Lords Sitting of 20 May 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 Saint Edmundsbary and Ipswich.

EUROPEAN MOVEMENT CONTRIBUTIONS
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government to state the total sums paid to the European Movement organisation, and whether any further contributions are to be made.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS): My Lords, as the Answer to the first part of the noble Lord's Question is rather long I will, with permission, have it published in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As regards the second part of the Question, Her Majesty's Government are currently engaged in a review of grants-in-aid to non-governmental organisations engaged in the promotion of cultural and information exchanges with Western Europe. It is hoped to complete the review in the near future. Meanwhile no disbursements are being made from the grants provided for in the 1974–75 Supply Estimates, pending the outcome of this review.
Following is the information referred to:
The amounts of the grants-in-aid paid to date to the European Movement, and to a preceding organisation, Britain in Europe Ltd, are shown below:

Financial Year

Amount

£

1964–65

2,500

1965–66

2,500

1966–67

2,500

1967–68

7,500

1968–69

7,500

1969–70

7,500

1970–71

12,500 (1)

1971–72

7,500

1972–73

20,000

1973–74

25,000 (2)

(1) Includes £5,000 for activities in connection with the Congress of the Council of European Municipalities.

(2) Includes £5,000 for activities in connection with the Congress of Europe.

LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for answering the Question. May I ask whether he is aware that I regard the Answer as somewhat incomplete, because I think that we ought to know how much has been spent in recent years on propaganda activities on behalf of the European Movement. I think that we are entitled to know the actual amount that has been spent. As regards the second part of the Question, to which my noble friend referred in his Answer, am I to understand quite definitely that at the present time no further sums of the taxpayers' money are being devoted to the European Movement? Is he aware that this would not be consistent with the attitude of Her Majesty's Government, who are not only demanding renegotiation of the terms of entry into the E.E.C. but have actually decided that, at the appropriate moment, they will hold a referendum so that the people of this country can come to a decision?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the details for which my noble friend asked are indeed contained in the part of the Answer which I thought could be most helpfully circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As to the second part of his Question, I can assure him that there will be no disbursement to this or any other non-official organisation engaged in this work until the conclusion of the review to which I referred.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, with regard to the implications of my noble friend's Question, may I ask the Minister whether it would be true to say that there are few serious economists who would say at this moment that so far the E.E.C. is to blame for the United Kingdom's economic situation?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, that is a somewhat different and wider question, which I should be delighted to discuss at a later stage.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, when my noble friend publishes his figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT, will he include in

1235
them any sums which have been paid to any Members of either House, either by way of a fee or by way of expenses, in pursuance of the propaganda carried out by the European Movement?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I do not include in the supplementation to my Answer, which will be circulated, the kind of detail to which my noble friend referred. It is an entirely separate question, which he must consider putting down separately.

NORTH SEA OIL: SOVEREIGN RIGHTS
2.40 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they agree with the statement made by M. Spaak the Director of Energy of the E.E.C. that the products of North Sea oil, when available, will be regarded as the property of the E.E.C. and not of Britain; and whether it is intended to publish the result of talks between officials representing the United Kingdom and the E.E.C. on this subject.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, M. Spaak did not say that North Sea oil or its products would be the property of the E.E.C. The President and senior members of the Commission have on a number of occasions affirmed that the United Kingdom has sovereignty over the petroleum reserves in the United Kingdom sector of the Continental Shelf. The question of our sovereignty over North Sea oil has not formed part of the current discussions on Community energy policy.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether it is possible either to insert in the OFFICIAL REPORT or perhaps place in the Library a report of the discussions between the officials of Her Majesty's Government and the representatives of France, so that we know what is going on? Would not he agree that we are entitled to know what is going on? As regards M. Spaak's statement,
1236
despite what my noble friend has said, is he aware that I gained the information from the official reports which emanate from France itself? Therefore, it appears that M. Spaak said, or certainly implied, that Britain was not going to have a monopoly over North Sea oil and France was going to save a say in the matter.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, on the first point raised by my noble friend, I have no doubt at all that full information will be made available to Parliament and to the public as to the outcome of any discussions on future energy policy in Europe, or as a result of the Washington Conference, which we supported very strongly, in relation to our own country. On the second point, I have studied M. Spaak's speech very carefully, as the noble Lord raised an important question. I do not find in it any references to sovereignty over our North Sea oil resources being subsumed in any sovereignty taken up by the E.E.C.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I did not suggest that. I implied that M. Spaak claimed sovereignty or denied complete British sovereignty in this area. There is no doubt about what he said, which was that France is going to have a say in the matter, and that North Sea oil will not be the monopoly of the British Government.
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: I am sorry, my Lords, but my noble friend's Question suggested that M. Spaak's speech referred to our North Sea oil being regarded as the property of the E.E.C. I agree that in this case there is a distinction between sovereignty and ownership. On the second point, no doubt France and a great many other countries will have suggestions to make about the disposal of British assets.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, is my noble friend drawing the wrong conclusion? The point at issue is not the difference between ownership and proprietorship, but the difference between ownership and sovereignty. Therefore, will my noble friend be good enough to say, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, that there is no doubt whatever that North Sea oil is the exclusive property of the British people, and that it will be developed for their benefit?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I have absolutely no reservation on this point. It was stressed by the Opposition when in power, and I believe that last January the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, used words very similar to mine. North Sea oil and gas are the property of this country and their disposal will be for this country and this Government to decide.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that what the Opposition had to say has nothing to do with it? What is at issue is what Her Majesty's Government say. If my noble friend is certain about where Her Majesty's Government stand on this issue, will he be good enough to direct M. Spaak's attention to what is the undoubted policy of Her Majesty's Government?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I thought I had made it absolutely clear that the attitude of Her Majesty's Government is that we regard the oil as being the property of this country. I thought it was nice to adduce a certain degree of continuity in policy for a change.

DEAF CHILDREN: TEACHER SHORTAGE
2.45 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: 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 are aware of the dire shortage of qualified teachers of deaf children, and whether they propose to take steps to increase the facilities for training such teachers.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, there has recently been some improvement but the shortage of specially qualified teachers of deaf children is still causing concern. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science has initiated discussion aimed at increasing training provision.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that answer may I ask him whether he is aware that we as a nation, whatever Government
1238
are in power, appear to neglect the handicaps of the deaf? May I further ask whether he is aware that, due to the ruthless and clamorous cacophony in which our children are now growing up, deafness is now increasing among infants? Will he therefore see that audiometric machinery is available in the schools for teachers of the deaf, and that encouragement, in the form of better pay scales and places in the universities, is made available for such teachers?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science is very well aware of the difficulties. He has initiated discussions to examine the possibility of providing additional training courses in regions which are not at present conveniently served by the existing centres at Manchester, London, Oxford, and recently Newcastle. As a result of that initiative the Leeds and Bristol area training organisations have been invited to consider whether suitable courses might be mounted at colleges of education in their respective areas. In addition, the University of Birmingham is considering a proposal for a course at its School of Education. I will ensure that the attention of my right honourable friend is drawn to the interest of my noble friend.
LORD MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that sympathetic reply, will he ask his right honourable friend also to take cognisance of the special problems of the deaf and of blind children, on which representations were made to the previous Government by an association called the Deaf and Blind and Rubella Children's Association? I hope to send to the Government copies of the Association's written representations.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I think that what the noble Lord has said is a little wide of the Question, but certainly I will draw the attention of my right honourable friend to his remarks.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, as one who is fairly deaf himself may I declare an interest? Arising out of the Minister's reply, can he divulge the rate of increase of trained teachers over the last few years in relation to the current total?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I am pleased to say that whereas the number of those qualified in 1968 was 102 it had risen in 1973 to 139. Currently I understand about 149 people are taking the course.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, can my noble friend say what is the salary of the teacher of a deaf child compared with that of the teacher of a normal child? If not, will he write to me?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I thought that I might get this one, my Lords, and I made special enquiries.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
LORD GARNSWORTHY: I have to say that they receive an additional payment of £195 per annum. After they have qualified I understand that they are entitled to draw an additional £78 per annum.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: I thank my noble friend very much.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware—and I ask this question with considerable personal experience of the problem—that the present situation regarding the education of deaf children in the United Kingdom to-day is simply appalling? Will Her Majesty's Government give me an assurance that they will make every possible effort to improve matters? I would have asked this question of any Government who were in power.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, my right honourable friend is acutely aware of this problem. I have tried to indicate his very considerable concern and his active interest in the sense that he is endeavouring to improve the position with regard to places available for training. I think your Lordships would like to know that the number of teachers teaching deaf children rose from 850 in 1972 to 941 in 1973. If one takes into account the present interest of my right honourable friend, I hope the House will understand if I say I am optimistic that the present position will continue to improve.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, can the noble Lord give us some indication of the scale of this problem? What is
1240
the total shortage at this time in the number of teachers required?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, that, again, was a question which I thought I might be asked, but the fact is that the situation changes from week to week, almost from day to day, depending upon the ability of local education authorities to recruit people to fill vacancies. It would be very difficult to give an accurate figure for the position as it exists to-day.

NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS
2.51 p.m.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: 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, now that they have to face the crucial decision about the next generation of nuclear power stations, whether they will carefully sift the conflicting economic and scientific opinions before giving way to pressures within the Nuclear Power Corporation to build or license the American pressurised water reactor.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY (LORD BESWICK): Yes, my Lords, the Government are carefully examining all the relevant information before taking a decision on reactor choice.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that that is a sultry Answer? I expected that. Is he also aware that one cannot understand why, in 1972, the Central Electricity Generating Board said we would need only four reactors and yet now, suddenly, after a rethink, there is a demand for 18 specialised water reactors of a size which has never been tried—namely, 1,200 to 1,300 megawatts—which will need steel to withstand the pressure of one ton per square inch, as compared with the Magnox, which withstands a pressure of 400 lbs. per square inch? Is he further aware that the estimate for this was made at £5,000 million and that, ultimately, another 18 reactors is asked for? The 36, if we had them, would make the price of the Concorde look like a Boy

1241
Scouts' jumble sale. What is going wrong with the country, and when will Parliament assert its authority to stop this mad race without research in depth?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am not quite sure what my noble friend is asking me. I did say that all the relevant information was being taken into account. If my noble friend is saying that the estimates of electricity generation have been too optimistic or too exaggerated, I am afraid that information suggests that this is not so, and although the C.E.G.B. estimates were probably a little on the high side we shall need the sort of electricity to which the forthcoming decision will be directed.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that the confusion which has arisen over the nuclear reactors shows how important it would be to set up an independent advisory commission to advise the Government on energy matters? Would he further agree that at the present time the Central Electricity Generating Board say one thing; that highly distinguished scientists, like Sir Alan Cottrell, say something different; and that we are at the moment in no position to reach a proper decision on these matters? Does this not mean that there should be a proper Energy Commission set up immediately?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I think that probably my noble friend has overlooked the fact that there has been established the Nuclear Power Advisory Board, on which are represented the C.E.G.B., the S.S.E.B., the Electricity Council, the Atomic Energy Authority and the National Nuclear Corporation, as well as three independent members. I assure him that there is no confusion although there are, of course, different views as to what should be our next choice. But all these matters are now being considered by the Nuclear Power Advisory Board.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the C.E.G.B. have gone stark raving mad so far as nuclear energy in this country is concerned? They have been doing this for the last 15 years. We from the mining industry, when we were Members of the other place, met the Chairman of the Electricity Board in regard to the development of nuclear energy, and the answer was always on the side of nuclear energy to replace coal and
1242
oil-fired power stations. I think it is about time the Government had a further look at this matter in view of what has been said by my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones on this particular issue. He is more qualified to speak on these particular matters than I, but I have my personal opinion so far as—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Question!
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, it is perfectly true the C.E.G.B. have a view different from that of other authorities, but I do not really believe that this merits calling them stark staring mad.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord when it is likely that the Government will come to a conclusion about this? Anxious as I always am to help the Government, I would suggest to him that the sooner they come to a conclusion the less he will get of all this.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, it is hoped that there will be an announcement in the next few weeks.
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, could my noble friend give any indication to the House as to whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government ultimately to publish the evidence upon which the final decision is based?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the report of the Nuclear Power Advisory Board will be confidential, but the essential information in that report will be published.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend finally how many informed laymen will have the opportunity, like Sir Walter Citrine had when we first set up the Atomic Energy Board in 1946, to sit in on these discussions? Or is there a pompous assumption by Atomic Energy so-called experts that no layman can follow the arguments even if he is presented with them by an expert?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, judging by the amount of correspondence that has gone through my hands—and I have nothing at all to do with it—I think there are many laymen who are interested and whose views are being considered by the appropriate authorities, which I have already detailed.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he has observed that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has offered to help the Government? Could we ascertain in which direction?
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I ask the question to which we all want the answer? Are the Government aiming in the direction of placing this contract for a British reactor or for an American one?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the decision will take into account balance-of-payments requirements, safety factors, the cost of installation, the cost of operation, the question of helping British industry and a number of other matters. These are by no means simple, and they are all being reconciled. I note the impatience of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, but I think he will probably agree that if we come to the right answer the delay will have been worth while.
THE EARL OF HALSBURY: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that we are at a crossroads where every short-term alternative is, at best, a pis aller and, at worst, arguably mistaken? And that the only arguably right solution is the fast-breeder reactor? Will he give an undertaking that the terms of reference of the learned body which he quoted to us will include the requisite priority for the fast-breeder reactor so that, given that priority, we shall have it available in the 1980s but otherwise not till the 1990s or the Greek Kallends?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, there are claims being put forward on behalf of the fast-breeder reactor but there are certain other considerations that have been advanced on behalf of the other systems.
LORD TAYLOR OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, on the question of timing, a similar question was put to the late Government and that we were told that a decision on these water reactors would be reached in the very near future? But we do not seem any nearer a decision now than we were then.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I hope that we are considerably nearer a decision.
1244
These are complicated matters. There are important issues involved, and I have said it is hoped that the present Government will announce a decision within the next few weeks.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, we were doing very well until we came to this Question. We have been on it now for twenty-three minutes and, despite the importance of the subject, I hope the House will think that we should now move to the next Business.

LONDON BOMB INCIDENTS
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, If I might incur the noble Lord's wrath, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government the Question of which I have given Private Notice, namely:
To ask Her Majesty's Government if they will make a Statement about the possible further wave of bomb outrages in London, following the incident at Heathrow and the discovery of a bomb in Lambeth?
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich will answer this Question at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. That will be followed by a Statement by my noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge on Northern Ireland.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Orders No. 38 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) and No. 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be suspended until the House adjourns for the Recess at Whitsun and that Government business do have precedence over other business, except with the consent of the Government, during the same period.—[Lord Shepherd.]
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SYNODICAL GOVERNMENT (AMENDMENT) MEASURE
3.2 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON rose to move, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Synodical Government (Amendment) Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent. The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, I have to invite your Lordships' agreement to two general Synod measures. They are, I trust, entirely non-controversial, but your Lordships may like to know what they are about and I shall endeavour, as shortly as possible, to inform your Lordships. However, in so doing I may have to ask your Lordships to follow down some avenues of ecclesiastical affairs which may not be altogether familiar to noble Lords.
First of all, I shall deal with the Synodical Government (Amendment) Measure. The General Synod of the Church of England was inaugurated by Her Majesty the Queen in November, 1970, and it is governed by the Synodical Government Measure 1969 and its ancillary provisions. During the three and a half years of its working certain areas where reform is needed have revealed themselves and this Measure is designed to put those things right. Clause 1 is intended to make the membership of the Synod rather more representative and comprehensive than it is at the moment. As at present constituted, the diocesan bishops, the clergy, the laity, the deans and provosts, the archdeacons, the clerical members of the universities and the chief lay officers of the Church are all represented in one way or another in the Synod. But the bishops suffragan have no official representation. That is now considered to be an injustice, and the Measure provides that a Canon shall constitute the bishops suffragan for this purpose an electoral college, and that they shall elect from their number six in the province of Canterbury and three in the province of York to sit in the House of Bishops in the General Synod and the Upper Houses of the Convocations. Subsection (2) consequentially prevents the bishops suffragan from standing for election as members of the Lower Houses or from exercising a vote in that election.
Clause 2 deals with a practical issue. Article 8(1) of the Constitution lays down that alterations in the relationships of the Church of England with other churches cannot be approved, unless at sonic stage a scheme has been approved by a majority of Diocesan Synods. When that provision was made it was envisaged that it applied to relationships with other churches in this country. But sometimes the Church of England is required to decide what shall be its relationship with new churches, formed, for instance, by schemes of reunion not in Great Britain. Such a case arose over the new United Church of North India and Pakistan. In that case it was decided that it fell within the provisions of Article 8, and so all the dioceses of the Church of England were required to pronounce upon the relationships of the Church of England generally to the Church of North India and Pakistan. That produced a good deal of bewilderment, irritation and criticism, for such matters which are of concern generally should, it is felt, be decided centrally. Clause 2 of the Measure therefore ensures that in future Article 8 shall refer to churches a substantial number of whose members reside in Great Britain, though subsection (2) empowers the archbishops to apply the Article to churches falling outside the provisions of Clause 2(1) if, in their discretion, they think that would be desirable.
Clause 3 similarly deals with a practical point. It is a legal requirement that certain business of the General Synod shall be decided on a division of houses—bishops, clergy and laity—and that means that members must leave their seats and pass through the division lobbies. Your Lordships know that a Division in this House takes a considerable length of time. It takes at least the same amount of time, with a great deal more physical discomfiture, to conduct a division in the debating chamber of Church House, Westminster. Moreover, the General Synod meets for only twelve days in the year and therefore every minute is of value. It is not conducive to well-tempered proceedings when the Synod has to go through this rigmarole in voting on matters which sometimes are agreed unanimously or with only a tiny minority in opposition. The Measure therefore provides that where a vote is to be taken on a division

1247
by houses, it may be taken either by an actual division or in such other manner as the standing orders may provide. Your Lordships may rest assured that the Synod will ensure that in appropriate cases the exact number of votes cast will be recorded. This Measure passed through all its stages in the General Synod with no divisions being called. Therefore my Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Synodical Government (Amendment) Measure be presented to Her Majesty for Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of London.)
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I should like to ask the right reverend Prelate whether there are more suffragan Bishops in being in the Province of Canterbury than in the province of York. I should not like to think that the Province of York was being done down in numbers.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, there are considerably more Bishops suffragan in the Province of Canterbury than in York, and this is a normal division when matters have to be decided as between the two provinces.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ECCLESIASTICAL JURISDICTION (AMENDMENT) MEASURE
3.8 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LONDON: rose to move, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction (Amendment) Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent. The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, eleven years ago it was my privilege to commend to this House the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure. That was a very important Measure which reformed the ecclesiastical courts, which, as your Lordships will know, are the courts of this land as much as any of the secular courts. I was a very young and very inexperienced Member of your Lordships' House
1248
in those days, and my peace of mind was not smoothed or made easier by the knowledge that I should on that occasion be opposed by the formidable figure of Lord Alexander of Hillsborough sitting on the Opposition Benches, who was extremely suspicious of any Church of England Measure which came before your Lordships' House, since he saw what he regarded as the dark shadow of the Church of Rome lurking in the most innocent corners. However, he did not oppose the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure to which your Lordships gave your agreement in 1963.
A very important aspect of that Measure was contained in Part IX, which has the heading "Deprivation Consequent upon Certain Judgments, Orders or Decrees of Secular Courts". This section was lifted from the 1892 Clerical Discipline Act and it provided that if a clergyman had certain convictions, orders or findings made against him in the secular courts of so serious a nature as to disqualify him from carrying out the duties of a clerk in Holy Orders, then automatically and without further trial in an Ecclesiastical Court, that clergyman should be deprived of any preferment held by him and declared to be disqualified from further preferment.
The provisions of Section 5, which reflected the 1892 Act, are not as drastic as they sound. In certain cases the bishop is able to exercise a discretion and, moreover, the deprivation is not final. At any time, after consultation between the bishop and the archbishop, the clergyman concerned may be restored to the exercise of his Orders. The only final act is deposition—more familiarly known as "unfrocking"—which is an administrative act by the bishop in cases of the utmost seriousness, consequent upon deprivation and subject to an appeal to the archbishop. In fact, Section 5 is the most useful and most used part of the Measure. It ensures that, in cases where a clergyman has been found in the secular courts to have behaved in so offensive a manner that it would be scandalous for him to continue to exercise his Ministry, then without more ado he must cease to do so. The Bishop is relieved of having to try afresh the case in his court: the clergyman is relieved of the agony of a second investigation of the case. He is deprived of his preferment, though not, of course, of

1249
the pastoral care and concern of the bishop for his welfare.
However, Section 5 depends on the state of the secular law, and recent changes in that law have made it very difficult to apply the provisions of this part of the Measure. For instance, the operations of the Criminal Justice Act 1972 and recent divorce legislation have rendered this part of the Measure largely incapable of implementation. I was chairman of a Working Party set up to consider the implications of the changes in the secular law, and we were assisted in our deliberations by a number of distinguished lawyers, including the late Mr. Justice Stirling, an expert in divorce law, and the late Chancellor Walter Wigglesworth, an expert in ecclesiastical law. After prolonged and detailed examination, we came to the conclusion that the principle of automatic deprivation consequent upon certain findings of the secular courts was no longer a practicable way of proceeding. The reasons for this decision are set out in paragraphs 8 to 10 of the Legislative Committee's Report, which is in your Lordships' hands. Instead, this amending Measure details in paragraph 55 certain findings of the secular courts which render a clergyman liable, without further trial, to deprivation and disqualification. On receiving the finding of the secular courts, the bishop is required to refer the case to the archbishop of the province, together with the representations of the clergman concerned; and he will in his discretion decide whether or not, in the light of the decision of the secular courts, deprivation should follow. Section 56 makes appropriate provision in what we hope will be the rare cases in which archbishops and bishops are involved.
I ask your Lordships to note two salient points about the new procedure. First, it does not represent a second trial. It lays down the procedure for appropriate administrative action which is consequent upon the decisions of the secular courts. Secondly, the new proceeding is a relaxation of the form of procedure, perhaps in favour of the clergyman who may be involved. Under the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction Measure, all comparable cases would have been subject to automatic deprivation. Under this Measure, all cases are subject to the discretion of the archbishop, advised by the bishop and
1250
informed by the representations of the individual concerned.
Finally, may I refer to a rather recondite point that has been raised elsewhere. The 1963 Measure refers to, "imprisonment or any greater penalty". This Measure omits reference to "any greater penalty". Thus, the new Section 55 fails to deal with a clergyman involved in high treason and certain offences in Her Majesty's dockyards, where the death penalty is still operative. The reply to this objection is that if a clergyman is hanged for such offences then deprivation of his benefice by law becomes irrelevant. If he should be reprieved then the lesser penalty applies. In any case, he could be tried in the courts for "conduct unbecoming to a clerk in Holy Orders". To the argument that a clergyman should never be subjected to judicial hanging but first of all should be deprived and deposed, we must reply that the mark of Holy Orders is indelible. Even if such a man is deprived and deposed, he continues to be a priest. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House do direct that, in accordance with the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919, the Ecclesiastic Jurisdiction (Amendment) Measure be presented to Her Majesty for the Royal Assent.—(The Lord Bishop of London.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL [H.L.]
3.17 p.m.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a Second time. This Bill, which was in Committee stage in another place at the dissolution of the last Parliament, will enable the implementation of the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage 1971 and Amendments that are now incorporated in the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973. We have played a leading part in bringing these Conventions to fruition and want to be one of the first to ratify them.
The similar Bill at the dissolution contained powers to delegate certain statutory surveys to classification societies. That

1251
proved to be the only controversial part and it now has been dropped. The other change is that we have now included provisions (Clause 19) on offences by seamen.
Before I go on to describe the present Bill, including Clause 19, let me say just a few words about why we have excluded the delegation of survey work. Concern was expressed by the union side about taking this work out of the hands of the Department's marine surveyors. It was decided there was no point in unnecessarily making a contentious issue of this matter. However, may I make it clear that the decision implies no denigration, in any sense, of Lloyds Register, which deservedly holds a high reputation in this country and worldwide. There are other types of survey which we still propose to delegate to them which do not require primary legislation; e.g. tonnage measurement. After consultation with both sides of industry, this will be achieved by administrative means or, where necessary, by Statutory Instrument.
Part I enables the United Kingdom to ratify the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund adopted in 1971 at Brussels. The pollution resulting from the accident to the giant tanker, the "Torrey Canyon", off Lands End in 1967, made it clear that the 1957 International Convention on the Limitation of the Liability of Seagoing Ships set limits which were totally inadequate to compensate for pollution damage on the scale which modern supertankers were capable of causing. In 1969, as a first step, a conference convened by the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organisation (IMCO) adopted the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage. It raised the limit of shipowners' liability set by the 1957 Convention, but not far enough to ensure full compensation; indeed, exemptions from liability could have left some victims entirely without compensation. The United Kingdom recognised that the 1969 Convention was inadequate, bur decided to encourage progress in this field and accordingly enacted the Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Act 1971 which gave effect to the Liability Convention.
In 1971 IMCO convened a second international conference which adopted the Convention on the Establishment of an
1252
International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage; this was supplementary to the Liability Convention of 1969 and open only to parties to that Convention. The Fund set up by the 1971 Convention would be financed by levies imposed on receivers in contracting countries of 150,000 tons or more per annum of crude oil and fuel oil by sea; the bulk of this tonnage would be imported, but contributions would also be levied on coastal traffic since this also carries pollution risks.
The primary function of the Fund would be to provide compensation for oil pollution damage by identified ships to claimants—usually States—in contracting countries in cases where the shipowner was not liable, or where that liability had not been met, or the damage exceeded the shipowner's liability. The Fund would have the secondary function of relieving shipowners in contracting countries of a part of the additional liability imposed by the 1969 Convention, subject to conditions designed to ensure compliance with international safety standards. The Fund would pay compensation up to a maximum of nearly £15·;7 million in respect of any one incident; but the Assembly of the Fund could agree to raise this ceiling to nearly £31·4 million. Thus within these limits the Exchequer will be relieved in full of any obligation.
These two Conventions, Liability and Fund, provide an interlocking system of a fund, shipowner liability and compulsory insurance that is likely to be generally welcomed by other Governments. In some countries legislation has already been introduced to give effect to the two Conventions. It is to be hoped that it will not be too long before both Conventions come into force, but, of course, under their terms this depends both on the number of States which ratify them and on the quantity of contributing oil received by Contracting States in the preceding calendar year.
Part II provides enabling powers to limit both the arrangement and the size of tanks in tankers. The United Kingdom can take credit for getting international agreement. We put forward proposals in the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organisation in 1969. After discussions with industry and other countries a generally acceptable formula was

1253
worked out. The formula is broadly side tank limitation to 30,000 cubic metres and centre tank to 50,000 cubic metres. There is also limitation on the arrangement of tanks so that spillage, if two adjacent tanks are breached, is less than 30,000 cubic metres—there is a sliding scale upwards for mammoth tankers, with an absolute ceiling of 40,000 cubic metres.
We regard this as a major step forward in minimisation of pollution and it should be effected very quickly. After consultation among major maritime powers, Governments were urged to implement these requirements without necessarily waiting for the formality of them coming into effect. The requirements relate to new ships for which contracts were placed after January 1, 1972, or in the absence of a building contract, whose construction was started after June 30, 1972, and for all ships delivered after January 1, 1977. I point this out because it is the intention to apply the legislation retrospectively in order to comply with international agreements, and Clause 11 subsection (5) enables this to be done.
The shipping industry was warned before the end of 1971 of the then Government's intention to implement the requirements as soon as an opportunity could be found for the necessary legislation and this has been confirmed since. If concerted action is taken we hope that, in due course, tankers which do not comply with IMCO requirements will themselves be at commercial disadvantage.
Part III gives protection of shipping and trading interests. In recent years some Foreign Governments have used economic regulation of shipping to promote the carriage of goods in their own flag ships—a practice commonly known as flag, discrimination—or to regulate freight rates in such a way as to reduce the cost and increase the attractiveness of their own exports at the expense of imports to their countries, and/or of shipping lines. Our view is that the common interest of all countries lies in the efficient carriage of world sea-bourne trade which would be best served when there is free competition on the world's trade routes, and the users of shipping services are not compelled by law to support a particular flag, and when such matters as the level of freight rates and the frequency of services are left to commercial interests directly concerned to decide.
1254
However, intervention by Governments in pursuit of their own national interest is increasing and as a result either our shipping lines suffer, as they have done through flag discrimination, or our trading interests may be penalised because an artifically low freight rate for someone else's exports has to be compensated for by a higher rate for our own exports. The Government have no wish to engage in the economic regulation of international shipping services, since we consider it essential to avoid the chaos which would result if such regulation were adopted on a worldwide scale. But so long as we do not regulate ourselves and cannot defend ourselves against the actions of others, our shipping lines and traders are vulnerable.
We share the view of the previous Administration that the time has come to provide some protection to these interests. Many other maritime countries have contingency powers of this kind, and there have been discussions with our friends in Western Europe concerning the kind of powers contained in this Bill. The Chamber of Shipping and the British Shippers' Council fully endorse the need for powers of this kind. We expect and indeed hope, that the powers in this Part of the Bill will rarely be used, and certainly not without an attempt to reach a solution through commercial and diplomatic channels. We shall, however, not hesitate to use them if necessary in the last resort. I should perhaps emphasise, because there was some discussion of this point when a similar measure was in another place last Session, that the powers are not aimed at flags of convenience. These raise different problems which are being examined separately and internationally.
I should mention briefly the United Nations Convention on a Code of Conduct for Liner Conferences recently concluded in Geneva. As I explained last week in a reply to a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, the United Kingdom found it necessary, with great regret, to vote against this Convention in the company of several other important maritime and trading nations. A number of others abstained. The United Kingdom has, however, consistently supported the concept of a universally acceptable code based on fully commercial and competitive relationships and has

1255
demonstrated much sympathy and support for those countries, particularly in the developing world, whose aim is to build up their own merchant marines. The powers in the Bill are not designed to combat those pursuing legitimate aims by reasonable means, nor would we use them in that way. But if foreign Governments attempt to foster their own maritime and trading interests by unfair means at our expense, that will be altogether a different matter.
Part IV deals with submersible apparatus. The previous Government indicated during a debate on the predecessor to this Bill that consideration was being given to legislation to enable the Secretary of State to make rules for the safety of miniature submarines and other submersible apparatus, and experience gained since the "Pisces" incident indicates that it would be wise to take powers to make rules going beyond those which we make for conventional shipping. This Part of the Bill and its associated Schedule 5 enable such rules to be made.
Clause 16 describes the submersible apparatus to which the Bill applies. Broadly speaking, this is any submersible apparatus used within our own territorial waters or operated anywhere in the world from a United Kingdom ship. The reference to supporting apparatus will enable the Government to impose requirements on support vessels and other associated equipment. Clause 17 describes the matters in respect of which the Secretary of State may make regulations.
It is worth noting in this context that submersible apparatus falls broadly into two groups. One group comprises that which may be said to be in fairly widespread use, such as conventional diving suits, and for these general regulations will be appropriate. The other group comprises submersible vessels of the kind which inspired these proposals, relatively few in number and potentially diverse in character, for which it would be extremely difficult to draft a common set of general regulations. We therefore propose to deal with them by a licensing system, which was tentatively suggested in the joint DTI/Vickers report into the "Pisces" incident. However, should we eventually see the development of fleets of submersible vessels in such numbers as to warrant the application of general regulations, it
1256
would equally be possible to deal with them in this way, and to cover all safety matters including design, construction, equipment, manning, operational methods and rescue procedures.
These powers which we propose for the Secretary of State for Trade will overlap with those of his colleagues at the Department of Energy in respect of off-shore installations, and at the Department of Employment as regards certain aspects of diving operations within territorial waters. This overlap is preferable to an attempt to define areas of responsibility in the Bill. There will, of course, be full consultation with other Departments.
I turn now to Part V. Clause 18 contains a provision for broadening the membership of the Northern Lighthouse Board which runs lighthouses in Scotland and the Isle of Man so as to make a wider range of expertise available to the Commissioners. Clause 19 of the Bill—and this is an important clause—amends sections of the Merchant Shipping Act 1970 relating to offences by seamen. The changes proposed are somewhat complicated.
The disciplinary provisions of the 1970 Act were based upon recommendations of Lord Pearsons' Court of Inquiry following the seamen's strike of 1966. Those recommendations eased the disciplinary régime which had previously existed for employment in sea-going ships. The Pearson Court of Inquiry re-affirmed. However, that there was a need for a special disciplinary régime on board ship for the purpose of safety of the ship and of the crew. Good order and discipline is essential in the close community of a ship which is both the working and living accommodation of those aboard. There appears to be no disagreement with this general principle either between interested organisations or within the Department of Trade. Differences such as there are, are confined to means.
The relevant sections of the 1970 Act are Sections 27 to 34 which deal with offences of varying severity. Section 27, which applies to the shipping and fishing industries, deals with the most serious offence—misconduct endangering the ship or persons on board. The penalty for this can be a term of imprisonment of two years or a fine which on summary conviction is at present limited to £200. There is general agreement that this

1257
section should remain in force, and indeed we are proposing to increase this figure to £400. At the lower end of the severity scale is Section 34 which provides, for the shipping industry alone, for regulations to be made allowing a master to impose fines on seamen for disciplinary offences; for example, striking another member of the ship's complement or smoking in a prohibited place.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, if my noble friend would allow me to intervene, on perusing Clause 19 of the Bill, I find that the decision as to whether a member of a ship's crew has committed an offence of whatever kind—drunkenness, striking another member of the crew or whatever it may be—is left to the master of the vessel. The second point is that there appears to be no right of appeal. Can my noble friend explain this defect and omission?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right. Those are the provisions in the Bill. When I complete my statement possibly he will see our approach to these problems as far as any further changes are concerned.
Smoking on a tanker is clearly a serious matter, and we are proposing to increase the maximum fine which a master can impose for this offence from £10 to £20. Serious offences of this kind could be dealt with under other disciplinary sections of the Act; but they involve proceedings ashore, and many believe that in practice discipline may be best enforced by fines imposed by masters en the spot.
Between the two extremes of Section 27 and Section 34, with the regulations made under it, are Sections 28 to 31. Section 28 deals with being under the influence of drink or drugs on duty and applies to both shipping and fishing; it provides for a fine on summary conviction not exceeding £50. Section 29 provides for a similar fine for wilfully disobeying a lawful command relating to or likely to affect the operation of the ship or its equipment. Section 30 provides for a fine on summary conviction of double this amount for persistent and wilful neglect of duty, persistent and wilful disobedience of lawful commands and combining with other seamen to disobey lawful commands or to neglect duty or to impede
1258
navigation or the progress of a voyage—the latter sometimes being termed the "mutiny provision". Finally, Section 31 provides for a fine, again not exceeding £100 on summary conviction, for absence without leave at the time of sailing. It should be noted that the last three sections, Sections 29, 30 and 31, do not at present apply to the fishing industry, though there is provision in Schedule 2 of the 1970 Act for extending this to fishing vessels by regulation.
My Lords—and this is why I left the answer to my noble friend until now—an undertaking was given both by the last Labour Government and by the last Administration to review these sections which prescribe criminal offences in respect of misconduct at sea and are not popular with seamen. The review began last autumn and its results were not available when the Merchant Shipping Bill was introduced in the last Parliament. Now, however, although the review is not complete, we know enough of the attitude of the various interests consulted to propose certain changes which can be implemented in this Bill. I have already referred to the increases in fines under Sections 27 and 34 of the 1970 Act. In addition, we now find that there is a general consensus in the shipping industry that Section 29, dealing with the single disobedience of a lawful command, should be repealed—that, I hope, goes some way to meet what my noble friend says, that Section 31, dealing with absence without leave, should also be repealed, leaving such absences, which occur ashore, to be dealt with as a normal industrial matter; and that Section 30 should be amended to confine the "mutiny provision" in subsection (c) to when the ship is at sea.
I emphasise that these three sections of the 1970 Act have applied only to the shipping industry and not to the fishing industry.
We are satisfied, and I hope my noble friend is satisfied, that these changes can be made without risk to safety. Proceedings under Sections 27 to 31 are fortunately very rare and any value claimed for them is as a deterrent; but with Sections 27, 28, 30 and 34 still in force, we believe that misconduct at sea is adequately dealt with. In any event, the general provisions of criminal law are available to buttress these sections. The

1259
safety of the ship and the crew is a matter of the utmost importance.
We believe that all the interested parties recognise the need for special provisions to maintain good order on board ship and we know that those responsible for discipline consider it important that Sections 27, 28 and 30 of the 1970 Act remain in force and also the Disciplinary Offences Regulations made under Section 34. However, we recognise that this is a matter in which conflicting views are honestly held. Some sections of the industry attach considerable importance to the existence of special criminal offences as a positive aid to ensuring discipline and good order on board ship. Others feel that greater reliance should be placed on normal industrial relations between employer and employee. Therefore it is our intention to establish two Working Parties, one for the Merchant Navy and one for the fishing industry, each charged with the task of inquiring into the disciplinary requirements appropriate to sea-going employment with a view to making recommendations for any further changes which they may think are necessary.
We shall invite relevant organisations in both industries to be represented on these groups. Special attention will be paid to drink and drugs; and in this connection no change is to be made in Section 28 which deals with drink and drugs. This will be a thorough investigation of disciplinary problems, an area in which there has not previously been a study in the depth we now consider necessary. When the working groups report we shall be in a much better position to make long-term judgments, based on objective consideration. If my noble friend has any further point to make on this, then those Working Parties will be glad to consider them.
My Lords, what we are proposing marks a definite advance in labour relations. We are taking steps to discard unnecessary legislative provisions at the earliest possible opportunity, while increasing monetary penalties in provisions which we retain. Thus, we are producing, we think, a favourable climate and a sense of urgency for two thorough reviews in which both sides of the two industries and the interested Government Departments will be invited to participate. It is part of the Government's general approach in the field of industrial
1260
relations that both sides of industry should sit down together rather than invoke the law and the courts. The Government believe that all interests should approach the studies of the two working groups without any prejudices, but with a sense of purpose and of urgency—and a real determination to ensure a suitable and modern régime on board vessels which will facilitate equally safety and effective operation.
I hope that your Lordships will agree that the Bill has value. It is widely welcomed. It is the product of a good deal of consultation. I hope that it will be helped to a speedy passage in another place. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Beswick.)

LONDON BOMB INCIDENTS
3.45 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH): My Lords, perhaps I may now intervene to answer a Private Notice Question asked by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary made the following Statement in another place this afternoon:
"At 11.17 a.m. on May 19, there was an explosion on the third level of a multi-storey car park at No. 1 Terminal at London Airport. The explosive, between 50 and 100 lb., was contained in a B.M.C. 1100.
"The Press Association received a warning in general terms at 11.05 that a car bomb was due to go off between 11.10 and 11.20 a.m. in a Heathrow Car Park. At 11.09 the information reached the police, who were engaged in clearing operations when the explosion took place. Four people suffered minor injuries and a number of vehicles were destroyed and others damaged.
"At 10.25 p.m. another warning was received about a bomb at the N.A.A.F.I. Headquarters in Kennington Lane. After a police search of the area a bag containing about 30 lb. of explosive was found at the rear of the building. The area was evacuated

1261
and the bomb was defused at 11.20 p.m.
"These are the bare facts and the House will already be aware of them, the police are pursuing inquiries vigorously.
"It would be prudent to assume that we have not seen the last of such activities in Great Britain and to maintain at a high level of vigilance our preventive and precautionary measures.
"That, my Lords, we are doing."
3.48 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for that Statement. If anybody pays any attention to what we say in this House, I hope that they will have heard and marked what he said about the need for vigilance, because it is only vigilance that will save lives and save damage to property. I have no doubt, also, that we would all express our regret that, yet again, entirely innocent people have been hurt and have had their property damaged or destroyed in this reckless, needless, futile way. May I take this opportunity, because I do not believe we can say this too often, to say to the Government that we all realise that it is upon the bravery and vigilance of the police and security services, and, indeed, of the people who have to defuse these bombs, whose job must be one of the most dreadful in existence—they are so often successful, but they run such a dreadful risk all the time—that we must depend for our safety. Perhaps I shall also be expressing other people's views if I say that, whoever is carrying out this series of attacks and may be threatening further ones, British public opinion will not be influenced except in the direction of complete revulsion and abhorrence of this sort of behaviour and that it is not the slightest use supposing that any other effect whatever will ensue.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I would briefly associate myself with what the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross said, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for repeating the Statement. I completely agree with what the noble Viscount said about the work of the police and the people who defuse bombs, and of the
1262
others who keep an area safe. I assure the noble Lord that such action will have our support.
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, may I first thank the noble Viscount for what he has just said. I am sure that everything he said represents the feeling not only of my colleagues in the Government, but of the membership of the House as a whole; and, indeed, of the overwhelmingly majority of British public opinion. In particular, I should like to associate myself with the words he used about the work done by the people who have to deal with these unexploded bombs. Every time they go out they risk their own lives, and too much cannot be said about the gallantry which they have displayed on this and other occasions.

NORTHERN IRELAND STATE OF EMERGENCY
3.49 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE): With the permission of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement made in another place by my honourable friend the Minister of State for Northern Ireland earlier this afternoon. The Statement reads:
"I should like to inform the House of the circumstances leading to yesterday's proclamation of a State of Emergency in Northern Ireland.
"On Tuesday, 14 May, a body calling itself the Ulster Workers Council with no trade union or democratic standing but supported by paramilitary organisations advertised in the press that there would be a general stoppage if the Northern Ireland Assembly voted that day to support the Sunningdale Agreement.
"The Northern Ireland Assembly voted to support the Executive's policy on the Sunningdale Agreement and the broadly based system of Government established under the 1973 Constitution Act.
"On Wednesday, May 15, I met the honourable Members for North Antrim and Belfast East, accompanied

1263
by Assemblyman Laird. Three members of the Ulster Workers' Council and three observers from Protestant para-military organisations were also present.
"The Ulster Workers' Council told us that the purpose of their action was to bring down the Sunningdale Agreement and have new Assembly elections at an early date. They intended to force this by limiting the supply of electricity, dictating themselves who should have current and who should be denied it. They said that further measures would be taken if the Government refused to negotiate. I made it plain that the Government, and indeed this House, were committed to the Northern Ireland Constitution Act and the Sunningdale Agreement, that the Northern Ireland electorate would be free to decide their future at elections held in accord with the Constitution Act, that the strike was a political one for purely sectarian purposes and that the Government would if necessary maintain essential services. There was no agreement. The next day, Thursday May 16, there was an attempt by widespread intimidation to bring normal life in Northern Ireland to a standstill.
"On Friday May 17 a meeting was arranged between my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland with elected political leaders and members of the Ulster Workers' Council it being made clear that this was without any commitment by Her Majesty's Government. No members of the Council availed themselves of this opportunity and the Secretary of State saw the honourable Members for Belfast East and for Fermanagh and South Tyrone and Assemblymen Beattie and Barr. The Secretary of State said that the stoppage bore no relation to normal industrial action and that the Government would not be blackmailed.
"On Saturday May 18 the Ulster Workers' Council called for a complete stoppage from midnight on Sunday May 19. They drew back from this however, but still called for extensive closure of industrial and commercial business and presumed to dictate
1264
the times when certain shops could open.
"It was in these circumstances that my right honourable friend, following consultations with the Northern Ireland Executive, issued the proclamation of a State of Emergency.
"A number of roads into and around Belfast were obstructed to-day, as were roads in and around some of the other towns including Larne and Bangor. The blocks included trees and hijacked vehicles. Some have already been removed by Security Forces and in many cases alternative routes were available. But the net effect has been a disruption of ordinary traffic and considerable inconvenience to parts of the Province, particularly in North and East Belfast.
"Mr. Len Murray on behalf of the Trades Union Congress and after consultation with the Northern Ireland Trade Union Committee has condemned the actions of the Ulster Workers' Council. He said:
'They are a body created to pursue a sectarian policy which is rejected by the trade union movement generally, and their objects and activities have no connection with the protection of working people or the promotion of their common interests.'
He went on to say:
'The welfare of the great mass of the workers in Northern Ireland is at risk, and the T.U.C. is in no doubt that they will return to work as soon as they can safely do so.'
"The House will earnestly hope that those who are bravely standing out against bullying and intimidation will rally the mass of the people of Northern Ireland to the path of reason.
"The Government have a duty to preserve life. They will do so. Her Majesty's Forces have been put in a position to help to maintain essential services if necessary. I hope this will not be necessary. The Government are not seeking a confrontation. But if it is necessary to take action to preserve the essential services then this will be done. Equally, all the necessary steps will be taken to maintain law and order."
My Lords, that completes the Statement.
LORD BELSTEAD: My Lords, the House is grateful to the Government for this Statement which keeps your Lordships up to date with what is a critical situation in Northern Ireland. On this side of the House we certainly welcome the noble Lord's statement that it is the Government's declared intention that industrial action with intimidation shall not deflect the Government from the policy which can surely only bring peace; namely, the policy of co-operation. May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, whether the Government know a little more than is in the Statement about the origins and constitution of the Ulster Workers' Council, which, after all, is threatening such damaging disruption to the Northern Ireland economy? For instance, is it an elected body? How long has it been in existence? Who purports to speak for it?
After five years of violence, people in Northern Ireland of course have doubts and apprehensions. But may I also ask the noble Lord whether it is true that no Constitutional rights for the people of Northern Ireland are being threatened, that it is the electorate of Northern Ireland who will decide the future of the Province, and that what is needed at this time is firm political leadership of all Parties working within the Northern Ireland Constitution?
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like on behalf of noble Lords on these Benches to thank the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, for what he has said in repeating a very full Statement, and I would thank the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for what he said. There is really nothing further for me to say, except that we support the Government firmly on this statement of policy that they have laid down to bring the present terrible situation to an end.
LORD DONALDSON OF KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I am grateful for both noble Lords' statements. On the two questions of the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, I cannot fill in a great deal about the Ulster Workers' Council. It is a small, self-appointed group and is in no way part of the trade union movement. That is perhaps all we need to know at the moment. The noble Lord asked who purported to speak for it. It purports to speak for itself. As to the second point,
1266
it is of course absolutely true that the various follow-ups of the Sunningdale Agreement, fear of which is really at the root of all this trouble, are self-defending in the sense that the Sunningdale Agreement includes, as has been said a hundred times, a unanimity rule and nothing can be done without unanimity; so the fear of the consequences of this Agreement, in my opinion and in the opinion of most balanced observers, is a myth. I thank noble Lords for their support. The Government will carry on as stated.

MERCHANT SHIPPING BILL [H.L.]
3.57 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, perhaps it is something of a relief, after the two depressing Statements about what is going on on land, if we once again go to sea on the Merchant Shipping Bill. It was described in another place as a "ragbag of a Bill". Perhaps we might call it a scran bag of a Bill, covering some five separate issues. It was six separate issues, but I think that it has now gone back to five. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, for the way in which he presented this Bill to your Lordships' House. It deals with a number of fairly complicated measures. One point I want to develop a little later, because it has slightly wider implications, is the reason why a Section of the Bill, with the old Part IV has been removed.
In the meantime, may I look at one or two questions we would like to raise on the other Parts of the Bill. Dealing with Part I, there was some argument I believe in another place in Committee as to the exact definition of the word, "oil". I hope this point has now been satisfactorily resolved. There was also some question as to how the system of compensation would work in practice. I believe this largely centred on the question of identifying the polluter. If a ship drops oil in the sea, some of the landward-based people may not know who has caused it. One is reminded of the situation which used to obtain with regard to aircraft, where one claimed that one had been disturbed or damaged by a supersonic flight and one was then asked to say which aeroplane had caused

1267
it. It was manifestly absurd. I imagine we could have a similar situation regarding a ship some distance out. Maybe the noble Lord can give us some reassurance on that point.
Part III was described by both sides in another place as regrettable but necessary. I have no doubt that my noble friend Lord Runciman of Doxford will be emphasising the importance that the Chamber of Shipping attaches to this section, particularly in the light of the goings-on at the recent convention in Geneva to which the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has referred.
Part IV deals essentially, as the noble Lord said, with questions which arise as a result of the near-fatal accident to Pisces III, the submersible being operated by Vickers. This incident highlighted the fact that this country is somewhat behind the United States Bureau of Shipping in the regulations concerning this type of operation, although we like to think—and I believe this to be right—that we are in the forefront of the technology of operating these vehicles. Vickers themselves are quite clear that they would welcome regulations, because they feel that these would ensure that other less experienced operators were operating to the same rigid standards as they themselves impose. I notice that they state in the report that they believe there might be 15 or 20 vehicles of this type operating by 1980, and that one can normally expect one accident or incident of this kind per annum. This tends to underline how important it will be to get some measure of agreement upon how to co-ordinate accident rescue operations.
Another very important point which came out at that inquiry was in regard to interference by other ships. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he he is quite satisfied that Clause 17 really enables the necessary provisions to be made. Again, this falls into two categories: first, keeping away surface vessels which might interfere with the operation of a submersible; and, secondly, the very serious incident. Vickers themselves claim that at one time during the course of the Pisces III rescue there was real danger that the rescue would be made impossible by the presence of other vessels; in particular, of vessels which had been chartered by the Press. There
1268
is something rather ghoulish about the possibility that these two men could have lost their lives due to the interference of people who had no practical, useful operational purpose to serve at the scene of the accident. Possibly the noble Lord would like to tell us whether he feels quite satisfied that there are powers in the Bill to deal with this situation.
My Lords, I could not quite follow what the noble Lord said about Part IV. At one time he seemed to be saying that there is agreement. Then I thought he might be saying that there is no agreement, and we shall set up Working Parties to see what degree of agreement can be found. This we must certainly welcome. Another point which struck me as he was talking was that to fine somebody £20, when he is putting at risk a £20 million tanker and its cargo, does not seem a very realistic increase in the penalties which we are talking about. That was purely an immediate reaction to what he said.
May I turn to the old Part IV which has been removed, and to which the noble Lord referred? Part IV of the Bill, as originally produced by our Government, had two purposes. There was an attempt to avoid double-charging due to duplication of surveying, particularly so far as British ships abroad were concerned. My understanding is that people felt that they were being placed at a disadvantage vis-à-vis some of their foreign competitors, by virtue of the fact that this double inspection had to take place. My next point—and here I have to be really careful not to give an enormous "commercial" for Lloyds Register of Shipping —is in regard to that organisation, which is sometimes misunderstood. It has nothing whatever to do with Lloyds Bank, and has no direct relationship with the insurance organisation, although both the insurance organisation and the registration society originated from the same coffee shop in London. The organisation is extremely unclear to me, but it is a non-profit making body and some of the union criticisms which have been directed against Lloyds are possibly misplaced, when that fact is borne in mind.
However, the really important underlying point is that this organisation, which fathered all the other similar surveying and registering organisations throughout the world, is one which is not recognised

1269
by its own Government at home. It is not empowered to carry out work for the Government, particularly in regard to surveys overseas. The same situation crops up when you are making Defence sales. The first thing anybody wants to know is: Why is it that your Government does not use this organisation? My information is that foreign governments have sometimes said, "Either we will use some little, hole-in-the-corner registration society which has no standing whatever and which cannot be relied upon; or, alternatively, we will go to one of the other big and wholly reputable ones, such as the Norwegian Veritas organisation or the United States Bureau of Shipping". That is why the seven delegation provisions were put into the old Part IV.
My Lords, it is here that I become a little concerned about the underlying reasons for taking out these provisions. First of all, I understand that the unions deployed two attacks. They said that they had not been consulted, and it then transpired in the debate in another place that it had taken them four months to reply to the invitation to be consulted. I do not think they have much to complain about, if that is the speed with which they react. Secondly, there was a claim that issues affecting the safety of merchant seamen were being delegated to a profit-making organisation. I dealt with the question of profit-making a moment ago.
The other point to be made is that for many years the standards of construction have been laid down by Lloyds, and it is absurd to argue that they do not concern the safety of the seamen who go to sea in ships. I should be very worried, in a month which has seen the Con-Mech case and the Chilean engines episode—although I should like to take this opportunity of welcoming the stand taken by Mr. Len Murray in connection with the Northern Ireland case which we have just been hearing about—if we were being told that this part had been removed solely in order to satisfy union pressures for purely political purposes, which is my reading of both of those episodes.
But I do not at all wish to make tremendously heavy weather of a Bill which we regard as extremely desirable. We want to be the first to get on and get these various conventions ratified. Furthermore, the noble Lord has told us that
1270
it is possible by Statutory Instrument to introduce a great many of the devolutionary proposals which were included in the original Part IV. In particular there is the tonnage measurement issue, which I understand constitutes something like 70 per cent. of the work that is being done. Therefore, while I want to register the principle, I believe we are very well satisfied that this Bill is going in very much the right direction.
4.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT RUNCIMAN OF DOXFORD: My Lords, my first duty as a working shipowner is to declare a very obvious interest in this Bill. Having done that I should like in the same capacity to say that I think this Bill is very nearly non-controversial, that large parts of it are extremely welcome and that I hope it will have a good passage.
After the extremely lucid exposition of the Minister, and indeed what has also fallen from the lips of my noble friend, I do not want to cover the same ground too often. I will say nothing about Parts I and II of the Bill, but I should like to emphasise what has been said about Part III. For a very long time it has been the view of British shipping—and the Minister has endorsed it this afternoon—and indeed of the shipping interests of most other maritime countries, that international shipping services are most efficiently and economically provided on the basis of a fair field and no favour. In general terms, this means equal treatment for ships of all flags in all countries and, what is just about as important, the widest freedom for those who have cargoes to be carried to consign them to the ships of their choice. We are therefore, obviously and on principle, opposed to what is called "flag discrimination", which is in fact just the opposite of what I have been saying we favour.
As has already been said, it is the practice of certain Governments to favour the ships of their own flag or to make it difficult for ships of other flags to offer their services as freely as they otherwise could. Hitherto when such practices have been adopted to the detriment of British shipping, of the shipping of other countries as well, and of British overseas trade, British Governments have lacked—I was going to say completely, but certainly very nearly completely—any powers to protect

1271
British interest. Since the purpose of this Part of the Bill is to give Her Majesty's Government just such powers I need hardly say that it has the wholehearted support of the British shipping industry. As the Minister said, in a brief reference, the need for such powers has been made even more apparent by the adoption by a number of countries in Geneva last month of a Convention on the Code of Conduct for Liner Conferences which contained many restrictive and discriminatory provisions. If I may properly do so, I should like to say how very much I welcome what fell both from the lips of the Minister, and indeed from the lips of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell. Last week he asked a Question on this very subject.
When this Bill becomes law it will provide measures which, as the Minister said, should be used sparingly and only as a last resort, but they will protect our shipping and trading interests should any country attempt by unilateral legislation to implement the provisions of the Code. As I have said already, and do not mind saying several times, we very much welcome that facility.
With regard to the defunct Part IV I confess that I cannot help sharing the regret expressed by my noble friend about the powers of delegation, but perhaps as a member of the General Committee of Lloyds Register I personally should not pursue that matter further, at any rate at this time.
Clause 19 is designed, as the Minister said, to amend the Merchant Shipping Act of 1970 in respect of offences by seamen. Here one is conscious, as with all disciplinary matters, of being on rather delicate ground, and I do not want to say anything very strong one way or another about it. I only hope that it is generally recognised—and I think what the Minister has said entitles one to hope with confidence—that the conditions of living and working on board ship are necessarily very different from those of living and working ashore, and that special provisions are needed to maintain good order and discipline on shipboard; and that not only for the safety of the ship alone but because without good order and acceptable discipline not only will the efficiency of the ship suffer but so also will the happiness of those in her. We all know that a happy ship is a good
1272
ship; we know even more, to our cost (literally at times) that an unhappy ship is not and never can be. So it follows that if the disciplinary provisions are to be effective and a source, as they should be, of harmony and not discord, it is essential that they be acceptable both to those responsible for maintaining discipline (which is, I think inevitably, in the first place the master of the vessel at any one time) and those who are subject to it. This calls for the careful consultation which the Minister has assured us is going to be given. I hope therefore that before they become the law of the land, whatever disciplinary provisions are suggested for incorporation in a future Act of Parliament will, so far as ever possible, be the result of general agreement and will be regarded by all the interested parties as just and necessary. On that account I sincerely welcome the Minister's reference to a proposed Working Party to deal with these matters.
May I conclude by again welcoming the Bill and expressing the hope that it may have fair winds, easy seas and a swift passage.
4.18 p.m.
LORD SHINWELL: My Lords, I have no wish to arrest the progress of business but I should like to make a few observations on certain aspects of the Bill now before your Lordships' House. I am honoured to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman of Doxford. I had the honour and pleasure of making the acquaintance of some of his forebears who were members of the other place for many years, as I was myself. Moreover, like the noble Viscount I have to declare an interest. He declared his interest as a shipowner; I can only declare as my interest—and indeed it is my only qualification for intervening in the debate—an honorary life membership of the National Union of Seamen. I hope your Lordships will note the reference to "honorary": it means that I do not need to pay the subscriptions, which is a great advantage. But although I am naturally interested in the conditions of work and the welfare of ships' crews in the British Merchant Navy, for many years I have displayed an interest in the progress—and sometimes the lack of progress—of the British Merchant Navy.
It is a remarkable and significant fact that sometimes it is said that legislation is too hurried, too hasty; yet to-day

1273
we are debating flag discrimination, one of the most significant features of this proposed legislation, which was on the cards even before the First World War and on frequent occasions was debated in the other place. At long last we have come to the conclusion that the British Merchant Navy must seek protection in one form or another, and although I am bound to say that the clause of the Bill which deals with this aspect is somewhat nebulous and may be difficult to implement, at any rate it is there and we must make the very best use of it.
But, of course, there is another omission from the Bill which has a bearing on this matter of discrimination. It was referred to by my noble friend who outlined the purpose of the Bill, and it concerns flags of convenience. Flags of convenience have done as much harm to the British Merchant Navy and the development of international trade as indeed has flag discrimination. They present many complications, and would require many international conferences of those concerned with international shipping before a definite conclusion and a solution could be arrived at.
My Lords, I wish to refer to Clause 19 very briefly indeed, because the matter was debated in the other place some years ago. It is interesting to note that in respect of the amendments of the Merchant Shipping Act, it was only after the Pearson Inquiry, subsequent to the seamen's dispute some years ago, that it was decided by the Government to seek an amendment of the Merchant Shipping Act in respect of the conditions of crews in disciplinary matters. To the best of my recollection, the Merchant Shipping Act had not been amended at that date since almost the early part of the century. The Amendment that was introduced I think by the Liberal Government, over which Mr. Lloyd George presided, dealt with the matter only in part. In fact, until seven years ago the Merchant Shipping Act (and, indeed, even the Merchant Shipping Bill now before your Lordships' House) was deficient in some respects because of the demands that were made to amend the original Bill passed in 1874. I think I am right in saying that out of that arose the controversy on the Plimsoll Line.
We are now deciding what ought to be done in matters of discipline. Without
1274
any hesitation at all, I agree with both my noble friend Lord Beswick, and with the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman of Doxford, that there must be discipline aboard ship. But sometimes discipline has been somewhat harsh; discipline of a harsh character has been imposed by ships' masters when there was really no occasion for it. Take the example mentioned by my noble friend Lord Beswick, about the repeal of one part of the old Bill; namely, the right of the ships' master when the crews are discharged. The matter might come before the Superintendent of the Board of Trade in any particular port when a man fails to join his ship which, of course, presents many difficulties.
I remember many years ago, when I was associated with seafarers on the Clyde, when we had many ocean liners of the Allan Line, the Anchor Line, the Donaldson Line, the Clan Line and so on, and when ships were not oil-burning but coal-burning, which meant that although not many men were employed on deck, a vast number were employed in the engine room and stokehole, it often happened that men did not join ship. I remember having a conversation with a famous Commodore, Captain Bone, of the old Anchor Line, who also became Commodore of the Cunard Line, who wrote a famous book called The Beachcomber. Captain Bone was a member of the famous Bone family who were intellectuals, artists and the like. On one occasion when a large number of men had failed to join ship—I think it was the Caledonia—Captain Bone said to me something that is worth repeating. He said: "I never can understand how any sober man can join a ship". There was something to be said for that, having regard to the conditions which prevailed at the time.
My Lords, of course there must be discipline; but there must be safeguards against the imposing of discipline which is unwarrantable. So it seems to me that even the proposals contained in the Bill for Working Parties may not be entirely satisfactory. When the Bill was before the other place some years ago, I remember debates in which I took part. Incidentally, my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts, who now deals with foreign affairs, was the Minister who dealt with the subject in the other place at the time.

1275
We had great difficulty, I remember, because the Government of the day, the Wilson Government, the Labour Government, I regret to say, refused to disclose the kind of regulations that were necessary in order to supplement in a satisfactory fashion the provisions of the Bill.
Now the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, has told us there are to be Working Parties. This is an excellent idea. It will certainly foster most satisfactory and beneficial industrial relations among those who go to sea, and that is desirable. It is perhaps more necessary for those who go to sea than for those who work ashore, so to that extent I support it. But I should like some kind of assurance that if a seaman commits an offence and the master of the vessel imposes a fine which is regarded as somewhat harsh in the circumstances, and for which perhaps there is no warrant at all, at any rate the seaman should have the right to appeal, even after he is discharged from the vessel. He should be able to go not only to his own union to ask for their assistance and possible redress, but also to the superintendent of the Department of Trade at the port where he is discharged in order to ask for the right of appeal. Something of that kind is required if we are to have satisfactory industrial relations aboard ship, even when discipline is essential, which I accept at once. While I am particularly anxious, as I am sure are all Members of your Lordships' House, to promote the wellbeing of the British Merchant Navy and our shipping interests which make a very beneficial contribution to our balance of payments in what are called invisible exports, at the same time, we are all most anxious to promote the best interests of those who go to sea.
4.28 p.m.
LORD BLYTON: My Lords, I wish to speak for only two or three minutes. Some seven years ago, when the Merchant Shipping Act was before this House, I moved the Amendments to the penal clauses on behalf of the National Union of Seamen. I went to sea myself, and all my family are seafarers. Because I had a particular interest in the sea at that time, I was asked to do the job in Parliament on behalf of the National Union of Seamen, because they had no one else
1276
to do it for them. We worked to repeal the penal clauses. The position of the National Union of Seamen was quite clear at that time. If a man refused to obey orders and hazarded the ship or caused danger to persons, so far as the Union were concerned they did not want to interfere with that power. But they took the view that where an order was given by a skipper and was not detrimental to the organisation of the ship, while it may have come within the discipline of the ship, it did not necessarily attract the harsh punishments that had been meted out in years past.
The union suggested that where a skipper, or the mate, or whoever was in charge of the ship, found anybody guilty of a misdemeanour, there ought to be a ship's committee and that case should be determined by them. If the ship's committeee made a determination, then a man had the right to appeal to a shore committee, of which the decision was final and binding. They thought by that method men would not be driven off the sea for trivial misdemeanours that may have happened aboard the ship. Therefore, as I read Clause 19, the Government have gone not all the way but only some of the way to meet the objections that the Seamen's Union put to me when I put that case some years ago. While I know this does not satisfy the Seamen's Union entirely, I think that the Government have gone some way to meet their requests and I compliment them upon that.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am grateful for the welcome given to this Bill, and especially for the speeches from my noble friends Lord Shinwell and Lord Blyton about Clause 19, about which there are quite strong feelings. The noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, asked me what is "oil". I think he will probably find the definition of oil in Clause 1(3) and Clause 2(9). In Clause 1(3) the definition is a wide one; it covers all mineral oils which can cause pollution damage. In Clause 2(9) there is a definition of contributing oil, which is a narrower definition and covers only the two types, crude oil and fuel oil, which are carried in bulk quantities sufficient to justify the cost of accounting for the contributions to the Fund.

1277
The noble Lord also asked me about identification of ships. Article 4, paragraph 2 of the Convention to which I referred states that,
"the Fund shall incur no obligation under the preceding paragraph if; …. (b) the claimant cannot prove that the damage results from an incident involving one or more of the ships".
The reason for that point is that the Fund is not designed to pay for pollution damage arising from what one might call natural causes, from oil seepage or from fractured oil pipelines, either on the ship or under the sea. It is designed to cover major incidents, and in any major incident involving ships at sea the facts, I think he would agree, would be known.
The noble Lord said that he was concerned to give a "commercial" to the Lloyds Register. I think if he reads what I said he will see that I gave them a "mini-commercial" myself. I paid tribute to the high regard in which this organisation is held all over the world. I made it clear that after proper consultation it was proposed to delegate certain survey work to the Lloyds Register; for example, stability and grain-loading surveys, questions of tonnage measurement; these are matters which might be delegated to them by administrative means or as a result of statutory powers. If it is possible to do this, of course, we shall be very happy to do so, because Lloyds Register holds a very high position in the regard of the Government. I should also add, however, since he did seem to think there had been discrimination in this country, that for many years, so I am told, there has been delegation of load line and cargo ship safety surveys to classification societies including Lloyds Register. So I think possibly he will acquit us of any kind of political prejudice. I am a little sorry that he introduced this business of Con-Mech, which was an extraordinary argument. Towards the end he came to the conclusion that it was not a good argument and discarded it himself.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, made the valid point about keeping away in a disaster or accident area other shipping which might interfere with the rescue work in the event of a submerged-apparatus accident. The difficulty here is in the Government taking unilateral action to deny rights of passage in international waters. There is a fear, not
1278
entirely unfounded, that ships in the vicinity of a rescue operation which have no part to play in it might hinder or endanger its success. But to the extent possible, one must rely upon the voluntary co-operation of ships at sea. It seems difficult in this Bill to take powers over international waters.
The noble Lord also had some fears that the fine able to be imposed by the Master for smoking on tankers was inadequate; from £10 to £20 is the increase we propose. Of course, that is for an offence which the Master considers could be dealt with in this summary way. If there was a more serious offence, or if it was thought that there was a more serious danger, then it could be dealt with under Section 27 of the 1970 Act, or indeed, as I have indicated before, under the general criminal law. I emphasise again, as I did in my opening speech, that the provisions of the criminal law are always available to buttress any of the powers in the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Shinwell asked for some assurance that there would be a right of appeal. While, on the one hand, the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, thought the fine was probably not sufficient, my noble friend took the view—and I appreciated what he said—that it is conceivable that the Master might fine too heavily or in a way that is considered unreasonable or unjustified. In such a case, I would say to my noble friend that there is a possibility for the seaman so fined to appeal to the Department's Mercantile Marine Superintendent, if he thinks an injustice has been committed.
The noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, gave support to the Bill as I expected and hoped that he would. I thank him for that support. I thought the approach he had to this controversial Clause 19 was the right one. It was the one which was supported by my noble friends Lord Shinwell and Lord Blyton. If we have the spirit which was displayed by my noble friends on this side, and by the noble Viscount, Lord Runciman, and indeed by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, with that kind of approach it ought to be possible within the two Working Parties to evolve an appropriate scale of punishments and enable the necessary discipline to be enforced aboard ships.

1279
I think I have answered the specific questions that were asked of me. If I have not done so, I will certainly see whether I can do so before the next stage of the Bill is reached. If Amendments are thought necessary we shall have another opportunity to discuss the Bill later on. In the meantime, I say again that I appreciate what has been said, and I hope it will not be long before we see this Bill going to another place.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CONTINGENCIES FUND BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911; read 1a.

RABIES BILL
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a Manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move, pursuant to Standing Order No. 45(2), that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

INDEPENDENT BROADCASTING AUTHORITY BILL
4.41 p.m.
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to change the system under which independent television contractors are required to make additional payments to the Independent Broadcasting Authority. An almost identical Bill was introduced by the Conservative Government in the last Parliament. Their Bill received an unopposed Second Reading in another place but lapsed because of the General Election. The most significant change we have made in it is to change the references to the Minister of Posts
1280
and Telecommunications to references to the Secretary of State. This change has been made because of the dissolution of the Ministry. As a result of this, the responsibilities of the Ministry for broadcasting have been transferred to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary.
The history of these additional payments can be stated quite briefly. When the legislation governing independent television was revised in 1963, the then Conservative Government introduced a requirement that television contractors should make additional payments. This payment, which became known as the levy, was based on each contractor's advertising revenue. The levy was to be paid by the contractor to the Authority but the Authority were required to pay it, when received, into the Consolidated Fund. It was not a tax, but a contractual payment, designed to recognise the value to the contractor of the right which the community had given him, to make money out of his contract awarded to him as a local monopoly by a public authority. Television contractors have, of course, to pay tax as well. The idea of basing the levy on advertising, revenue was that this revenue was easy to calculate and offered no way of avoidance. The legislation provided a sliding scale of levy payments with a "free slice" which allowed the smallest companies to escape paying the levy altogether, and which reduced the effect on the other regional companies. There was a power for the Minister to make an order with Treasury approval varying the rates of the levy.
Three of these orders were made. The first, in 1969, had the effect of increasing the yield by about an eighth. Shortly after this there was a slump in advertising revenue, and early in 1970 another order had to be made reducing the levy to well below the original level. The Prices and Incomes Board was commissioned to report on the costs and revenues of the companies. After the Board had reported, with the slump in advertising revenue continuing, a further order was made early in 1971 halving the levy, and the Minister then responsible announced that the basis on which the levy was charged would be reviewed. Shortly after this there was a marked pick-up in advertising revenue. The outcome of the Conservative Government's review was that they decided that the system should be changed to one in

1281
which the levy should be charged, not on advertising revenue but on profits. Details of the proposed new system were announced in the Bill published last December. When we took office we reviewed the provisions of the Bill our predecessors had introduced and decided that they were right. The present Bill was then re-introduced in another place.
There will probably be general agreement that in principle I.T.V. companies ought to contribute to the community if, as on the whole has proved to be the case, their contracts give them the chance of making a great deal of money. No doubt the Party opposite believed that there were advantages in the system they introduced in 1963, and which, I may say—and I make no point of this—was continued by the successor Labour Government. Unfortunately, it turned out to be incapable of coping with the sharp variations in advertising revenue. The costs of the I.T.V. companies could go up sharply while advertising revenue did not go up at all. Changes in the rates had to be based on forecasts, and successive Governments of different political persuasions got their forecasts substantially wrong; a problem, I am bound to say, one has encountered in other fields as well.
I believe that the change to a profits-based levy overcomes the difficulties we have encountered in the past and, with the experience the Independent Broadcasting Authority has now had since 1956 of overseeing the behaviour of the I.T.V. companies, we are now confident that the danger of avoidance is much diminished. The other main danger of extravagance is guarded against in the Bill by a reserve power which enables the Secretary of State to make an order specifying a target for a named contractor. This provision is aimed at the difficulty pointed out by the Prices and Incomes Board, that a profits-based levy could encourage extravagance. I know that some of the I.T.V. companies have said that they are worried that this reserve power might be used by the Authority or by the Secretary of State in an arbitrary and over-meticulous way to interfere in detail in programme operations. I can give a clear assurance on the Government's behalf that this power will not be used in that way. I very much hope it will never be used at all. But a
1282
reserve power is needed and I think that what is proposed is just about right.
On the experience of the last complete year for which figures are available, the new system, if it had been operating, would have yielded to the Government about £33 million, compared with £22 million yielded by the existing system. The profits left with the companies before tax would have been a little above the level indicated by the Prices and Incomes Board's report, which was based on a return on capital of 22 per cent. before interest and tax. The rate was arrived at after full discussions between the television companies and the previous Government. Largely as a result of the three-day week, profits fell sharply at the beginning of this year. They have started to pick up again but it is too soon to say what the effect of the three-day working week will be. The companies would of course have preferred a lower rate than the one proposed in the Bill but have accepted the rate which was, in reality, proposed by the previous Government and accepted by the present one. I am satisfied that the proposed rate is just about right. The special difficulties of the smaller companies are catered for by the free slice, which also appears in this Bill.
I now propose to run briefly through the main provisions of the Bill. The Bill, as I have indicated, is in substance unchanged from that given a Second Reading by the last Parliament on January 31. A few minor changes have been made to correct printing mistakes which crept into the previous measure and to account for the change in status of the former Exchequer of Northern Ireland. Clause 1 replaces the present Section 26 of the 1973 Act with a new version of it, although subsection (1)(a), which deals with rental payments to cover the I.B.A.'s own operating costs, remains unchanged. The rest of the section deals with the additional payments which are in future to be calculated according to profits, and a table showing the rate and the way the free slice is to be calculated is included. Clause 1 is supplemented by Schedule 1 which defines advertising receipts, profits and accounting periods and gives the Authority power to determine what constitutes profits.
Section 27 of the 1973 Act, which closes potential loopholes for avoidance,

1283
and which requires the Authority to account for the additional payments it has received to the Comptroller and Auditor General, survives virtually unchanged. Clause 2 introduces a new Section 27A, to follow Section 27, which requires the Authority to obtain monthly payments on account, based on estimates of the contractor's profits for the year. The estimates are to be made before the beginning of each accounting period and may be revised at any time during the period. Clause 3 provides the reserve power—the one to which I alluded a moment or two ago—whereby the Secretary of State can call (and this I repeat to be done in the most exceptional circumstances) for further additional payments from any contractor whose expenditure is likely to prove excessive. Schedule 2 contains transitional provisions, which have the effect of amending contracts in force immediately before enactment of the Bill, so as to bring them into line with the new legal requirements.
Your Lordships will know that we intend to introduce shortly a Bill to extend the life of the Authority to 1979 in order to allow time for Lord Annan's Committee of Inquiry to do its work. The extending Bill will give noble Lords a wider opportunity to debate all the wider aspects of independent broadcasting. But, my Lords, if there are any particular points about the present Bill on which answers are required during the course of the debate, I will do my best to deal with them.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a—[Lord Harris of Greenwich.]
4.51 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, had events in February taken a different turn, it is possible that I would have been standing at the Dispatch Box opposite and moving a Bill in similar terms to those used by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, although I should not have been able to do it with nearly as much dexterity. Your Lordships will not therefore expect any opposition from me to the main proposals of the Bill, although I shall be questioning one or two of its details and in particular the way in which it is to be administered when it reaches the Statute Book. In this we are particularly fortunate in this
1284
House in that I understand it will be the departmental responsibility of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, himself. The Independent Television Authority welcome the Bill and want to see it passed as quickly as possible, and I must congratulate Her Majesty's Government on the speed with which they have brought it to the present stage.
In passing, I should like to say a word about the part played in Independent Television by the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone. He has been chairman of the Independent Television Authority, more recently the Independent Broadcasting Authority, since 1967. During these seven years he has achieved a tremendous reputation for fairness, wisdom and drive, not least among the television companies themselves. It is appropriate to mention him here because this is a Bill which is the result of painstaking negotiations in which he and his Board played such a leading part. The noble Lord will be very much missed when he gives up his office.
My Lords, I understand that the rate of the levy was fixed at 66·7 per cent. after a great deal of discussion between the companies, the I.B.A., and Her Majesty's Government. Until the new system has been in operation for some time it will not be possible to be certain whether the level decided was the right one. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, will be the first to appreciate that the wellbeing of the companies depend to perhaps a greater extent than any other industry on the strength of the economy. The first cuts which any business will make in hard times will be in advertising. Last year was the best year ever for independent Television. The last six months have been the worst ever. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to assure the House that he will keep a constant watch on the working of the 66·7 per cent. rate and if in practice it is shown to be too high that he and his right honourable friend will use the powers they have in the Bill to vary it by order. This is particularly important owing to the decision not to allow losses to be carried forward, a decision, incidentally, with which I do not disagree.
My Lords, I know that there is a great deal of worry, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has mentioned,

1285
among the television companies as to exactly what interpretation we put on the excessive expenditure provision in Clause 3. I am glad that the noble Lord has been able to say a little more about how this will work in practice, so as to allay some of the fears that are unnecessary. As the levy has now to be based on profits rather than on revenue, it is of course right that there should be some control to stop profits being artificially reduced, but it will be disastrous if this provision should ever he used to curtail imaginative investment in the sort of prestige programmes which might well become top sellers throughout the world.
I am rather sorry that the Amendment moved by my right honourable and honourable friends to eliminate the T.V. Times from the Treasury's participation and profits was not carried in another place. It certainly had some support from Government Benches there. As this is a certified Bill, it will not of course be possible to move a similar Amendment here, and in any case we should not wish to delay what is otherwise an admirable Bill. However, I hope that the noble Lord will hear in mind the effect of this when at some later stage he comes to consider whether the rate for the levy has worked out fairly.
The last point that I want to raise, my Lords, is the date for the new method of assessing the levy coming into operation. Clause 4(4) states that the Act
"shall come into operation at the end of the period of one month beginning with the day on which it is passed".
It seems likely that the Bill will receive the Royal Assent on Thursday, May 23. If that be the case, if the month be a calendar month, the Act comes into effect on Sunday, June 23; or, if a month be taken as four weeks, on Thursday, June 20. I am not quite sure how a month is defined, and perhaps the noble Lord can put me right on that. There is a widespread impression among the companies that the Treasury do not see the new system coming into operation until July 1. Can the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, tell the House whether in the week beginning Monday, June 24, the levy will be assessed under the old system or the new? A week seems a short time to quibble over, but I am told it could make a difference to the television companies
1286
of as much as £250,000, which in difficult times is no mean consideration. Incidentally, as things are running at the moment, this £250,000 would not mean an increase in profits but a decrease in losses.
Independent Television has a tremendous potential for this country's prosperity in the future. Many millions of pounds are being earned through export of British talent in television programmes. There is scope for much more. Television casettes are already a reality. Casettes capable of playing back video-tapes are mostly made abroad at the moment, but I hope British manufacturers will soon be ready to compete for their share of the market. There will soon be a worldwide demand for the tapes themselves. It will be a seller's market, and for this the independent companies are already gearing up so as to get in at the beginning. In order to take the best advantage of these opportunities, Independent Television must be assured of a stable financial future. This Bill will go a long way towards achieving it, particularly if it is sympathetically administered. It is for this reason that I am asking Her Majesty's Government for these assurances to-day.
4.57 p.m.
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, in replying to the noble Lord, Lord Denham, I will first deal with his question of the date. I think I can meet him completely on this point. On the assumption that the Bill takes the course we hope it will; namely, that it will be proceeded with and concluded before the Recess, our expectation is that the date of operation will be June 23. I can assure him that we will certainly keep our eye on the 66·7 per cent. rate which has admittedly been a matter of dispute between the companies, the Authority and the Government, with this Administration as with the last. We are much aware of the problems facing the industry at the moment. It would be foolish of me to hold out any hope of any immediate chance of review but the noble Lord asked us to keep our eye on that point, and that we will certainly do. He raised also the question of Clause 3, what we might describe as the "extravagance clause". As I indicated in my speech, this is, in our view, a reserve power. We very much hope that it will not be used. It is my personal belief that it will not be used and certainly, if it were, it would be

1287
only as a last resort, and we hope that such an unhappy situation will not arise.
The noble Lord referred also to the T. V. Times dispute which happened in another place. I went into the matter in some detail myself, but with regret we came to the conclusion that we could not make this change in the Bill. The problem is quite straightforward. The contractors obtained this revenue from the T.V. Times only as a result of their possession of a contract. We saw no way in which we could exclude it from the Bill, and that is the decision we had to take. Lastly, I warmly agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Denham, said about Lord Aylestone—I am not sure whether I should refer to him as my noble friend in Parliamentary terms in this House, but certainly before my contact with him as chairman of the Authority I had day-to-day contact with him when he was Opposition Chief Whip in another place and I was an official of the Parliamentary Labour Party. When speaking to the noble Lord I always believe that I am in the presence of my headmaster.
In conclusion, although this has been a brief debate, I am delighted that we have been able to move with some speed in this matter. We are well aware of the fact that the industry is facing substantial difficulties and I hope that once the Bill is on the Statute Book it will do something at least to repair the industry's present problems.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, before the noble Lord puts the Question, may I ask the Minister a question on a point that may have been answered before? I am a little confused as to why Posts and Telecommunications have been passed to the Home Office. Perhaps the noble Lord could explain this, as it does not seem to fit very neatly in the Home Office. I have probably missed the explanation of why that has been done.
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, this was in fact announced by the Prime Minister at the formation of the present Government. Part of the old Ministry went to one Department with telecommunications. As I have already said, the Home Office has responsibility for broadcasting.
1288
This matter was raised in the House by, I believe, an Order which came before the House. All I would say is that this was a decision taken by the Government. Many people in the industry at first had some doubts about it, but many other people in the industry welcomed it. As in all matters of changes in the administration and machinery of Government there were some differences of opinion, but broadly speaking in the fullness of time I think this will be regarded as a rather desirable change.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

DUMPING AT SEA BILL
5.2 p.m.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Your Lordships will recall that a Bill under this Title was discussed at some length in this House last Session. Since then this Dumping at Sea Bill has been introduced into another place and is in substantially the same form as the earlier Bill. Your Lordships will recall that the earlier Bill went through all its stages in your Lordships' House but received only a First Reading in the other place. The position to-day is that the Bill has been through all its stages in another place and comes here to-day for its Second Reading. A number of comparatively minor amendments have been made as a result of further consultations with the British Ports Association and, with your Lordships' permission. I shall describe these changes as I go through the Bill.
The Government are very pleased that the discussions on this Bill have indicated complete agreement in principle that it is desirable for statutory backing to be provided for the control of dumping at sea. Progress on the Bill in the other place has been rapid and the Government are grateful to the Opposition for their co-operation in this matter.
The Bill is essentially a technical and non-controversial measure. Its purpose, as has been made clear in another place, is to provide statutory backing for the voluntary control arrangements which have been operating in Great Britain for

1289
about seven years. Perhaps more importantly, it will enable the United Kingdom to ratify the Oslo and London Conventions to control dumping and thus we shall be seen to play our full part in this important sphere. The Bill will enable the United Kingdom to maintain oversight of dumping with a view to protecting our major fishing industry. I should mention that the Oslo Convention, which is designed to control dumping in the North-East Atlantic and the North Sea, came into force on April 7 after it had been ratified by seven countries. That adds force to what I have said about the desirability of the United Kingdom being in a position to ratify the Convention itself. I should like to reiterate that in the meantime the United Kingdom is acting in relation to its dumping controls as if it had already ratified the Oslo Convention.
During the discussions on the Bill it has become clear that there is some doubt about the scope of the legislation now before your Lordships and its relationship to other legislation—I refer in particular to the separate Bill dealing with the Control of Pollution and the work of the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organisation. Before I turn to the detailed provisions of the Bill, and I hope your Lordships will allow me to be brief, it might be helpful if I say that the pipeline discharges are not the subject of the Dumping at Sea Bill. These fall within the ambit of the Control of Pollution Bill which the House is currently examining. Ship discharges other than dumping, namely, the disposal of garbage, oil and other material which may be regarded as part of the normal operation of a vessel, are subject to the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organisation arrangements, and particularly the recently negotiated Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. This Convention specifically states that it does not cover dumping at sea which is now the subject of the Bill before your Lordships.
The Government are well aware of the need for a co-ordinated approach to all these problems. Nevertheless, each separate aspect of control should be left with those authorities qualified to deal with them. That is the approach we have adopted, and I would suggest that it is the only practical one. However, your Lordships may be assured that administrative
1290
steps have been taken, and will continue to be taken, to ensure the closest co-operation between the different authorities responsible for the application of the varying powers under each heading.
Returning to the Dumping at Sea Bill, I should like to underline a point which has already been made in past discussions. The Minister of Agriculture for England and Wales, the Secretary of State for Scotland, and the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland, are those Ministers who are the licensing authorities under this Bill. These Ministers will be very flexible in their approach as regards the issue of licences. I ought to make it quite clear that it is no part of the Government's policy to make difficulties for people going about their normal business. The intention is to secure a reasonable oversight of what finds its way into the sea by means of dumping, and to control it, where necessary, either in the interests of the marine environment or—and perhaps this is the same thing—to conform with the terms of the Control of Dumping Conventions. There are two rather important dumping conventions; namely, the Oslo Convention and the London Convention.
Your Lordships will probably be familiar with the details of each of these clauses in the Bill as the Bill in roughly its present form was published last November, but I hope it will be helpful if I run quickly through the more important provisions. Clauses 1 and 2 are the most important provisions in the Bill and constitute its heart. Clause 1 provides that dumping in the sea or loading in British ports shall not take place without a licence from the licensing authorities. Clause 2 sets out in broad terms the licensing arrangements and the criteria which will be applied in issuing licences. We have deliberately avoided including in the Bill the detailed provisions of the Conventions, which are contained in their annexes. There is good reason for this. Much of the scientific knowledge necessary to control the marine environment is still being developed. Therefore, it would be a very inflexible arrangement to incorporate specific provisions relating to details of substances in the Statute itself. We think that the approach adopted in Clause 2, coupled with the arrangements for amending the annexes included

1291
in the conventions themselves, is the best way to approach this matter.
Before leaving Clauses 1 and 2, I should mention that in another place the Government proposed Amendments which had the effect of removing from dumping controls discharges from vessels which are adapted specifically for the disposal by dumping of dredgings, where those discharges are part of the normal operations of those vessels when not engaged in dumping. Another small change was the exclusion from the controls of such minor items which do not pollute, as moorings, navigational aids and day-to-day repairs and maintenance in harbours.
Clause 2 provides for the payment of fees for licences. As was stated in another place, these will be on a very modest scale, merely to cover the administrative overheads of issuing them, together with the undertaking of toxicity tests where necessary. Where a major industrial discharge takes place and specific monitoring is required a further fee may be charged, but this will not be of very frequent occurrence and is something which would be determined in the light of the circumstances of the proposed dumping.
Clause 3 deals with the rights of licensees, or would-be licensees, to make representations against proposed decisions by the authorities. The procedure for this has been agreed by the Council on Tribunals, who have said that it is reasonable and provides every safeguard against oppressive actions being taken by the licensing authorities. The procedure will allow for speedy hearings to take place. The decisions taken by the Minister concerned and the advice on which they were taken will be made available to the applicant. I should emphasise that the committees listening to representations and making recommendations to licensing authorities will be entirely independent in forming, a view on the issues referred to them. Panels of persons concerned with the interests of licensees are being drawn up, and membership of the committee will be drawn from those considered appropriate.
When the Bill was last before your Lordships' House, there was considerable discussion on the rights of the public to know what was going on under the provisions of this Bill. As a result,
1292
Clause 4 was formulated. As your Lordships will see, this would enable any member of the public, be he an expert or merely a private citizen, to see the register of particulars of substances for which dumping licences have been issued. In the light of this information, any person would be able to reach his own conclusions on the actions taken. We think this will provide the most realistic approach, because it will provide any interested person with an overall picture of what is happening in the sea around our coasts.
Clause 5 provides for the establishment of an enforcement inspectorate. As the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill makes clear, this will be on a very modest scale and will rely substantially on staff already in post for other purposes. On the other hand, the Government are confident that enforcement will be effective at the level necessary to ensure that the terms of the Bill are being complied with. In other words, we think the Bill provides for the right balance between too large a staff and an effective inspectorate. Some attention was paid in another place to the powers of the enforcement officers. As the Government have made clear, we think these are adequate and do not go too far in interfering with the normal business of individuals.
Clause 6 provides a valuable complement to these powers. It would permit the United Kingdom to enter into an agreement with one or more other countries under which there would be reciprocal powers of inspection of vessels on the high seas. As the clause makes clear, before such an arrangement was entered into an Order would be laid before Parliament so that the arrangements could be examined. I should like to take the opportunity of emphasising that, in undertaking such arrangements as are envisaged in Clause 6, the Government would ensure that no damage was done to our very important shipping interests.
The remaining clauses in the Bill are largely procedural and, again, with your Lordships' permission, I do not propose to go into any great detail about them. I should, however, mention that at the appropriate places in the Bill provision is made for fines where the law is broken. In particular, I would direct your Lordships' attention to Clause 1, where severe penalties could be imposed for a wanton

1293
breach of the provisions of the Bill. The Government are satisfied that these are at a reasonable level to ensure that the law is respected.
I hope that my description of this small but, as I am sure your Lordships will appreciate, important Bill will have been adequate to give a reasonable view of what it contains. I am certain that its enactment will represent a substantial step forward in securing the well being of the seas around this country. I should like to conclude by saying that the Government are very pleased with the reception given to the Bill in another place. With respect, I should like to commend it to your Lordships and I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
5.19 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for introducing this Bill and explaining its contents. As he quite rightly said, it was introduced by the previous Administration really for the purpose of ratifying the Oslo and London Conventions. Indeed, had it not been for the advent of the Election, is is probable that the Bill would have gone through and these Conventions would have been ratified. However, I am glad that the noble Lord has re-introduced the Bill to-day for this reason—though it is not the only one. We were the leaders in this sphere and it was the United Kingdom which was keen to get other countries to join in some form of co-ordination of effort on dumping at sea. Since that was the position, and as we had the Oslo and London Conventions agreed, it was appropriate that this country should be one of the first to ratify them. I understand that some other countries have already ratified these Conventions, and therefore I hope it will not be long before the United Kingdom is able to join them. Of course this is a Bill designed basically to try to keep the seas clean for fish. I believe that it is right for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to have this responsibility because they are the people who have all the know-how about fish, currents, tides and waves, and what happens when you dump something into the sea.
It is sad that the Bill is a direct product of the sophisticated society in which
1294
we live. I do not think that it will improve the environment one little bit; it is merely essential to keep pace with the advance of research. Research is inevitable to improve our lives; the trouble is that for every advantage obtained in research, you get a host of disadvantages. One result of research is that in trying to arrive at a particular prime product you get a host of disadvantages, and sometimes noxious items which need to be disposed of. The difficulty is where to dispose of them. Very often, as happens now, they are disposed of in the sea. I remember only a short while ago a great deal of concern being expressed because fish off the coast of Japan were found to have in them an excess of mercury. If they were eaten the mercury was passed into human beings. All this resulted from effluent discharged from factories in Japan. So it is right that we should have some form of control over what is dumped into the sea.
I remember, too, on an occasion about fifteen years ago, having the privilege of looking around Calder Hall in Cumberland. This was when the power station was first started up. One saw the whole factory process, as is were, and the mechanisation of it. The electricity that was produced was put into the grid. We were shown finally a glass case into which a rubber glove was fitted. You could put your hand in the rubber glove and pick up something which looked like a pink tennis ball but which weighed about twice that size of a ball of lead. The person showing us around said, "We are aiming for this". I think it was plutonium. Everything else, including the electricity that was manufactured, was incidental to the production of plutonium. That was the aim of that particular power station; it could well have been the by-product of a factory, and it could well have been a by-product which would have to be disposed of in some form. It is quite right that the Government should take powers to see that when something is disposed of in the sea it should be dealt with in such a way as not adversely to affect either the marine environment or our own environment.
Only a short while ago there occurred a case where a herbicide found its way into some water. Many miles downstream it killed tomato plants. I believe I am

1295
right in saying the concentration required for this was one part in 1,000 million. It so happened that the tomato plants were particularly susceptible to this substance. This shows that in this day and age when you get these sophisticated products one minute proportion can cause a great deal of trouble. It is right that we should take the correct steps to prevent this from affecting us.
I often wonder where research gets one; I suppose it gets one somewhere. I remember the words that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, used on one occasion—I will try to quote him accurately. I cannot use his delightful Welsh rhetoric or enthusiasm, but the blasphemy is his. He said that he felt the situation was like being in a train and that we were thundering downhill, going God knows where. He felt that we were sitting in the caboose looking backwards. That is one's feeling regarding research: one does not know where one is going, yet one is being thundered along in the so-called progress of society. The noble Lord was using that description in order to castigate the Government of the day over some particular form of economic policy with which he happened to disagree. The fact is it could also apply here with regard to research.
The whole point of this Bill is concerned to see that if we have these curious, hideous and dangerous byproducts, then we have international control over the way they are dumped. We have made very great progress in this respect by having these Conventions, and this Bill will enable us as a country to play our part and to ratify them. There has been a voluntary control, and it has worked well. This Bill will do little more than make that voluntary control statutory. We have been leaders in international co-operation over this matter, and I hope we will remain leaders in this particular sphere.
I noticed one point which seemed slightly curious: I would only draw attention to it, and I do not ask the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, to give me an answer now if he would prefer not to do so. When the Bill introduced by the previous Administration left your Lordships' House it seemed to be in reasonable order, or so we thought. I would draw attention to Clause 5 because
1296
it refers to how the Act will be enforced. In the old Bill Clause 5(8) referred to the powers which should be given to a person in regard to boarding a ship. Subsection (9) went on to say how the enforcement officer should have communications with the master. Subsection (10) indicated what powers he should have regarding opening the tins which he might suspect contained some noxious material.
This seems a sensible, chronological course of events; but in the new Bill before your Lordships the subsections have been changed around. Clause 5(8) refers to the powers that an officer may have in regard to opening the tins. Subsections (9) and (10) indicate what powers he should have regarding the stopping of the ship and speaking to the master. That seems a curious set of circumstances. One would have thought the previous arrangement of clauses was much more suitable. We might possibly refer to this point at a later date to see whether we can swop the subsections around to get them back in order again. Having been in the right order, there must be a good reason for having reversed them, and I should like to know the reason.
Throughout the Bill the onus is on whoever is going to dump something to show that the material is not offensive or toxic in order to get a licence. The onus is also on that person to pay for the monitoring of the sea, or the results of his dumping, should that be necessary. Nobody likes to pay, but in this case, where you have possibly a new, untried or sophisticated material which is going to be dumped, the person who is responsible for dumping it should be the person responsible for paying to see that nobody is affected. My Lords, I welcome this Bill and I hope that your Lordships will approve it.
5.30 p.m.
Lofty WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, this Bill is one which must be welcomed in its present form, as it was in the earlier form. It is a Bill of extreme importance, because the problem of dumping is a serious one from the point of view of pollution in the seas—certainly the seas which neighbour us, and in fact it is a problem for the world as a whole.
There are certain points on which I should like to have more clarification. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, referred

1297
to putting the cart before the horse with regard to Clause 5, subsections (8) and (9). I do not know whether it matters a great deal, but he may well be right and it would be better if they were the other way round. I am less concerned with matters such as that—no doubt those who draft Bills are fully aware of what they are trying to do—than I am with the bigger question as to whether the actual machinery for ensuring that this Bill will be operated is fully adequate. I believe I raised this matter when the Bill was introduced earlier.
In the Preamble to the Bill, under Financial Effects, there is reference to the amount of money which would be required for this Bill to be operated. It reads:
"It is not possible to estimate these costs accurately, but we do not expect the total annual expenditure on these items to exceed £10,000."
I think that is the same sum—the noble Earl will correct me if I am wrong that was mentioned in the earlier Bill. I wondered then, and I wonder again now, whether £10,000 is an adequate sum. It is a question of what one means by the expense. There is a great deal of reference in the Bill to the enforcement officers. How many enforcement officers will there be? If the £10,000 is supposed to cover the cost of enforcement officers, it will not cover very many and there are a great many places in the country—many ports and small harbours—from which ships can sail. The question is: what is really the Government's intention with regard to the enforcement of this Bill? It seems to me that if it is to be properly enforced one has to have a large number of inspectors.
There are already complaints, with regard to air pollution, that our Alkali Inspectorate, excellent as I believe it is, is inadequate in numbers to carry out sufficient control over the whole country. Is it the intention of the Government to ensure that, as a result of this Bill when it becomes law, there will be an adequate inspectorate to ensure that there will be proper enforcement?
Although it is quite easy to say that we do not wish to have dumping at sea, there are many sorts of dumping. There can be dumping on a small scale, and as the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has just said a very small quantity dumped may
1298
have a serious polluting effect. It is possible that a single case thrown overboard may have a quite serious effect on the environment of the sea, so therefore it is quite important that we have this properly controlled. I believe that at the present time there is considerable concern about what is happening in the Bristol Channel with regard to the plastic spherules which apparently are being found there. These are things which can easily come from manufacture. They can come from actions, perhaps not deliberate, from ships—it may be through carelessness. It is therefore highly important that when we have such a Bill, which I strongly support and believe is absolutely vital for the future preservation of our environment, we should have proper enforcement. I should be grateful if my noble friend could say something about this.
5.34 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I had not intended to speak on this Bill but it is a very important subject and there are one or two questions which I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell. As I understood him, the purpose of this Bill is to give Her Majesty's Government the opportunity to ratify the Oslo and London Conventions. I should like to ask, first, how many States are in process of ratifying these Conventions or, in other words, how many Convention States are there at the present time? It is highly important, because it may well be that, as my noble friend Lord Ferrers said, we are taking a lead and may be the first country to ratify these Conventions. The provisions of Clause 1 are extremely important:
"…no person, except in pursuance of a licence—

(a) shall dump substances or articles in United Kingdom waters; or

(b) shall dump substances or articles in the sea outside United Kingdom waters from a British ship, aircraft, hovercraft or marine structure…"

It seems to me highly relevant that one should get an increasing number of those countries who have coast lines to ratify these Conventions. My noble friend Lord Ferrers referred to the important question of keeping the seas unpolluted for fish, but I am wondering whether it is not also relevant to think of the Atlantic coast line of quite a number of countries

1299
and also of countries in the Mediterranean which are very much dependent on tourism and therefore would benefit by ratifying these Conventions.
In conclusion, I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government what countries are ratifying the Conventions and what steps are being taken to coerce them to do so rapidly?
5.38 p.m.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has in fact given me time to obtain some information on the matter to which he referred, and it would appear that there is some merit in what he had to say about the order of the subsections in Clause 5. My information is that this was done merely as a matter of drafting, because Parliamentary Counsel thought that the old Clause 5(10) was better placed as Clause 5(8) since the powers available to enforcement officers were better described earlier in the clause. I think one has to admit that no deep thought has been given to this aspect. In the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, I suppose one could say that lawyers work in a mysterious way their wonders to perform, and it is not always very clear as to why they have arrived at their conclusions. This is a matter which we could possibly look at afresh, to see whether it might be worth while putting the subsections back in the order in which they were originally. I hope the noble Earl will not mind if I do not give an undertaking in this regard but merely say that we will look at it.
With regard to the point raised by my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones, my understanding of the position is that the £10,000 does not refer to the cost of enforcement officers but only to Clause 11(a)(b) and (c) of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum of the Bill, which reads:

"(a) subscriptions to those international bodies dealing with control of dumping in the sea of which the United Kingdom is a member;

(b) the fees payable to members of the representations committees and the costs of the staff serving them;

(c) other incidental expenses arising under the Bill".

I think that perhaps it might help my noble friend if I were to say that this matter has been examined carefully and
1300
while there will be, I think I am right in saying, only six additional inspectors, that number is considered adequate in view of the fact that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food have a large number of inspectors who are inspecting the fishing on the sea, and they themselves will be able to exercise a measure of inspection and investigation so far as ships are concerned. So it is felt that the provision made is an adequate one in the circumstances.
LORD WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, will my noble friend forgive my interrupting him on that point? I can see that this matter has been thought about, but is it really possible for the normal fishery inspectors to see what is going on in the case of ships which have nothing to do with fishing at all? I should have thought there was a risk that they would find out about the whole matter only long after the pollution had taken place.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, this matter has been considered very carefully. I take my noble friend's point, but my information is that, while the inspectors are engaged on inspection of another kind, they are well aware of a good deal that is going on and is likely to go on so far as other ships are concerned. With the greatest respect, I would suggest that if this does not work out satisfactorily when it is in operation obviously something can be done about it then; but this matter has been gone into carefully, and I would have thought that perhaps it is something which could be left to take its course in order to see whether it does in fact produce the desired results.
If I may come to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, as far as the Oslo Convention is concerned this came into force on April 7 last, and in fact seven States have ratified it. There are still a number to do so. I will not read them all out, but I believe that there are something like 12 or 13. We hope to do so immediately this Bill is through; and, as I pointed out to your Lordships, we have in fact been carrying this out for the last seven years. Six countries have ratified the London Convention, which is global in extent, and 15 countries are to do so when it comes into force. The London Convention was attended by a good many countries; and,

1301
as I said, six countries have ratified this convention. I hope that answers the noble Lord.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I mention the point that I tried to make. Were these conventions, either the Oslo one or the London one, attended by countries which have Atlantic coastlines, and also Mediterranean coastlines; and can the noble Lord say, particularly from the point of view of controlling pollution from tourists, whether such countries have ratified these conventions?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I think that what I shall have to do, if the noble Lord will allow me, is to look at his question and give him a written reply. Looking at the London Convention, I see that there is a large number of countries and I cannot say offhand whether they fall into the particular category which he has mentioned.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

BRITISH RAIL: THE BRIGHTON LINE
5.45 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT LORD TEVIOT rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the grave inconvenience caused by derailments at Balcombe to the many thousands of people who travel daily on the Brighton line, they will direct British Rail to provide some alternative route, for example by reinstating the line from Uckfield to Lewes. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name. In so doing I should like to thank those noble Lords who have been kind enough to stay behind to listen to this debate, and in particular the noble Lord who is to answer it. It is indeed pleasant to have an Unstarred Question called at such an early hour. I have asked this Question mainly because the derailments at Balcombe (or, rather, the stretch of line from Balcombe Tunnel south to Haywards Heath) have caused a great deal of anxiety to many people, as expressed in the Press and on local radio.
When this London to Brighton main line was opened in the 1840s to 1850s, no one besides a soothsayer could possibly
1302
have visualised that this line would become one of the busiest in the country. This is not a line which is likely to be closed because of loss of patronage, but one which has increased its passenger traffic annually and is likely to do so for many years to come because of envisaged expansion in the mid-Sussex and coastal areas. There have been no less than five derailments between Balcombe Tunnel and Haywards Heath, a distance of five miles only, since June, 1971, involving two passenger trains and three goods trains, which surely must be a record. Happily, there has been no loss of life. One does not want to be a harbinger of doom, but one should like to spread a tiny word of foreboding.
This line serves the busy commuter belt and caters for the busy tourist traffic and other people who use the line on day tickets to London from Sussex as far as Bexhill, Pevensey, Eastbourne and Seaford, to the East. The line also serves the large towns of Brighton and Hove, and all places to Worthing and Littlehampton along the coastal area, to the West, as well as large rural and urban areas situated inland, such as Haywards Heath and Lewes. There was a particularly had accident on September 16, 1972, when the line was closed for, I believe, about a fortnight; and there was a recent episode at the beginning of April, which accelerated my Question, when the line was again closed for three days. When this happens there is always an intolerable amount of inconvenience to passengers and there are no real possible alternatives. People in Brighton and Westwards have to travel to London via Littlehampton and the mid-Sussex line, adding one to one and a half hours to the journey; or, equally, there is a 'bus service which is implemented between Haywards Heath and Three Bridges, which again adds a great amount of time. It is true that this is not the only stretch of line on which troubles occur in the area, but it is the one which is most affected. For instance, there was a derailment this morning at Lewes. That was very annoying, but it inconvenienced only a proportion of the passengers.
At this point, my Lords, I must make it quite clear that I am not trying to blame anybody in particular, but to draw very strongly to the Government's attention, as I did in the case of the previous

1303
Administration, the fact that the present situation is extremely unsatisfactory. I am grateful to those who have been kind enough to assist me with facts and figures; namely, Mr. Paterson, the Central Division Manager of Southern Region, who is well known to the travelling public and who is always giving assistance and making untiring efforts to produce good will in dealing with passengers' problems with human understanding; and, also, the clerk's department of the East Sussex County Council for their excellent brief and the useful comments from the East Sussex Travellers' Association. This stretch of line is one of the most beautiful, and perhaps the only really rural stretch, of the London to Brighton line, as well as being the most hazardous.
While on the subject, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he can give me an assurance as to the safety of the Ouse Valley Viaduct. This is an elegant structure which spans a wide area, and one dreads to think what would happen if an accident occurred. I suspect there could be even more fatalities than in the case of an air crash, as there are many trains comprising 12 coaches carrying over 1,000 people at one time. There are, and always have been, rumours about this viaduct and its safety. The current one is that British Railways wish to put out to tender for British firms, who refuse. One Dutch firm has agreed to do so, but the line will be closed for from six to eight weeks. If I am talking absolute nonsense, I should like the noble Lord to tell me so; but I think the travelling public now deserve to be told what alternative arrangements British Rail have in mind to deal with the situation if and when it occurs.
I now come to the other half of my Question, which is about the very strong case for opening the Uckfield to Lewes line. This was closed in 1969 principally, but not solely, because of the rebuilding of a bridge at Lewes. I in this House, and others in the other place, asked Questions at the time pointing out the dangers of so doing and the harm it would cause. What was said has proved correct. I have since studied most carefully the pros and cons about reopening this line. In fact, it has a very much better future even than it had earlier. The situation at the moment is that the East Sussex
1304
County Council will have to pay a large sum of money towards the reopening of this line and the reconstruction of the Hamsey Loop. I think that at one time the East Sussex County Council agreed to pay some money towards the resiting of Uckfield Station, but they have now decided not to do this. I agree that if that had happened the situation would have been different. But since it has not happened, I think there is a very good case for reopening the line.
At a meeting on January 30, 1974, there were 20 bodies represented, 19 of which agreed to the reopening of this line. The one dissenter was a small parish council which would have been affected where the route went through. Coupled with this, I understand that British Rail are going to electrify this line from Croydon to Uckfield, which is very long overdue, and this will add considerably to the passenger traffic and cut the running time. There is also a greatly increasing population in this area. Most of the people in this area commute to London, but there is likely to be some considerable additional traffic to Lewes and Brighton, as well as increased freight and passenger traffic to the coast from the Medway towns. I am saying all this to substantiate the case for opening this line, and stating very strongly that it could become a very viable alternative when anything goes wrong to the main line. I concede reluctantly, that the reopening of this line would not be justified if it were solely a stand-by railway; but this is not so. When the line was closed, it was carrying 1,000 passengers a day, and if reinstated in time it is likely to exceed that figure. Alternative bus services have not proved satisfactory.
Finally, my Lords, I hope the Government will give very serious consideration to this matter and realise there is a great future in our railway system—as I am sure they do. We, as a nation, should be rightly proud of it, especially around London. In America, for instance, things are very much worse: everything has been put towards the motor-car and railways have suffered, and the times and distances are very much greater. Therefore, very large capital sums would be justified if invested in a line that serves around 50,000 people annually, whether it is the alternative that I have suggested between Lewes and

1305
Uckfield, or perhaps the reopening of the Shoreham, Steyning, Henfield and Horsham line. This could in a way be more advantageous, because if it were electrified, as was planned before the last war, it would link up with an already electrified line at Christ's Hospital. Very briefly, I hope that I have given your Lordships food for thought.
5.55 p.m.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, in the absence of any other speaker, I should like to add my support to what the noble Lord has said. I cannot claim to be a commuter, or to have any very great personal usage of the line. But, on average, I go up and down to Brighton and Hove once or twice a month, and to Haywards Heath an equal number of times. I myself have been inconvenienced even on those brief occasions when I have used the line. It has always seemed to me to be so unreasonable that the alternative railway which used to exist between Three Bridges and Lewes has been removed. I suppose it has been one of the casualties of the Beeching Plan. I have also heard the same kind of rumours—I suppose one can describe them only in that way—about the viaduct to which the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, referred. It appears to me that this railway, which seems to carry more passengers than any other line in the whole country, deserves to have an alternative route more than any other other railway line. The traffic on the London-Brighton section of railway has indeed increased from year to year, despite the Jonahs who tell us that the railways are coming to an end. The service needs improvement; there is really no way of improving it without increasing the number of railway lines. It seems to me that this, in itself, is a good argument in favour of the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot. In any case, the inconvenience that is likely to be caused if anything serious happens to that viaduct cannot be measured without a good deal of alarm and a great deal of despondency.
5.58 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, I cannot stay more than a minute to hear the noble Lord's reply, but I should like to put in a word for my noble friend's plea, because, among other things, the Balcombe Tunnel runs under the grounds of my wife's old home. This
1306
tunnel was heavily guarded during the first war and was regarded as one of the strategic links with the Army in France. The other great railway tunnel was, of course, the Sevenoaks Tunnel. August 5 found me an assistant auxiliary Boy Scout patrolling the Sevenoaks Tunnel, and the number of German spies and suspcious characters we found on that day is nobody's business. There is an additional point. Besides being a strategic tunnel, it is a strategic viaduct and it has been there a very long time. It might well have to be rebuilt, and that would be a very awkward proposition. In addition to the derailments—I heard the technical cause for them, but I have forgotten it—there have been a number of tragedies in the Balcombe Tunnel. Such cases put it out of action for quite a while. In addition, I believe it is haunted, but I do not believe that deters the drivers. My noble friend put in a particular plea for the Lewes-Uckfield Line. But I should have thought that, railway-wise, the proper link is the one he mentioned as an afterthought, which is the one round by Steyning, Henfield and Southwater. I say that because they are all places that are being heavily built-up, and there will be considerable commuter traffic joining up with the Horsham line.
6.0 p.m.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, replies, I should like to say a word, because some 14 months ago I spoke on this subject in our debate on transportation and I am on record as having written a letter on March 22 to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, on this subject of the Lewes/Uckfield line. I must put on record that, having heard my noble friend put his case very persuasively as he did before but in slightly more detail, I am still fairly happy that the letter which I wrote on behalf of the Department of the Environment at that time still basically holds good. There is the argument between the economic route and the strategic route and what might happen in certain eventualities. In this time of economic demand, when the country's resources are limited, there must be cases when, however unpleasant, one cannot necessarily do everything that is easy. This is one of those cases. However, I would say to my noble friend Lord Teviot—and I am sure that Lord Garnsworthy

1307
will bring every assistance he can bring to bear on this—that if the case is shown to be provable, that there is going to be a necessity for this alternative line, Lord Garnsworthy will do his best and the Transport Ministry in the Department of the Environment will also, I am sure, bring their pressure to bear.
Recently a noble friend of mine pointed out that in the last war this particular point was known to the Germans to be particularly vulnerable; if anything went wrong, it was likely to make things very unpleasant for us British in this part of the world. I suppose that what the enemy can do in war, accidents of fate and nature can do in peace. I think that this is the point which my noble friend Lord Teviot was trying to draw to the Government's attention, as he did to the last Government's. I know the problems that Lord Garnsworthy is facing, and sympathise with them. I am not totally convinced that my noble friend has made a case for changing the situation which is stronger than existed twelve months ago.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I would point out that since he spoke previously there have been two further derailments.
6.2 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has spoken with understandable feeling and from personal knowledge, and has been supported by my noble friend Lord Addison and by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke. I am beginning to have the feeling that when we talk of tunnels under houses and vulnerable viaducts we are at a point where somebody is going to get some material for writing a mystery story if the saga is continued indefinitely. But I am sure we fully appreciate the very good reasons why the noble Lord has raised this Question to-night. His Question has several ramifications. He suggested that British Rail should provide an alternative route for passengers on the Southern end of the main line from Brighton to London in the event of the line's being closed temporarily by, for example, a derailment. He suggested one way in which this might be done: by reinstating a former rail link between Lewes and Uckfield, presumably so that trains from Brighton could travel to
1308
London via Lewes, Uckfield, Oxted and East Croydon. But, as I hope to show, this suggestion gives rise to greater complications than may at first sight be apparent.
First of all, it might be helpful to explain what the usual emergency arrangements are if the London to Brighton line is obstructed, at some point on its Southern part, badly enough to warrant some arrangements being made. Here I have the feeling that it would be an advantage if all of us were looking at a map, but I am sure that noble Lords who are familiar with the geography of Sussex will follow me. The Railways Board can, and do, provide buses between Brighton and Uckfield, so that passengers can there join the existing diesel hauled service to Victoria. And trains are run from Brighton to London via Littlehampton and Horsham. I understand that this system works well, except that there are inevitably delays to passengers. Via Littlehampton, the journey is 83 miles, as compared with 50 miles direct from Brighton; and since the trains have to go into Littlehampton Station and reverse out again, it is somewhat time-consuming. I understand that the journey takes about an hour longer. One could hardly expect a diverted service over an alternative route to be as good as the normal service.
The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, is probably aware of the arrangements I have just detailed that British Rail have for running trains from Brighton via Littlehampton. His suggestion now, as I think it has been on previous occasions, is that the line from Uckfield to Lewes might be reinstated. As he knows, the passenger service on this line was withdrawn in May, 1969—indeed I think he mentioned that himself—following the usual form of inquiry. The then Minister of Transport decided that the withdrawal of this service would not cause sufficient hardship to justify its retention. Since then the track has been removed and much of the formation disposed of. As it is. I have to tell your Lordships that the line of the old formation has been breached by the Lewes inner relief road, and to restore that formation would now therefore involve considerable expense. At one time the Railways Board were considering an alternative route known as the

1309
Hamsey loop, which would have enabled trains to run from Uckfield into Lewes over the last part of the Haywards Heath/Lewes/Eastbourne line. The Parliamentary powers for this route lapsed at the end of 1972. But, in any case, it would not have enabled trains to work straight through from Brighton, as they could have done on the original formation. They would have had to reverse at Lewes.
To restore a rail link between Lewes and Uckfield, as the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, suggests, whatever the exact route, would be both difficult and expensive. It may be an advantage if I give to the House the figures that have been given to me. I am informed that the capital cost would be in the area of £2 million. Moreover, the Railways Board have estimated that in addition a revenue subsidy of about £170,000 a year would be required—this on the assumption that the existing service between London and Uckfield would be extended to Lewes. But it is also on the assumption that an electrified service should be run. Indeed, the noble Lord has himself contemplated this. Since the present line from Uckfield as far North as South Croydon is not electrified but served by diesel multiple unit stock, this in turn presupposes electrification of the latter line. Thus, the cost of reinstating the Lewes/Uckfield link would indeed be substantial.
While it is true that the route from Brighton to London via Lewes and Uckfield is about 63 miles, compared with the 83 I have mentioned via Littlehampton, one must remember—and indeed as the noble Lord himself knows well—there have in fact been five occasions over the past two years when incidents have occurred on the main line which have made it necessary to consider the need for running diversionary services over an alternative route. I am glad the noble Lord mentioned those five occasions. He made no attempt to exaggerate. We must bear in mind that it is five. I realise and appreciate fully that five times over a period of two years, if one happens to be the victim, is tantalising in the extreme.
On the last occasion, the derailment at Balcombe on April 5—a date to which the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, referred—British Rail found that it was necessary to use an alternative route only on that one day. I noticed that the noble Lord referred to its being closed for three
1310
days; my information is that it was closed for one. I shall have that point checked, and if I am in error I will certainly write to the noble Lord about it.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, if I may interrupt my noble friend on this point, it w as closed on the Friday. It was also closed on the Saturday and the Sunday, and buses were, I believe, running as an alternative on that date as well.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I am not sure, having heard the noble Lord, that there is very much between us. I think that British Rail were substantially right in saying that there was need to use the alternative route on only that one day, but I will have that matter checked and write to the noble Lord.
On only one occasion out of the five which have been mentioned, when there was a derailment just North of Haywards Heath in December, 1972, is it felt that there was any serious disruption to the main line. On that occasion British Rail needed to use an alternative route for three days, although I have to say in all fairness that it was several more days after that before their normal rolling stock and work patterns were restored to order. That, unfortunately, is one of the penalties which has to be paid when running services over alternative routes on such occasions. With regard to what the noble Lord said about a derailment at Lewes this morning, may I say that I am in no position to make any comment this evening, nor do I think that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, would expect me so to do. From his point of view, he probably feels that that adds one more reason why notice should be taken of the concern which he has expressed.
My Lords, I should perhaps make it clear that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has no power to direct the Railways Board to provide any specific service or route. That is a matter for the decision of the Board. If, in their judgment, the cost of making such a provision is not justified, then that is their responsibility. Since the route via Littlehampton already exists, it appears to me in this instance, simply from looking at the map, that it might be possible to achieve more cheaply some significant improvement for passengers like the noble Lord, who suffer from interruptions to the service on the main Brighton line,

1311
than by reinstating the Lewes-Uckfield line but building a loop North of Littlehampton to enable Brighton trains to run straight on to Horsham without having to go into Littlehampton itself. Perhaps it is something that somebody might have a look at.
However, since the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has expressed a particular interest in the Lewes-Uckfield link, he may like to know—in fact, I am pretty sure that he does know from the way he spoke—that the East Sussex County Council have shown some interest in the possibility of reopening the line, and they have been in touch with the Department of the Environment about it. If they consider that the needs of the area justify the reinstatement of the line, then it is open to them to provide the necessary finance. I understand that British Rail would be prepared to undertake the necessary works and provide a service if the funds were forthcoming.
Under the new transport grants system which will be coming into force in April, 1975, it would be open to the county council to include the reinstatement of this line and a subsidy for a service if it seemed certain that that would be required in their comprehensive transport plans upon which the Government's block grant decisions would be taken. If those comprehensive plans and the implied expenditure were accepted for grant purposes, then the capital and revenue costs involved would attract a large measure of central Government financial assistance. But that, as your Lordships will know, is a question for the East Sussex County Council to decide, and I am plainly in no position this evening to say what their view might be. I would suggest—and I rather think that probably the noble Lord already has it in mind—that he might like to pursue this possibility with them.
The noble Lord asked me a question about the Ouse Valley Viaduct. I think I ought to say that the civil engineers are well aware of the viaduct, and I am sure that they examine it regularly. I appreciate the anxiety that he has expressed and I will write to the noble Lord upon it. I do not think I can usefully add any more this evening, but I ought to emphasise that the viaduct is regularly examined and that, so far as I am aware, there is no reason for anxiety. If there were, I am pretty certain that
1312
something would be done about it. However, the matter will be checked and the noble Lord informed.
With regard to the other alternative route—that is, the one via Shoreham and Henfield, I should mention that at the moment this is closed. I think the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, touched on this one as well. Again I should be grateful if the noble Lord would allow me to write to him about it. The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, who, but for the fortunes of fate, might have been dealing with this Question this evening, referred to the letter which he wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot. I think I am right in saying that he gave an indication that the London Rail Study might have a look at that. As I understand it, they are unlikely so to do, because it is a matter that would appear to be rather outside the area with which they are concerned—that is, the London area. I may not understand it too well, but I want to say, in view of the advice I have had, that I would not expect very much to come from it. I think I ought to say that, because if the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, were speaking from this Box this evening, despite what he may have said on an earlier occasion, I am quite sure that that is the advice he would have been given and is what he would have been telling the House.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I am, of course, the first to know that ministerial briefs change from year to year.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I have tried to answer the points raised, or have indicated that will write where I have not been able to give useful information. I trust the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, will be satisfied that he has caused the issue to be thought about again, and in that we have suggested that he pursues this matter actively with the East Sussex County Council he may feel that I have tried to be constructive and helpful in the reply that I have given.

CROUCH HARBOUR BILL [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Order made on the 30th of April last discharged, and Bill committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.