply. I want to stop the Government passing legislation on safety unless there is financial power behind it to ensure that it is effective.
The legislation calls for very expensive safeguards at the football grounds—and rightly so after the Ibrox disaster. These safety regulations must be passed but they must also be effective, and unless there is enough money behind the legislation to ensure that the safeguards required will be provided and paid for it will be a useless exercise. What will be the consequences if at the end of the day it means interference with the sport and, perhaps, the closing down of football clubs? The football club at the top of the First Division today may well be the club at the bottom of the Second Division tomorrow. There is no guarantee that any club will have enough finance in a couple of years to put this legislation into operation, so we have to ensure that we have the money for it.
Imagine the feeling that will run through the country if, for example, one of the top clubs (I will not mention one that was in my mind) ran into financial trouble and inside of a year was in the Second Division and, not having implemented this legislation, it had to close down. That is the ultimate unless the money is there to implement the legislation. Suppose some of the
122
smaller clubs were in that position as they certainly may be; some may have to close down immediately. If that happens there will be mass rebellion from people who love football. That mass rebellion will express itself with sanity with 90 per cent. of the people, but the vandals who are roaming this country at the present time will love the opportunity to latch on to such a situation to create more vandalism in the train of this legislation. If they do that they will draw to themselves the decent people in sport who will support them, because their cause is good even though their remedy is wrong. The Government must not allow themselves to get into a situation of this character and the money must be provided.
I do not know whether there are resources other than the Exchequer for this purpose; there may be. My noble friend Lord Wigg touched on this point and I am not quite sure what the other sources are. But one point I make definitely; whatever the sources of this finance are they must be contained in the legislation. There must be no piecemeal legislation; with that I agree 100 per cent. My only plea to the Government is that if this legislation is going through—I not only hope it does, I know it must—it must be accompanied, not followed, by financial provisions to ensure that it is satisfactorily carried out and does not cause a lot more trouble than it is designed to remove.
5.30 p.m.
Earl COWLEY: I intend to speak on this for only a very few moments. As the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, has said, this Amendment which has been moved by the noble Lord is the same as the Amendment to our Bill moved by the late Lord Garnsworthy almost a year ago. That Amendment was resoundingly defeated by 84 votes to 34. Now the same Amendment has been dusted off and brought before the Committee once again. The noble Lord, Lord Wigg, is asking your Lordships to amend the Bill so that public funds can be made available to those people who are required to implement the terms laid down by local authorities in the safety certificates. Our attitude to this Amendment has not altered during the last year, although of course since last February our places in the Committee have been changed.

123
As was said by my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross in Committee stage on the Bill last December, we believe it would be wrong as a matter of principle for public money to be provided so that commercial enterprises can fulfil safety requirements. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, agrees with this line of thought. When someone goes into business and consequently puts members of the public at risk, he should not be provided with funds from the State so that he can ensure that people do not get hurt. Even if one did not hold to this principle and this Amendment was accepted by the Committee, I think it would be wrong at this time, when the economic situation in this country is so serious, for the Government further to reduce funds available to existing areas of Government expenditure and divert money to football grounds and other stadia so that they can implement necessary safety requirements. Likewise, it would be just as damaging to increase Government expenditure at a time of high inflation to meet the Amendment's terms.
I find it impossible to support a proposal making Government finance available to football grounds for something they should be doing anyway, and which many football clubs are doing, when much more worthwhile requests for funds, for example for housing and social services, are not being fully met. To pass this Amendment in such circumstances would be politically and morally difficult to defend. I well recognise the economic difficulties faced by the majority of football clubs in this country, but they are not alone; there are many other enterprises facing equally serious difficulties at present. One has only to look at the newspapers to see that. Also, the Bill does not require that all the safety standards have to be implemented at the same time. This work can be done stage by stage according to the financial standing of the individual club, and as the safety standards are implemented so the numbers of spectators permitted into the club can be increased. I feel that, in light of what I have just said, if the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, presses his Amendment to a Division I must advise my noble friends to oppose it in the Division Lobbies.
5.33 p.m.
Lord WESTWOOD: I must first apologise for not being in your Lordships' House when the Second Reading of the Bill took place on 19th November. This was entirely due to my being in Rotterdam attending an international football conference about the problems which face football, not only in this country but in the whole of Europe. May I also again inform your Lordships that I have a keen personal interest in the sport by declaring my interest, as I did when the Bill was before the House in November, 1973. I have had promotion since then: I am President of the Football League, which controls the 92 professional clubs in this country, and Vice-President of the Football Association, the governing body of the game which controls over 36,000 clubs in England. I am also chairman of a club with great football tradition, Newcastle United. With all due modesty, I think that I can claim to have some knowledge of the game and also a great interest in this Bill.
I can assure your Lordships—it has been stressed time and time again—that football clubs are not against the Bill. But we want to know, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, says, who will pay for all the work. It is all right my noble friend saying that we cannot do this and we cannot do that, but the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, has to keep coming back and all he gets is sympathy, which is all that football gets. The noble Lord, Lord Wigg, has moved the Amendment, which I strongly support, and I trust the matter will be carefully considered by your Lordships. The position in football is serious—do not let us forget it. There are few professional clubs making a profit. My own club—this may be amazing news to your Lordships, because we were in the Cup Final last year—lost over £32,000 as our balance sheet for the year ended 31st July showed. We were successful in getting to the Cup Final, but not successful in winning the trophy.
A well known sports writer recently described the game of football as the "game of the people", which sums it up. If I may, I will give your Lordships some information which will, I am sure, reveal what the game is facing now. Criticism is frequently levelled at football because

125
of hooliganism. The Press, radio and television media repeatedly refer to it. But the great majority of acts of hooliganism take place not inside the stadia but away from grounds and after the match. There was an incident in Bristol two or three months ago when about 390 people were arrested, but only 11 people were arrested in the football ground, most of them being young men. The clubs do everything they can to control the spectators. It may be of interest to your Lordships to know that in 1972 the cost of having police at the 92 League Clubs was £308,254. In 1973 the cost was £530,100. We estimate that the cost for this season will be three-quarters of a million pounds due to two increases in police salaries. I often wonder who pays for the police on duty at the large "pop" concerts in Windsor Great Park, or the police who have to turn out on Sundays to march beside demonstrations and processions. I hazard the guess that it is not the organiser of these functions who pays. But football has to pay for them and yet they get criticised. We do not think this is playing the game. We are asked to install extra seating at our grounds to stop hooliganism. The cost of installing extra seating is expensive, but we have done it this past season. And what happens? We are thanked by getting an increase in our rates because we put in extra seating! No matter what we do in football we do not seem to be able to win.
On several occasions it has been suggested that the Football Pools Promoters' Association should be asked to pay a levy towards the cost of running football. But they, too, are in trouble because of increase in taxation. I have figures which the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, may not have. In the year to 31st July 1974, the total turnover of the five main pools—and there are many others—was £194·3 million. The tax paid to the Government in betting duty was £68,247,000, and the dividends paid to the punters totalled almost £70 million. Yet we in football are struggling for existence. It is really farcical. Surely the Government can do something to keep our national game going. Why not tax punters' winnings? I am sure that anyone who wins a half-million will be delighted to pay some of it to keep football going.
126
I remember making my maiden speech in your Lordships' House in December, 1956, when I appealed for assistance for the cinema industry which was being taxed very heavily. I well remember I said at that time that if the Government did not do something to help the industry it would be in trouble. I finished up by saying, "There's no business like show business, but if the Government do not help there will be no business—period". At that time there were nearly 5,000 cinemas in this country—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, will remember this—while today there are approximately 1,500 cinemas, and many towns and even cities are either without a cinema or perhaps have only one. That can happen to football if we do not get help from some source to enable us to comply with the terms of this Bill.
What your Lordships and the Government are asking us to do is to make bricks without straw, and we just cannot do it. We have had delegations to another place and we have met Members of all Parties. We get sympathy and hopes, but no help. Football is not the only sport that is in trouble. Cricket, too, has problems as your Lordships will have read this week, and I hear that sponsorship from Gillette and Rothmans may not be forthcoming for cricket and tennis next summer. We cannot blame the sponsors, because they, too, have their problems.
When this Bill is passed and licensing then becomes compulsory, I know there will be many clubs which do not have the money to comply with this law. If sections of their ground are closed to enable them to comply, which is allowed under the Bill, then the club's revenue will fall and they may well have to close down and deprive the town of its football club, as has happened in the case of over 3,000 cinemas. Football, cricket, rugby, athletics and all other sports need financial help, and they need it soon. I hope the Government will look into the possibility of a tax on the pool dividends or a change in the Act on small lotteries, or at whatever source we can get money from. I would ask the Minister to accept this Amendment, which is exactly the same as one moved by the late Lord Garnsworthy, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, has told us. I can assure your

127
Lordships that every sporting organisation in the country will be grateful if noble Lords stand by their previous policy.
Lord ST. HELENS: I am no expert on this subject, and for that reason I shall be extremely brief. But I would remind your Lordships that a little while ago we listened to an extremely serious announcement by the Government to the effect that they are to cut our national defence by a very large sum of money over the next few years. If on the same day the Government were to grant an increase for the development of sport within the country, I could think of nothing which would have a more disastrous effect upon our Allies in NATO. Therefore, I hope your Lordships will oppose this Amendment most strongly.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: May I, first of all, say—and I do not think this will be of particular surprise to the Committee—that, as I indicated in my Second Reading speech, an Amendment on these lines is not acceptable to the Government. That was the position when I made my Second Reading speech, and of course it remains the position today. May I also say that I am deeply appreciative of the kind and gracious words uttered about me by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg. He uttered them with that degree of restraint and quality of understatement for which he is appropriately famed.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigg, pointed out with perfect truth that the Amendment before us today—and this point was repeated by the noble Earl—is in exactly the same terms as the one on which the then Labour Opposition divided the House. That is of course so, and the answer to the question, "Why have you changed your minds?", is, I should have thought, fairly apparent. As I pointed out in the reply I made to the Second Reading debate on the Bill, we face a rather serious economic situation in this country. The noble Lord who has just sat down pointed this out. We have had two General Elections, and I should have thought that the one point upon which all three political Parties agreed in both of those General Elections was that we faced economic problems with-
128
out parallel, certainly since the war and arguably for a great deal longer. In a situation of this sort it is quite impossible for the Government to accept an Amendment on the lines of the one that the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, has put before us today.
I repeat, and I do not want to weary the Committee by going through the arguments that I deployed on Second Reading, that when we are having to limit expenditure not only on defence, to which the noble Lord has just alluded, but on education and the social services generally, it would be quite impossible for the Government to find arguments to justify a decision of the kind which we are being asked by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, to take this afternoon. I accept, of course—and the noble Lord, Lord Westwood, the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, and the noble Lord, Lord Douglass, have all discussed it—the serious financial problem facing football; and, indeed, as has been pointed out, problems of this sort are facing many other sporting organisations. It is one of the prices we pay for what is historically an extremely high rate of inflation.
All I can say is that of course we appreciate the difficulties facing football. That is a matter which obviously is at the centre of our argument this evening. That is why, under the legislation which is before us now, local authorities can first of all require a club to do only what is reasonable. They can allow the necessary work, which has to be carried out in order that the appropriate safety certificate can be issued, to be completed by stages—subject, of course, to safeguards. There would have to be safeguards, because we could not run the risk of a repeat of the Ibrox Park disaster. The sort of safeguards that there would have to be are such that until certain works were carried out there would have to be some limitation on numbers—perhaps extra stewards and things of this sort.
There is also a right of appeal to the Secretary of State, which is not unimportant, because some of the issues which could be involved in an appeal would be the financial ones that have been raised in the course of this debate; and, certainly, if what was being asked was inherently unreasonable that would be a

129
factor to be taken into account in considering whether or not a local authority was behaving reasonably.
The second point I would make is that, as I indicated in our last debate, the Government are perfectly prepared to consider further help, though obviously it would go far less far than the football authorities would wish us to go. There is the possibility of a levy on football pools, which the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, mentioned a few moments ago, but as I pointed out in my speech on Second Reading this is the least attractive of the two possibilities which I mentioned. The second possibility is the extension of the law on lotteries. I recognise the fact that there has been delay in this matter, but I hope we shall be in a position to move towards a decision before long, and certainly I recognise that there is a certain amount of wholly justified impatience to get a clearly defined position on this from the Government. But, also, recognising the problems that face the football clubs, we have undertaken to provide tax relief on expenditure on structural alterations—the sort of structural alterations made necessary by this Bill. I recognise, I repeat, that this does not go as far as the football authorities wish us to go, but in the light of the current economic situation it would be extremely irresponsible for the Government to take any view other than the one which Ministers are now taking.
Lord WIGG: On Second Reading I made the point that the issues in this Bill were similar in character to—indeed, they reflected—what is wrong for the nation. I would turn my attention first of all to the speech from the Conservative Benches. There is the traditional, authentic voice—"Housing, social services; in view of all these demands we have to look at the problem in blinkers". They are quite incapable of looking as a whole at the problems which face the nation if it is to be argued, as we heard from the third Bench back, that, in view of the Statement this afternoon, everything that we now do has to be judged in terms of what we do in relation to defence. If we cannot afford defence, then we cannot afford anything else—be it education or anything. There is the total argument: We are "broke" and we cannot do anything about it.
130
I am obliged to the Minister for his complimentary remarks about my normal forms of expression, for which he said I am famous. For one thing at least I am famous. It is that I do not say one thing and do another; I do not say one thing this year and then, when it is politically convenient, crawl across the Benches and say the opposite. If I may use my own gracious phrases, I say that it is physiologically impossible to lick up my own vomit and seem to enjoy it. I hope that that is clear. I hate humbug, whether it be from the Tory or the Labour Benches. It is humbug which the noble Lord and the Government will come to regret, because they have milked the cow of gambling in this country and they did not even know how to do it—and if they knew how to do it, they have done it regardless of the consequences. The Home Office does not even know the consequences of what one Minister says. In the same answer which the Minister gave on the issue of small lotteries, she also said that the total amount wagered in terms of gambling as a whole was £441 million. She got her sources wrong; and she got her sums wrong in terms of the overall figure. It is of the order of £2,700 million. But if you take the total amount gambled and deduct the amount taken by way of tax it is something like £441 million, and £183 million is taken out, plus £65 million taken out by the pool promoters.
The noble Lord, Lord Westwood, is absolutely right. I do not raise the issue of hypothecation. I understand perfectly well the traditional arguments against hypothecation, which is an assignment of duty for a specific purpose. That I accept; but both the Conservative Party when in Government and the Labour Party in Office now, know that no Chancellor can go on taxing without being aware of the fact that there is a law of diminishing returns. Sooner or later, if you go on milking the cow and do not feed it, you kill the cow and get no milk. That is the logic of this situation.
I should have been "warned off", as it were, in the case that I have tried to put, if the Minister had said that there is a grievous economic situation; that of the taxation we raise we must have every penny. But what we promised to do was to consult with the Football Association, to consult with the Central Council for

131
Physical Recreation, to show some awareness of the problem and to meet them and discuss with them, against some agreed timetable, how we can help not only football but racing as well. Racing is in a desperate plight. Let us make no mistake about that. If the argument is that we cannot give money to help football, or cricket or swimming, we certainly will not be able to give money to racing; and then, in turn, our export market will go. This is the way to national disaster. What the young man who spoke from the Tory Benches does not realise is that when defeat comes, when national humiliation comes, it does not come like a thief in the night but as a result of one step after another in which, for reasons of convenience and comfort, nations and those who lead them refuse to face the facts.
The case that I am putting is the case for sport as a whole. It is a case for the use of leisure time by the nation as a whole, leisure in all its wide aspects. It may be that as a result of the Government's economic policy—and certainly if
the attitude of the Government as a whole is the attitude of my noble friend Lord Harris—the British people will have a lot more unwanted leisure time than ever before. Therefore I say to him: Do not let them kick balls round the streets; do not deny them the opportunities for facilities. Let us look at the problem. I realise that it is a very difficult one; I am as aware as he of the economic situation. What wise men do is to take a position which looks to be an embarrassment and try to turn it to advantage—if only for the political well-being of the Government. But I am speaking for wider issues. The Minister has given us nothing. If I may say so graciously, he has not even shown that he has read his brief. He does not understand what he is talking about. Therefore, if I can find someone who can join with me as a Teller then I will divide the House.
5.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 11; Not-Contents, 93.

CONTENTS

Brockway, L.

Henderson, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Caradon, L.

Macleod of Fuinary, L.

Westwood, L. [Teller]

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Morris of Grasmere, L.

Wigg, L. [Teller]

Hall, V.

Shinwell, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor)

Long, V.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Allan of Kilmahew, L.

Ferriers, E.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Allen of Fallowfield, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

Maelor, L.

Alport, L.

Fortescue, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Amulree. L.

Garner, L.

Melchett, L.

Arwyn, L.

George-Brown, L.

Meston, L.

Auckland, L.

Gisborough, L.

Monckton of Brenchley, V.

Balogh, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Newall, L.

Belstead, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Pannell, L.

Berkeley, B.

Goschen, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Birk, B.

Gowrie, E.

Reay, L.

Blyton, L.

Granville of Eye, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Bridgeman, V.

Greenway, L.

St. Helens, L.

Castle, L.

Grenfell, L.

Sandys, L.

Champion, L.

Hamnett, L.

Seear, B.

Chorley, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Collison, L.

Harvey of Prestbury, L.

Simon, V.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Harvington, L.

Slater, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Stedman, B.

Cowley, E.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Craigavon, V.

Hughes, L.

Strang, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Killearn, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Kimberley, E.

Strathspey, L.

Denbigh, E.

Kindersley, L.

Swinton, E.

Ebbisham, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Terrington, L.

Elton, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Thurlow, L.

Todd, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Vernon, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Young, B.

Walston, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I draw attention to the fact that, under the provisions of Clause 5(4), the local authority ought to have the right as well as the parties already named to be heard in the course of any appeal proceedings conducted on behalf of the Secretary of State. A similar point in relation to appeals to the Crown Court arises on Clause 10(4). The Greater London Council have also drawn our attention to these omissions and we hope to put down appropriate Amendments for consideration by your Lordships on Report.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.

RESERVOIRS BILL [H.L.]
6.8 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARLY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness BIRK): 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.—(Baroness Birk.)
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Viscount Goschen in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Ambit of Act, and interpretation.]
Lord STOW HILL Lord STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 9, after "1969" insert" or artificial channel for the continuous flow of water, including a canal, canalised river or other embanked water course;".
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment deals with a point which I raised on the Second Reading of the Bill, because it seemed to me to go to the root of it. I raised it because I had had discussions with the British Waterways Board, which is immediately concerned
134
with this problem, and which approached me. In this House one speaks entirely on one's own responsibility, but it seemed to me the point was one of public interest and that it ought to be raised, so that is why I raised it on Second Reading.
I then asked my noble friend Lady Birk whether she would tell me that she would give careful thought between Second Reading and Committee stage to the point about which I was concerned. She has done so, writing me an extremely helpful letter and showing that she has taken a great deal of trouble and has very carefully considered the arguments which I propounded. I hope, therefore, that my noble friend and your Lordships will not think that I am ungrateful or that I am being difficult if I refer to the matter once again in Committee. I have carefully examined her letter and have taken the opportunity of further discussions with the Board. As a result, I feel I can only tell your Lordships that the Board is still very concerned over the matter and that I think its concern is justified.
First, on the question as to whether this is a minor matter on which I ought to trouble your Lordships, I would say this. The British Waterways Board is, after all, a very large public corporation. It originally derived powers which belonged to the Transport Commission and is responsible for all inland waterways in this country. As such it has direct responsibility, so I understand, for something like 2,000 miles of inland waterways, largely consisting of canals. In addition, it is responsible for some 93 reservoirs and under direct responsibility, in relation to them, to take safety measures to prevent what can be extremely serious accidents involving not only property but also loss of life. I hope that if an anxiety which the Board feels is expressed by me in those circumstances, your Lordships will not think that I am dealing with a trivial matter. It is a matter of major public concern.
The anxiety is this. This Bill imposes upon undertakers, including the Board, a number of responsibilities to take precautions to see to it that the public are safeguarded and that accidents do not occur

135
owing to water overflowing from reservoirs. That is a highly laudable purpose which I am quite certain would be supported by everyone in this House. There was a previous Act in 1930 which dealt with the same topic. The major difference between that Act and the present Bill is that this Bill contains the most elaborate enforcement machinery, and indeed contains provisions which would result in an undertaker finding itself criminally liable if it failed to take certain steps. The previous Act did not contain those enforcement provisions.
Therefore one has the situation of a Board with this very heavy public responsibility upon it, faced now—and rightly faced—with enforcement provisions which will have the effect of ensuring that the Board and other undertakers comply with their obligations imposed upon them by this Bill. In those circumstances, I should have thought it was eminently reasonable that the Board, and indeed any other undertaker, should say: "Certainly we will comply with our obligations, but we want to know precisely what is the extent of them." The short question which this Amendment raises is the following one: are they under obligations in respect of the artificial part of canals? If they are, then in the case of the Board this immensely enlarges the scope of its responsibility. It will impose upon the Board a very much greater financial responsibility than it has at the moment.
I recognise at once that it is not the Government's intention that the expression a "reservoir" which they use in the Bill should cover canals. They have made it perfectly plain that they do not mean to include canals in the scope of this Bill. But, as I ventured to point out, the Government and the Executive in this country have no control over the courts. It is not for the Government but for the courts to interpret the provisions of an Act of Parliament, and if the question ever arises as to whether the Board have been guilty of failure in relation to a canal, it is for the courts and not for the Government to determine whether the Board and other undertakers may be under some civil or criminal responsibility as a result.
I hope I have laid the foundation, at any rate, for an argument to the effect that it really is only fair and eminently in
136
the public interest that one should know precisely what is the scope of this Bill, and precisely what is the scope of the obligation which is imposed on undertakers in relation to whatever a reservoir is. However, if a "reservoir" was an expression of precise import, no question would arise, but the whole reason for my moving this Amendment is that the expression "reservoir" is not an expression of precise meaning. My noble friend pointed out in her letter that it is an expression which has been used for a hundred years. It is an expression which was used and has been defined ever since in the 1930 Act, and there is an approximate definition in Clause 1 of this Bill. Neither of those definitions, in my view, imports certainty into the matter.
The doubt which I raise is this. If you have a canal with banks artificially built up, designed to contain water in order to support vessels navigating over it, is there any very obvious reason why a court should not say in due course, when the matter comes before it: "A canal of that sort, to contain water with artificial banks, perhaps having the result of raising the water above the level of the surrounding ground, is within the scope of the expression ' reservoir '. It is a kind of elongated reservoir." A reservoir can have any shape. It can be round or square, so why on earth cannot it be elongated?
If you say "Oh, yes. I know what a reservoir is when I see it", I should like to ask one or two questions. Is the Round Pond in Kensington Gardens a reservoir or not? It exists to have water in it, and children sail their boats upon it. I do not know whether or not in ordinary English parlance one would say that the Round Pond is a reservoir. Why it should not be, I do not know. What excludes it from the category of "reservoir", I cannot think. If I may pursue the question still further, take the pond at the top of Hampstead Hill. It is artificial, at least in part. It is constructed in order, to quote the words of the Bill,
"… that it may contain water as such".
What in the world, in that context, the words "as such" mean, I really do not know. They are really as obscure and unsatisfactory for the purpose of definition as any words could be, I should have thought.
Are those two pools of water reservoirs, or are they not? If not, would my noble friend tell me in terms why they are not reservoirs, and what stops them from being reservoirs. If they are reservoirs, why cannot an elongated canal be a reservoir? It partakes very much of the same feature as characterises those two pools of water. It contains water and it contains it in order that vessels—not children's vessels, but larger ones—can navigate on the surface of the water contained in the canal.
Ordinarily, I should have thought people would probably say that a canal was not a reservoir. But why on earth cannot we have some certainty? Why are Parliamentary counsel—and I have great respect and affection for them—sometimes, at any rate in my view, so obstinate? Why cannot they put in something to set this doubt at rest, so that the Board and other undertakers may adjust their proceedings upon the basis that they can measure up to any responsibility that legislation imposes upon them? The Bill should embody appropriate language to say whether or not the canals for which the Board are responsible are within the scope of this term "reservoir".
I really press upon my noble friend, grateful as I am to her for the trouble she has already taken, that this matter is one which should be further considered between now and Report. I gather that Parliamentary Counsel are anxious that if reservoirs in some way are excluded from the scope of the definition, other things may have to be excluded as well. Why not? If there have to be other exclusions, let us take the bull by the horns and exclude them. Why not exclude them and, instead, rest content with this ambiguous expression "reservoir" which I do not believe anybody could very clearly define.
There are already canals parts of which are blocked up, and which it is not altogether easy to distinguish from an elongated artificial reservoir. I was given the names of three reservoirs: I do not know the particulars of them. The Lancaster Canal has some such features, so do the Crompton Canal and the Grantham Canal. They have features which approximate them, at any rate to some extent, to the characteristics of an elongated reservoir.
I am not asking my noble friend to give me a full answer now. She has obviously carefully considered the arguments which I used before, but which I did not put forward in the detail that I venture to do this evening. I ask her to say that she will not close her mind to the subject but will give further thought to it between now and the Report stage of this Bill, recognising that this is a gigantic public corporation which experiences genuine feelings of anxiety on what it regards as an uncertainty in the terms of this Bill. That is my case. I merely ask my noble friend to say no more than that she recognises that she should not regard the matter as closed. I do not want to ask your Lordships to divide upon it; I want to put that to her and ask her to say that she will give further thought to it, in the hope that some way may be found between now and Report stage of this Bill to set these doubts to rest and to make the ambit of this Bill perfectly clear beyond chance. I beg to move.
6.22 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: I shall listen with great interest to what the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has to say in reply to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, because the principle behind his Amendment is similar to the principle behind my Amendment. I am not at all satisfied that the definition of the term "reservoir" is yet right in the Bill. The noble and learned Lord has picked on the specific instance of a canal, and it seems seems to me, on re-reading the Second Reading debate, that it is absolutely clear that it is not the intention of the Bill that canals should be brought within the scope of the Bill at all. I think I am right in saying that when these matters come to court the proceedings in Hansard are not taken into account—it must be the interpretation of the Act as it is passed.
One thing that even my short Parliamentary life has taught me is that it is very necessary to get the definition correct. I am aware that the British Waterways Board have expressed real concern that Clause 1 might apply to their canal system. Apart from anything else, if this were to be so it could involve them in very considerable expense. I do not think that is the real argument today because we are not debating whether canals should or should not be within the

139
terms of this Bill. We are all agreed that they should not. The whole question is to find a way of making certain that they are excluded, and the purpose of the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, is to make this clear. It may well be there should be other categories of lakes—and I will advance this argument when I come to speak to my Amendment—which ought also to be excluded. I would join with the noble and learned Lord in asking the Government to have another look at this matter, to see whether they can come to Report stage with a better definition.
6.26 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: I am very grateful for the felicitous way that my noble and learned friend moved his Amendment. Of course I never find him difficult; but I would agree, being married to a lawyer, that lawyers are obstinate. There is however no difference between my noble and learned friend and myself over the aim to be achieved here; and this applies to what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has said. The difference between us is whether in fact there is a doubt. Looking back on the Bills in which I have participated during the time I have been in your Lordships' House, I have always been extremely keen on the particular point that if there is a question of doubt it should be resolved. I always attack anything with that firmly in my mind. I must say after close consideration—and my noble and learned friend is right, I studied very carefully what he said I do not believe that there is in this instance a doubt. I will explain why, and also why I believe that his Amendment would make the definition less clear than it is at the moment. As has been said, it has always been the Government's intention that the Bill should not apply to canals. The point at issue is simply whether it is necessary or desirable to state specifically in the Bill that canals are excluded. When the noble Lord raised this point during the Second Reading debate, I gave him an assurance—as he was good enough to acknowledge—that canals were not covered by the Bill, but I also undertook to look very carefully into what he had said. We have now taken further legal advice. I can assure my noble friend—as I did in my
140
letter to him—that the advice we have received is absolutely clear-cut and leaves no doubt that the Bill as it stands does not apply to canals or any offshoots of canals which my noble and learned friend has mentioned.
This is an interpretation which is well and firmly rooted in past practice. The term "reservoir" has been used in legislation for over a century and in no case has it been found necessary to exclude canals. This is a point which should be taken strongly into consideration. It has been understood throughout this time that canals are not embraced by the term "reservoir" and there has never been any indication to the contrary.
A case very much in point is of course the Reservoirs (Safety Provisions) Act of 1930. During the 44 years that the Act has operated, there has been no suggestion that it covered canals and the British Waterways Board have not of course subjected their canals to inspection under the Act. There are no differences between the interpretation provisions of the 1930 Act and the Bill which are such as to introduce any doubt on the scope of the Bill in relation to canals. The Board have never thought it necessary to apply the requirements of the 1930 Act to their canals and it is hard to understand why they should feel concern about the Bill.
The first point I want to make therefore is that there is no need for any amendment to the Bill to make it clear that canals are not covered. I am also advised that the proposed Amendment would not just be unnecessary; it could indeed do harm by casting doubt both on the scope of the Bill generally and on the use of the term "reservoir" in other legislation. It would carry with it the very undesirable implication that the 1930 Act should be complied with in regard to the structures excluded. The 1930 Act is of course still in force and will continue to operate until any new legislation is commenced. It would surely be unwise to run this risk in the face of legal advice that it is entirely clear that the Bill as it stands does not apply to canals.
The term "reservoir" is defined in the Bill as a "reservoir for water as such". My noble and learned friend queried this phrase. It is one that I have been into carefully myself because I agree it is a

141
rather technical expression. These words "for water as such" have the effect of excluding mine or quarry lagoons, which are sometimes raised above the level of the ground and do, in fact, contain some water. However, they are not designed to store water as such, which means water alone. The words in brackets—which state that the expression "reservoir for water as such" does not include a mine or quarry lagoon which is a tip within the meaning of the Mines and Quarries (Tips) Act 1969—were included because the 1969 Act prescribed a safety code for such tips and it was thought right to indicate that the two codes laid down by Statute are not in contradiction.
Canals, by contrast, fall outside the scope of the Bill because they are not reservoirs. Here the addition of the words "for water as such" makes no difference in relation to canals and has no relevance to whether or not they are included in the Bill. This is one of the reasons why the Amendment of my noble and learned friend would detract from the definition rather than clarify it. I assure him that I have examined his point with great care. I am personally convinced that there is no need for the Board to have any fears whatsoever on the scope of the Bill. But, in view of the extremely courteous request he has made, and knowing how strongly he feels about this, I will take this matter back again for consideration. I suggest that this time it might be a good idea if he met with the Department's lawyers and Parliamentary Counsel so that there could be a face-to-face attempt to try to sort out what is obviously a rather knotty problem.
Lord STOW HILL: I am most grateful to my noble friend for the way in which she has dealt with this matter, and am entirely content. I will, of course, do anything that I can to assist in resolving what I accept is a knotty problem, and if anybody invites me to attend a meeting I shall be only too happy to do so. In the meantime, I should like sincerely and cordially to thank my noble friend for her courtesy and help, and ask the Committee for leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.33 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 2:
142
Page 1, line 17, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, which I think follows directly from the Amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill. I would say at the outset that this is a probing Amendment designed to clarify the definition of the word "reservoir". Although I realise that the intention of the Bill is to bring up to date the legislation of the 1930 Act on the safety of reservoirs, nevertheless in this clause there is an extension of the definition of the word "reservoir" and it is important that we should get this definition right.
If I have properly understood the argument that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has just elaborated on the reasons why canals would not be included in the present definition, it is largely because in the past legislation has always automatically excluded canals and, therefore, it can be assumed that it is doing so in this case and that they have a quite separate safety code. Suddenly, we have in Clause 1(2) of the Bill the intention to extend the definition of a "reservoir" to include a lake or a loch whether or not use is, or is intended to be, made of the water. So included in the definition of the word "reservoir" is an ornamental pond or an artificial lake or loch.
I am not in principle against an extension of the term 'reservoir" because I can well appreciate that in a Bill the intention of which is to increase the safety of reservoirs it is necessary—particularly in our crowded island—that any danger that there could be from seepage must, of course, be prevented. I entirely accept that. But what I say is that, despite the fact that this is so, this extension, so far as I can see, is not one of the suggestions which were made by the Committee on the Safety of Reservoirs on which the Bill is based and it has therefore been included at a later date. Not only is it something new that has been added, but it seems to me that it could be open to serious objections because a great many people will not be certain whether or not their ornamental lake is included.
I understand that the definition relates to the holding of more than 25,000 cubic metres of water. One finds that that is not a very large size if one does the arithmetic to arrive at what is to me much

143
simpler to understand—the area at the top. The term could therefore by definition include the artificial lakes and ponds of many individuals, lakes and ponds belonging to institutions, and to universities; it could, of course, cover the kind of point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, raised—the Round Pond in Kensington Gardens. Municipal parks of all kinds, so far as I can see, might well find themselves suddenly covered by this definition. Furthermore, it has been pointed out to me that there is a difference in practical terms between an artificial lake in someone's grounds—perhaps, a National Trust property—and an artificially-created loch in the Highlands of Scotland. The dangers caused by one or the other would obviously be very different; if the water is simply emptying on to a moor, or is about to empty on to a village lying just below the estate where the artificial lake is situated. So it may well be that this also is a matter which should be examined and that the definition should be much more tightly drawn than simply relating to the volume of water artificially created. Given that there is to be an extension of the definition, there must be a great deal of publicity about this matter.
I was grateful for the long letter which the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, wrote to me answering the points I raised on Second Reading, but it would be helpful to have on the Record the Government's intentions in this matter. Furthermore, it is necessary because of the time-scale. As I understand the Bill, once it becomes law, within nine months owners will be expected to inform the local authorities whether they come into this, or the local authorities, at any rate, will be expected to draw up their register, if not to have already completed it. This is a relatively short space of time. It would be unfortunate if private individuals or private institutions were unaware that they fell within the terms of this Bill.
I would also ask a question about the cost. If the definition of a reservoir is to be extended in this way, does it mean that the local authority pays for the collection of the information for putting these lakes or lochs on the register, or that the individual owner will pay for the tests that have to be made to find out whether they fulfil the requirements of
144
the Bill? Who pays for the monitoring of these lakes, which under the terms of the Bill must be carried out at, I think, three-yearly intervals in the following years? I feel that these are very real, practical problems. May I say that this matter must be looked at again in order to draw more tightly the definition of a reservoir. As I said at the beginning, I am not myself against the extension, because I can see the point of it, but in fairness to the individuals and organisations which could be involved we really must get the definition right. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: The subsection which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, wishes to delete extends the Bill to any place where water is artificially retained to form or enlarge a lake or loch, and, as she pointed out, such artificial lake or loch will be affected by the Bill only if it is capable of holding more than 25,000 cubic metres of water above the level of any part of the adjoining land. I will not go again into the point on canals. I answered that point as fully as I could in reply to my noble friend Lord Stow Hill. All that I would say is that the noble Baroness made reference to the fact that the only reason why it was accepted that canals should not form part of the Bill was because they had not been part of the Bill for many years.
However, there is another point. Canals are used for the purpose of transit, whereas reservoirs are not. This is another factor which differentiates canals from reservoirs. It seems to me that the effect of deleting the subsection would be to obtain a result which is quite contrary to the result which the noble Baroness wants. It would preserve the uncertainty of the 1930 Act as to whether artificial lakes are covered by the legislation.
The noble Baroness was quite right when she pointed out that the report of the Institution of Engineers, upon which so much of this Bill has been based, did not mention this specific point, but later it was felt, and, I think, felt quite rightly, that this particular section should be included. The deletion would not necessarily eliminate such structures from the scope of the Bill, because in 1964 the West Sussex County Council obtained an order under the 1930 Act requiring an

145
inspection and report to be made on a hammer pond—a pond which was originally constructed to drive a hammer but which is now used for ornament or for fishing; or it may not be used at all. It seemed to be far tidier and also far safer to include such a pond in the new Bill because, as the noble Baroness herself pointed out, 25,000 cubic metres is not an enormous size, and the use made of a stretch of water does not necessarily make any difference to the dangers which it presents. If it is capable of bursting and flooding the surrounding land, an artificial lake is as dangerous as a water storage reservoir and may not, unless included, be subjected to the same rigorous supervision. It is true that many owners of ornamental lakes have complied with the requirements of the 1930 Act. but in bringing this Act up to date and in bringing in a new Bill in order to improve the standards of safety, it seems to us to make sense to enlarge the definition in this way.
The noble Baroness referred to the question of publicity, and I welcome the opportunity to put on record what the Government have in mind concerning publicity. May I therefore thank the noble Baroness for giving me this opportunity. A wide range of interests has already been consulted on the Bill, and I can let any noble Lords who are interested have a copy of the list. They include the Confederation of British Industry, the National Farmers' Union and the Country Landowners' Association. Their members will presumably be made aware of the Bill through their membership of these organisations, and also the readers of a number of trade and technical publications in which the Bill has been reported.
However, after enactment we intend to take steps to publish guidance and to contact representative bodies. Under Clause 24(4) every local authority will have a duty to publicise the requirements for undertakers to notify the enforcement authority of reservoirs not later than nine months after the commencement of the Act. This duty will run for the first three months after commencement. If people are informed, together with the publicity that we intend to give to this, I do not think that nine months is a short time.
146
So far as cost is concerned, as I understand it the undertakers will notify the enforcement authorities of their reservoirs. That is not a very great cost. So far as notification is concerned, all that the local authorities have to do is to enter these in a register. With the exception, perhaps, of one or two local authority areas, one in England and one in Scotland, there is not a very large number of reservoirs in any local authority area, so this can involve only a small amount of clerical work.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for not pressing her Amendment, which in any case I am afraid I should not be able to accept.
Viscount LONG: On behalf of my noble friend Lady Young, may I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for her answer to the Amendment of my noble friend. May I say that most of what I have written down has already been mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and my noble friend Lady Young. However, I come back to one point. I do not think that we are defining how big, or how large, or what area a reservoir should be. So far as I can see, we have 25,000 cubic metres written into the Bill. For my part, I feel that a better measurement could be taken, such as acreage or hectares, where not only the quantity of water would be included but also some measurement of how big or large a reservoir should be. I am very glad that we have dispensed already with the canal system because I feel that to try to bring in canals—canals being in such a bad way at the present time—would be asking for trouble. Therefore one isolates canals and looks just at lochs, swimming pools and areas of water. One looks at what height they should be, or how one should define them in height, and at whether they are at ground level, or whether they are raised reservoirs. When one looks at water, any water, the smallest pool, is a reservoir. Therefore in thanking the noble Baroness, may I leave her with those points.
Baroness BIRK: I thank the noble Viscount for his support over the question of canals. If I may deal with the point upon which he put a question, frankly,

147
and without being by any means a technical expert on this, it seems to me to make sense to measure water in terms of water measurement. I do not think that I should be happy if people started to measure fields for me in cubic metres. May I rest my case on that.
Baroness YOUNG: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her answer to the various points which I have raised. It is now very much a question of looking at the record to see what she has said. As I said at the beginning, I do not intend to press the Amendment, but it may well be that in the light of her answer we shall move another Amendment on Report.
Before we leave this Amendment, may I ask for one point about cost to be clarified? Am I right in thinking that in compiling the register and the subsequent monitoring of reservoirs, whether they are used for the storage of water or whether they are ornamental lakes or lochs, the cost does not fall upon the owner but falls upon the local authority? This is of particular importance to the private owner.
Baroness BIRK: As I understand it—and if by any chance I am shown to be wrong I will immediately let the noble Baroness know—the question of registering it with the local authority must be undertaken by the local authority and is a minimal clerical cost; it is done by employees who are already there. The noble Baroness spoke about monitoring. I think she was there referring to all the other clauses which cover what the undertakers have to do in the Bill—and that cost is covered by the undertakers.
Baroness YOUNG: In fact what the noble Baroness is saying is that the private individual would therefore have to pay for the regular inspections?
Baroness BIRK: That is so.
Baroness YOUNG: I think this is a very important point to get absolutely clear. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Registration of large raised reservoirs, and enforcement of Act, by local authorities]:
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
6.51 p.m.
Lord STOW HILL: I wish to raise a point on this clause because I submit that subsections (5) and (6) are quite unnecessarily obscure and complex. Clause 2 establishes the obligation on a local authority to keep a register, and subsection (3) provides that the local authority in whose area the reservoir is situated is to be what is subsequently described as the "enforcement authority", whose business it is to see that the obligations which the Bill creates are in fact carried out.
I should have thought that subsections (3) and (4) go a long way towards achieving the whole object that the Parliamentary draftsmen have in mind. Subsection (3) says that the local authority in whose area a reservoir is situated shall be the enforcement authority; subsection (4) deals with the case where the reservoir is in the area of several authorities, and it says that in that case the enforcement authority must be the authority among those that they agree upon or which is determined by the Secretary of State to be the appropriate enforcement authority. I should have thought that was what the clause was intended to do.
Then one proceeds into what I must confess is, in my view, quite unnecessarily obscure. I took steps to ask that an intimation might be given to my noble friend that I should be asking questions on these lines: can she really explain what the Parliamentary draftsmen desire to achieve by subsections (5) and (6)? In regard to subsection (5) I can see the purpose, although I must confess that I do not think it is very well expressed; subsection (6) seems to be wholly unnecessarily obscure, and I simply fasten on one aspect of it. I look at the words which are included in brackets at lines 9 and 10, and which read
"(and, where the context so requires. includes the authority that would be so charged if the reservoir were a large raised reservoir)"
I do not know whether my noble friend can indicate to me where it is that "the context so requires". Can she point to

149
texts in this Bill which require that the authority should be the enforcement authority "if the reservoir were a large raised reservoir"? I thought that was always the case and I really cannot see the purpose of those words.
If my noble friend says that she is not precisely briefed on that I shall understand and I sympathise with her. But I think this is really—and I do not wish to mince my words—thoroughly bad drafting, and in raising this point on the Question, Whether the Clause stand part of the Bill? what I am really asking her to do is to take these two subsections back and to ask her advisers to consider them further, to see whether some degree of simplicity and intelligibility could be introduced into them, which at the moment seems to be absent. It really is not fair on the subject that he should be required to conform to the provisions of Acts of Parliament unless they are reasonably intelligible.
Baroness BIRK: I hope I can explain the meaning to my noble and learned friend. Curiously enough, I picked them out myself for some further explanation, and when I have given that explanation I am also quite prepared to take them back to have them looked at to see whether it is felt that they are in fact as clear as they should be.
Clause 2(5), to which my noble and learned friend referred, is, as I think he agreed, fairly clear. What it means is that where a reservoir extends into the area of more than one local authority they have to agree among themselves which is to be the enforcement authority. In other words, one must be the enforcement authority; the task cannot be shared. If, however, one of these authorities is the undertaker, Clause 2(5) ensures that this authority cannot be the enforcement authority upon its own reservoir. I should have thought that this made good sense and was also an important point so far as enforcement is concerned.
Clause 2(6), which I agree is a little more complicated, certainly for the layman, defines the term "enforcement authority" and ensures that a local authority cannot be the enforcement authority for a reservoir wholly within its area. The words in brackets to which my noble friend referred, which are:
150
"(and, where the context so requires, includes the authority that would be so charged if the reservoir were a large raised reservoir)",
are inserted to make clear that the enforcement authority has certain functions regarding structures which at the material time are not large raised reservoirs. For example, under Clause 21 undertakers have to inform local authorities of their intention to increase the capacity of a reservoir in order to make it a large raised reservoir. Under Clause 8 an enforcement authority which has reason to believe that a reservoir is being enlarged to make it a large raised reservoir but that no qualified civil engineer is responsible for the work, can take action against the undertakers to require them to appoint a qualified civil engineer.
I think I should add that if a local authority's reservoir extends into the territory of another local authority or authorities, then one of those other local authorities will be the enforcement authority under Clause 2(5). The local authority must report to the Secretary of State as to the way in which they have discharged their duties, both as undertaker and enforcement authority under Clause 3 of the Bill. This of course refers to where the reservoir is contained within the area of just one local authority and is in order to safeguard and control the position of the undertaker being the enforcement authority at the same time. In this way any shortcomings of undertakers of a reservoir entirely within their area would become known to the Secretary of State, who could order an inquiry. I think I should add that criminal liabilities under the Bill apply to local authorities as to other undertakers. I hope that has made the matter clear to my noble and learned friend.
Lord STOW HILL: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for having taken all that trouble to expound the purpose of the draftsmen in choosing this language, but I hope that between now and Report she will give it further consideration to try to simplify this, I think, wholly unnecessarily complicated language.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Qualification of engineers]:
On Question, Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
7.0 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: Clause 4 is, of course, a technical clause entirely concerned with the qualifications of the engineers. There are two specific points which I would like to ask, but before I do so I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, will confirm that I am reading the Bill correctly. It says in subsection (1) that the panels shall be appointed by the Secretary of State, and he will be appointing them on the advice of the Institution of Civil Engineers. I think that is correct, but I should like to be assured of that.
The two specific points that have been put to me are for clarification of subsection (4), which sets out in considerable detail—more detail than the 1930 Act—the position of people appointed to these panels. Under subsection (4)(a), what happens if an engineer wishes to resign from one of the panels? Presumably he is entitled to do so. Although so much detail is spelt out this is not included. My second question is on subsection (4)(b) which might be read, at least by someone like myself, as a statutory extension of the terms of a contractual agreement, and therefore implies an extension of that agreement written into the Bill. I cannot think that that is what is intended. It is probable that I am not reading it correctly, but I should like to have an assurance from the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that that is not so. If she cannot give me this very detailed information at this point, I shall be perfectly happy if she will write to me on the subject so that I can consider her reply before the next stage of the Bill.
Baroness BIRK: As regards the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, on subsection (4)(a) about an engineer resigning when he wishes, this must be the position. We could not possibly have a situation where someone did not have the right to resign if he wished so to do. But, obviously, it will be tied in the same manner as other appointments by the period of notice which is part of the agreement. The second point raised by the noble Baroness is a little more complicated, at least for me. I do not suppose that for the experts it is so complicated. Rather than taking
152
an inspired guess—although I think I know the answer—I should prefer to write to the noble Baroness about it.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Certificates of construction engineers]:
7.3 p.m.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 7, line 26, leave out "(unless otherwise stated)".
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment, with Amendment No. 4, is consequential on the substantive Amendment to Clause 20, which is Amendment No. 12 in the Marshalled List. With permission, I should now like to speak to all three Amendments. These three Amendments consist of a substantive Amendment to Clause 20 and two consequential Amendments. Clause 20 is headed, General provisions as to reports, certificates, etc., of engineers. Under Clause 20(5), as the Bill stands at present, where an engineer has been appointed after notice by the enforcement authority for the purposes of Clause 8, his certificate as to the execution of works which he has to send to the enforcement authority need not include the annex containing drawings and descriptions of works.
Although this annex is not strictly necessary to the enforcement function, we think it desirable that copies of it should be held by the enforcement authority, to ensure that essential information about a reservoir is not lost through change of ownership, or some other cause. Deletion of subsection (5) of Clause 20 would achieve this. This would be consistent with the requirement that a copy of the certificate of completion of works by the construction engineer, which he is required to send to the enforcement authority, must also be accompanied by the annex. Therefore the words, "unless otherwise stated" in Clauses 7 and 8 refer to the exclusion of the annex provided for in Clause 20(5). On deletion of the latter, to which I hope the Committee will agree, these words then become superfluous. I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for her explanation of this point which I think is quite

153
clear. But I should like to ask one question on it. What happens in the case of a statutory authority or an undertaker which may not have the original documents? These may have become misplaced. After all, I believe that some reservoirs are of considerable age. What happens in such a case? This is no doubt a somewhat unlikely occurrence, but I can imagine it being possible. It does not particularly arise on Clause 20, but it does on Clause 24. It seemed to me that it was a point worth raising on this Amendment.
Baroness BIRK: It seems to me that when the documents are not in existence they cannot be produced or stored. There would just have to be notification that there was not an annex in a certain case, and that would have to be the end of it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Young, herself pointed out, where these drawings and descriptions of works are available and in existence, but for which we have not made provision, they should be stored with the local authority.
On Question, Whether Clause 7, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Viscount LONG: May I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, a short question on Clause 7? Clause 7(2) refers to a "construction engineer", but I notice that as the Bill goes on it moves from the term "construction engineer" to "civil engineer" and "engineer in charge". I am given to understand that in the previous Bill, or in the Institution of Civil Engineers, the terminology is just "engineer". I wonder whether the noble Baroness could enlighten me on this point, because unless we tidy up this Bill the authorities will not know which type of engineer is to be in charge or otherwise. It is a very small point, but perhaps the noble Baroness could clear it up.
Baroness BIRK: I take the point. It is perfectly true, at first glance, that there seem to be a great many labels attached to the engineer. It is quite clearly set out in the various clauses what are the functions of the engineer concerned, and it is the functions that vary according to the nature of the responsibility of the work. For instance, the object of the construction engineer is to design
154
and supervise the construction or alteration of a large raised reservoir, and he or she would be appointed by the undertakers. The construction engineer will also have to issue certificates governing the filling and use of a large raised reservoir.
The inspecting engineer is the person who makes the periodical inspection and report, who is also appointed by the undertakers. The supervising engineer is the only one of the category who has what I think I would call a continuous job. It is his job to supervise the reservoir, advise the undertakers on safety aspects of its behaviour, and recommend when a special inspection is needed under Clause 10. He is also appointed by the undertakers.
The qualified engineer acts as a construction engineer in the event of noncompliance with the requirements as to construction or enlargement of reservoirs. I think I should say that we all realise that all these people are qualified engineers, but their functions vary and obviously their experience will vary as well. The qualified civil engineer is appointed by the undertakers in response to the enforcement authority's notice; this is under Clause 8. Under Clause 9, the qualified civil engineer has to make inspection and report on the re-use of an abandoned reservoir and issues certificates governing filling and use, and he also supervises the carrying out of safety methods recommended in the periodical inspection report. So if something results from an inspection engineer's report, then he has to see it is carried out and certify completion.
The 1930 Act requires the construction of reservoirs to be under the supervision of a qualified engineer, and requires the inspection of reservoirs at intervals of not more than ten years. There have been no difficulties about the supply of engineers for these duties, and we do not expect any difficulties over the supply of qualified engineers for the somewhat increased duties specified in the Bill.
I think the noble Viscount will find, as I am sure he has already, that all these different categories have been defined in the appropriate places in the Bill. I looked through it myself, because again at first glance it struck me that there are a lot of descriptive labels; but it seems

155
to me that it is the right way to do it, because it does pin down in the various clauses what the function of the particular engineer is. If we had an overall generic phrase, "qualified engineer" or "qualified civil engineer", there would be a certain amount of doubt as to what their functions were under a particular clause.
Viscount LONG: May I thank the noble Baroness for that very able answer, because to go through the ranks of the consulting engineers or civil engineers is really something. I am most grateful to her for explaining it.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Powers of enforcement authority in event of non-compliance with requirements as to construction or enlargement of reservoirs]:
Baroness BIRK: I beg to move Amendment No. 4.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 6, leave out ("(unless otherwise stated)")—(Baroness Birk.)
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Periodical inspection of large raised reservoirs]:
7.14 p.m.
Lord STOW HILL Lord STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 11, line 43, after ("effect") insert (", after consulting where practicable with the inspecting engineer who has made the recommendation,").
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment deals with a small point, but I would submit it is a useful Amendment which would be likely to improve the working of the scheme embodied in the Bill. Clause 10 deals with the inspection engineers, and the Amendment which I propose relates to subsection (7) of Clause 10. That subsection provides that if an enforcement authority finds a situation in which—and I refer to paragraph (b)—the inspection engineer has made,
"… a recommendation as to measures to be taken in the interests of safety that has not been carried into effect as so required",
it can serve a notice on the undertaker requiring the undertaker inter alia to
156
carry out the recommendation contained in the inspecting engineer's report.
The Amendment which I would submit is desirable is one which would require the notice to specify that the recommendation is to be carried out by the undertaker
"after consulting where practicable with the inspecting engineer who has made the recommendation".
I accept that sometimes it may be difficult, sometimes impossible, to get in touch with the inspecting engineer, and that therefore it is not practicable to make it an absolute obligation to consult him. All that my Amendment does is to try to prevent duplicity of thinking, to try to bring it about that when the undertaker complies with the notice its representative will first, at any rate, have spoken to or have had some sort of discussion with the inspecting engineer.
A recommendation is not always expressed in the fullest and most explicit terms, and it is felt by those with whom I have been able to consult that the Bill would work better if there is, not an absolute obligation to consult with the inspecting engineer, but that wherever practicable in the circumstances the engineer whom the undertaker appoints to carry out the requirements contained in the notice should consult with the inspecting engineer. I move the Amendment because I submit that it will improve the working of the Bill. It may well be said, "Obviously he would do that anyhow", but it is not unuseful in my submission to the Committee, to have, as it were, in the letter of the Act a reminder that such consultation is, where practicable, to be embarked upon. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: The principle on which the Bill is based, as my noble friend knows and indicated, is that all technical matters arising from the construction and maintenance of reservoirs should be entrusted to the qualified civil engineer. An enforcement authority which intended to serve a notice on an undertaker who has failed to carry out the recommendations would certainly need to seek the advice of a qualified civil engineer in fixing the time limits for the work. We have in fact had it in mind to advise enforcement authorities to do this in the guidance we propose

157
to issue after enactment. Therefore, I am most certainly in agreement with the general purpose of my noble friend's Amendment.
It is not, however, if he will forgive my saying so, quite satisfactory in detail. The wording leaves a doubt as to whether it is the enforcement authority or the undertaker who has to consult the inspecting engineer. But, more important, it would be undesirable to limit in any way the discretion of the enforcement authority over which engineer to consult. The inspecting engineer might be unavailable, and there could be circumstances in which the enforcement authority thought it preferable to consult another engineer; for example, where a start had been made on work, this might be the engineer employed to supervise it. A preferable approach, I should have thought, would be to require the enforcement authority to consult simply a qualified civil engineer, leaving the choice to it. If my noble friend will agree to withdraw his Amendment, I will undertake to put down a Government Amendment on these lines at a later stage.
Lord STOW HILL: I am most grateful to my noble friend for her extremely helpful answer, and I think that her arguments were convincing. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 10 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord STOW HILL: In line 27, on page 11, has not the word "that" been omitted in the expression "as soon as he is satisfied it is so"? It is a small point, but Parliamentary Counsel might just look at it.
Baroness BIRK: It seems right to me, but I think I had better take it back for examination by Parliamentary Counsel.
Clause 10 agreed to. Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Supervision of large raised reservoirs]:
On Question, Whether Clause 12 shall stand part of the Bill?
7.22 p.m.
Lord STOW HILL: I thought it better to seek to speak on the Question, That the clause stand part? rather than move the Amendment, because the Amendment docs not really achieve what the Board with which I consulted have in mind. What I would venture to say to your Lordships on the Question, That the clause stand part? is that the Board are concerned that this obligation imposed upon them with regard to the supervising engineer will impose a very considerable strain on them. They will not, so they believe—bearing in mind the wide scope of their responsibilities—be able to supply supervising engineers from engineers on their own staff. There are simply not enough of them, and the work would be beyond that which they could undertake. That would mean that they would have to look for engineers outside.
It is not easy to recruit engineers of this standing outside. No doubt it can be done in due course, but it would take time and, in addition, it would involve considerable expense. Therefore, I think it right to say to the Committee that the Board—I speak for the Board because they are the only undertakers with whom I have been in contact—will, of course, do their level best to comply with their obligations. However, they think it right to state now that it would probably mean that they would have to undertake considerable expense in excess of that which they are really able to carry at the moment, and that it may take time, and create difficulty, to recruit the additional staff that they would require to supply the necessary number of supervising engineers in addition to those engineers who are already on their staff.
Baroness BIRK: It is true that there will be a new panel of supervising engineers to carry out this function. I would point out that the qualifications for appointment to this panel have yet to be decided, but they are likely to be such that some engineers who are not qualified for appointment to the existing panels as inspecting engineers—possibly by reason of experience, or for other reasons—would qualify as supervising engineers. We must remember that it is also true that supervising engineers will undoubtedly each have responsibility for several reservoirs. We are not envisaging a situation where there is one engineer to

159
one reservoir. It is impossible at the moment to know how many, since this would depend on the distribution of the reservoirs and the quality of supervision which exists at lower levels than that of the supervising engineer.
A supervising engineer could be an existing employee of an undertaking, which means that he would already be involved there in other work as well, or he may be employed in a part-time consultative capacity. In general, we anticipate that he will be an existing employee of the undertaking. We do not envisage that supervising engineers will necessarily have experience of designing and constructing dams. I shall not enlarge again on this point since I dealt partially with it in answering the noble Viscount, Lord Long.
Clause 4 of the Bill gives the Secretary of State power to determine the qualifications for appointment to the panel of supervising engineers, and perhaps my noble friend will be reassured to know that these qualifications will be determined after consultation with interested bodies. We shall try to ensure that the qualifications are such that sufficient qualified people come forward for appointment without prejudicing the important part they have to play.
I can assure noble Lords that the points which have been raised will all be taken into consideration when determining the manner of appointment of supervising engineers. Speaking personally, I hope that there will be greater encouragement and opportunity for women to enter this field. One of the reasons why the Institution of Civil Engineers support the provision that the supervising engineers should not be independent—which was the substance of the Amendment that my noble friend was good enough to withdraw—is so that the construction engineer would be able to become the supervising engineer in the early years of the reservoir's life. Finally, I should point out that the Institution of Civil Engineers, in its report, recommended the appointment of supervising engineers. I have confirmed that they are well aware of the contents of the Bill, and they have not expressed a view that insufficient supervising engineers will be available. I feel that if there had been any disquiet about this point, then the Institution of Civil
160
Engineers would certainly have contacted us about it, but we have received no representations.
Baroness YOUNG: I am very glad to have that explanation because, in view of the observations made by my noble friend Lord Long on this complicated series of definitions of an engineer, it is important that we shall not have, as I understand it, the possibility of yet another definition being introduced of one who might be an outsider and not a construction engineer, a supervising engineer, or a qualified engineer within the meaning of the Bill. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has a point, because there is a great variation in the numbers of reservoirs in different parts of the country. I understand that some water authorities have up to 100 reservoirs in their area, and therefore they will require many more of these people than other authorities. In the drawing up of these panels, it will be necessary for there to be enough people in the right areas for them to be able to do that work. Can we have the assurance of the noble Baroness on this point?
Baroness BIRK: It is very difficult at this stage for me to give a detailed assurance so far as different areas are concerned. The numbers of reservoirs within different local authority areas vary enormously. But taking into account, as I have already said, the consultations with the bodies concerned and the note we are taking of the comments which have been made during Second Reading and at this Committee stage, I think I must come back to the overriding purpose of the Bill, which is to improve the safety standards of reservoirs. We have to start from that point, and from there discover the best way to find and equip the necessary supervising engineers. At this stage I have no reason to believe that any difficulties are envisaged.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clauses 13 to 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Emergency Powers]:
7.30 p.m.
Lord STOW HILL Lord STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 15, line 37, after ("reservoir") insert (", after first consulting with the undertakers where practicable,")
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment is very much on a par with the Amendment which I moved a moment ago. It requires that the enforcement authority, when it decides that emergency action is necessary, shall first consult with the undertakers concerned. That wording is qualified by the addition of the words "where practicable". I accept at once that you may have emergency action which is necessary and which must be taken at once, and that any question of consulting anybody cannot be seriously entertained. On the other hand, the urgency may not be as great as all that, and those with whom I have consulted point out to me that when you operate reservoir safety precautions and have to bear in mind the volume of water, the escape provisions for water and the area to which the water is to be permitted to escape in case of need, a great deal of expertise is required. It is all one scheme, and knowledge as to the features of the scheme is in the assumed circumstances, possessed, almost exclusively, by the undertakers themselves.
In those circumstances, again it was thought that the Bill would work better if, when there arises the question of emergency measures to be taken, those who decide to take them should, before they embark on the task of carrying out the emergency measures, at least where practicable contact the undertakers and ask what are the relevant circumstances which they should bear in mind in deciding how to deal with the emergency. That is what the Amendment does. It does not, I submit, impose any unreasonable burden on anybody, and because the words "where practicable" are present, it does not inhibit the enforcement authority from carrying out at once necessary measures in order to eliminate all delay, and proceeding at once to carry out the safety precautions. I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: I shall listen with great interest to what the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has to say on this matter. It touches on a point I raised on Second Reading, about the necessary staff which an enforcement authority must have. The enforcement authorities under this Bill are the local authorities, county councils, the GLC and the district and island authorities in Scotland, and they are most unlikely themselves to have this kind of
162
highly qualified staff, a point I think which was accepted by the Government when we discussed this on Second Reading. We all hope that it will be extremely unlikely that they will have to deal with emergencies or enforcement in this way. I quite accept, and I think I am right in saying, that there has been no emergency since the 1930 Act. Nevertheless, this provision is quite rightly written into the Bill, and it seems to me that the Amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, is a very practical one. It appears to be a very sensible suggestion that wherever possible the undertakers should be consulted, because almost certainly they will have the staff and will know all about the reservoir in question. I hope the noble Baroness will very seriously consider these points.
Baroness BIRK: With respect to my noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill, this is not anything like the same as his Amendment to Clause 10. Clause 16 deals with emergency powers, which is an entirely different situation. It is, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, pointed out, very unlikely that a reservoir supervised and inspected as required by the Bill would suddenly become so unsafe as to require emergency action. If it did, it is likely that the undertakers would be the first to hear of it. If the news reached the enforcement authority first, it would get in touch with the undertakers immediately—it would be almost a reflex action. We cannot, however, fetter it in such a way as to create delay in the exercise of its emergency functions. We are talking only of circumstances in an emergency, which makes the situation quite different from that raised on other clauses and by the noble Baroness on Second Reading.
To make it a statutory requirement that the authority should consult "where practicable" with the undertaker before taking any action, would open the way to subsequent dispute as to whether the authority had done all it could to contact the undertaker, and to cover itself the authority might be inclined to delay taking action while continuing its attempt to contact the undertakers. I submit that where lives may be at stake an inhibition of this kind is not acceptable. I urge the Committee to recognise that we are talking of something which we hope will never happen but which would

163
be a situation of such emergency that there should be no hampering. I think that would be the unfortunate result if an Amendment of this sort were accepted. Therefore, regretfully I have to resist my noble and learned friend's Amendment.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Powers of entry]:
7.38 p.m.
Lord STOW HILL Lord STOW HILL moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 17, line 23, after ("entry") insert ("(which where practicable specifies the nature of the works to be carried out)").
The noble and learned Lord said: This, again, is not dissimilar from previous Amendments I have moved. Clause 17 deals with the case in which the emergency authority authorises its representative to go upon the undertaker's property in order to discharge the functions specified in paragraphs (a) to (d) of subsection (1). All that the Amendment does—and again I stress that it is very modest, but I hope not unuseful—is to require that the representative—
"where practicable specifies the nature of the works to be carried out"
Paragraph (d) provides that the representative may enter the land in question—
"for the purpose of carrying out any survey or other operation needed to determine whether any or what measures should be taken under section 16 above. …"
It is not unuseful, I would submit, supposing a situation has developed in which the enforcement authority may feel that some sort of emergency action is necessary under Clause 16, that it should be able in consequence to send in to the land its authorised representative to survey the situation and decide what measures ought to be taken in order to deal with the emergency. If that is the situation which is envisaged it is not unreasonable to provide that that representative, when he goes on the land, should give some indication to the undertaker as to what works he has in mind and what type of operation may be involved. It may greatly help him, it would avoid ignorance on his part which may be no fault of his but which may
164
hamper him in lighting on the best method of approach, and it would generally promote an interchange of information which cannot be unuseful. That is the simple purpose of this very modest Amendment. Again it is qualified by the words "where practicable" which are the important words. I would submit that it would improve the Bill and I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: My noble friend has clearly explained the effect of this Amendment. I will say only that its purposes are that the enforcement authority has power to enter upon land and where notice of intended entry has to be given under Clause 17 to determine whether a reservoir is classified within the ambit of the Bill, and to exercise the reserve powers in Clause 15. It would be surprising if in either of these situations the undertaker was unaware of why the enforcement authority wanted to enter upon his land. But the normal practice would be for the authority to indicate the reason in its notice of intended entry.
If an authority were to serve a notice without a reason being given, the undertaker would be likely to refuse entry. This would lead the authority to seek a warrant from a justice of the peace under Clause 17(5), who would then have to be satisfied that there were reasonable grounds for entry. However, while I believe that the way in which the Bill is drafted should not cause undertakers to fear unreasonable behaviour on the part of enforcement authorities, I am wholly in sympathy with the purpose of my noble friend's Amendment. If he will agree to withdraw it I shall arrange for a Government Amendment to be tabled at a later stage, simply because, unfortunately, due to lack of time—and through no fault of my noble friend—the drafting has not yet been considered as carefully as we should wish.
Lord STOW HILL: I am extremely grateful to my noble friend for yet one more of her helpful answers. In view of what she said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clauses 18 and 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [General provisions as to reports, certificates etc. of engineers]:
7.42 p.m.
Baronness BIRK Baronness BIRK moved Amendment No.11: Page 20, line 19, at end insert——
"( ) Where an enforcement authority receive a certificate of an engineer acting for the purposes of section 13 above or a copy of such a certificate, and the reservoir is situated partly in the area of another local authority not being the undertakers, the enforcement authority shall send a copy of the certificate to that other local authority."
The noble Baroness said: This is a simple and short Amendment. Clause 13 provides that where a large raised reservoir is altered, under the supervision of a qualified civil engineer who certifies that the alteration has been completed satisfactorily, and it is no longer capable of holding more that 25,000 cubic metres, the enforcement authority shall remove it from its register. The Amendment ensures that when the altered reservoir extends into the areas of other local authorities, they will receive a copy of the engineer's certificate and will, therefore, remove the reservoir from their register. This is a tidying-up Amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: I have already referred to Amendment No. 12. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 20, leave out subsection (5).—(Baroness Birk.)
Clause 21 [Duty of undertakers to furnish information]:
Baroness BIRK: This is a drafting Amendment. Since the provisions of the Bill apply only to large raised reservoirs, it is necessary to insert the word "raised." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 4, after "large" insert "raised".—(Baroness Birk.)
7.45 p.m.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 21, line 26, at end insert—
"( ) with copies of the reports made by inspecting engineers on any statutory inspection of the reservoir; and".
The noble Baroness said: With the permission of the Committee, I will speak to Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 together. The effect of these two Amendments will be to ensure that any engineer appointed for the purposes of this legislation shall have available to him the inspecting engineer's reports on any statutory inspection. As the Bill stands at present there is possible ambiguity in paragraph (c), suggesting that only the report of the last inspection may be required and only if the engineer asks for it. By these Amendments the engineer will have a picture of the behaviour of the reservoir over as long a period as possible. In addition, they will make it clear that the Bill keeps the corresponding provision of the 1930 Act unchanged. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: I beg to move Amendment No. 15.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 28, leave out from "require" to end of line 29.—(Baroness Birk.)
Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 22 to 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Notification to local authorities of existing reservoirs]:
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 23, line 35, leave out from "it" to end of line 36.
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this Amendment is the same as that of the Amendment to Clause 20(5); that is, to ensure that the enforcement authority has an opportunity to copy any drawings and descriptions of works. Although this is not strictly necessary to the authority's enforcement function, it is a safeguard against loss of this information through change of ownership. I beg to move.
Clause 24, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Clause 26 [Reservoirs constructed before commencement of previous Act];
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 25, line 27, leave out from "above" to end of line 28.
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment is of the same pattern as those which I have previously moved. Its purpose is the same as that of the Amendments to Clause 20(5) and Clause 24(2)(b); that is, to ensure that the enforcement authority has an opportunity to copy any drawings or descriptions of works. Although this is not strictly necessary to the authority's function, it is a safeguard against loss of this information through change of ownership. I beg to move.
Clause 26, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with Amendments.

MILK (EXTENSION OF PERIOD OF CONTROL OF MAXIMUM PRICES) ORDER 1974
7.48 p.m.
Lord JACQUES Lord JACQUES rose to move, That the Draft Milk (Extension of Period of Control of Maximum Prices) Order 1974, laid before the House on 5th November, be approved. The noble Lord said: The present statutory powers to fix maximum prices for milk stem from the Emergency Laws (Re-enactments and Repeals) Act 1964. Section 6 of that Act extended the Government's powers to control milk prices until 31st December, 1969, with provision for renewal by Order in Council for further periods of five years. In 1969 Parliament approved an Order in Council extending the Government's powers until 31st December, 1974, and the purpose of the Draft Order now before the House is to extend these powers for a further period of five years.
My Lords, the price orders which are made under these powers concern retail prices. Therefore, the question before the House is whether the Government, as has been the case with previous Governments
168
over the last thirty years, shall have power to control the retail price of milk. Successive Governments have had this power for, I think, two reasons. The first is the nature of the market. In the case of milk, first-hand sales are made by the milk marketing boards, and at the other end of the scale the processing, packaging and distribution of milk to the doorstep is very largely in the hands of a number of very large distributors. But there is another reason, and that is the importance of milk in the national diet. As a nation we drink about 1,650 million gallons of milk, and the value, including the subsidy, exceeds £1,000 million. Milk is therefore one of the most important items in the food diet. Given the nature and importance of the market, it is not surprising, perhaps, that successive Administrations have taken the view that Government should be in a position to ensure that producers and distributors get a reasonable return, and that milk reaches the final consumer at a reasonable price. Powers to fix maximum retail prices are essential to this objective at the present time, and I therefore hope that the House will approve this Draft Order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Milk (Extension of Period of Control of Maximum Prices) Order 1974, laid before the House on 5th November, be approved.—(Lord Jacques.)
7.52 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for giving such a very clear and concise explanation of this Order. There are, however, a few points on which I think we should be very grateful to have his further assurance. In the first instance, my Lords, I should like to express concern in one matter, and that is in regard to the supply position. The noble Lord will be aware that at the present moment milk for manufacturing purposes—that is, for processing through various means for the manufacture of butter, cheese and also dried products—is down by 60 per cent. I think the noble Lord will be able to confirm that either little or no butter is being produced in the United Kingdom in present circumstances from home-produced milk. In view of the present position, does he believe that the Order as set out at the present moment gives a sufficient flexibility and control over our affairs?

169
In the second place, while appreciating what the noble Lord has said in regard to the reserve powers which Governments have retained over the last thirty years, does he not recognise that a five-year period appears to be rather longer than may perhaps be necessary in present circumstances? All I require, my Lords, is an assurance that in the Government's view this is entirely satisfactorily. Finally, I should like to stress once again the rather uncertain position in regard to the present situation vis-à-vis Europe. Perhaps the noble Lord can assure us that if we pass this Order it will in no way affect the present negotiations being conducted in Brussels.
7.54 p.m.
The EARL of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has most eloquently expressed the view of Her Majesty's Government on the subject of this maximum milk price Order; and I should like also to associate myself with the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, on the questions that he has raised. Unfortunately, a great problem is looming on the horizon due to the fact that there will be an acute shortage of milk in the shops in the near future for the simple reason that the dairy farmer is rapidly being forced to leave the industry. Indeed, my Lords, I myself have been driven to your Lordships' House. We have already had a warning from the Milk Marketing Board that dairy products for Christmas could well be in jeopardy, and that if dairy supplies fall by more than the amount already forecast we shall have to import cream. This has been brought about by the lack of confidence which the dairy industry has today, coupled with the high consumer demand for milk, which has been stimulated by Government subsidies.
I should like to mention briefly what it costs the dairy farmer to keep a cow, as I feel this is pertinent to the Motion we are debating this evening. To maintain a cow costs £1·21 a day, and if the animal is happy, healthy and yielding three and a half gallons of milk a day the farmer makes a profit of about 5p. However, out of this 5p he has to pay wages (which have increased, due to the threshold payment rises, eleven times in seven months), lighting, refrigeration, rates, veterinary bills, insurance, fuel,
170
fertilisers and the maintenance of his dairy equipment, as well as innumerable other expenses. This shows that in actual fact the farmer is losing money every minute of the day, and that the entire dairy industry is heading for total disaster and bankruptcy. If the price of milk to the consumer was increased by 1p per pint, this would cost the pint-a-day consumer £3·65 extra a year, which is equivalent to less than half-a-pint of beer a week. Where is our sense of values? If we are to have this maximum price Order continued for a further five years, let it at least be at a realistic figure so that the farmer, who is currently being used as a political football, will not be kicked to bankruptcy and we may have a healthy, thriving and expanding dairy industry, to the benefit of our whole nation.
7.58 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I would first thank the two noble Lords who have taken part in this mini-debate on the Milk Order. I shall try to answer the questions which have been raised. The first, I think, was the question of the shortage of milk. My Lords, there is no shortage of milk for liquid consumption. The margin of production over liquid demand fluctuates, and is at its lowest in the winter; but it is still substantial, and supplies for liquid consumption are not at risk. Sales have increased by about 2 per cent. over last year. Because earlier this year the hoped-for expansion of milk production did not materialise, supplies of milk for manufacturing have been lower than had been expected. In spite of this, home production of cheese is forecast to increase by about 35,000 tons. On the other hand, there has been a substantial drop in butter production. The recent measures that the Government have taken were designed to help stimulate milk production and thus give more milk for, particularly, the liquid market and also for manufacture.
So far as flexibility is concerned, the powers which the Government would have, as has been the case with past Governments, would be permissive. There is therefore flexibility. So far as the period of five years is concerned, this has always been the period and we see no reason why it should be altered now. Furthermore, there are special reasons

171
why there should be this power at the present time. Milk is being subsidised by this Administration as it was by the former Administration, and when you subsidise you have to take some steps to try to ensure that the subsidy reaches the consumer—and you can best do that by the control of retail prices. So far as the EEC is concerned, this Order is concerned with the control of retail prices. That is not forbidden by the rules of the EEC, and most of the countries of the EEC in fact control the retail prices of milk. So we should not expect any difficulty there.
My Lords, on profitability, the measures that the Government took in October had the effect of increasing the returns of milk producers by some 8p a gallon over the winter months, October to March. These took account of the high cost of feeding stuffs and the present low returns on culled cows and calves. The more recent measures taken for beef may give additional help here. The October award was worth about £100 million. It should give the industry new confidence to reverse the decline of milk production and put dairy farmers in a position to expand their production. The 1975 Annual Review which is just about to start will involve a detailed examination of all factors affecting the dairy industry. It is not possible to anticipate the determination; but the points that have been made in this debate will be borne in mind. As the Government have made clear, their aim is the expansion of our home agricultural industry and the milk sector is an important part of that industry. It was against this background that the recent measures were taken and that the Annual Review will take place.

AGRICULTURE (TRACTOR CABS) REGULATIONS 1974
8.1 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that the Agriculture (Tractor Cabs) Regulation 1974, a draft of which was laid before this House on 5th November, be approved. The purpose of these Regulations is to fix a new date by which all new tractors used in agriculture will
172
have to be fitted with a "quiet" cab. Under the 1973 Regulations this date was 1st September 1975; the date in these draft Regulations is 1st June 1976.
Perhaps I could just remind your Lordships that just a year ago, this House approved the 1973 Tractor Cab Amendment Regulations which required that as from 1st September 1975, all new tractors must be fitted with a cab with a restricted noise level. The introduction of the safety cab has undoubtedly saved many lives on the farm, but it has the unfortunate drawback of concentrating the noise of the tractor which could reach a level where the hearing of the tractor driver might be impaired. The Regulations limited the noise level to 90 decibels on the "A" scale. The date of 1st September 1975 was fixed as being the earliest date by which the industry could meet the demand for tractor cab combinations complying with this new noise level requirement. Unfortunately, we have been advised that the industry now considers it will not be able to meet this obligation until June 1976.
Your Lordships will know that during last winter, industry had many problems to contend with, which hindered production. The tight timetable for the "quiet" cabs, to which the tractor manufacturers were working, was severely disrupted. Representations were received by the Ministry that the manufacturers no longer felt able to meet the deadline of 1st September 1975.
Designing a "quiet" cab is an exceptionally difficult problem and has involved major re-engineering of many of the items involved. The industry has been faced with formidable difficulties and we are satisfied that manufacturers are not now able to meet the original target date. A letter of consultation was sent to all interested organisations and all who replied accepted the postponement, although RoSPA and the NUAAW expressed regret at the necessity for this action. We have therefore accepted that a postponement of nine months is necessary.
Postponing the date will not, of course, affect the flow of "quiet" cabs on to the market and I am sure that manufacturers will do their utmost to meet the demand from the agricultural industry. I think I should stress that there is no restriction

173
on the fitting of "noisy" cabs to tractors supplied to agriculture before 1st June 1976, and that such approved safety cabs will not need to be replaced by "quiet" cabs. Also the date of 1st September 1977, by which all new safety cabs will have to satisfy the noise level requirements remains unaltered. The draft Regulations also consolidate the Agriculture (Tractor Cabs) Regulations 1967 and the Agriculture (Tractor Cabs) (Amendment) Regulations 1973. This action has been taken following an inquiry from the Joint Statutory Instruments Committee when they considered the 1973 Regulations.
Moved, That the Draft Agriculture (Tractor Cabs) Regulations 1974, laid before the House on 5th November, be approved.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
8.6 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for explaining this draft Statutory Instrument. As will have been heard, it has a considerable history. Those of us who have served on agricultural executive committees over the past several years, until they were wound up, are aware of this particular problem in farm safety, and it is encouraging that in the closing month of National Farm Safety Year these Regulations should be brought before the House for approval.
There are a number of matters which arouse concern, among the principal ones being the question of cost. Going over the history of this particular problem of finding a safe cab, and in addition a quiet one, we have had, as the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, informed the House, a group of Regulations over the past seven or eight years. Perhaps I may be allowed to draw your Lordships' attention to the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, when in another place on 2lst June 1967, in which he said:
"Reference was made to the present price of cabs. We expect the price to fall considerably when full-scale production begins."
Most unfortunately since that pleasing and optimistic statement was made (in Vol. 748, col. 1671) we find ourselves living in quite a different world. One can appreciate the desire of Lord Hoy (one shared by all of us) for a cheap and safe cab, but unfortunately, the cab which in those days was estimated to cost between £70 and £100 has today attached
174
to it various prices ranging from about £200 to £250 and more. It is an alarming feature that a safe cab and a "hush" cab, if I may be allowed to call it so, is going to be more expensive than a second-hand tractor. This places this special provision beyond the purse of a number of the younger farmers—those on smallholdings and those who are now particularly concerned with the costs of their whole enterprise.
I should like to emphasise that at the end of a very long queue of additional imposts by the present Government, there comes this Regulation which makes it compulsory to fit cabs of a very costly nature. Therefore I would ask the Government whether it is intended to apply a specific grant or some particular tax relief for this purpose. I feel there is a strong case for doing so because by 1977, although we naturally wish today's prices to be held—or to fall, as the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, optimistically suggested—it is quite conceivable that prices may be substantially higher.
I turn to another matter. That is that there is a certain lack of consistency in the Regulations. There are a number of points to which attention has been drawn in another place and there was no conclusive reply from Her Majesty's Government. This is a small point and I do not wish to make a large one of it: it is in regard to Regulation 1(3), which states:
"A tractor is properly fitted with a safety cab for the purposes"——
Lord STRABOLGI: That is Regulation 2.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, it is indeed. I beg your Lordships' pardon. Paragraph 2(3) says:
"A tractor is properly fitted with a safety cab for the purposes of these regulations if the safety cab is ….
(b) equipped with an efficient automatic wiper for any windscreen it may have."
Further on in the Regulations, under Regulation 6 an obligation is placed on workers to report overturning or damage and, under sub-paragraph (c),
"any defect in the windscreen wiper if one is fitted."
Perhaps the noble Lord will be kind enough to tell us whether this is consistent or not.

175
My Lords, finally, there is a matter of management. Your Lordships will be well aware that the freedom to drive tractors without cabs which at present exists is something which in fine weather is a pleasing experience. There are those who suffer from claustrophobia in a variety of different degrees, and it is the contention of some of us that these Regulations might quite possibly make it difficult or impossible for a number of agricultural workers to continue in their present occupation of being tractor drivers. It is therefore hoped that the exemption clauses in regard to this particular malady should be applied with a degree of relaxation and that certificates of exemption should be granted with some ease to those who suffer from claustrophobia. My Lords, I do not wish to say more at this stage about the Regulations, other than to welcome their production before your Lordships this afternoon.
8.12 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I want to say very few words at the end of a long day and not in any sense in opposition to this Order which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has moved very clearly and simply and which I support. However, I should like to make one or two comments since my own experience gained in farming and in tractor driving—which I have done for hours and hours in hay and harvest fields—helps me to know something about driving tractors. The first thing that is a little alarming for the ordinary farmer is that this will be an exceedingly costly business. The other day I went to the expense of buying a new tractor, because I did not have one which was sufficiently good for the purpose. I managed to turn in another one against it, which helped to bring down the price, but it was enormously expensive. I hope and believe that it is fitted with a safety cab. I have not examined it very closely, because I bought it before these Regulations were brought forward, but I think it must be.
The number of older tractors on many farms is very great and if one has to alter all the cabs on old tractors—and by "old" I mean those which are two, three and four years old, which is a perfectly good age for an ordinary farm tractor—it will be most enormously expensive.
176
In addition, I am very much afraid, because one has had this experience before, that when the manufacture of the safety cabs really gets going they will be very expensive. It is very hard, as one has no bargaining power and must take the cab as the manufacturer produces it. One cannot shop around for a cheap cab, because such a thing does not exist at these standards. Therefore, one will have to pay a very high price and this will make a great deal of difference to a lot of farmers, particularly those who do not have a great deal of arable land, who use tractors because they are vital on every farm—the hill farm, the small farm and so on. This will add tremendously to a farmer's costs, and I should like the Government to consider that this will weigh very heavily indeed on a great many hill farmers and small farmers. When the Government are estimating costs and thinking about the Price Review, these costs will definitely have to be taken into consideration.
My Lords, Regulation 5(4), which gives exceptions where it is permissible to use a tractor without a cab, states:
"Nothing in this regulation shall apply to a tractor—"
and it lists sub-paragraphs (a) (b) (c) and (d). No doubt this is very good and very valuable, but I should like to suggest that the Government might add one or two other exceptions. For instance, today's modern cattle sheds often have a tractor with a shovel on the front which is taken into them in order to shovel out the dung. It is quite unnecessary to have a tractor with an enormous cab for this work, and it is very unlikely that such a tractor could get inside a cowshed, because the height of these modern "cow-kennels" as they are called, is often fairly low. They do not need to be very high. I should like to suggest that the Government might consider including this in Regulation 5(4). The cleaning of cowsheds, the handling of slurry and the use of the shovel do not require a safety cab or anything at all. They require only someone who can operate a small tractor efficiently.
There is also the fact that a lot of cultivation with tractors is not really dangerous, since it is done on the level on great areas of flat land. There, again, I feel it is possible that a tractor does

177
not need to be fitted with such an elaborate and expensive cab, because the chance of accidents is very small. If one is farming hill land such as that in Wales, Scotland or the West of England, the position is quite different and the safety element is extremely important.
Then my Lords, there is the question of second-hand tractors. This is another factor which plays a great part in the budget of the average farmer because, as I have said, if one buys a new tractor, one can very often turn in a second-hand one against it. Similarly, if one is a farmer who has not a great deal of cultivable land but to whom a tractor is necessary for ordinary farm activities, a secondhand tractor is quite good enough. I hope very much that these new Regulations will not suddenly knock out a mass of second-hand tractors which are very useful and are more within the reach of the small farmer and the hill farmer than the very large and expensive tractor which can take a four-furrow plough or very heavy machinery of one kind or another.
I am very keen about the question which appears under Regulation 3 of the safety cab being fitted with a steel frame of some kind so that it is safe when upset, but I am not so worried about the question of noise, because one can always open the window of the cab if it is a little noisy—I think they all have sliding windows. I have great difficulty in preventing my agricultural workers from removing the doors altogether, because they hate driving with doors and prefer to be able to hop in and out quickly. If they must have a tractor which is very closed in, with doors and windows, I shall be in trouble because I have the greatest difficulty to get them to keep doors on tractors even in the middle of winter, and a great deal of work is done on farms at times of year when the weather is very bad.
I am not so desperately keen on the question of noise. I agree that one should try to have as quiet a cab as possible, but if we are to do away with noise, as the noble Lord rather indicated, one may have to re-design completely the engines of tractors, and that could possibly delay this Order far beyond 1976, which is the date suggested by the noble Lord. "The best is the enemy of the good" is a very old motto and it applies in many cases.
178
There is something to be said—if one has a very large and heavy tractor—for insisting on having a cab, but with small tractors, such as the Massey-Ferguson 135, these are not at all noisy and noise in the cab can be dealt with simply by opening a window.
I wanted to make these suggestions because the importance of these Regulations is very great. I am in favour of them and I do not make these suggestions in any carping or critical way, but simply to give a warning that this could be immensely important in the future. When the Price Review is being undertaken I hope that some allowance will be made in whatever grant aid is given, although no doubt we cannot expect anything to be specified at the moment. Some years ago—I have forgotten how many years but it was probably about ten—we did receive grants for tractors. They were gradually done away with. I do not say this critically, and, indeed, I am not sure that it was not done by a Conservative Government. But those grants were done away with and a certain number of other grants—particularly those on buildings—are today less than they were then.
So I hope the Government will look on this as an obligation which is placed upon the farming industry and which will cost a great deal of money. I am glad that the time schedule has been lengthened because I am sure the manufacturers will never have the quantity required by 1975: indeed, I should be rather surprised if they had them by 1976. I hope that with rising prices and all the other complications we have to face, the Government will be kind enough to include these costs with other rising costs which farmers will have to face when the Order passes, as it will tonight.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I feel that the noble Baroness has taken a little of my fire and thunder about tractors, with or without cabs. I am entirely in favour of a tractor which does field work, whether on flat land or hilly land, having a cab, but I think that a tractor which works only around the farm buildings need not have a cab. Would not it be possible for Her Majesty's Government to give two forms of licence for tractors, one with cabs and the other without? The noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, answered the question I was

179
going to ask about the fact that secondhand tractors before a certain date will not need to have these expensive new cabs. I am entirely in favour of safety cabs, but there are many justifiable exemptions to be made. These should be examined in much greater detail than time permits tonight, before these new Regulations come into force.
8.25 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, to the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, and to the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, for the welcome they have given to these Regulations. I shall do my best to answer the points they have raised.
On the question of the cost of implementation in terms of 1977 prices, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, and also by the noble Baroness, I am quite unable to give a forecast. It is a hypothetical question. We do not know the rate of inflation and we cannot estimate the other imponderables in the future. I could give a figure, but it would be a guess and I should prefer not to do that. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, thinks this would be an extra burden on the farming community. I would remind him that this Government have injected £300 million into the farming industry since they came into Office at the beginning of this year. However, we will consider very carefully what has been said about possible future grant aid or relief which might be given in this particular sector, though I must stress that at this stage I cannot hold out any hope.
The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, asked about windscreen wipers and referred to possible inconsistencies between Clauses 2 and 6. The Regulations do not require that a cab frame should have a windscreen. Some in fact are left completely open. But if a cab does have a windscreen then it must have an efficient automatic wiper, and the worker is obliged to report any defect in a windscreen wiper, if one is fitted. I would refer to the relevant words in Regulation 2(3)(b):
"equipped with an efficient automatic wiper for any windscreen it may have."
I am very glad the noble Lord raised that point. It was raised also in another
180
place, where it was out of order, because they had to stick strictly to the terms of this particular Order; but here we can range far and wide over the whole of the farming industry where tractors are used. We are none the worse for that, and I listened with the greatest interest to the points which were raised.
The noble Baroness asked about exemptions. The certificates of exemption under Regulation 8 can be granted for special individual cases; for example, for research and development work. She also asked—and I though this was a very interesting question—whether it was necessary to enforce the same controls on easy terrain such as, for example, airfields. Certain exemptions are already granted in the Regulations, but there is a continuing risk of tractors overturning on all terrains. On level surfaces, accidents can be caused by excessive speed, by turning at speed and, indeed, also by badly adjusted brakes.
The noble Baroness also referred to Regulation 5(4)(a) to (d) covering exemptions, and these exemptions cover situations in orchards, hop-yards and buildings where it is not reasonably practicable to use a tractor with a safety cab fitted. Operations in cowsheds, and other low buildings, are covered also by these exemptions in Regulation No. 5. The noble Baroness also raised the question of old cabs. I can confirm that old cabs will not have to be replaced if they are approved safety cabs. All tractors supplied into agriculture since September 1970, will have had approved safety cabs fitted under the 1967 Regulations.
I was very glad to have the welcome of the noble Earl. Lord Kimberley, to these Regulations. They of course consolidate the existing Regulations which were introduced by the previous Government. These are consolidating and postponing the date, but the policy was the same under the previous Government, whatever the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, may say now in criticism. It was the policy of the previous Government and we are glad to be able to carry it on. They consolidated the existing Regulations which provided a range of general exemptions covering those circumstances where it is not reasonably practicable to operate a tractor fitted with a safety cab. I hope I have answered all the points which noble Lords have raised.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether I may press him a little further on the question of cost? Despite his remarks in regard to the expenditure of £300 million since the present Government came to Office, I feel it would not be a sufficient assurance for either my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood or for the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, to hear that this will be borne in mind. I wonder whether he would give an undertaking that he will draw his right honourable friend's attention to our very great concern on the cost of these safety cabs? Furthermore, I referred to the impasse into which the Government have placed and intend to place the self-employed. This is a matter of grave concern to the industry, and the noble Lord will be well aware of the fact.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I will certainly give that undertaking. Of course, all these questions are and will be kept under continuous review. We will take very careful note of what the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, has said, and I will cer-

Case

Place in which the patient was diagnosed

Centre to which the patient was taken for treatment

1.

South Western Hospital, London, S.W.9 …

Long Reach Hospital, Dartford, Kent.

2.

St. Mary's Hospital, Harrow Road, London, W 9

Long Reach Hospital, Dartford, Kent.

3.

West Hendon Hospital, London, N.W.9

Long Reach Hospital, Dartford, Kent.

4.

West Hendon Hospital, London, N.W.9

Long Reach Hospital, Dartford, Kent.

5.

West Hendon Hospital, London, N.W.9

Long Reach Hospital, Dartford, Kent.

SMALLPOX: HOSPITAL ACCOMMODATION
Lord AVEBURY Lord AVEBURY asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are reviewing the guidance on hospital provision for persons suffering from smallpox set out in Ministry of Health Circular HM(67)35 dated 19th June 1967, in the light of the World Health Organisation eradication campaign; and what interim advice has been given to Regional Health Authorities on this subject.
tainly undertake to bring it to the attention of my right honourable friend.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
Third Report from the Joint Committee made, and to be printed.