Lords Sitting of 5 February 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 Chichester.

E.E.C.: UNITED KINGDOM MEMBERSHIP ADVANTAGES
LORD O'HAGAN: 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 which Ministers and which Departments are responsible for explaining the advantages of membership of the E.E.C. to the British people.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD WINDLESHAM): My Lords, all Ministers and all Departments with European responsibilities and interests are concerned to initiate and stimulate publicity regarding particular aspects of the United Kingdom's membership of the European Communities. Machinery also exists for interdepartmental consultation.
LORD O'HAGAN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for that reply. May I ask him whether he accepts that the efforts of the various Departments and of Ministers have not yet proved wholly successful? Furthermore, since our position inside the E.E.C. may be weakened by its unpopularity in this country, will he give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government are now making a strenuous effort to improve communication about our membership of the E.E.C. and its consequences?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, in my experience of publicity matters, I have learned that it is seldom that any endeavours are "wholly successful"—to quote the noble Lord's words. But I can assure him that every opportunity is taken to explain to the British people the economic and political advantages, in both the short term and the long term, of membership of the European Community.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell the House of any Department which can tell of the advantages of joining the Common. Market, in view of the fact that we have a deficiency of over £1,000 million in our balance of payments—apart from what we shall have to pay in V.A.T. over the next year—and that we have to meet the Common Market food prices in March? Can the noble Lord tell us what are the advantages?
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, I came prepared with a list of benefits and advantages, but I also came with a resolve not to use it because questions of this sort can so easily lead to a general debate. I have answered the point about publicity which the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, put to me.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, will the noble Lord therefore confine himself just to explaining the deep spirit of intimate fraternity which has been cultivated in the Common Market between Britain and France?
LORD WINDLESHAM: That is another question, my Lords.

SUEZ CANAL: USE BY WARSHIPS
2.39 p.m.
LORD KENNET: 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 they will propose a ban on the passage of all warships through the Suez Canal when it is reopened.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL FERRERS): My Lords, warships could be banned from the Suez Canal only as the result of general agreement to amend the 1888 Constantinople Convention to that effect. Such agreement is most unlikely to be forthcoming in the foreseeable future.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, is it not rather a question of whether the Government might take an initiative, at least to commence the discussion of such an

707
agreement? Bearing in mind the regrettable, but fortunately slight, increase in the American base at Diego Garcia and the disappointment which that causes to the Indian Ocean countries, principally Commonwealth countries, who want to make their own ocean a zone of peace, can the Government try to do something constructive from now on and would not the demilitarisation of the Suez Canal be a very good starting point?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, if anyone put forward a proposal for such a demilitarisation we should certainly wish to look at it carefully. But I am bound to tell the noble Lord that we do not think that the practicalities are such that it is likely to come about.
LORD KENNET: But, my Lords, is it not true that it will take at least a year to reopen the Canal and that Egypt herself has voted for the zone of peace in the Indian Ocean? Is it not also correct, according to the statement of our own Commander-in-Chief (Fleet), that from a military point of view the reopening of the Canal will be principally to the advantage of the Soviet Union? Why do we not take a lead?
EARL FERRERS: Because, my Lords, it would mean a complete renegotiation of the Constantinople Convention. With regard to the Indian Ocean, I can only tell the noble Lord, as my noble friend Lady Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie said a few days ago, that while we have always given careful consideration to the idea of an Indian Ocean peace zone, it seems to us to be unrealistic; because a zone of peace covering such a vast area—even if it could be defined, which is questionable—would be impossible to verify.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that that is an extremely negative and flaccid reply, and that we might well pursue the matter later?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I was not aware that my reply was negative or flaccid, but I understand that the noble Lord might pursue the matter later. However, I can tell him that we are as concerned as he is to see that there is no build-up of military forces in these areas. With regard to the demilitarisation of the Suez Canal, although it may be possible and may seem acceptable, for
708
the reasons I have given we do not really think that it is possible to achieve it.
VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS: My Lords, in view of the extraordinary and variegated forms that modern warships can take, and the even more extraordinary and variegated forms that fleet auxillaries and other attendant vessels can take, can the noble Earl tell me who will define a "warship" and how it will be done?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I can tell the noble Viscount that Article 1 of the Constantinople Convention states:
"The Suez Maritime Canal shall always be free and open in time of war as in time of peace to every vessel of commerce or of war without distinction of flag."

FISHERY LIMITS AND LAW OF THE SEA CONFERENCE
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what conclusions were reached at the Sunningdale Fisheries Conference, and whether they will make a Statement on their policy towards limits of national jurisdiction at the forthcoming United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, no conclusions were reached. It was an opportunity for an informal exchange of views on the opportunities and problems of exploiting new stocks of fish now that our traditional grounds are threatened by the extensisons of fishery limits. It is our intention, at the Law of the Sea Conference, to work constructively for an outcome which will be widely acceptable to participating countries, as well as protecting our own interests.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, would the House be correct in taking it from that Answer that the question of a possible extension of the British fisheries protection zone from 12 miles to 200 miles was not discussed at the Conference?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, we are aware that the British Trawler Federation has pressed for an extension of

709
fishery limits, and this is a point which has been considered; but that does not mean to say that Her Majesty's Government are accepting it.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, may both Houses of Parliament expect any further statement of Government policy on this and related matters before the opening of the United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea in Caracas in June?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I think it would be unwise, when entering upon a Conference such as this, to state exactly what all our positions are in advance. We are anxious to see that as suitable an agreement as possible is arrived at, bearing in mind that our own interests should be protected.

BOMB EXPLOSION IN SERVICEMEN'S COACH
2.45 p.m.
LORD RHODES: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any statement to make on the massacre of eight Servicemen, a soldier's wife and two children by a bomb explosion on an Army bus near Batley yesterday.
EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNIS: My Lords, as the House is well aware, early yesterday morning, near Batley, in Yorkshire, an explosion occurred in the rear of a coach taking Servicemen and their dependants from Manchester to Catterick after the weekend. Eleven people were killed and 14 were injured, but the majority were discharged from hospital the same day. The coach did not belong to the Army but to a private firm who have for many years run a service catering mainly, but not exclusively, for Servicemen. The police forces concerned initiated immediate investigations; and Army bomb disposal experts are also giving assistance. I understand that no terrorist organisation has so far claimed responsibility for this ghastly atrocity. I am sure your Lordships will join me in condemning this despicable attack on off-duty Servicemen and their families, and in extending our
710
heartfelt condolences to the relatives of the dead and the injured.
LORD RHODES: My Lords, may I welcome the noble Earl who has just answered the Question on coming to the Dispatch Box for the first time? He bears a distinguished name, and we wish him well. I am sure the whole House echoes his feeling of revulsion and endorses the message that should go out to the relatives of those who perished yesterday morning.
I should like to ask the noble Earl, first, what security checks will in future be made on all vehicles that Servicemen use. Secondly, how long does the Minister think will elapse before identity cards will be required to be carried by travellers to and from Ireland and the United Kingdom? Also, will the Government make it clear that we as a nation are not going to be browbeaten and blackmailed, even by outrages like this, which are totally abhorrent to human dignity and decency?
EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNIS: My Lords, in answer to the first of the noble Lord's supplementary questions, Servicemen naturally make use of privately-owned vehicles for transport when they are not on duty, and there are limits to the precautions that can be taken. But advice has now been given on ways to minimise the risk to Service personnel when privately-owned transport is used. Security checks that can be made on vehicles used by Servicemen of course depend on whether the vehicle is under Army control or whether it is a commercial vehicle, as in this case. But I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, that whatever security precautions are desirable and practicable will be taken.
In answer to the second of the noble Lord's supplementary questions, so far the Government have judged that measures such as proscribing the I.R.A. or imposing formal control on movement between Ireland and Great Britain, or the introduction of identity cards, will not, on balance, aid the police in their primary task. With regard to the noble Lord's final supplementary question, Her Majesty's Government attach the highest importance to measures to counter the threat of terrorist acts of all kinds, and

711
these measures are kept constantly under review.
LORD ROYLE: My Lords, as one who knows the car park in Manchester where the coach was reputed to have been left, may I ask the noble Earl whether it is true, according to a newspaper report, that a coach which was customarily used by troops was left in an open car park with, as the report said, the boot open? Is it not a crazy situation that such a coach could possibly be there at this time, and is this real security?
EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNIS: My Lords, I imagine that foolproof security precautions cannot be taken in every case, and we do live in a fairly liberal country. I imagine that steps will be taken from now on, by the drivers themselves, perhaps, to make sure that each piece of baggage is claimed by passengers before they board the coach.
LORD O'NEILL OF THE MAINE: My Lords, in view of this outrage, might it not be wiser for the Army to provide their own transport, which can be properly looked after in every way?
EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNIS: My Lords, I think quite a number of people make their commercial living by transporting soldiers from one place to another, but I shall certainly look into that point for my noble friend.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, will the noble Earl ensure that, in future, in the case of any civilian coach which is being used for these purposes a notice is sent or a directive is given to the driver to the effect that he must ensure adequate examination before he embarks any passengers?
EARL ALEXANDER OF TUNIS: My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, has made a very good point, and I will look into that, too.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
2.50 p.m.
First Report from the Select Committee considered.
The Committee's Report was as follows:
SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
The recommendations of the Select Committee on Procedures for Scrutiny for Proposals for European Instruments were debated in the House on 6th December 1973 on a motion to take note of the Second Report from the Committee. There was widespread approval of the recommendation to set up a Select Committee on the European Communities, for which the following terms of reference were proposed:
"That a Select Committee be appointed to consider Community proposals, whether in draft or otherwise, to obtain all necessary information about them, and to make reports on those which, in the opinion of the Committee, raise important questions of policy or principle and on other questions to which the Committee consider that the special attention of the House should be drawn."
The Procedure Committee have considered whether these terms of reference, or narrower terms of reference proposed by the Government, are better suited to fulfilling the purpose of the Committee, as expressed in the Debate, and what powers such a Committee should be given. They consider that the terms of reference set out above are suitable to the proper functioning of the Committee and recommend them to the House. They believe that a Committee with these terms of reference should not interpret them too widely and should adopt a selective approach to its work. They also recommend that after a year's experience the European Communities Committee should review the scope of its functions in the context of its terms of reference and report to the House.
The Committee believe that, subject to the recommendations of the Committee of Selection, a membership of approximately 15 Lords would be appropriate for the European Communities Committee and that it should be empowered to appoint Sub-Committees. The European Communities Committee should have power to co-opt any Member of the House to serve on such a Sub-Committee. Normal Select Committee procedure should apply, including the provisions of Standing Orders 61–64, but the rule requiring membership of Select Committees to rotate each Session should not operate without the matter having been reconsidered by the House at a later date. Under Standing Order 62 (All Lords may attend and speak, but not vote) it will be possible for the Lords Members of the European Parliament, in particular, to attend the Committee and its Sub-Committees.
The European Instruments Committee recommended, in paragraph 129 of their Second Report, that Sub-Committees of the European Communities Committee should have the

713
exceptional power to report direct to the House in cases of urgency. The Procedure Committee do not consider that this recommendation, as it stands, is in keeping with the practice of the House and they recommend instead that in cases of urgency the Chairman of the main Committee should be authorised to present the Report of the Sub-Committee to the House on behalf of the main Committee.
The Chairman of the European Communities Committee will have an important and arduous task to which considerable time must be devoted. The Leader of the House has proposed that a salaried Deputy Chairman of Committees, who could, if requested to do so, take the Chair of the European Communities Committee in addition to certain other duties, should be appointed to assist the Chairman of Committees. Subject to the agreement of the Offices Committee to the creation of this new post, the Procedure Committee recommend that this appointment be made.
The Procedure Committee welcome the proposal for the appointment of specialist staff, e.g. a legal adviser, to serve the Committee jointly with a similar Committee in the House of Commons, and they understand that the Clerk of the Parliaments will pursue this proposal.
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be agreed to.
Moved, That the First Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES COMMITTEE
2.51 p.m.
LORD WINDLESHAM LORD WINDLESHAM rose to move:
That a Select Committee be appointed to consider Community proposals, whether in draft or otherwise, to obtain all necessary information about them, and to make reports on those which, in the opinion of the Committee, raise important questions of policy or principle and on other questions to which the Committee consider that the special attention of the House should be drawn;
That the Committee have power to appoint sub-committees and to refer to such sub-committees any of the matters within the terms of reference of the Committee; that two be the quorum of such sub-committees and that they have power to appoint their own Chairmen;
That the Committee have power to co-opt any Lord for the purpose of serving on a sub-committee;
That the Committee and any sub-committees have power:

(i) to send for persons, papers and records; and

(ii) to adjourn from place to place;

That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the Committee have power to appoint persons with specialised knowledge for the purpose of particular enquiries either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the Committee's order of reference;
That the Minutes of evidence taken before the Committee or any sub-committee from time to time be printed and, if the Committee think fit, be delivered out.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. Your Lordships will recall that we debated the Maybray-King Report on Procedure for Scrutiny of Proposals for European Instruments on December 6. It was a long debate and extremely useful from the standpoint of the Government to have an opportunity to hear the views of noble Lords in all parts of the House.
Since then the Procedure Committee met on January 29 and considered a memorandum, submitted by myself on behalf of the Government, covering all the outstanding details concerning the establishment of the proposed European Communities Committee. About 20 or 30 of your Lordships attended. The members of the Select Committee on Procedure were supplemented by three members of the European Parliament, by the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, and several members of his Committee and by several Peers who had spoken in the debate on December 6. The Committee debate continued for about two hours and the main point to emerge was the terms of reference of the new European Communities Committee. The arguments for and against the wider terms of reference proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, or the narrower terms of reference preferred by the Government were discussed at considerable length, inevitably with some difference of view.
I think it right to say (those of your Lordships who were present at the Procedure Committee will be able to correct me if I am wrong) that a consensus emerged at the end of the meeting that the House should be recommended to go for the wider terms of reference contained in the Order Paper to-day. The proviso, which has also been recommended by the Procedure Committee, is contained in the Report that the Chairman of Committees has just proposed. In the words of the Report:
"They —
that is the Procedure Committee—
"believe that a Committee with these terms of reference should not interpret them too widely and should adopt a selective approach to its work. They also recommend that after a year's experience the European Communities Committee should review the scope of its function in the context of its terms of reference and report to the House."
My Lords, in view of the overwhelming support for the Maybray-King recommendation, both in the debate in this House on December 6 and also in the Procedure Committee last week, I thought it right in my capacity as Leader of the House, having taken the measure of opinion in all quarters of the House, to follow the opinion of what I believe to be a clear majority of your Lordships. In my Motion to-day, therefore, I have adopted the Maybray-King recommendation in regard to the kind of Committee that is needed and in regard to the work that it should be asked to do for the House as a whole.
My Lords, this subject has been very thoroughly debated, both on the Floor of the House before the Christmas Recess and also in the large meeting of the Procedure Committee, supplemented by the noble Lords to whom I referred earlier. There has been the spirit of give and take in the exchanges to which we in this House are accustomed and my feeling is that we cannot usefully pursue the argument again now. I believe that the Motion before us to-day is a highly significant one in the history of the House. I am sure that all noble Lords will agree that the thanks of the House are due to the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, and to the members of his Committee for their very dedicated and thorough work which has made this new parliamentary institution possible. My Lords, I beg to move.
2.57 p.m.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, I am happy that your Lordships have accepted the Procedure Committee's Report, and also that the noble Lord the Leader of the House has now moved a Motion which, broadly speaking, carries out the recommendations of the Select Committee over which I was proud to preside. That Committee worked very hard. It travelled widely and heard many witnesses. It discussed European questions deeply, and finally, after months of labour, presented a series of recommendations of which this is perhaps the most important one. Perhaps, my Lords, in the swan song of this Committee I may re-echo my thanks to my colleagues on the Committee, and also express my personal indebtedness for the wisdom and experience of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, and the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, who helped me right through the arduous discussions that we had.
I think I speak for the whole of the Committee when I say that we accept the modifications which the Leader of the House and the Government have made in our recommendations. The size of the new Select Committee is smaller than we envisaged, but the provision for sub-committees and for co-opting on to sub-committees achieves the object we had in mind: that in this vast undertaking we ought to be able to call on the width and depth of wisdom and experience in your Lordships' House. The proposed watchdog in Brussels went some time ago, unhonoured, but not unsung in the Press. The powers that we proposed to give to the chairmen of sub-committees have gone, on reflection I think wisely. The power we concentrate in the hands of Chairman of the Select Committee. But these are points of detail compared with the main conception.
The European Community is now making legislation affecting the lives of everybody in the Community, including the life of every British citizen. Yet so far no machinery exists in either House to enable Parliament to influence the views of Ministers before they come to the Council of Ministers in Brussels to make such important decisions. To-day, if this Motion is carried, we shall set up such an instrument for the House of Lords. I believe that the other place will very

717
soon be setting up its own Committee, differing from ours because, as the Select Committee of the House of Commons point out in their Report, the nature, powers and functions of the House of Commons are quite different from those of this House. But I am happy that both Houses agree that expert specialist staff will advise both the Committee that we are setting up to-day and the Committee which, one hopes, the Commons will be setting up very soon. We want especially a legal adviser to both Committees. We shall certainly keep our own Clerk as Clerk of the House of Lords Select Committee.
The new Select Committee will have a tremendous load of work. The Procedure Committee recognise this, and especially the burden that is placed on the shoulders of the Chairman of this Committee. We had recommended that there should be a salaried Chairman, and if your Lordships study the Report of the Procedure Committee you will find they propose the appointment of a Deputy Chairman of Committees, to help the Lord Chairman of Committees, whose work, we know, is so onerous yet performed so magnificently. The main duty of the Deputy Chairman will be to act as Chairman of the Select Committee that we are setting up today.
On behalf of the now defunct Committee I wish to say that we are grateful to the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal for the way in which he has dealt with our Report. We are grateful to the Procedure Committee for subjecting our proposed terms of reference to searching criticism before finally giving them their blessing. The European Parliament is itself moving steadily towards becoming a more Parliamentary body and our own representatives there are helping in that process. The role of the Council of Ministers, vis-à-vis the Commission, is rapidly changing. Almost every other national Parliament in the Community has created machinery for scrutinising the work of its own Ministers before they go to the Council for decisions. So it is in a dynamic and changing structure that the British Parliament must play an effective role. I believe the need for action is urgent, and I am glad that the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal has acted with such speed. We reported late last year and your Lordships debated our Report
718
in December. The noble Lord has carried out every undertaking he gave during that debate, and the Committee are grateful to him. Speaking personally, I should like to thank him for the kindness, courtesy and understanding that he has shown to me on the many occasions we have talked together about this important issue. I commend the Motion to the House and I hope that it will be accepted unanimously.
2.59 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, we have of course debated this matter very fully. I think the arrangements are extremely clearly thought out. We are taking on wide responsibilities, and whether we are for or against the Common Market it is surely high time that Parliament did its duty in this respect. I should like to echo the appreciation of the noble Lord, Lord Maybray-King, for the speed and thoroughness with which the noble Lord the Leader of the House has acted in this matter.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD ABERDARE): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lady Young, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Local Government Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order, vizt.:

Clauses 1 and 2,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 3 to 8,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 9 to 19,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 20 to 23,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 24 to 26,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 27 to 35,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 36 to 42,

Schedules 7 and 8,

Clause 43.—(Lord A berdare.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

STATUTORY CORPORATIONS (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) BILL
3.4 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. While it is totally irrelevant to this Bill, and because I am not used to my present post, I hope that I may be permitted to say how delighted we are to see the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, back in her place on the Front Bench opposite.
My Lords, this Bill has two main purposes. First, it authorises the payment of compensation to certain nationalised industries for the losses which they have incurred during the past and will incur up to the end of the financial year 1974–75, as a result of price restraint. Secondly, it extends and rationalises the overseas borrowing powers of a number of public bodies, and permits them to borrow in sterling from the institutions of the European Communities. This part of the Bill does not confer on any nationalised industry, or other public body, a power which is not already enjoyed by a similar organisation. It is essentially a piece of tidying-up.
The need for compensation arises from our policy of price restraint and its consequences. It has always been our top priority to reduce the rate of inflation. Hence successive stages of policy: the C.B.I. initiative of July, 1971, the standstill of November, 1972, and Stages 2 and 3 which followed the standstill. It was an unavoidable consequence of this policy that the nationalised industries should play their part. Clearly, it would have been unreasonable to expect workers, or managers, in the private sector to accept a policy of restraint if the nationalised industries had been totally exempt from it.
We are, of course, fully aware of the drawbacks. During the 1960s, a great deal of useful work was done in developing economic and financial criteria to govern the operation of the nationalised industries. I think I may say that this development was bipartisan, and to the credit of both Conservative and Labour Administrations. It would be wrong of me to attempt to conceal the fact that price restraint has meant the temporary
720
surrender of some of the gains of the 1960s. The financial targets which were agreed between Government and nationalised industries, for example, have been rendered largely ineffective; and the continued incurring of deficits clearly cannot be good for managerial morale.
These changes are brought out in the recent Report from the House of Commons Select Committee on Nationalised Industries on capital investment procedures. The Government will be studying this Report with great care and replying to it in due course. But I can say that we are only too conscious of the threat that would be posed by any lengthy continuation of deficit financing in the nationalized industries. Indeed, the Select Committee recognised the frankness of Government witnesses in this Report. I would repeat, however, the statement in paragraph 24 of the Consultative Document on the Price and Pay Code for Stage 3 (Cmnd. 5444) that in the longer term it is desirable to enable these industries to restore their profitability.
But despite these drawbacks, the Government were convinced that price restraint was essential in the wider interests of counter-inflation policy. In consequence, several of the industries incurred serious deficits. For the period up to 1972–73, of course, nothing can be done about them: they are over and gone. What we are concerned with in this Bill is whether the industries should be left to carry the consequence of the deficits, or whether the Government should accept responsibility. It is our judgment, from which I hope the House would not dissent, that it is only just that the responsibility should fall on the Government. Indeed, some people have argued that we should go further, and compensate the industries, not only for the deficits which they have incurred, but also for the surpluses which they have forgone.
We have not felt able to accept this argument, for two main reasons. First, there is no way of estimating what the results of the industries would have been in the absence of price restraint, not least because price restraint has reduced their costs as well as their income. Secondly, many firms in the private sector have suffered loss of profit through restraining their prices and they will not receive Government compensation on

721
that account. It would therefore be unfair to expect the tax payer to make good to the nationalised industries whatever loss of profit they may feel they have suffered. So much for compensation in respect of past years which is covered under Clause 1 of this Bill. For the current year and next year, which are dealt with under Clause 2, I should like to describe how the nationalised industries dealt with in this Bill are treated under the Price Code in Stage 3.
First of all, a nationalised industry may increase its prices in line with allowable cost increases. This is the same principle as applies to undertakings in the private sector, and sets, as it were, a lower limit. Secondly, a nationalised industry, if it is in deficit on controlled activities, may increase its prices by such further amount as is necessary to hold its deficit at the same level as in 1972–73. If it is not in deficit, it may increase its prices by whatever amount is necessary to enable it to break even. This sets, in practice, the upper limit on price increases. However, under the Price Code, Ministers have the power to require the Price Commission to cut back a nationalised industry price increase, if they consider that it would have an unacceptable effect on the general level of prices. They cannot, however, require the Commission to reduce it below the level needed to reflect allowable cost increases.
As your Lordships will see, the effect is that under the Price Code any of the nationalised industries dealt with by this Bill may incur a deficit in either 1973–74 or 1974–75. The Government believe that it is right to take power to compensate them, if this should turn out to be so. Much depends on action taken by Ministers and I should like to draw attention to the Statement which my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made in another place on December 17. He pointed out how anomalous it was to be subsidising the price of fuel at a mounting rate when there was a world shortage of energy, and announced that urgent consultations would take place with the coal and electricity industries on their prices.
Those consultations are in hand, and I cannot go further as yet. I can, however, say that whatever proposals may result from these consultations will be within
722
the Price Code so far as electricity is concerned—as your Lordships will know, the coal industry is largely exempt from the provisions of the Price Code. The Statement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer was made after the Bill had been presented to Parliament. When it was introduced, the Bill proposed a limit on compensation for 1973–74 and 1974–75 together of £400 million, which could be increased by Order to £500 million. We re-examined the figures in the light of the Chancellor's statement, but concluded that because of the very great uncertainties in the current economic situation the provision should not be changed. Even at this stage of the financial year I should not like to predict what the outturn in 1973–74 will be: but it is clear that increases in the price of oil, and the effects of the dispute in the coal industry, will lead to substantial deficits.
To summarise this part of the Bill, the compensation which it provides is partly a recognition of past events which cannot be changed, and partly the inevitable consequence of the continuing need for price restraint. The Government are well aware of the dangers of continued price restraint, so forcefully described in the recent Report of the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries; and our long-term aim remains to restore the profitability of the nationalised industries.
The second part of the Bill is contained in Clause 4, where we are seeking to extend and rationalise the borrowing powers of the industries and bodies mentioned in Schedules 2 and 3. The powers that would be granted by this part of the Bill do not represent a new policy. Every one of the powers has precedent in other legislation. Nationalised industries first began to acquire foreign currency borrowing powers in the 1960s under the Labour Administration. The Air Corporations were the first in 1967 and others followed as opportunities for legislation arose. This Bill merely completes the process so that all the nationalised industries and public corporations will be in a position to take advantage of such opportunities. The Bill does three things: first, it gives powers to borrow foreign currencies to those industries which do not have them at present, mainly the transport industries. Secondly, it brings the existing powers of the electricity authorities and of the Covent Garden

723
Market Authority into line with the rest. Previously they could borrow foreign currency only by the issue of stock or other securities. Under Schedule 2 this restriction is removed.
Thirdly, the Bill extends the borrowing powers of the industries to enable them to borrow sterling from the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Investment Bank. This power was granted to the National Coal Board in the Coal Industry Act 1973. For many years it has been the policy of successive Governments to centralise the long-term sterling borrowing of public bodies, so that the main source has been the National Loans Fund. In this way, maximum flexibility is preserved in the management of the gilt-edged market. The reasons for pursuing this policy continue to apply to sterling borrowing on the domestic market, but they do not apply to such borrowing from the European Investment Bank and the Community. These European institutions customarily lend a basket of currencies including the borrower's own, and it therefore seems to the Government entirely right that United Kingdom public sector borrowers should be in a position to take full advantage of these facilities.
The new powers which the Bill seeks do not in any way increase the aggregate amount which the bodies concerned can borrow. There will not necessarily be any consequential rise in foreign currency borrowing by nationalised industries; the amount borrowed depends partly on the scale and terms of the funds available. In addition, as is customary, the exercise of these powers is subject to the consent of the appropriate Minister and the approval of the Treasury. This enables us to ensure that orderly arrangements for borrowing are established and that it does not take place in a manner prejudicial to the wider national interest. These new powers do not enable the industries to increase their capital expenditure. This is determined in the course of the review of the industries' corporate planning and investment programmes and is settled in the normal annual review of public expenditure.
I am sure that your Lordships will agree that all public sector borrowers should be equally in a position to avail themselves of the opportunities which
724
exist. In particular all should be able to enjoy the benefits of membership of the Community. Community loans often bear attractive rates; for instance, the Steel Corporation's £14·7 million loan from the European Investment Bank for the Teesside complex carried a rate of 8½ per cent. It would have been an even more attractive loan if part had been in sterling. It is our policy to encourage public sector corporations and some local authorities to borrow abroad. The foreign currency proceeds help to finance our deficit on the balance of payments. The inflow of funds last year was sufficient to finance some three-quarters of the current account deficit estimated for the year as a whole.
When interest rates abroad are competitive with sterling—and we need in any event to finance a payments gap—this policy seems to make sense. Moreover, this country normally exports more structural capital than it imports—largely in respect of export credits, aid and other forms of overseas investment. Overseas borrowing by the public sector (as well as the private sector) can surely help to offset these outflows.
Since this Bill was introduced, our external position has changed radically and the huge increases in oil prices have added an entirely new dimension to our external financing problems. This new situation gives further emphasis to the importance of this borrowing programme. I can assure your Lordships that neither the interest payments nor the repayment of the principal are of an order which need cause concern so long as the balance of payments develops as we expect, and as our policies are designed to achieve. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Aberdare.)
LORD ROBBINS: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to ask the noble Lord to answer a question which for me is an occasion of much perplexity. It relates to the first half of his remarks, namely, on compensation payments. The Bill refers to moneys provided by Parliament. I wonder whether the noble Lord could explain the ultimate source of such finance. Is it real taxation? Is it borrowing provided out of savings which would have taken place if

725
there had been no inflation, or is it inflationary borrowing?
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, perhaps if, with leave, I make a few remarks at the end of the debate I will try to deal with that point.
3.21 p.m.
LORD DIAMOND: My Lords, may I first of all thank the noble Lord for the kindly remarks he made about my noble friend Lady Scrota. I can assure him that the pleasure he felt is felt as much on this side of the House. We are delighted to see her back.
My Lords, this Bill comes to us exactly as it came before the other place; in other words, it reaches us unamended. In fact I see that there were only four Divisions in the whole Committee stage in the other place. In half of those Divisions the only person to vote against the Government was a Government supporter, so it does not look as though this Bill is going to give us a great deal of trouble or require a great deal of detailed examination. We are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, for the explanation he has given us and, of course, we are bound to accept both major purposes of the Bill. With inflation raging at its current rate, subsidies for essential services are essential, and with the deficit on balance of payments at its present astronomic figure, borrowing abroad, which as he explained may help reserves temporarily, is inevitable. So, my Lords, the Bill follows logically from the Government's gross ineptitude, and we are forced to accept it, but without any enthusiasm.
There are two aspects of the Bill about which I am not very happy, and one about which I am positively unhappy. The first point about which we are not very happy is the question of compensation, which has already been referred to. The noble Lord says, quite rightly, that the Government are basing their compensation on losses or deficits. It is revenue which is affected in the first place when prices are arbitrarily kept down, and one would have expected therefore that more attention would have been paid to the possibility of compensating on that basis. The argument has been put forward that that is a difficult concept, but so is the concept of deficit financing—financing on the basis of deficit as opposed to revenue.
726
It is certainly not true that only one of them presents difficulties. As the noble Lord has pointed out, the argument that it is necessary to treat the nationalised industries in the same way as private industry does not bear examination, because nationalised industries are treated differently, in fact less favourably, under the Prices Code. Moreover, Ministers have the power and have in fact intervened in order to affect that even more. So I hope the Government will give further consideration to the question of the basis of compensation.
The other matter about which we are not very happy is the question of price restraint. The noble Lord referred to this but did not say what the Government were proposing to do about it. Price restraint, as we all know, means distortion of demand, and with an industry like the electricity industry which is one of the major industries to be affected by the Bill we are now considering, where investment is planned for something like seven years or more ahead, they can get considerable distortion in their investment plans. Therefore the artificial restraint of prices cannot be accepted as a long-term policy. I repeat that we are disappointed that the Government have so far had so little to say about it. It seems that the Government are completely lost and have no policy to deal with the important problems of the nationalised industries that have arisen as a result of Government policy.
There is one matter about which I should have thought all your Lordships are positively unhappy, and that is the failure of the Government to replace the financial targets, to which the noble Lord referred, with any other device or method of encouraging and measuring efficiency. It is not as if anybody is unaware of this difficulty. On the Second Reading of this Bill in the other place on November 21, Mr. Patrick Jenkin, the then Chief Secretary, said—and I quote from col. 1351 of the OFFICIAL REPORT:
"Exactly how Clause 2(5) will be carried into effect and how far it will be possible to build in some form of incentive to the industries to contain their costs and to maximise productivity is a matter which we are still exploring with them and on which we shall be anxious to hear the views of right hon. and hon. Members."
He went on to say that the Bill was drafted sufficiently widely to accommodate

727
any acceptable method. But he did not say anything more than that or give any indication of what was in the Government's mind. He went on a little later to say (col. 1352):
"The boards"—
that is the boards of the nationalised industries—
"have made abundantly clear to the Government the demoralising effect which continuing deficit finance on this scale is having on their organisations, and Ministers in their turn have made it clear to the boards that they share these anxieties."
and he went on to refer to the dangers of open-ended deficit financing.
Although this matter, is obviously so urgent and one of fundamental importance to the efficiency of the nationalised industries which form such a large part of our economy, we see no advance when we get to the Report stage in the other place. On January 21 the Treasury Minister, Mr. Nott, in replying to the debate said (col. 1368 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of that date):
"What Ministers have genuinely been seeking to do on this Bill is to draw in all the suggestions we can find from all sources as to how we can return to long-term targets and how we can devise a new incentive system."
That is a very charming way of saying that the Government do not know what to do. But the Government must know what to do if they want to continue in power and want to continue having any kind of control over such a large part of our economic production.
The nationalised industries (there is no need for me to go over the figures) are of vast importance. It is their prices which have been kept down. It is to provide finance for them that we are considering this Bill. It is their borrowing which we are considering. It is they who have to borrow for their capital investment programmes which are affected by the distortion of the demand resulting from the restraint of prices. It is therefore the Government's responsibility to come forward with ideas If the Government want to canvass ideas, one very obvious method of devising an alternative to a target which has been destroyed by the Government's own policy is to separate revenue and expenditure; to deal with revenue on the basis of amount or volume produced, whatever the production is concerned with, for example, units
728
of electricity; to have a target for that on the basis of production; and to have an expenditure target based on cost, based on the cost of each unit produced, a productivity target. There is nothing difficult about establishing that, and establishing it quickly. It would serve reasonably well, though not as well as the financial target in natural, normal trading circumstances.
Here we are dealing with a very important problem. The Government are bringing forward a Bill which has been through the other place; Ministers are well aware of the dangers, yet nothing whatever has been brought forward in order to deal with the problem. That is my complaint. We hope very much that before we complete the Committee stage of the Bill, the Government will have brought forward their ideas and will be able to assure us, by reference to the Bill, that they are ideas which are capable of being carried out under the powers of the Bill; otherwise, of course, we shall need to alter those powers as we proceed through the Committee stage. My Lords, those are the major problems we have on this Bill. We shall not oppose the Bill. We hope we shall not take too long in dealing with it at the Committee stage.
3.32 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, if I may attempt to answer some of the points that were made by the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, I am very grateful to him for saying that he accepted the main purposes of the Bill and that he would co-operate in its passage through this House. So far as the basis of compensation is concerned, we were up against great difficulties. We did not think it right that the nationalised industries should be compensated on the same basis as the Prices Code allowed in the private sector. There are two difficulties. The first is that the provisions of the Prices Code which related especially to the private sector do not fit the circumstances of the nationalised industries very well. This is because the relevant parts of the Code were intended to encourage investment while maintaining strict controls over profit margins in the private sector. In the case of the nationalised industries the Government have more direct methods available for maintaining the level of investment.

729
The second difficulty is, quite simply, that the nationalised industries are not the same as private companies. Other differences apart, the Government are regarded as directly responsible for the price increases of the nationalised industries and not so in other cases. This means that the Government face a particularly difficult task in balancing the need to restrain prices on the one hand and the danger of slipping into a régime of permanent subsidies and of excessive public expenditure on the other. The balance which we reached is set out in the Prices Code.
My Lords, so far as the policy of price restraint and our future fuel pricing policy is concerned, I fully understand the anxiety to know what Government decisions are to be taken on fuel prices. But there are difficulties. Immediately after my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his Statement on December 17, discussions were opened with the nationalised fuel industries about the issues involved. They are extremely complex and they are, unfortunately, compounded by the present industrial difficulties. But I can repeat what the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said in another place, and I can promise that a Statement will be made at the earliest possible moment once these talks have been concluded.
LORD DIAMOND: If I may interrupt the noble Lord for just a moment, is it not the case—I cannot refer to it immediately—that on Second Reading there was, if not a promise, a strong hope expressed that this Statement would be made before the Bill completed its passage in the other place? Since that has not taken place could the noble Lord undertake to see that the Statement is made before the Bill completes its passage through this House?
LORD ABERDARE: Well, my Lords, I will do my best. I am afraid I cannot promise anything in present circumstances which, as the noble Lord knows, change from day to day and make life very difficult.
My Lords, finally the noble Lord referred to some form of device for measuring the efficiency of nationalised industry which might apply to the reckoning-out of the deficit of 1974–75. I am afraid that so far this has defeated us.
730
We have tried hard to find some formula which would give targets to nationalised industries. I am very grateful to the noble Lord for outlining one such proposal of his own which I will certainly see is considered. But we have discussed this matter with the industries to try to find a financial objective or some kind of incentive arrangements, unfortunately so far without success.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, I can only say that "monies provided by Parliament" means voted expenditure. Whether this is found by taxation or by borrowing depends on the judgment of the Chancellor at the time of his Budget concerning the volume of taxation necessary in the circumstances of the time. My Lords, the noble Lord will not expect me, I am sure, to anticipate my right honourable friend's Budget.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BIOLOGICAL STANDARDS BILL [H.L.]
3.38 p.m.
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Before starting my speech, I should like to apologise to the House if I am at any stage slightly inaudible due to some catarrh, but. I hope that the House will find me sufficiently audible.
My Lords, the object of the Bill is to establish a Board which would be responsible for a range of activities relating to standards for, and control testing of, biological substances, activities which for many years have been carried on by the Medical Research Council. Before describing the particular provisions in the Bill, I should like to tell the House about the background of the legislation. May I begin by asking two rhetorical questions about this Bill. First of all, why is further legislation necessary? Is a new Statute the only way of bringing about what we want? I have here a copy of the Medicines Act 1968, a weighty volume indeed. I also have a copy of the Therapeutic Substances Act 1956. It occurred to me that by examining these two Statutes it might be possible to create what my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services

731
desires to do, which is to establish a Board.
My right honourable friend seeks to create a corporate body with powers, functions and responsibilities associated with that body. It is a completely new animal, a new watchdog. However hard you breathe on Section 4 of the Therapeutic Substances Act 1956, it cannot produce a new animal. The same applies to the Medicines Act in the opening section. Secondly, in reply to my other rhetorical question, whether the only way to do what is required is by means of a new Statute, alas! the answer is, yes. There must be a new Statute. It cannot be created by order.
With those two obscurities out of the way, there are still two more, because in going through the Printed Paper Office I saw that, like Tweedledum and Tweedledee, there are two Bills—one named the Biological Substances Bill and the other the Biological Weapons Bill. They are both of the same sin, colour, shape, et cetera. I should like to dispose of this difficulty at the first go by stating that the two Bills are in no way connected. The Biological Standards Bill, with which we are dealing, has no connection whatever with the Biological Weapons Bill which is concerned solely with the prohibition of manufacture. The strongest possible reason for my right honourable friend's decision to introduce this Bill is to create the right framework over the next generation of 25 years or so for the administration of what is required—the control of biological standards. Among his many responsibilities is to collaborate with the World Health Organisation, the European Pharmacopoeia Commission and other international bodies in relation to standards for testing of biological substances.
At this point we can set up another 15 feet of aerial and tune in to the international wave length. As to the word "pharmacopoeia", for those outside the medical profession one should define what that word means. I am not a doctor, and it struck me that I might not be alone in this and that your Lordships might wish to have some definition. I at once went for a definition which a layman could understand and I found it in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. With your
732
Lordships' permission—it is worth reading; it is only a few sentences—it reads as follows:
"Pharmacopoeia—government publication to provide for standards of identity, quality and strength for those medicinals which represent the best practice and teaching of medicine. The primary function of a pharmacopoeia is to describe each drug on the approved list in such a way that whenever dispensed it meets the standards of quality and strength established for it. The provisions of the pharmacopoeia in force are binding on all who produce drugs and those who dispense them. The pharmacopoeia is a fundamental safeguard to public health."
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive my interrupting, although this will not appear in Hansard, I believe that the correct pronunciation is pharmacopoeia and not to rhyme with cornucopia.
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, I apologise for an inaccuracy in pronunciation. This at once reveals my inadequate training in this particular field.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, would the noble Lord like to take further advice about this at some other time? Medical pronunciations are by no means reliable.
LORD SANDYS: I would thank both the noble Lord, Lord Segal, and the noble Lord, Lord Platt, for their kind advice in this field. I am greatly reassured by those statements. It also occurs to me that the oldest pharmacopoeia would be of some historical interest, because what is intended by the Government to be done through this Bill is in direct line with a very ancient and honourable profession. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, I am sure, is already aware that the oldest is a tablet of stone constructed in ancient Babylon about 1700 B.C. The first European pharmacopoeia was the Florentine nuovo receptaris, 1948 and the Danish pharmacopoeia—with which we are especially concerned—was established in 1772 and is the oldest one in continued existence.
That brings me to our European partner in this connection—Denmark. It is of great significance that our Danish colleagues are so much concerned with this country in the same field because international standards for immunological substances used in human medicine are the responsibility of the State Serum Institute in Copenhagen. On all fours with our Danish colleagues, veterinary medicines

733
—both immunological and non-immunological substances—are the responsibility of the Central Veterinary Laboratory at Weybridge.
With that introduction of the situation, I now turn to the Bill itself and the activities of the new Board to be established by this Bill. The activities which the new Board will perform are essential to the arrangements for securing and maintaining the quality of a range of substances that play a vital part in the diagnosis, prevention and treatment of disease. They include insulin—on which sufferers from diabetes depend—vaccines and other immunological products used for the prevention or treatment of diseases such as poliomyelitis, diphtheria, small pox et cetera and a variety of other therapeutic and prophylactic agents. The common feature of all these is that their potency needs to be standardised; there has to be a high degree of freedom from contamination from pyrogens, bacteria, viruses and other infectious agents. They cannot be characterised adequately by chemical or physical methods.
Here I wish to draw a very strong distinction between the medicine of the ancient world—which was the pharmacopceia I have referred to on the tablet of stone—and the new pharmacopoeia which has arisen entirely due to the new methods which have come about since the latter half of the nineteenth century and the early half of this century: antibiotics, penicillin, all the drugs with which we are in constant touch to-day but which perhaps can be seen by amateurs such as myself as very difficult to measure in a precise and exact way, which have a definite form. Thus, the biological standards must be set in a way which is acceptable to the international community.
At the present time, the importance of these activities to the responsibility placed by Parliament on Health Ministers under the Medicines Act 1968, which I have shown your Lordships already, and formerly under the Therapeutic Substances Act 1956, will be evident to the House. At the present time these activities are carried on at the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control, which is located mainly in the Medical Research Council Laboratories at Hampstead. There has been a transfer of function recently, and they are located partly at Hampstead and partly at Mill Hill.
734
The M.R.C. has been associated with work on standardisation and control of biological substances since the 1920s. At that time, the Therapeutic Substances Act 1925 made Health Ministers responsible for a system of licensing of manufacture for sale or importation of a short list of biological substances. As the Health Departments themselves had not the necessary facilities and expertise, the M.R.C. carried on the essential standardisation and control work associated with the licensing of manufacturers and importers by the Health Departments and their inspection of manufacturing premises. With the extension—and this is the important thing—of scientific and medical knowledge in this field in the last thirty years, and with the resulting increase in medical use of immunological agents, such as antibiotics, and other biological substances, the scale of work has greatly increased. This is really the whole reason behind the introduction of this Bill.
The M.R.C. has been made responsible by the World Health Organisation for establishing, holding and distributing international standards in worldwide use for non-immunological biological substances and now—although the development of new standards and methods of control testing still involves research—a very large part of the day-to-day work of the Institute relates to the maintenance of standards and control testing necessary to enable the Health Ministers to fulfil their statutory obligations under the Medicines Act in respect of biological substances.
My Lords, enough of the background; enough of the substance of the Bill. The Bill itself is drafted in such economical terms as to be self evident. The Secretary of State is empowered to appoint a chairman and members of the Board and it is the intention of the Health Minister, before appointing the Board and its chairman, to consult the Medical Research Council, the Medicines Commission and the Public Health Laboratory Services Board. A decision on the exact pattern of membership has not yet been taken, but it is expected that there will be about ten members in addition to the chairman and that it will be broadly similar to the existing Joint Advisory Committee, the chairmanship of which was recently accepted by Lord Sandon. I am very glad that he

735
has accepted this appointment and I think it is extremely welcome that he has done so in advance of the Royal Assent to this measure. The Board will be appointed as soon as possible after the Bill receives the Royal Assent and under Clause 1(3) will be directed to draw up, after discussions with representatives of the staff, and subject to the approval of my right honourable friend and the Minister responsible for the Civil Service, suitable terms and conditions of service.
Clause 3 enables provision to be made by Statutory Order to transfer property, rights, liabilities and obligations from the Medical Research Council to the Secretary of State for Social Services. The detailed content of this Order cannot be stated at the present time. Clause 4 is financial and the remaining clauses are briefly described in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum at the front of the Bill.
I fear that I have taken up too much of your Lordships' time, but in conclusion I would say that it is the belief of the Government that this Bill will ensure the successful working of an important part of the health safeguards. Although this forms a very small fragment in the total remit of my right honourable friend, I feel it is a significant one in that the Statute, if and when it reaches the Statute Book, will form some part of a great mosaic in that universal world object of the relief of suffering.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Sandys.)
3.54 p.m.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I should like first to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, on what I think is his first Bill from the Dispatch Box. If he handles them all with so much grace and such leisurely efficacy the House will benefit thereby.
We on this side of the House have no objection to this Bill. Indeed, if one may make an ideological point for a moment, we are glad to see the Government hiving something on, and the pleasure we take in that is not outweighed by the increase in Government expenditure and the increase in the Civil Service which the Explanatory Memorandum quite frankly owns up to. All this we think can be justified. We have no objection to the
736
Bill, although I must say that it is something that would not have occurred to us, because when you come to examine it the function clearly is not research it is a public service and there is no reason why the Medical Research Council should carry out a general control service. It seems to us that it would be just as well, or better, done directly under the control of the Secretary of State.
I have only two questions to ask about the Bill. First, in regard to the staff who are to be transferred, I think it is customary, when there is a switch of staff from one Government Department to another or from one Government dependent agency to another, for the Government to give an assurance that nobody will be made worse off thereby. I hope the noble Lord will find it possible to give that assurance to the House this afternoon.
The second point is that we are glad to see from the Bill two things, to one of which the noble Lord referred in his speech but not the other. The first is that the Secretary of State is to consult the Medical Research Council in setting up the new Board and appointing its Chairman. That is good. The second is, if I read the Bill aright, that there is to be a Medical Research Council member on the new Board. Perhaps the noble Lord can confirm that, because it is obvious that when a function is switched from patron A to patron B continuity can effectively be assured by patron A appointing representatives to the new structure under patron B. Having said that, my Lords, I repeat that we quite welcome the Bill and have no objection to it as a general measure.
3.56 p.m.
LORD PLATT: My Lords, I, too, welcome this Bill as a necessary and useful measure, part of a general move to place research of the more service type—although not entirely service activity—under the auspices of the Department rather than those of the Medical Research Council. As a former member of the Medical Research Council I thought I might, quite shortly, say one or two things. The noble Lord referred to rhetorical questions, and he also referred to the new Board as being a corporate body. May I ask him to tell us at sometime what is an "incorporate" body?

737
That is something which has always worried me, though as your Lordships will realise it is not a very serious point. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has asked for an assurance, which is, as he said, quite normal in circumstances of this kind, that staff who are transferred to work under the new Board will at least be no worse off in their terms and conditions of work than they were under the M.R.C. Secondly, it has been put to me by some senior members of the Medical Research Council with whom I have discussed this matter that a man who is doing medical scientific work usually does better work—and, indeed, you get a better man—if he has some freedom to pursue a line of his own. One would not expect him, working in this new department, to pursue a line of research totally removed from the kind of work that goes on in the department. But we wondered whether the Minister could give any information as to whether a scientifically qualified or medically qualified—or both—person would be allowed to apply for funds, either from the department itself or from the M.R.C. or from the various bodies who support medical research, to pursue a line of research under the general direction of the Director, who would naturally not want it to take up so much of his time that he was unable to do his normal duties. We thought that this point was worth airing in this Second Reading debate.
Then, supposing the functions of this Board do materially change—it takes on new duties or sheds some old ones—we thought it might possibly be written into the Bill, or at least that the Minister might give us an assurance, that in those circumstances the Medical Research Council will be consulted. But if the Minister makes it quite clear that there is always to be a member of the Medical Research Council on the Board it may be that such an assurance is unnecessary.
Finally, I do not always read Acts of Parliament very carefully, neither do I always understand them if I do try to read them. But I think I understand that the Therapeutic Substances Act 1956 still covers some of the duties which will be undertaken under this new Board. If I am right in that, does it worry the Minister or the Government at all that biological standards and the testing by biological means, which is what the Bill is concerned with, apply not only to
738
therapeutic substances nowadays? They are not all substances which are going to be used in the treatment of disease. Some are, if you like, cunning biological, medico-scientific devices for testing the function of certain organs which may, for instance, be stimulated by a certain stimulus derived from a living animal, and therefore biological. They are used as diagnostic test and not necessarily for therapeutic purposes. Whether that refinement of definition is or is not worth pursuing I am quite happy to leave to the Ministers to consider. That is all I need say.
4.1 p.m.
LORD SANDYS: My Lords, first of all I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, for his kind and welcoming remarks to my first introduction of a Bill to your Lordships' House from this position. May I answer the two questions which he asked. Firstly, in relation to staff transferred, yes, my Lords, this is a highly important matter. I wonder whether it would be suitable if I quoted here a clause which occurs in the standard form of employment of those at present employed by the Medical Research Council. It reads:
"The terms and conditions of service and provisions relating to pensions for the staff will be not less favourable, taken as a whole, than the existing terms of service and pension arrangements applying to them as employees of the Medical Research Council."
I would take that expression "not less favourable, taken as a whole" as highly important and significant here; I think that we should underline it twice in redink. If that is correct as an interpretation, I would say the staff would be in a position to say, "Well, the terms may be different, but taken as a whole they will be similar in all respects, and possibly even better".
My Lords, as regards the consultation of the Medical Research Council before the drawing-up of membership of the Board. I think in regard to those noble Lords who have spoken that I should express a general statement on the composition of the Board. This might put the minds of the noble Lord, Lord Platt, and the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, at rest at the same time. A decision on the exact pattern of membership has not yet been taken, but it is expected there will be about ten members in addition to the chairman, of whom at least two will be "independent" members in the sense of

739
not being employed in the Health Departments or employees of the Medical Research Council or the Public Health Laboratory Service Board. They would have wide and recent experience in connection with the standards for and testing of biological substances.
Most of the other members of the Board would be selected with the Health Departments responsible in mind, while providing for full expression of the views of the Medical Research Council, the Public Health Laboratory Service Board and the Medicines Commission. This broadly continues the pattern of the existing Joint Advisory Services Committee which, during the past three or four years, has advised the Medical Research Council and the Health Departments on policy and priorities, and the running of the Institute while it is still being administered by the Medical Research Council. I hope that is a reasonable answer to the questions of both noble Lords.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Platt, asked me five questions and I will answer them as briefly as possible. He asked a humorous question on the corporate body which I think should be referred to the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, as an etymological point. The second question on conditions of employment I have already answered. Thirdly, on the point about scientifically qualified persons engaged in research, I think I should refer that to my Department and write to the noble Lord, Lord Platt, about it.
I have already answered his fourth question on the Medical Research Council member on the Board. With reference to the Therapeutic Substances Act 1956, the functions of the new Board cover diagnostic, therapeutic and prophylactic substances. The refinement of definition is a little difficult, but if that information is sufficient to satisfy the noble Lord, well and good. If not, I shall be only too happy to make further inquiries and advise the noble Lord, Lord Platt, accordingly.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

FISHING VESSELS (ACQUISITION AND IMPROVEMENT) (GRANTS) (AMENDMENT) SCHEME 1973
4.6 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move that the Fishing Vessels (Acquisition and Improvement) (Grants) (Amendment) Scheme 1973 be approved. This Order does no more than continue, for another year, the rates and conditions of grant for fishing vessels, and for improvements to them, which the industry already enjoys. These capital grants cover 30 per cent. of the cost in the case of vessels under 80 ft. in length, or 25 per cent. for longer vessels, and are administered by the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board.
It might, however, be useful if I were to summarise what was announced in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of State on December 13. The acceleration in 1973 in the rate of application for these grants has shown an encouraging determination by the industry to create a modern and efficient fleet. This means, however, that the number of approved proposals and new applications is now so great that in many cases the actual work will not be carried out for months or even years ahead. The problems this creates, not least for the forward commitment of public funds, have led my right honourable friends, after consultation with the Authority and the Board, to impose a temporary moratorium on new approvals. There is, however, an exception for any improvement which is essentially directed to the safety of the vessel or crew. This, as my right honourable friend said, is temporary. We are working out acceptable arrangements in consultation with the Authority and the Board, and will bring industry into consultation as soon as we usefully can. The powers which I invite your Lordships in this Scheme to continue for the whole of 1974 will then again be available.
I should make it clear that although a proposal to harmonise national aids of this kind throughout the E.E.C. was recently submitted by the Commission to the Council we are still some way from a decision whether there will be a ceiling, and if so at what level. My right honourable friends will be discussing the Commission's proposal with the British

741
industry before they take a position, and the European Parliament will also be giving its opinion. In the meantime it is clearly right for us, in the United Kingdom, to continue for 1974 the domestic arrangements we have had in 1973. I beg to move that this Order be now approved.
Moved, That the Fishing Vessels (Acquisition and Improvement) (Grants) (Amendment) Scheme 1973, be approved.—(Earl Ferrers.)
4.9 p.m.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for explaining this Order to us. I do not complain about the brevity of his speech although I was interested to hear him say that it might he months or even years ahead before the applications that are in now are in fact completed. This Order is to operate for 12 months. I cannot understand what is to happen after this year. I have no doubt that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will be able to assure your Lordships that next year he will be moving another Order extending the Scheme for a further 12 months.
I understand that the applications in regard to these vessels this year are more than double what they were last year. I should like an assurance, and I am certain the House would, that these applications are in fact firm, and that there are not certain people who want to get in in the hope that they may have an allocation out of what is available. I believe the amount given in grants last year was some £4½ million, covering both the larger and smaller types of vessel; while the loans came to roughly £2½ million, and of course these are only applicable to the smaller vessels. Perhaps the noble Earl could tell us—and he said that they have more than doubled—whether these are hard applications. If this is so and the demand is so great, I think we should be very happy to know also when the Government propose to approve the grants.
As I understand it, the whole industry is held up at the moment, and the noble Earl must be aware that if in fact we are to have a flood of orders for vessels then this can only be met by what the shipyards can afford to take. I am sure we have all had sufficient experience to know that when there are delays of this
742
kind, and then suddenly there is a flood of approvals, the consequences industrially are not all that good. I am certain that if he inquires, the noble Earl will find that this has happened on previous occasions. If you hold up the whole industry and then suddenly approve grants and loans, while the shipyards are responsible for producing these fishing vessels unless you can put the matter through in an orderly fashion you can get into considerable difficulty. As we have found in the past, to get into this position can also be fairly costly; indeed, the cost can be much greater than was anticipated. So I would hope that before we finish this short debate—and I hope it will be short—the Minister will be a little more forthcoming about the number of applications that have been made and how the Government propose to deal with them. This will assist in ensuring that they are dealt with in a fairly orderly fashion and without causing undue disturbance at the building end.
Arising from that is the question of what we are going to do inside the European Economic Community. The Minister said a word or two about that. I do not think I exaggerate when I say "a word or two", because he was not prepared, apparently, to go much further than the few words he said this afternoon. But this is an extremely important matter to the fishing industry. At the present time we have grants at the rate of 30 per cent. and 25 per cent., depending on which section of the industry one is engaged in, while inside the European Community the grant, as I know, can vary between 15 and 30 per cent. If you are building a vessel today, it does not matter how small or large it is, it is a very costly item, and it is important for those who are going to invest their own money to know how much they will be able to secure from central Government. I do not think the Minister would demur to that. It is important therefore that they should know at the earliest possible moment our own Government's intentions, because whatever happens inside Europe it seems from the Minister's introductory statement that we are still going to have our own Scheme for a considerable time ahead.
Has the Minister any information about the industry in general? Rumour

743
has it that a fairly large and comprehensive meeting took place quite recently, attended by people influential in all sections of the industry. I do not think it is any secret to say that this was reported, if I remember correctly, by Mr. Chapman Pincher in the Daily Express. According to the report, what had been agreed was that we would be forming a European fishing pool, and it was then suggested that we might have limits of up to 200 miles. The consequences of such an arrangement, of course, can be tremendous, because the Minister and the Government are bound to know that this year we shall have to face up to the Law of the Sea Conference. If we suggest at this moment what the limits as they affect us are going to be, quite obviously there are many people in other parts of the world on whose grounds we are at present depending who are going to say, "Well, if this is good enough for them, it is good enough for us". I would have thought that the Government must have had some thoughts in this connection. I say that quite seriously; I am not disparaging them in any way; they are bound to be facing up to this situation at the present moment, because very soon the day will arrive when decisions have to be made. But when we have talk of this kind—and it seemed to be fairly substantial—we have got to face up to it. If this is what is proposed, surely it is for the Minister to tell us what is going to be the position of the British fishing industry inside this so-called agreement, because we have fairly extensive fishing waters, whereas some inside Europe have nothing to offer in return. Indeed, they would merely be agreeing with great acclamation that we should have this limit, because then our waters would be free to them.
I am not suggesting that we should be "hogging it" all the way, but I am suggesting that we must take steps to protect our own fishing grounds and our fishing rights. With the price of fish to-day to the housewife in this country somebody has got to look after the situation. One read last week forecasts of falling prices, but they are simply not borne out by the evidence. When we get fish selling at the price it is at the present moment, who would have believed a few months ago that those engaged in agriculture would be saying that people can well afford the
744
price of beef in view of the price of fish? For long enough it was the other way round. So from all points of view the matter is important. I am not objecting to the Order at all, but these are questions of considerable significance and importance to the country, to the Government and to the consuming public, as well as to the industry, and I am sure your Lordships will be very grateful if the Minister makes an attempt to reply to some of them.
4.19 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, for what he has said and the points that he has raised. With regard to the applications for grants which have been received, I can tell him this, that the expenditure which the White Fish Authority and so forth have been involved with has in fact increased over the last few years quite considerably. In 1970–71 it was £2·7 million. In 1971–72 it was £3–5 million and in 1972–73 it was £6 million. The Authority began the current year, 197374, with commitments, in other words approvals in respect of which no expenditure had yet been made, amounting to £5·8 million; and up to December 13 when the moratorium was imposed they had added a further £5·8 million of new commitments. In addition to these two figures, applications totalling some £5 million had been received but had not been approved when the moratorium was imposed.
The arrangements which we are in process of working out will have to settle the way in which we can allow the Authority to handle these, plus, of course, the current and future applications made after December 13. I explained—and I know the noble Lord, Lord Hoy realises—that there has been a substantial increase in applications for grant, and this has meant among other things what one might describe as a queue at the yards for building. It was considered prudent that there should be a moratorium so that the Government, with the statutory bodies and later with the industry, should work out how best these matters can be dealt with.
It is possible for applications still to be put in and to be processed, but in fact approval of them will not be given until the moratorium is lifted. I can assure the noble Lord that that will be just as soon as this matter can be worked out. When

745
he asked whether these are hard and fast applications, I am bound to tell him that to my knowledge they are; but of course one can only say that they are applications, and if the person putting in the application is not genuine but merely wishes to stake his place in the queue, I do not think that there would be any easy way of determining that.
The noble Lord also referred to the European Economic Community. There have been proposals from the E.E.C. to try to harmonise all the aids which are given. I really do not think that I can go much further than to say that we are considering the proposal which has been put forward. We are considering it with the industry and with the boards concerned, and when we have had time to come to conclusions there will be the opportunity to take this up with the Commission, and indeed the European Parliament can do so as well. I do not think that I can say more than that at the moment, because we are still at the stage of trying to consider the proposals that have been put forward and how they may affect us.
LORD HOY: My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble Earl has said so far. When he says, "We are consulting the industry", does he mean the whole industry: the employees as well as the employers?
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I was referring to the industry as a whole. I should not like to state specifically what parts of it. Before the Government were to take a view with the Commission, clearly they would wish to know the views of the industry and, I would assume, of all parts of the industry.
The noble Lord also referred to the report that he had seen about the 200-mile limit that some people have suggested might emerge as a result of the Law of the Sea Conference. It is true that the British Trawler Federation have said that they would like a 200-mile limit. The Government are aware that that is their view, and they are considering the implications of it; but the Government do not necessarily go along with that view.
With regard to the Law of the Sea Conference at Caracas, a very important Conference at which both fishing limits
746
and other limits will be discussed, I would only tell the noble Lord that the Government want to see as a result of this Conference a system which will be acceptable to as many States as possible and which at the same time ensures that our own interests are protected. We believe this to be very important, and it is in that spirit that we intend to take part in the Conference. What the outcome will be, time alone will tell. But, I repeat, in our view it is going to be a very important Conference and we want to be quite certain that the outcome is as reasonably acceptable as we can make it, and certainly one that safeguards the interests of the British fishing industry.
I would say to the noble Lord, in conclusion, that I am grateful to him for what he has said. I will certainly study it with care. The British fishing industry has shown a considerable advance over the last few years, and we believe that is why opportunity has been taken to improve vessels and take advantage of the grant schemes which are operative. We hope that before long the moratorium which is applied at the moment will be lifted, and that the industry will then be able to continue to take advantage of these Schemes, as it has done in the past. My Lords, I hope that I have answered the noble Lord's questions.
LORD HOY: Except about prices.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, prices are always volatile things.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HORTICULTURE (SPECIAL PAYMENTS) BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

CONTROL OF ZOOLOGICAL GARDENS BILL [H.L.]
4.26 p.m.
LORD JANNER: 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 Janner.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ROYLE in the Chair]
Clauses 1 to 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Removal of registration in certain cases]:
LORD JANNER: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 24, at end insert ("of section 4 of this Act").—(Lord Janner.)
EARL COWLEY: I think it might be helpful to the Committee if I gave the Government's attitude to the noble Lord's proposed Amendment. Since this is purely a drafting Amendment to insert words which appear to have been inadvertently omitted from the print of the Bill, the Government have no objection to the Amendment and feel that it would clarify Clause 6(4) of the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedule agreed to.
LORD JANNER: May I, before the Committee stage is finished say a word about a misprint? Your Lordships will have noticed in the Schedule to the present print of the Bill, at page 7, line 32, that the Secretary of State is referred to as "Mr." This is a misprint. The correct print should be "the Secretary of State" This printing error will be corrected in the next print of the Bill.
House resumed: Bill reported, with the Amendment.

DISABLED DRIVERS' VEHICLES
4.30 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS BARONESS PHILLIPS rose to ask Her Majesty's Government, in view of the report on tests carried out on vehicles used by invalid drivers, what action they propose to take. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the Minister will be relieved to learn that, because this Question has come on a little early, several speakers who intended taking part have not yet arrived in the House. But perhaps I can keep the discussion going for a little while and give them time to get here. We are today discussing the 20,000-odd invalid tricycles issued by the Department of Health and Social Security to the
748
disabled and severely disabled. The term "three-wheeled tricycle" exactly describes them. They are literally three-wheeled trikes, just a slightly more sophisticated version of the old chair that we all knew so well of the veterans of the First World War. They provide a very small degree of comfort, not a great deal of stability and, in some cases, not very much safety for the unfortunate driver.
We must recognise the kind of person who is likely to be driving one of these tricycles. Such persons may be arthritic and have difficulty in using their hands. They may be elderly as well as handicapped, or perhaps suffering from a disease such as multiple sclerosis. They are not allowed to carry passengers and driving tuition must be given from outside the vehicle. Those of your Lordships who are drivers will fully appreciate the difficulties. But can you imagine someone who is handicapped driving alone in one of these three-wheeled tricycles at night on a windy road? The trike turns over, and the driver is left for an hour before being discovered. I know of a case where that happened, and the terror and suffering must have been intense. Other noble Lords who very kindly agreed to make a contribution to this debate may deal with the safety aspect from a more technical angle. I would merely point out that it appears that one in four of the "trikes" issued have been involved in an accident at some time.
Recently, the famous racing driver, Mr. Graham Hill, used a wheelchair as a result of an accident, and he was asked to test one of the three-wheelers for a national newspaper. I will quote his own words. He said:
"I was so appalled at what I found that ever since then I have tried everything within my power to publicise the fact that such vehicles should not be allowed on the road."
If those strong words are not enough, would add that an independent test was carried out by the Cranfield Institute of Technology, and confirmed what Mr. Hill had said. Indeed, there were seventy points presented. I shall not weary your Lordships with all of them, but I will mention just a few which will no doubt be appreciated by the drivers among your Lordships. The test showed that the trikes are difficult to control in high winds; they are dangerous when braking and swerving; they have a flimsy fibre glass body which

749
is not structurally reinforced, and indeed may well be inflammable in the event of fire; the petrol tank is mounted under the front of the bonnet; and they have only one door which could well prevent a driver from getting out in the event of the vehicle turning over. It is not difficult to see that the trike is outmoded and dangerous. The magazine Which? was very specific in its description. It said that the trikes are under-powered, unstable, unreliable, noisy, poorly-heated and would do little to protect a driver in an accident.
As a splendid example of self-help, the disabled drivers themselves have conducted a very lively and forceful campaign, and early last year Her Majesty's Government appointed the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, to look into the question of transport for the disabled. At the risk of sounding rather ungracious, I must say that I do not like one-man or indeed one-woman, committees, and it would be interesting to know which groups were invited to give evidence to enable Lady Sharp to compile her Report. Apparently, the Report was completed in October, 1973, but it has not so far seen the light of day.
Strange reasons have been advanced for the non-publication—and I quote the Minister in another place. He said there was a delay over printing—and we all know that one—and referred to
"the complexity of the subject"
and,
"the need to consider it deeply … within the Department before publication."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 22/1/74; col. 1433.]
That gives me new hope. Obviously, Departments act immediately upon receiving a Report. This is splendid, but not usual. I agree with the Member of Parliament who suggested that if the Report is so complex it would be better to publish it; let the disabled drivers themselves study it, and then provide a feedback of further information. I see that even Lady Sharp herself is now said to be criticising the Department for the delay. There was a real note of hope in a statement which appeared in the Daily Telegraph of January 25—and I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm what was said:
"A decision in principle to replace the tricycles faulted by experts on 70 different
750
counts has been taken following a report to Sir Keith Joseph by Baroness Sharp."
So, my Lords, why not let us see this Report? Complex as it may be, I cannot see the reason for the delay.
Even more mysterious is the failure of the Government to publish the report of tests carried out by the Motor Industry Research Association. That is a commercial firm which carries out safety tests on motor vehicles for many Government Departments. The Minister in another place said, in a Written Answer to Mr. Marten at column 90 of the OFFICIAL REPORT in November, 1973, that while publishing the report might help to reassure any users of the machine misled into believing it to be intrinsically hazardous, it would not be in accord with established practice. No wonder Mr. Graham Hill described these actions as a "white-wash job and a bureaucratic exercise"! Of course I am not permitted to use such harsh words, but I do not think there is any Rule of the House which forbids my quoting what somebody else has said.
So far as I can discover, no one has said other than that these tricycles must go. I have done quite a lot of research, and I do not know of anyone who has spoken in their defence. I have comments from all the leading newspapers referring to the "Accident toll", "The need for four-wheeled cars", "To be abolished …" and so on, and I have figures supplied by the makers of Morris cars which show that the cost of converted cars would be very little different. But although I appreciate the present situation, I must say that during my lifetime it has never seemed the right moment to spend money in this society on health or on education. It might be thought that if a four-wheeled car which was safer, more comfortable and able to take passengers were made available, more people would apply for one; but that is a totally unacceptable argument. Part of the rehabilitation of an invalid is to have mobility. If they work and provide for themselves, they save the payments which would have to be made to them if they were housebound.
So what, my Lords, am I asking the Government for this afternoon? Very simply, I am asking them to issue the Sharp Report, to let Parliament, at any rate, see the report on the Motor Industry

751
Research Association's tests, and to take action in seeing that those who are already unfortunate enough to be severely disabled can at least travel in comfort and safety. Our European partners discarded these archaic three-wheelers a long time ago. Why do we lag behind?
4.39 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, for giving up his place in the list. Also, may I apologise to my noble friend on the Front Bench and to your Lordships for the fact that I may not be in my place as this debate winds up. Due to an engagement which was entered into before Christmas, I have to be in Winchester at about 7 o'clock this evening. In intervening in the debate, my purpose is not so much to talk on the social aspects of the Question which the noble Baroness has asked, but to deal with the quasi-technical side. Those of us who have our living among motor cars feel that there are a number of drawbacks to the usual three-wheeled invalid cars. There are technical disadvantages in terms of driving, access, repair and safety; and it is rather surprising, my Lords, that having a vehicle which is custom-built has restricted its servicing to about 150 approved agents. It may well be that the Department of Health and Social Security feel that this is a better way to maintain some surveillance over those they approve for the maintenance, overhaul and servicing of these vehicles, but nevertheless it increases the cost of the whole service iii that, because the repair facilities are so specialised, reserve vehicles have to be kept.
My Lords, yesterday and to-day I attempted to discuss some of the aspects of the servicing and overhauling of these vehicles with more than one approved repairer, and also with two departments of the Ministry of Health. But it seemed to me that as soon as I informed those with whom I was talking of the object of my inquiry a curtain came down and I was unable to get any really reliable figures, particularly of cost and maintenance. It would seem to me that if a more conventional vehicle were used, the servicing costs, perhaps even the supply costs, would be more competitive, and this in itself could be helpful to the whole service. Talking with at
752
least one motor manufacturer and a number of motor distributors. I have discovered that they can see no particular reason why a more conventional type of vehicle cannot be used to transport those people who are unfortunately disabled. In the Midlands only a few years ago there was a company specifically manufacturing vacuum-assisted mechanisms which to my certain knowledge have been fitted on at least two conventional motor cars, one a three-wheeler and one a four-wheeler, at the instance of the disabled owner. It is within my knowledge that to-day's servo-assisted hydraulic systems can, without too much cost, be adapted to make both foot and hand controls more easy for the disabled.
Again, a number of motor manufacturers have what they call their special facilities division. In the case of most manufacturers this is a division which prepares a certain number of production line motor cars for special purposes; it may be a specially restricted model or it may be for experimental or other purposes. I can see no good reason why some arrangement cannot be entered into for such special facilities divisions of leading manufacturers in this country to convert conventional motor cars. It may be that the cost factor enters into it. Incidentally, the special vehicles which are being made for disabled people apparently do not carry a price tag; I certainly have been quite unable to find out the price that one might pay for these vehicles. It would seem to me that such vehicles made to special order may be exempted from the normal taxes; that is, car tax and V.A.T. A similar arrangement could be entered into with the motor vehicle manufacturers in this country. Even were such an arrangement not possible, it seems to me rather odd that one takes money out of one Government Departmental pocket and puts it into another. The argument over the question of the road fund tax, the four-wheeled vehicle being more expensive to tax than the three-wheeled vehicle, I think hardly holds water, since my understanding is that the road fund tax is not payable. I may be wrong on this.
Why, therefore, can we not introduce a system whereby, let us say at the beginning, those disabled persons willing to make a contribution towards their vehicle

753
can have the facility to take a conventional vehicle and have it converted to their particular need by an approved converter—subject, of course, to all the inspection that the Department of Health may require—and so start the system going? It would seem to me, though I obviously cannot speak for them, that with the limited number of vehicles (I believe it is somewhere around 19,000 only, but suppose it was 25,000) it would not be over-difficult to find purveyors of the conventional vehicle willing to enter into some kind of contractual arrangement with an owner, perhaps through the Department of Health and Social Security, to do the conversion work at a cost rate in which, perhaps, the profit motive was not quite so important. It certainly seems to me that there can be no mechanical reason why those people who are already deprived sufficiently cannot enjoy some of the benefits, not only social benefits but physical and safety benefits, that others of us enjoy in driving conventional motor vehicles.
4.47 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for having given us the opportunity to discuss this interesting subject. I certainly shall not venture on to the technical ground that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has been dealing with and which he knows so well—probably better than anybody else in your Lordships' House, I would not be surprised to learn, although I dare say the noble Earl, Lord Howe, might run him fairly close. I am concerned more with what I might call the social aspect of this matter. I suppose that society's attitude towards disabled people should be, so far as possible, to enable disabled people to have and enjoy the ordinary things which people who are not disabled are able to have and enjoy. I think the first question that one has to consider under this heading is: who wants a one-seater car? If he is an ordinary person and is not disabled, who wants a one-seater car if he can have anything else? I have not managed to find any manufacturer in the world of one-seater motor cars except for this Invacar which we are discussing this evening. So one is led to the conclusion that nobody, given any other choice, wants a one-seater car.
754
Is that surprising, my Lords? Consider briefly some of the disadvantages of a one-seater car. The noble Baroness touched upon the problem of learning to drive. Now I do not suppose it is very difficult, on a disused airfield, to teach somebody to start the car, to travel along and to stop it, and so on; but, my Lords, that is not the hard part of driving. The hard part is mingling with the traffic and holding your own among the rest of the traffic. I wonder how many disabled people there are who simply are daunted at this prospect; who say to themselves, "If I could have had somebody sitting beside me in whom I had confidence, I think I could gradually have learned to drive my invalid car in the traffic; but the prospect of launching myself out into the traffic among the juggernaut lorries, and so on, is too much, and I am not prepared to take the initial step". So much for learning to drive.
Then, my Lords, consider the conspicuous nature of this vehicle. One of the things about disabled people is that they long to get rid of their conspicuousness. What a pleasure it ought to be for a disabled person to be able to say, "Once I am in my car I should like to think that the world sees me as just another motorist in just another motor car." But no, my Lords, he has to be in his little one-seater, and whether it is true or not as he drives along he thinks, "People are looking at me and saying, 'There goes the disabled driver in his funny little one-seater car.' "
The ordinary driver on long journeys—presumably disabled people have to make long journeys sometimes, like everyone else—can have a companion to share the driving or help him find the way through crowded localities. He can avail himself of that excellent service which the motoring organisations provide, whereby if you are daunted by the thought of driving through the great conurbations you can get someone from one of the motoring organisations to drive you in your own car from (shall we say?) one side of London to the other. I knew a retired brigadier who was not ashamed to avail himself of this service.
How much more appropriate would that kind of service be for a disabled person. But, of course, it is denied to

755
him. Perhaps on long journeys disabled people are expected to take it more easily and put up at a hotel to break the journey. We all know how difficult it is to get into an hotel at all in the summertime. Even if you can get in, hotels present special and peculiar problems for disabled people. If he could afford it, perhaps a disabled person might like to put his car on a train for a long journey. He will need the vehicle when he gets to his destination, if he is to be mobile at all. You cannot just arrive at a railway station and put your little car on a passenger train. It can be done, but you have to give about a week's notice. Kipling tells us:
"He travels fastest who travels alone".
I think that was before the arrival of the Invacar. On the question of servicing, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, told us there are 150 service stations for these special vehicles. I have not counted the number of pages in the A.A. Handbook, before you reach 150 garages, but I should think it is long before you get to the end of the A.s denoting the towns in alphabetical order.
The single-seater car surely thwarts the desire of a disabled person to be a useful member of his family. The ordinary driver can take his children to school in the morning and fetch them again in the evening. He can take his wife to the hairdresser or take his invalid mother for a drive. A disabled person in his one-seater car can do none of these things. All he can do is sit at home and wish that he could be a more useful member of the family.
There is the question of the price of the Invacar. There seems to be some mystery attached to it. Perhaps no one has ever asked the Government point blank what it costs. I do not mind sticking my neck out and asking the Minister whether he will tell us how much do the Government pay for the Invacar. If we cannot be told perhaps we may be told why we cannot be told. Whatever the difference between the price of this non-mass-produced one-seater and a small mass-produced ordinary little car, I do not think that it can be an enormous amount. I should have thought that we could afford it. Having heard all the criticisms that the noble Baroness has advanced against this little car, a motorised
756
bath chair, cannot we do something better for disabled people? I think it was Mr. Graham Hill who said, "Give me a wheel at each corner every time." I think Mr. Hill knows what he is talking about.
4.55 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, for initiating this debate. Although the Question is within a small compass the objective behind it is a great one. May I preface what I have to say by making absolutely clear that whatever I say, or whatever is said in your Lordships' House, it does not entail any direct criticism of the noble Lord who will reply to the debate on behalf of the Government. It does not imply a direct criticism of the Health Minister, Sir Keith Joseph. Having had personal experience of that Ministry I know the difficulties which have to be met in connection with any new expansionist programme. And I want to make clear to disabled people that despite the fact that we have had this discussion none of us looks on them as unique beings outside the rest of the family circle. In fact, we want to improve their lot.
Over the last two years, and especially because I have taken an interest in the matter, I have been reading many letters in the Press and articles on the subject in the Observer, the Sunday Times and the Sunday Telegraph; and there has been a complete set of articles in a current magazine on the question of the disabled driver in which figures were given as to how much this vehicle would cost. Despite the report of the noble Baroness, which we have not had, none of this information has been given to either place, and consequently there has been a great upsurge of opinion When I was at the Ministry, I went to see the first type of vehicle made, the P.65. Some 10 or 12 years have passed since then, and the weight and speed of the traffic is now overwhelming to a driver who has to learn to drive without someone sitting by his side, on a disused airfield or elsewhere. When suddenly thrust into the turbulent ocean of traffic he is bewildered. Even the strongest of such drivers would be bewildered if driving the type of vehicle which the disabled people are given. In the AA magazine Drive well over a third of the gossip column

757
is devoted to the question of disabled drivers at risk. That is the point, they are at risk. It states:
"The three-wheeled invalid cars supplied by the Government to disabled motorists are a menace not only to the driver but to other road users as well. That's the burden of an unprecedented 'apology' to Britain's seventeen million motorists issued by the Disabled Drivers' Action Group. The Group represents 20,000 drivers of the familiar blue motor-trikes. Specifically the charges are … that despite three Department of Health checks each year, many of the vehicles are unroadworthy; … that the vehicles are unstable and accident-prone. (In 1972, nearly 5,000 were involved in collisions—from simple scrapes to fatal accidents.)"
My Lords, you do not have to be much of a mathematician to calculate what is 5,000 out of 20,000, 17,000 or 25,000. That is too high a rate of accident for the disabled on the roads of Britain today. We are sending some of them to sustain further injury, or even death—I mean that. Something should be done. The ramparts that have to be stormed are the ramparts of the Treasury.
Any Member of this House who has served in the other place and done Ministerial work will have known the animal struggle to get right the priorities for cash; but here we are not dealing just with cash but with the question of danger on the road. Take the case of a soldier: he can, if he so wishes, have a car. I think this can be taken right across the board. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, will not take this in any way as a criticism, because she does her work with as great a sense of responsibility as any Member of your Lordships' House, but to suggest that just two people could look at the whole gamut of this problem over the whole nation, really (without any reflection on the noble Baroness) was an absurdity.
This matter needs going into in depth, and I hope we shall be able to get some answers to the questions which have been asked from the Front Bench on this side of the House. The nation should know more about the research which has been done at Nuneaton. It is the nation's money which is being spent on behalf of people who have served either in war or in industry. We have not had any information on the tests which have been carried out in Nuneaton. I hope that
758
we shall be able to hear more about this. The Sunday Times, on April 17 last year, talked about "this new trike"—and the very word "trike" has a condescending, pejorative ring about it, to start with. It is denigrating. The Sunday Times said that this machine was unsafe and less reliable than a car, and that even the new P.70 does not hold the road, These machines are unstable in windy weather. Now we have been given these results from the Ministry and from the Cranfield Institute of Technology, where tests have been made by Professor John R. Ellis.
Anyone who knows a little physics or geometry will realise that a machine which is designed with its backside broad and its front narrow can shift in wind a matter of 6 to 14 feet. This means that a disabled driver can be stopped, as some of them have been, because it has been thought that the driver was under the influence of liquor, when the poor fellow could hardly hold the vehicle to the road. The wind would lift it like a balloon. We have in Wales a Rabelaisian proverb about the barber's cat and the wind capacity of that cat—I will not translate the proverb in your Lordships' House because perhaps it would not be suitable. But the wind moves this vehicle so that in its progress on the road under bad weather conditions it is a danger to itself and to other vehicle users.
I do not mean to refer to the disabled in a disparaging way. This nation should be prepared, for the sum of £6 million, to cover the cost of the 8-year life of a vehicle. The Ministry would have better figures than I have on this, but I believe the cost would work out at roughly £4 per week per person. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said, the nation could make motoring even cheaper for the disabled, because they might be allowed a special form of licence as a recognition of their service to the country, if they have been disabled in war or on the battlefields of industry.
I shall not keep the House much longer, but I have the joy of receiving letters from many disabled Servicemen and many of those who have been disabled during service to industry. They are all very grateful for having received their "trikes". Let us have no illusions

759
about this: they are grateful for these machines, for otherwise many of them would be prisoners in their own homes. Sometimes they break the law and carry a second person in the car. Some of them have done this at Christmas-time before now. On occasion they are caught, and this is sad. I must also say that some of the cars are made with only one door and if they are blown over the disabled driver may not be able to get out. Moreover, they are made of fibre glass and can break and bump so easily. Consequently, I sincerely hope that the question which has been raised by my noble friend—perhaps I might ask her to remind me of the wording—
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I just asked for some action.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Some action. One answer would be to give the House as much accurate information as possible, to find out whether there has been any exaggeration in the stories we have heard. We should be able to ask whether the ramparts of the Treasury might be undermined a little so that some money may be found for this section of the Community. The nation needs to make a "prestige" effort. I consider that this effort would carry more prestige than boring a hole under the English Channel at the present time. Therefore, let us look at this from the point of view of neighbourliness, so that we can give comfort and succour to those who have served the nation.
5.8 p.m.
THE EARL OF LYTTON: My Lords, it is always a pleasure to listen to any speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips: she is always so terse and to the point. I greatly admire her brevity and "punch". The last time we debated this subject, I believe the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, defended the vehicles we are discussing as more worthy of a long-service and good conduct medal than of the censure we were then bestowing on them. I looked round for a long-service and good-conduct user of one of these vehicles to produce in this House to-day. Here (in imagination) she is, and I propose to conduct my speech by means of question and answer as follows:
"Q. Your disability?
A. I had polio. Instead of going to school I spent all my years in hospital.
Q. You go to work?
A. Yes, five days a week—office hours—in the County Council Planning Department.
Q. You can type, and are thinking of writing a book?
A. Yes, I can type.
Q. Can you walk?
A. A short distance. My legs are not very good. I have a sort of harness on the upper part of my body. I cannot lift anything.
Q. You do the cooking and housework at home?
A. My husband takes a big share in all that, in addition to his own job as a school caretaker.
Q. Do you get very tired?
A. Sometimes, if I do not go to bed by 9.30.
Q. How did you acquire an invalid carriage?
A. My G.P. advised; the Department of Health vetted and approved.
Q. How long have you had the tricycle model 70?
A. I have had one for 25 years.
Q. The same one?
A. The same breed. No safety modifications in my case or in my time.
Q. What do you think of it after all those years?
A. The same as I did the first year: unstable, dangerous and uncomfortable.
Q. Is it better than no car at all?
A. Definitely. I am to that extent independent of others. I can go to work on my own and come home on my own.
Q. How unstable?
A. Very much affected by wind and by every bump and dent in the road. The slightest thing takes away your control of that single wheel.
Q. How do you cope?
A. I drive very slowly and obstruct the flow of traffic—sometimes I pull in to let others go by. I drive on the same road every day and only on that road. I know every bump and dent and hazard.
Q. Do you tend to skid?
A. I do not, but the car does unless I am very careful, especially turning to the right in greasy or icy conditions—something to do with the single chain drive on the near side, perhaps. I plan my way so as to avoid turning to the right in any awkward places.
Q. Has the tricycle enough power to keep pace with 40 m.p.h. or 50 m.p.h. traffic?
A. It may have in the hands of someone with the strength to hold the steering. I do not dare to drive at anything like those speeds. I would be out of control at once, anywhere.
Q. Is instability your main problem? The main danger?
A. No, I allow for it. My main problem is the controls. The clutch and throttle together with the brake are on the tiller bar which is managed by my left hand"—
Her left hand is very small—
"the gearbox and the handbrake are on the right. It is worked on the same principle as a motor cycle and the clutch has to be shortened in its space from the throttle to the bar because my hand is not wide enough to operate it in its normal width.
Q. All this fiddling around with hands would be avoided if you had a car with normal controls. Would your legs be up to it?
A. Yes, good enough for that, one a little better than the other. But I have never been offered the opportunity.
Q. An automatic gear change would help all?
A. Oh yes.
Q. Can you take a passenger?
A. A very small one might get in but there is a notice inside saying that passengers are forbidden.
Q. Would a passenger make things more difficult for you?
A. In one sense a husband or a child or companion might sometimes make things much less difficult; but in this vehicle they would obstruct my control.
Q. If you have a breakdown can you tinker with the vehicle or put in more petrol?
A. I can do nothing but stand there. I cannot lift the bonnet or walk to the nearest garage.
Q. Then whatever the vehicle of the future may be, you would want it to be recognised as a disabled persons' vehicle?
A. There would always have to be something to indicate one had a right to claim the help of other people.
Q. What about discomfort?
A. At the moment mine is leaking from the bonnet through on to my legs. This is a common fault. The windows are a bad fit. Driving is always tiring especially on the arms.
Q. Assuming your vehicle sells at £700, the Department get it for £400 and they have to spend on average another £200 for each individual case, do you think it would be fair for a more expensive vehicle to be offered on a contributory basis?
A. I have contributed a lot to insurance; I think being disabled like this is enough. It is not our fault that we are disabled. Perhaps the community as a whole will not mind meeting the whole cost. We pay for the petrol. In my case I only use the vehicle to go to work or occasionally for shopping. When I come to see you or go elsewhere for pleasure my husband takes me in his own car.
Q. If you had a proper car would be come as your passenger?
A. He does not think much of my driving and, well, you know his driving, he is pretty good."
5.15 p.m.
BARONESS MACLEOD OF BORVE: My Lords, I must apologise to the noble Baroness in that I was not able to be here when she asked the Question. But as probably the only user of a vehicle adapted for a disabled driver in your Lordships' House—or the only one present—perhaps I may quickly give you my views. I have had to drive a car; I am a compulsive competitive driver; I love driving and always have done. I have had to drive with different fixtures on my car since I lost the use of my leg twenty

763
years ago. I was fortunate in that my husband was able to give me a car which was adapted for my particular problem, and I now have hand controls for the foot brake and the accelerator. That is a very capable way of driving. The adaption cost £50 and every car that I have had in the past 20 years, including six cylinder cars (which are the ones I normally drive now) have been so adapted.
When my husband was alive I was able to drive him and he relied on me driving him throughout his Parliamentary life. I also drove all my children down to Spain, around France and back again with this perfectly ordinary car which had been adapted. One can get any car and have it adapted perfectly easily for about £50. I do not know what would have happened to me psychologically and in my family life if I had had to drive a tricycle in which I could have carried only myself because as a family person I always wanted to drive my husband and children. I must admit I was lucky that my husband was able to give me this car. Any car can be adapted from a Mini up to a six cylinder car. I hope that in the course of time, with perhaps the "egging on" of the Sharp Report, we shall see more disabled people able to have cars and thereby able to fill their lives far more than they can now when they have to get about in these very tiny and, in my view, unstable and unroadworthy tricycles. I hope that in the course of time the Government will be able to see that all disabled people are able to drive in modified conventional motor cars.
5.19 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, the Question that I am asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, and to which your Lordships have added your views this evening, is what action Her Majesty's Government propose to take on vehicles used by invalid drivers. I am very sorry that I am not able to give the noble Baroness a completely direct answer to that Question. I know how deeply she feels about it, and from what others of your Lordships have said this evening I know the deep interest that is taken in this House in this matter.
I am delighted that my noble friend Lady Macleod joined in the discussion because she has personal experience. But, as the noble Baroness knows, we did set
764
up an inquiry into the whole matter headed by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, on the mobility of severely disabled people. That Report was commissioned in April, 1972—not last year as I think the noble Baroness said. It was received by the Government last October and it is still under consideration. I know it may seem to some of your Lordships that this is a long time in which to be considering a Report, but it is indeed a very complex matter. I make no apology for repeating those words which the noble Baroness quoted. It has all sorts of very large financial implications and implications of eligibility. I must ask your Lordships to await the publication of the Sharp Report, which we are now studying with great care, so that when this Report is published the Government will be in a position to make comment upon it. I think the noble Baroness said that the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, herself had made some criticism of the delay. She told us that she herself noticed in the Guardian that Lady Sharp was said to be critical of the delay in publishing the Report. This the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has told us is inaccurate.
My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, recognised this at the beginning of his speech. He was until recently involved in the same Department as I was and he knows that these are indeed difficult decisions that require a great deal of thought and deliberation before coming out with a complete change of policy. Nevertheless, may I make some general observations on the present situation with regard to invalid drivers. In the first place, I think we should remember that accidents are caused principally by people and not by vehicles. The Road Research Laboratory tells us that investigations carried out at the scene of a number of accidents showed that they were primarily due to error by the driver and no amount of improvement of vehicle design, desirable as this may be in itself, is going to bring about a dramatic reduction in the number of accidents.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I do not want to start interrupting the Minister, but surely that is not so. What he is really saying is that one in every four cars used on the roads has an accident. That is the proportion.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am not agreeing with that statistic given by the noble Baroness. I do not know where she got it from. Is this in one year; over 50 years—what statistics is the noble Baroness referring to? I shall have more to say about accidents later on. At the moment, I am saying that the Road Research Laboratory tells us that primarily the accidents are due to error on the part of the driver rather than deficiencies in the car itself, whatever car it may be.
Secondly, I would stress that my right honourable friend's aim is that the special three-wheeled vehicle provided for invalids should conform to the standards set down in the appropriate Construction and Use Regulations. These are the regulations made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. Of course these regulations are not binding in law so far as vehicles provided by the Department of Health and Social Security are concerned. This is the normal convention of Crown exemption, but there is no question at all of seeking to adopt a different, lower standard for these three-wheelers from that which applies generally. The specifications to which these vehicles are manufactured are amended in the light of technical developments and the requirements of the Construction and Use Regulations. I can assure your Lordships that each generation of vehicles has conformed to the regulations applicable at the time. The vehicle in current production—that is the model 70—conforms fully to the Construction and Use Regulations at present in force, except that there is room for experts to differ in respect of one regulation, the regulation introduced last July requiring that the petrol tank should be so fixed that it is reasonably secure against its being damaged. To remove any doubt at all a modification is about to be introduced to meet that point.
All that I have said would hardly be persuasive if drivers of three-wheeled vehicles were constantly being maimed or killed. The ultimate test is what happens in practice on the road rather than in theory. Unfortunately, it is not possible to make direct comparisons between the accident record of invalid three-wheelers and motor cars in general. All incidents, however trivial, involving
766
damage to these three-wheelers are reported and taken into account. Minor occurrences such as insignificant bumps and scrapes, sustained during parking and garaging of the three-wheelers, are much more likely to be reported when they are freely repaired by the Department of Health and Social Security than in the case of private cars, some of which are not comprehensively insured, and most are subject to an excess clause and a no-claim bonus. Therefore the accident statistics in relation to normal road vehicles refer only to incidents involving personal injury or where insurance claims can arise. Such comparisons as it has been possible to make suggest that the rates at which serious accidents occur is broadly the same as between invalid three-wheelers and motor cars.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, who apologised for having to leave, asked a question about servicing agents and why they were restricted in number. The answer is that the number is restricted in order to ensure a high standard of expertise for carrying out major repairs, but minor and emergency repairs and servicing are permitted at any garage and will be paid for by the Department of Health and Social Security. I hope that that will be some satisfaction to my noble friend.
The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, asked me a question about the price of these vehicles—which I cannot tell him—and he also asked, if I could not tell him, why I could not tell him. The reason is that prices paid for Government contracts are never revealed, so I regret that I cannot enlighten him on that particular point. I do not think there is a great deal of substance in it. I do not think one would wish to argue that there is all that difference in price between the three-wheeler and a normal car. We must remember that these invalid three-wheelers have been provided by successive Governments for over a quarter of a century, and thousands of disabled people have had their lives improved immeasurably by the mobility which these vehicles provide.
The noble Baroness mentioned some figures. At September 30, 1973, there were 13,000 three-wheelers with manual

767
gear change; 4,500 with automatic transmission (that is the P70, the model in current production), and 1,800 electrically propelled. Undoubtedly among present users of the invalid three-wheelers there will be many whose disability would make it very difficult, if not impossible, to use a car instead. There is a certain type of person, with a certain type of disability, for whom three-wheelers are ideally suited. They are specially designed for the use of the disabled. That is, of course, one of the reasons why they are slightly higher in build than the normal car, and why they may be more susceptible to the cross-wind effects mentioned by one of your Lordships. I do not think it is doing a service to the many contented users of the three-wheeler—and there are many contented users—to make exaggerated allegations about their safety. I do not think it is right for the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, to speak of "death on the roads to badly disabled people". I do not think this is really an accurate statement of the present position.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Minister for allowing me to intervene. First of all, he acknowledges that the type referred to is twenty-five years old. Secondly, I mentioned that the experts give figures of a movement of 6 to 14 feet. So far as I am concerned, in wind that is death on the roads.
LORD ABERDARE: Well, my Lords, I think experts are always liable to differ on their estimates on things of this kind. But I have something to say in a minute about the MIRA report, and perhaps that will cover it. It is our view that the safety of these vehicles can be satisfactorily compared with that of other light cars. I say this in the light of the MIRA reports. The noble Baroness asked once again why these reports were not published. The answer is, my Lords, that on principle these reports are never published. Investigations that are commissioned by those who use the MIRA are always in confidence. Its reports are not published. Indeed, I believe that the excellent work done by the MIRA might be prejudiced if they were. In the present
768
case the reports were commissioned by my right honourable friend for management purposes, and they will be taken into account by him in deciding on any action that he considers necessary.
It continues to be the aim of my right honourable friend to make sure that invalid vehicles satisfy the appropriate safety regulations, and that technical improvements are progressively incorporated. Beyond that I regret that I cannot give a positive answer to the noble Baroness, other than to say that I hope she will discuss this matter again in the light of the Sharp Report when it is published.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I say this? He did not expect me to be satisfied, and though I am not supposed to follow up his Answer, I will take a chance on it. He did not tell us why these reports could not be published; he said that publication is not usual. But there are many things that are not usual that are not necessarily illogical.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, there are a great many commercial users, as well as Government users, of the MIRA. As I have said, it has never been the policy to publish these reports. I think that is wise because they are very frank; they go into every detail; they investigate different types of cars, different manufacturers. I do not think it would be advisable for these reports to be published. I think that if they were, then the reports themselves might well be less effective than they are.

LEGAL AID BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
CHARLWOOD AND HORLEY BILL
Reported from the Select Committee without amendment and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House; the proceedings of the Committee and the Minutes of Evidence to be printed and to be delivered out.