Lords Sitting of 19 November 1974

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayer—Read by the Lord Bishop of Saint Albans.

LORD ALEXANDER OF POTTERHILL
Sir William Picken Alexander, Knight, having been created Baron Alexander of Potterhill, of Paisley in the County of Renfrew, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Heycock and the Lord Boyle of Handsworth.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.

EUROPEAN SECURITY AND CO-OPERATION
2.48 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made at the Geneva discussions representing thirty-five countries regarding the projected European Conference for Security and Co-operation and what their attitude is towards the proposals for an early summit conference.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS): My Lords, progress has been made on some parts of the agenda and differences are being narrowed. But the work of the Conference has been slower than we should have liked, and with our friends and allies we are doing our best to advance matters. We hope that the results of the Conference will be of sufficient content and value to warrant holding its final stage at the highest level.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. May
954
I ask him two supplementary questions? First, has not part of the delay been due to the fact that while one is in favour of freedom of movement and of ideas there has been some opposition on the part of the Eastern delegates? Secondly, have they not now offered freedom of exchange of newspapers, freedom of tourism and freedom of technical visits, and is it not best that freedom of movement and of ideas should grow with increasing trust between the two groups of countries, rather than being made a definitive object at the present moment?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I take that to be one question. There has been some delay in this sphere, as in others. This is an unprecedented Conference in the extent and depth of its examinations, and the delay has been due to the natural reluctance of East and West to plunge into some hasty decisions on matters of this importance. As to the revised proposals which the Russians and others have made in recent weeks or months, they are being very carefully considered and I can assure my noble friend that we shall take every opportunity of building on any concession of that sort.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while again thanking the Minister for that answer, may I ask him what is the conception of Her Majesty's Government? Is this just another Conference, or is it the idea that there should be the creation of some permanent organisations towards seeking co-existence between East and West?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, as I said, this is a Conference without precedent, and we certainly look to the future for a continuing dialogue and therefore, possibly, a continuing machinery.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, is it not very much wiser for Her Majesty's Government not to embark on any summit until the spade-work at the foothills has been adequately completed?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, in less poetic language it is essential that stage 2 should be properly completed before stage 3 reaches the heights mentioned by the noble Lord.
LORD CARADON: My Lords, will my noble friend take into full account the

955
unanimous decisions reached at the conference held last week in Vienna on, I believe, all the questions which are under consideration in Geneva? Also, will he take special account of the fact that strong delegations from all European countries reached unanimous recommendations on all the questions there considered?
LORD GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am aware of this significant conference in which my noble friend played, as usual, a distinguished part. I look forward very much to reading the full accounts of the various reports emanating from that conference.

CATTLE IMPORTS: WELSH PORT DISTURBANCES
LORD LLOYD OF KILGERRAN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to report on the recent disturbances at Holyhead and other Welsh ports in connection with the import of cattle.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, the Government have been keeping a close watch on the situation at those ports in Wales and elsewhere in Great Britain where demonstrations have been staged by farmers in recent weeks. Such demonstrations as have taken place over the last few days have been peaceful and orderly, and have not resulted in any disruption of trade. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has made clear in another place that the Government cannot condone action whereby producers take the law into their own hands, however strongly they may feel.
My Lords, I think we should all be grateful to the police for their restrained handling of these incidents, and I should like to pay a tribute to them.
LORD LLOYD OF KILGERRAN: My Lords, may I take this opportunity to thank the Minister for his Answer in regard to these very important Welsh affairs. While deploring the acts of violence which have taken place, I should
956
like to join with him, if I may, in praising the police for the way they have handled these incidents. However, may I ask the Minister whether the Government—and I fully recognise that, in the Government, he is not responsible for matters of agriculture—realise that this drastic unrest that is taking place among an otherwise peaceful community is due to a desperate situation in which hundreds of farmers in Wales find themselves facing financial ruin?
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, we fully recognise the need for beef producers to have the assurance of a certain level of return. That is fully recognised. My right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture is calling for urgent action at the meeting of the EEC Council of Ministers which is taking place in Brussels to-day. We shall hear the outcome of that discussion shortly.
LORD LLOYD OF KILGERRAN: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for his reply, may I ask him whether he realises that this unrest is entirely due, or largely due, to the insensitivity of the Labour Government towards these marginal hill farmers in Wales?
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, that statement is not accepted.
BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of how consoling it is to hear from the Front Bench that it is necessary to uphold the law?
LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, how does the noble Lord reconcile his statement that he cannot condone the actions of people who take the law into their own hands with the proposal to remove the disabilities from the Clay Cross councillors?
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I suggest that that is quite a different question.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, considering the fact that the noble Lord's right honourable friend gave the undertaking that farmers should receive about £18 per hundredweight for their live animals—and in view of the fact that since that statement the price at auction markets has done nothing but drop—will

957
the noble Lord give an assurance that his right honourable friend really will raise the level of return for beef producers to the point to which he referred, which is really the cause of the disquiet?
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, we are well aware of these difficulties and my right honourable friend is in the middle of negotiations this afternoon. I suggest that we should await the result of those negotiations, perhaps until tomorrow.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House whether he would ask his right honourable friend the Prime Minister if it is not time that this House had a direct representative of the Ministry of Agriculture on the Government Front Bench? Agriculture is now a subject which is constantly under review, causing a great deal of alarm and despondency generally, and it really ought to be represented directly in this House.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, I am sure that in putting that question the noble Earl was casting no reflection upon my noble friend as to the manner in which he answers on behalf of the Government. This is a difficult matter and, as the noble Earl himself will know from his experience of Governments in which he has been a major participant, it is not always possible to have a Minister to represent every Department. I accept that the Ministry of Agriculture is a Department in which this House has a particular interest. I shall not hold out any hope, but I will ensure that the good service that my noble friends have rendered in the past under difficult circumstances continues.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, I do not know whether I have to declare an interest in so far as I farm in Anglesey, but may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that there is great bitterness in Anglesey over what has happened? May I also ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that unless his right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture comes back with some better assurances for my neighbours I regret to say there will be further disturbances? May I further ask the noble Lord whether he would be prepared to
958
suggest to his right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture that, in order to try to deal with these breaches, he might move away from Westminster and Brussels for a while and go to Anglesey to see these farmers?
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, we shall certainly take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, has said. Of course, my right honourable friend the Minister makes frequent visits to all parts of the United Kingdom

IMMIGRATION BILL [H.L.]
LORD AVEBURY: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the Immigration Act 1971. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la.——(Lord Avebury)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
2.59 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (LORD HUGHES): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill is a purely consolidation measure, and applies almost exclusively to Scotland. The Bill consolidates a number of enactments relating to criminal procedure in Scotland. Consolidation of the legislation in this field is long overdue. The provisions on criminal procedure which are consolidated in this Bill are contained in no fewer than 62 Acts and Acts of Adjournal extending as far back as 1587. The Bill repeals and re-enacts in one Statute all or part of these Acts and the consolidation will be of great benefit to the courts and the practitioners of law in the criminal process in Scotland.
If the House gives the Bill a Second Reading, it will be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, which will consider it and in due course make a report to the House. There is no doubt that this is a valuable tidying up of a very important body of legislation, and as such will be welcomed by all concerned with the administration of justice. As I said, it consolidates measures going back

959
for nearly 400 years, so no one can accuse us of having rushed into this with undue haste. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, for having so neatly introduced a Bill of 464 clauses and nine Schedules in a couple of minutes or less. I think we are all grateful to him.
On Question, Bill read 2a and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

ARBITRATION BILL [H.L.]
3.1 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD ELWYN-JONES): My Lords, I beg leave to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill has the merit of brevity. Its broad intention is to enable the United Kingdom to accede to the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, which was prepared in New York as long ago as 1958.
The background against which the Bill is framed is this. Businessmen have traditionally looked to arbitration rather than litigation to resolve their disputes. Arbitration has the advantages of being a speedy, informal and cheap procedure, conducted in privacy, often by an expert in the field in question. The United Kingdom, and in particular London, has long been a major centre for arbitration settlements of disputes arising in international trade.
This pre-eminence has no doubt arisen from the country's position as one of the leading trading nations of the world, and the needs of our exporters and importers to have an independent arbitrator to refer to in cases of dispute with buyers and sellers abroad. In time this requirement has produced, in the United Kingdom, a highly experienced body of professional arbitrators who cover a wide range of activities, including trade and commerce, engineering, insurance, surveying, and so on. Due, no doubt, to their skilled conduct of arbitration procedures, and their
960
fair and equitable judgments, our arbitrators have built up a reputation second to none. Their services are therefore frequently sought, not only by those engaged in trade and commerce in this country, but also by parties in foreign countries.
Clearly, there must be many countries which are unable to provide comparable facilities to those available in the United Kingdom, and often people engaged in trade between two foreign countries may find it easier to agree that any arbitration should be carried out in a third country. Many of these look to the United Kingdom for this service. Your Lordships will readily appreciate that this provides a valuable source of income to those engaged in arbitration, and it brings in substantial amounts of foreign currency. It is clearly in the interests of the country, therefore, to foster and sustain this activity in so far as it lies within the Government's power to do so.
As your Lordships will appreciate, the awards of arbitrators in disputes involving parties in different countries would not be of much use if they were not readily recognised and enforced by courts of law in the countries concerned. The United Kingdom, both because of its wide trading interests and because of its deep involvement in arbitration as such, has taken a full part in promoting international agreements which provide common rules for arbitration and which make arbitration awards and agreements of an international nature more effective by ensuring that they are recognised by contracting States and by obliging courts of law to enforce foreign arbitral awards.
There are two main international agreements which bear on arbitration and to which the United Kingdom is already a party—the Protocol on Arbitration Clauses of 1923 (known as the Geneva Protocol) and the Convention on the Execution of Foreign Arbitral Awards of 1927 (known as the Geneva Convention). These instruments were made rather a long time ago, and though they have worked reasonably well over the years, inevitably certain defects and shortcomings have become apparent. In order to remedy these defects, an international conference, under the auspices of the United Nations, was held in 1958 which resulted in a new Convention, generally known as the New York Convention.

961
I must concede that it has taken a very long time, even by the standards of international Conventions, for the Government to reach the point of proposing accession. There are reasons for this, some of which are more compelling than others. Initially, the Government of the day had certain reservations about the Convention and it was referred by my noble and learned predecessor, Lord Kilmuir, to the Lord Chancellor's Private International Law Committee—the PIL Committee—in 1959. The Committee studied the provisions of the New York Convention very carefully, and in 1961 they produced their report. They concluded that the Convention was an improvement on the 1927 Geneva Convention, and recommended that, with one reservation, it could be accepted by the Government.
In particular, the Committee pointed out that, compared with the earlier Geneva Convention, the New York Convention covered a wider range of agreements and awards. They stressed that it clarified the burden of proof as between a party seeking and a party resisting the enforcement of an award, and made obstruction of an award more difficult. And they emphasised that the New York Convention reduced the risk that the courts of the enforcing country might retry the dispute as a condition of enforcing the award, in order to see if the award was consistent with the principles of their own law.
The reservation of the Committee related to domestic agreements, that is to say, arbitration agreements where both parties and the agreed abitrator reside or are based in the United Kingdom. Interpreted literally, the Convention might appear to require recognition not only of international agreements, but also of purely domestic agreements, and would therefore remove from English and Northern Irish courts the discretionary powers they have under current law to try such a dispute. This discretion (which does not exist in Scots law) is valued in England and Northern Ireland, and the PIL Committee thought that the courts would not wish it to be removed. They also took the view, however, and the Government agree, that it would, in fact, be consistent with the intentions of the Convention if our legislation excluded purely domestic agreements from its provision,
962
so far as English and Northern Irish courts are concerned; and this point is taken care of in Clause 1 of the Bill.
Following the recommendations of the PIL Committee, legal and commercial organisations were consulted by my Department and the then Board of Trade to ascertain their views on the desirability of the United Kingdom acceding to this Convention. This process took a considerable time, but resulted in widespread support for, and no objection to, accession. There was prolonged discussion over the domestic agreement point I have just referred to, and it proved quite difficult to find a definition which was acceptable to all, but eventually this difficulty was overcome, and agreement was reached.
In 1970, my predecessor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, in answer to a Parliamentary Question, declared the then Government's intention to accede to the Convention, subject to Parliamentary approval, as soon as legislative time could be found. Unfortunately—and I do not make this as a Party political point—there was a change of Government shortly after this. The new Administration considered the proposal afresh and sensibly agreed that they, too, would endeavour to pass the necessary legislation as soon as Parliamentary time could be found. As your Lordships know, available time is about the rarest Parliamentary commodity, and it was not in fact until last November that a private Member introduced the Bill in another place. Unhappily, the Bill did not achieve a Second Reading before it was lost on the Dissolution of the Parliament last February. I reintroduced the Bill in this House last July, but it got no further before Parliament was again dissolved in September.
The Bill has thus had a frustrated history. With the passage of time, numerous other countries have acceded to this Convention, and the United Kingdom, which might be expected to take the lead in such matters, is now almost the only major trading nation not to have acceded. There are considerable disadvantages in this situation. Our failure to have acceded not only hampers recognition and enforcement of arbitration awards to the detriment of our trading interests, but it also keeps away from

963
London arbitrations which would otherwise come here and would provide valuable business and foreign exchange. However, we now have the opportunity to put matters right.
The Bill is fairly simple in its intent—that is, to enable the United Kingdom to accede to the New York Convention—but it may be helpful if I briefly describe the purposes of its clauses. Clause 1 describes the conditions under which courts in the United Kingdom are required, by virtue of the Convention, to stay proceedings before them where there is an agreement between the parties that the dispute should be submitted to arbitration. This clause specifically excludes domestic agreements, to meet the point I explained earlier. Clause 2 provides that awards made in countries which are parties to both the Geneva and New York Conventions shall be treated as New York awards—a necessary clarification.
Clause 3 enables awards made in other countries which are parties to the New York Convention (referred to as Convention awards) to be enforced in the United Kingdom in the same way as awards made here. Clause 4 requires persons seeking to enforce Convention awards to provide certain specified evidence to show that the award exists and is a proper award. Clause 5 allows the courts to refuse to enforce a Convention award if it can be proved, by the person against whom the award is made, to be defective in certain respects. Clause 6 is a saving clause which retains the freedom to enforce awards by other methods than under this legislation. Clause 7 provides for interpretation, and Clause 8 for repeals, commencement and the like.
In common with most other countries which have acceded to the Convention, the Government propose that we should take advantage of a reservation permitted by the Convention. This is to confine the recognition and enforcement of awards to those made in other countries which are parties to the Convention. There is no reason why the United King dom should bind itself to enforce awards made in countries which do not similarly bind themselves to enforce British awards. The PIL Committee attached great importance to this principle of reciprocity, and I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is both prudent and sensible.
964
In commending this small but none the less useful and important Bill to your Lordships' House, I believe I can say that it is entirely uncontroversial. The legal and commercial worlds have long advocated, and successive Governments of both colours have accepted, that we should adhere without further delay to the New York Convention. I very much hope, therefore, that your Lordships will give this Bill a swift and favourable passage. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.15 p.m.
LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I do not think I need add very much. I am sure the House would like me to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the lucid exposition he has given us. I confirm that in our view this is non-controversial legislation. I also confirm that we have not exactly rushed into this and that it was on my agenda for the last Session in which I was Lord Chancellor. We were hoping to use private Members' time for the purpose, but when Parliament came to an end that, together with other law reform measures, was frustrated for the time being.
As the noble and learned Lord rightly told the House, the present position as regards foreign awards is governed by the legislation embodying the Protocol of 1923 and the Convention of 1927. I believe that they are both now enshrined in the Act of 1950. There must be—although I put this interrogatively—countries which have ratified those earlier protocols and conventions and which have not yet ratified the New York Convention. I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord to tell us how many there are of these. I should also like to ask the noble and learned Lord to confirm that those protocols and conventions, in so far as they have not been superseded by the New York Convention, are still effective for the purpose of reciprocal enforcement of foreign awards. Subject to that, I think this is something which the House can take in its stride.
3.17 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the support he has intimated will be given to this Bill. I am

965
afraid I cannot answer his question as to the countries which he identified, but I think I can say that we are about the last of the trading countries not to ratify the Convention to which we shall now accede. So, as he said, it is now high time that the matter was put right, and the Bill will achieve that purpose. I will communicate with him about the other matter which he raised.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NATIONAL THEATRE 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 la. and to be printed.

RESERVOIRS BILL [H.L.]
3.18 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (BARONESS BIRK): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Noble Lords will be aware that this is the same Bill which was introduced in the last Session by my late noble friend Lord Garnsworthy, whose work at the Department of Environment I so much admired. The Bill fell at the Dissolution.
It re-enacts and strengthens the Reservoirs (Safety Provisions) Act 1930, and I trust that the new Bill will be welcome. I am sure the whole House will be united in its wish to make effective provision for the safety of reservoirs and for the protection of the public and their property. I am particularly pleased to be associated with this Bill, as I was involved in the legislation on Health and Safety at Work with my noble friend Lord Hughes, which received the Royal Assent earlier this year. Both measures are concerned with improving safety.
Perhaps I may just sketch in the background. Legislation on safety of reservoirs in Great Britain was first introduced following two reservoir failures in 1925—one in Scotland, one in Wales—both of which caused fatalities. In Scotland five
966
people were drowned near Skelmorlie when a reservoir overflowed during a storm and destroyed the dam. This was due to faulty design. In the Welsh disaster, in which 16 lives were lost when the dam collapsed, poor construction was to blame. So the Reservoirs (Safety Provisions) Act 1930 was enacted to prevent further tragedies of this kind. Happily, there have been no further disasters in the United Kingdom since the Act was passed, and here I think it only right to pay tribute to those responsible for the design, construction and maintenance of our reservoirs, for this long period of freedom from accidents.
However, this state of affairs has fortunately not caused complacency among British civil engineers. It is estimated that throughout the world there are 10,000 dams over 45 feet high. During the past 40 years, on average, one such dam has failed every 15 months claiming an average of 50 victims each. One of the worst cases occurred in 1963, at Vajont in Italy, when a landslide fell into a reservoir causing 40 million cubic metres of water to splash over the dam. Nearly 3,000 lives were lost. This ghastly tragedy and other reservoirs disasters abroad during the 1950s and early '60s led the Institution of Civil Engineers to produce their Report on Reservoir Safety in 1966 which made proposals for revision of the 1930 Act. We are, I am sure, grateful to the Institution for this report and the subsequent guidance they have given the Government. The proposals in the new Bill owe a great deal to this report and reflect the long experience which members of the Institution have had in operating the existing legislation.
The safety provisions of the 1930 Act apply to reservoirs which are designed to hold (or are capable of holding) more than 5 million gallons above the level of the adjoining land. The fundamental principle of that Act is that only a qualified civil engineer can provide the professional expertise required to ensure the safety of a reservoir structure. A qualified civil engineer, within the terms of the Act, is an engineer who has been appointed by the Secretary of State, on the advice of a special committee of the Institution, to one of a series of panels specially constituted for the purposes of the Act. Anyone wishing to construct or alter a reservoir of more than 5 million

967
gallons capacity is required to engage a panel engineer and to act on his advice. Secondly, all existing reservoirs above that size have to be inspected at least every 10 years by a panel engineer: and, thirdly, the undertaker must carry out any recommendations made by the engineer, subject to a right of appeal to a referee.
These safety requirements in the 1930 Act have proved in practice to be both desirable and workable. But as the Institution's report shows, experience has brought to light gaps and weaknesses in the Act which could in certain circumstances result in a reservoir constituting a significant threat to public safety. A grave weakness is that there is no adequate provision for ensuring that the Act is complied with. All the Act provides is that a local authority whose area may be affected by an escape of water, or a private person resident in, or with an interest in, property in that area can bring an action in the courts against an undertaker who is failing in his responsibilities under the Act. However, no one has a positive duty here and, if an undertaker chose to behave irresponsibly and then remained unchallenged, a dangerous situation really could develop. Another weakness is that the Act makes no provision for continuous supervision of a reservoir between the 10 years statutory inspections. The undertaker need not have a qualified civil engineer near his reservoir from one inspection to the next. So a structure sound to begin with, exposed to the weather and subject to earth movements for 10 years could deteriorate markedly and even develop major faults in that time.
We have, therefore, thought it right to build on the sound framework of the 1930 Act and improve it by making good the gaps. In preparing this Bill we have had to take account of various considerations. We have, naturally, been conscious throughout of the need to provide adequate protection for the public against reservoir failures. Yet at the same time we have considered very carefully the impact which new measures might have on the costs incurred by the owners of reservoirs and the claims made on skilled manpower. The provisions in the Bill, I believe, carefully reflect these considerations
968
in a practical and balanced way.
My Lords, I turn now to the Bill itself. As I have already said, the Bill strengthens the existing legislation. I shall not, therefore, describe at length those provisions which remain as before, but I will concentrate on the points where the Bill proposes changes, which I believe to be improvements, in the existing legislation. The first and most important addition is the creation of enforcement powers to be exercised by local authorities; in England and Wales the authorities are the county councils and the GLC; in Scotland they are the new regional and island councils. All are referred to collectively in the Bill as the enforcement authorities. Their task is the administrative one of ensuring that undertakers comply with the requirements of the Bill, but in addition they are given reserve powers to act both where an undertaker is in default and, naturally, in an emergency. In such cases, however, the authority must act in accordance with the recommendations of a qualified civil engineer.
Clause 2 of the Bill provides for the enforcement authorities to keep a register of all reservoirs in their area with a capacity of more than 25,000 cubic metres (which is, of course, 5 million gallons rounded up); and this register will be open to public inspection—an important provision. Under the 1930 Act there is no formal provision which ensures that local authorities know of the existence of all reservoirs in their areas.
Clauses 20, 21 and 24 of the Bill ensure that the enforcement authorities receive from reservoir undertakers, and from reservoir engineers, the information which they require to keep the register and to carry out their enforcement responsibilities. Should an enforcement authority find that an undertaker is not complying with the Bill, there are powers allowing it to demand compliance. Clause 8 enables the enforcement authority, in a case where an undertaker has failed to appoint a qualified civil engineer for the construction or alteration of a reservoir, to serve a notice requiring such an engineer to be appointed. Clause 10 gives the enforcement authority similar powers to ensure that a reservoir is inspected as necessary

969
by a qualified civil engineer or, following an inspection, to require the undertaker to carry out any safety measures recommended in the report of a statutory inspection. These powers are supplemented by reserve powers, which are available as a last resort.
If an undertaker ignores a notice from the enforcement authority, Clause 15 enables the authority to appoint an engineer itself, or to have the recommended measures carried out under the supervision of a qualified civil engineer, whom it has appointed, and to recoup the cost from the undertaker. Finally, in an emergency, Clause 16 gives the enforcement authority powers to take immediate action on the advice of a qualified civil engineer, if the undertaker is unwilling or unable to act promptly to protect people or property against an escape of water from a reservoir.
As well as giving these powers to the enforcement authorities, the Bill spells out the circumstances in which undertakers would be liable to prosecution. Under the 1930 Act the court may impose a maximum penalty of £500 for noncompliance. The Bill, however, makes specific infringements a criminal offence incurring, in the more serious cases a maximum fine of £400 on summary conviction or an unlimited fine on indictment. As your Lordships will appreciate, the unlimited fine is in accordance with the customary unfettered discretion of the higher courts in imposing fines. There are examples in the Oil in Navigable Waters Act 1971 and the Merchant Shipping Act 1970.
Another important facet of the Bill is that it strengthens the safeguards in the 1930 Act. There is no doubt that the most crucial period in a reservoir's life is the period after its completion and being filled with water. Then both the dam structure and the surrounding strata are subjected to heavy loadings and any design or construction deficiencies are highly likely to show up at this time. Consequently, Clause 7 provides for a minimum period of three years between the time when a newly constructed or altered reservoir is first filled with water and the time when the construction engineer gives his final certificate, so that there can be no possibility of a final certificate being granted before the behaviour of the filled reservoir has been
970
studied over an adequate period. In addition, Clause 10 provides for the inspection of new reservoirs to be delayed no more than two years from the date of the final certificate.
A further new and important safeguard is the requirement in Clause 12 that all reservoirs should be under the continuous supervision of a qualified civil engineer between statutory inspections. It is true that reservoirs often have devices built into them to measures faults such as leakage or slippage, but it is essential that the information revealed by these mechanisms is interpreted by an expert engineer. No matter how many monitoring devices are available, there is no substitute for the trained human eye, which should be able to detect signs of danger not necessarily sufficiently apparent from routine measurements.
The 1930 Act made no provision for the abandonment of a reservoir, so Clauses 13 and 14 of this Bill set out alternative procedures which ensure that the safety of the public is not put at risk. Under Clause 13 an undertaker who wishes to alter a reservoir to reduce its capacity to 25,000 cubic metres or less must engage a qualified civil engineer for the purpose. Provided the engineer certifies that the necessary alterations have been satisfactorily executed, the reservoir is removed from the register and no longer subject to the requirements of the Bill. Under Clause 14 an undertaker who wishes to abandon the use of a reservoir by emptying it must also engage a qualified civil engineer. If the engineer recommends the carrying out of alterations Clause 13 then applies.
Another change proposed by the Bill lies in the appointment provisions for qualified civil engineers. At present a qualified civil engineer's appointment is for life. So he can be removed by Ministers only if, after consultation with the Committee of the Institution of Civil Engineers, they consider him unfit to remain on the panel; for example, due to age or incompetence. Clause 4 of the Bill provides that appointments be for a fixed term of five years, to enable Ministers to review regularly in consultation with the Committee of the Institution the fitness of candidates for reappointment.
My Lords, I have gone through the main provisions of the Bill and spelt out

971
the main changes proposed by the Government. It is clear that reservoir construction and supervision is a highly technical subject, but this Bill does not concern itself with the details of civil engineering. What it does is to provide the necessary and, I hope, efficient legislative framework within which those who are best fitted to decide on technical matters—that is, the qualified engineers—can operate. Yet at the same time the Bill does nothing which would obstruct vital technological innovation—progress for which our engineers rightly have a worldwide reputation. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Baroness Birk.)
3.34 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, this being my first opportunity to do so, I should like to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, on her new appointment to the Department of the Environment. I am sure that she will find it a most interesting Department in which to work, and I hope very much she will enjoy it as much as I did, for the environment is of such importance and has a lasting impact on our lives. I know that she will be well served by the Department on the many matters on which she will have to speak in this House.
Turning now to the Bill before us, may I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. too, for her explanation of the Bill. If I might just make a general comment, I can think of no more appropriate Bill to consider at this moment, since I believe we have had the wettest autumn on record—at any rate since 1960, if not since records were kept. I should like to thank the noble Baroness for letting me have the notes on the clauses. As they did not reach me until fairly late this morning, I am sure she will forgive me if I have not understood this largely technical Bill as well as I should like to do. No one could quarrel with the principle behind this Bill; it is entirely concerned with safety of reservoirs, both in their construction and in their subsequent maintenance. It is, as I understand it, based on the Act of 1930 which is to be repealed, and on the more recent Report of 1966 on reservoir safety.
The noble Baroness has explained the purpose of the Bill clearly and, as we on
972
this side of the House support it, I do not intend to take up the time of the House by commenting in detail on all the clauses. There are, however, one or two matters that I should like to raise. The first matter arises on the definition given in Clause 1(2) which, as I understand it, extends the definition of a reservoir to include a lake or loch which is artificially made, although there is no intention to use the water in it as a reservoir. Thus someone who has made a lake for recreation or amenity purposes, or simply because the lake enhances the landscape, will be brought within the scope of this Bill. Furthermore, any lake of more than 25,000 cubic metres—which is not a very large lake—will now be defined as a reservoir. I believe that this goes beyond the provisions of the Water Act, and it means the lake will be subject to all the regular inspections under Clause 10, and the monitoring and supervision under Clause 11 of the Bill. The details of the lake or loch would be set out in a public register open for inspection. Members of the public would, if they so wished, be able to bring a prosecution concerning a private lake.
This I can understand, because the reason for introducing this Bill is the real fear of possible damage caused by a flood from a lake or reservoir, and of course the even worse possibility of a landslip. As I said earlier, there can be no dispute at all about the principle behind this Bill. But as the Bill extends the definition of a reservoir to include lakes and lochs not normally covered by that definition, I should like the noble Baroness to let me know whether there is to be any publicity about it. As I understand the provision in one of the later clauses, local authorities must be notified within nine months of the passing of this Bill about any such lakes, and it is therefore necessary that anybody who might need to have information should be able to obtain it.
The second point on this clause is simply a matter for clarification. I understand that a line has been drawn between the Mines and Quarries (Tips) Act 1969 and this Bill, so there will be no overlapping of safety codes. What, then, is the position of an artificial lake created from an old quarry? I saw a number of these when I was a Minister, and I am certain the number will increase as old quarries are used for recreational

973
purposes. Where does the responsibility for safety lie? Is it under the Mines and Quarries (Tips) Act or under this Bill?
Regarding new duties conferred upon local authorities, under Clause 2 this Bill confers new duties on county councils in England and Wales, the Greater London Council and regional and island councils in Scotland, as they are to be the enforcement authorities. While I do not wish to detract from the work of local government—far from it—I always understood that the Water Act 1973 established ten regional water authorities to be responsible for the whole of the water cycle. The provision of public water supplies, which had long been the responsibility of a great many local authorities, was taken away and given to water boards. Now again local government are being given new powers in relation to the safety of reservoirs, and under this Bill the local authorities must keep a register of reservoirs and must enforce the provisions of the Bill, both on the construction of new reservoirs and in the carrying out of regular inspections. What I want to be quite clear about is that there will not be any new difficulties arising on these new duties, and I should like to know what has been the reaction of regional water authorities to these proposed new duties in this Bill and whether they are quite happy about them.
So far as the local authorities themselves are concerned, I find it difficult to believe that there will not need to be any increase in staff. I have read the short paragraph in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum which suggests that the manpower requirement will be insignificant. Of course, everyone hopes and expects that enforcement action on the safety of reservoirs will be infrequent. Nevertheless, how can anyone in local government know that the work of construction has been properly done, or indeed carry out an inspection, unless they have someone qualified to judge? And on such a technical matter as this will that person not have to have of necessity the same qualifications as are set out in Clause 4 for the panel of engineers who will design and construct reservoirs? It seems unlikely that local authorities with their present duties would have such staff, and they will therefore need to employ some extra specialists.
974
This leads me in turn to the cost. I note that any cost that falls on local authorities will be eligible for rate support grant. This of course is welcome, but it will not cover the full cost, and the extra cost will come at a time when local authorities are having the greatest financial difficulties in maintaining the standards of the services they provide at present, let alone taking on any new responsibilities. I cannot help wondering why it was decided to use local authorities in this way. I assume that there has been full consultation with the local authority associations on this matter, and I should be glad to know what their views are.
My Lords, I conclude as I began. We on this side of the House support the principle of this Bill and welcome it. We appreciate the necessity for the improvement of the safety of reservoirs—an improvement which is all the more: urgent as I believe that water will be used not only for reservoirs but also for recreational and amenity purposes increasingly in the coming years. I have asked the noble Baroness a number of questions. I shall understand if she is not able to answer all of them today and perhaps she will write to me on those other points I have raised before we reach the next stage of the Bill. But I would assure her that the principle of the Bill has the support of us on this side of the House.
3.43 p.m.
LORD STOW HILL: My Lords, may I at the outset associate myself with the welcome extended by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, to my noble friend Lady Birk on her new responsibilities. She has begun by a most adequate discharge of them, for which I am sure we are all grateful to her. At the outset may I also express the pleasure with which I listened to the tribute she paid to the work of the late Lord Garnsworthy. The House will agree that he was a loyal friend and servant of this House. I was privileged to work closely with him on many Bills. He was a personal friend of a great many of us over many years.
I cannot pretend to be an expert on reservoirs. The only reason that I venture to make a brief intervention in this debate is that I received a communication from

975
the British Waterways Board suggesting that I might raise one or two points with which they feel concerned. The Bill—a very useful Bill as has been said—is one which clearly will need further examination in Committee on its detailed aspects. However, the Board raised with me one question which they feel—and I agree with them—goes rather more to the root of the Bill and is one which should be raised on Second Reading. It relates to the definition of a reservoir. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, has already asked a number of questions with regard to the scope of that definition. This was the question which was raised with me. As the Bill is worded at the moment could it not be said to extend to the artificial pound of a canal? The artificial pound of a canal is that part of the canal between weirs and lock-gates which has the result of impounding water and raising it above the level of the land surrounding the canal. I am told that in the case of a number of canals the amount of water which might be so impounded would considerably exceed the 25,000 cubic metres referred to in the terms of the Bill.
I can well understand that it is said that everybody knows what a reservoir is when he sees it, just as it has been said that everybody knows an elephant when he sees it, and there is not much point in defining an elephant as a large animal with a trunk and two tusks. But, with great respect to the draftsman of the Bill, in my submission it is not so clear that the pound of a canal to which I have referred could not come within the scope of the word "reservoir". The definition of the word "reservoir" which appears both in the 1930 Act and in this Bill does not, I submit, make clear that a pound of a canal is not within its scope. I believe I am right in thinking that the Government do not intend that a pound should be included. However, they cannot control the interpretation that a court might put upon the word "reservoir" in its context in the Bill, should the matter come before a court.
A court, after all, might be called upon to decide whether in any given case, where, for example, water escaped from the pound of a canal and caused damage to property and possibly even loss of life,
976
a right of damages might not lie against the Board. It is therefore a matter of considerable concern to them. They tell me that if they are to be responsible for the pounds of canals their responsibility in terms of both finance and staff would be very considerably enlarged. For example, in the Macclesfield and Upper Peak Forest Canals there is, so I am told, a pound of some 22 miles in length. They feel that they would not be able to make available the necessary number of qualified civil engineers to do the work of construction, inspection and supervision for which the Bill provides and that it would be necessary for them to receive some further subvention in terms of money and to assemble more staff. It is difficult, of course, to find the necessary number of qualified civil engineers for that purpose.
All I am venturing to suggest at this stage is that I hope that my noble friend will be able to say that she will between now and the Committee stage of the Bill carefully consider with her advisers the language which appears in the Bill in order, if possible, to find some way of making it perfectly clear that the Government's intention to exclude canals is, in fact, carried out by the language of the Bill. I should have thought that possibly a simple way round it might be a simple exclusion in terms: the exclusion of canals, artificial water courses, and so on. However, that is a matter which could be considered and I should be content if when she replies to the debate my noble friend would be so good as to say that she will consider this matter between now and the Committee stage of the Bill. It is of considerable importance to the Board and that is why I have thought it right to raise it on Second Reading.
3.49 p.m.
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, may I first thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and my noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill for their kind remarks to me personally. When the noble Baroness says she found herself lost in the technical detail I must say that in that respect I found myself in the same reservoir. As both the noble Lords raised the question of the definition of a "reservoir" I will try to deal with this point in a little more detail as it is extremely important and basic. As noble Lords are aware, the Bill defines a reservoir as "a reservoir for

977
water as such", so as to make it clear—this is the point which was raised by the noble Baroness—that a mine or quarry lagoon within the meaning of the Mines and Quarries (Tips) Act 1969 is outside the scope of the Bill. This should remove doubts which have arisen regarding the possibility of an overlap between the safety codes of the two Acts of 1930 and 1969. The 1930 Act applies to large reservoirs. This Bill uses the expression "large raised reservoir". That is to make it quite clear that the size of a reservoir is not the sole test of the application of the Bill. A reservoir must also retain water above the level of any adjacent ground in order for the Bill to apply.
I think the noble Baroness raised the point of ornamental lakes; if she did not do so, I expected her to do so, so I shall answer the point! This is a quite interesting and important provision, because there has been some discussion over the question of ornamental lakes, and the Government take the view that the wording used, which is:
"… any place where water is artificially retained to form or enlarge a lake or loch, whether or not use is intended to be made of the water, …"
applies to ornamental lakes. Their owners have complied with the requirements of the 1930 Act and we do not foresee any reason why they should not comply with the requirements of this Act. Nevertheless, the Government are advised that the word "reservoir" does not include an ornamental lake if the nature and purpose of it is entirely different from a reservoir; this point has not yet, of course, been tested in the courts. However, in view of the legal advice which we have received, we have included this specific provision in the Bill. If I may turn to the point of my noble friend——
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Baroness, but perhaps she might get this point clear. I did not mention the words "ornamental lake", although I used the expression that, "a lake is put there to enhance the landscape". Therefore I meant the same kind of thing as this. As I read Clause 1(2), it says:
"… whether or not use is or is intended to be made of the water."
Presumably, therefore, the definition applies to an ornamental lake which is simply an ornamental lake and is not
978
raised, as is a raised reservoir, but is over a given capacity. Therefore it comes within the Act. Is that correct?
BARONESS BIRK: My Lords, as I understand it, that is correct because the point about "raised" is that it gives another extension to the definition. It is not only a question of the size; it applies also if it is raised. If, therefore, it is one or the other, or both, it will still apply. However, when we come to the point of my noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill and when it comes to legal matters, I would rather that we were arguing in unison than that I had to answer his points. The word "reservoir" means, "something which is constructed for the storage of water". Therefore it does not include a canal which is designed as a means of transport. We take the view that a canal is no more a reservoir than is an embanked river. Therefore I can give the noble Lord an assurance that canals are not covered by the Bill any more than they are covered by the 1930 Act. However, the Bill would apply, as does the 1930 Act, to reservoirs used in canal operations.
Having said that, I am very much aware of my noble friend's concern and I can undertake that we shall look again very carefully at this particular point of the definition of a reservoir and take into account what he has stressed so far as canals are concerned, and the canal pound, and I hope that before we return for the Committee stage of the Bill we shall have managed to resolve the apparent differences between us. I do not think I had better go further than that, otherwise I shall get myself into legal depths.
My Lords, on the other points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, she was kind enough to say that if I did not give her all the answers to-day I might write to her. If, therefore, I leave any of her points out I shall go through Hansard and make sure that she receives an answer in writing. The point about publicity is a valid one and I shall certainly take it up within the Department and let her know what plans have already been arranged for it. So far as the enforcement authorities are concerned, I can assure the noble Baroness that the local authorities were consulted about this matter and agreed to it. One of the

979
main reasons for enforcement by local authorities is that when it comes to the question of safety it is far better for the local authorities to be responsible. People have easier access to them; they know where they are. Also it would be wrong, in our view, to have a water authority responsible for the safety of something for which it is concerned rather than the relevant local authority. However, she can rest assured about the question of consultation because this has taken place.
So far as her points regarding extra staff, manpower and cost are concerned, we do not expect that local authorities would have to take on any extra staff in order to carry out their enforcement functions, except in those cases—there are not many of them; South Yorkshire is an example, and there is an area in Scotland which is similar—where there are a large number of reservoirs within their boundaries. Even in such cases one or two extra clerical staff should be sufficient. In the rare case of a local authority having to exercise its reserve or emergency powers—which I described when I was introducing the Bill—the Bill requires the undertakers to reimburse any expenses reasonably incurred by the authority. In addition to that point, if the noble Baroness will look at Clause 2(7) she will see that this provides that rate support grant will be payable for any increase in expenditure by local authorities attributable to the Bill.
My Lords, I have given examples of the way in which the Bill preserves the framework of the 1930 Act. As I have said, the keynote of it is continuity. What is being proposed here is continuity, with additions and improvements. May I say finally to the House that this is not a safety measure hastily put together in the aftermath of a disaster but rather the outcome of a thorough review of the working of existing legislation and also a recognition that, despite the fortunate fact that there have been no disasters here since 1930, we are 44 years on and we feel that it is time that we stepped ahead and precluded, so far as one possibly can, any disaster happening in the future. Although, therefore, I am not suggesting for a moment that there is any cause for alarm, the consequences of a failure could be so disastrous that I am
980
sure noble Lords will agree with me that we should take no chances and that it would be wise to introduce whatever further precautions are recommended by expert opinion which do not place any unreasonable burdens (and I do not think that this Bill does) on reservoir undertakers or, indeed, on local authorities. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will join with me in speeding the Bill through this House.
On Question. Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

SAFETY OF SPORTS GROUNDS BILL [H.L.]
3.59 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is the third occasion within the past year upon which a Bill with this Title has been introduced into this House. A year ago, almost to the day, a broadly similar Bill was read a second time in the House. That Bill duly completed the Committee stage in another place, but was lost when Parliament was dissolved last February. A similar Bill was introduced by me last July, but did not proceed beyond a First Reading for precisely the same reason. I am sure that I can carry with me my predecessor, the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, who unhappily cannot be with us today, in expressing the warmest hope that on this occasion the Bill will proceed on to the Statute Book.
The provisions of the present Bill are substantially the same as those of its predecessors, although it naturally incorporates the improvements made to the original Bill by this House and in another place. The opportunity has also been taken during the intervening months to make certain other improvements, mainly in drafting. The purpose of the Bill is to implement the main recommendations contained in the Report of the Inquiry into Crowd Safety at Sports Grounds. This Report was produced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, who undertook his Inquiry, at the then Government's request, following the tragedy at Ibrox Park football ground, Glasgow, on January 2, 1971. On that occasion,

981
66 people were crushed to death and over 140 were injured on a staircase leading from one of the viewing terraces. When his Report was published in May, 1972, the Government at that time announced their acceptance in principle of Lord Wheatley's recommendations. I think that it would be right to place on record once again an appreciation of the noble and learned Lord's work. His Report is a model of skilful analysis and balanced judgment.
Lord Wheatley had no doubt that present controls over safety at sports grounds were inadequate. He found that the existing voluntary system of certification of grounds introduced by the Football Association laid down no requirements as to the competence of persons who carry out their annual inspections of grounds. Nor were there any guidelines to assist those persons in their assessment of safety standards. He also thought that there was a risk that those engaged in such inspections might be influenced in the standards they applied by their knowledge of the financial slate of the clubs concerned. In addition, Lord Wheatley was convinced that the law also fell short of providing proper and effective control over football grounds as a whole. To take only one example, the building regulations provide for control over stands and structures at football grounds. But such controls relate mainly to buildings and structures and do not apply to open terraces, although it is in these areas, as your Lordships will appreciate, that safety measures are most clearly needed.
Lord Wheatley accordingly concluded that only a specially devised statutory scheme could ensure comprehensive controls at football grounds in the interests of safety. He recommended a statutory licensing control administered by the "top tier" of local authorities. He proposed that these controls should be introduced by stages, the larger or more important grounds being dealt with first. Lord Wheatley also recommended that there should be a right of appeal for the clubs concerned against any decision of the licensing authority.
When the Report was published those bodies mainly concerned, including of course the local authority associations and
982
the football authorities, were consulted about Lord Wheatley's proposals. The football authorities made it clear that they were apprehensive at the financial implications for the clubs. But there was general agreement with the proposals themselves. Lord Wheatley had provided, as a technical appendix to his Report, guidelines to safety standards at football grounds designed to assist the local authorities in their task of enforcement. Detailed consultations were held on these guidelines and, duly amended, they were published by the Home Department last November as a special booklet, Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds. The guide has no statutory force because, as Lord Wheatley recognised, it is important to maintain the maximum flexibility in any system of control to take account of the differing circumstances at individual grounds.
My Lords, flexibility has been one of the principal objectives in the drafting of this Bill. As I have already mentioned. Lord Wheatley recommended that the introduction of any system of control should be phased so that the larger or more important grounds would be dealt with first. The Bill provides accordingly. It is intended that only those grounds in Lord Wheatley's category 1 (mentioned on page 14 of the Report) should be dealt with first. These include the international grounds, the English First and Second Division and the Scottish First Division Clubs—a total of 68. Grounds in categories 2 and 3 will be dealt with later as the need arises. But the full system of control under the Bill will not apply to Lord Wheatley's category 4—those grounds with accommodation for fewer than 10,000 spectators. Although such grounds are not exempt from control altogether, safety here will be secured largely by voluntary action on the part of the club concerned in consultation with the local authority.
I should emphasise that the requirements which a local authority will be able to impose under the Bill must be those which are reasonable in the circumstances of each individual case. Furthermore, there are rights of appeal to the Secretary of State against any requirement of a local authority considered to be unreasonable. The Bill has been designed with football stadia chiefly in view.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, will my noble friend pardon me for one moment? Before passing from that point, he will of course make it clear that the point he was then making was not a recommendation made by Lord Wheatley. That is rather important.
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, my noble friend anticipates the point I shall make later. The Bill has been designed with football stadia chiefly in view. But other stadia can, if necessary, be brought within the system of local authority control under the Bill, as well as places such as racecourses—a point which I know my noble friend raised with the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, on the previous occasion. These are all places where large numbers of spectators may be crowded together in stands. Nothing would be done, however, without full and prior consultation with all those concerned.
My Lords, I now turn to the main provisions of the Bill and discuss them in rather more detail. The first five clauses establish the principal system of control under the Bill. This is the safety certificate, issued by the local authority, which will be required for every sports stadium designated for that purpose by order of the Secretary of State. Although the substance is unchanged, the relevant clauses of the earlier Bill have been re-arranged and re-shaped in the interests of clarity.
Clause 1 empowers the Secretary of State by order to designate any sports stadium having accommodation for more than 10,000 spectators as requiring a safety certificate. A safety certificate, which may be either general or special, is issued by the local authority for the area in which the stadium is situated—the county council in England and Wales and the appropriate regional authority in Scotland. A general safety certificate will be the main continuing form of control and will be issued for an indefinite period in respect of a specified activity or activities regularly taking place at the stadium. A special safety certificate may be issued at the discretion of the local authority for a special event or other circumstances not covered by the general safety certificate. Such an event might be an evangelistic rally, which could call for special arrangements if, for example, seating
984
were provided for the congregation on the playing area.
Clause 2 deals with the contents of safety certificates. The local authority is empowered to include in the certificates such terms and conditions as are necessary to secure a reasonable degree of safety at the stadium. Without prejudice to this general power, the clause requires certificates to contain terms and conditions relating to major matters, such as entrances and exits, means of escape in an emergency, the number, strength and situation of crush barriers, and the maximum number of spectators who may be admitted to the stadium or any part of it. In imposing conditions, local authorities will doubtless follow the principles set out in the Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds. But we envisage that there will be a good deal of consultation between the local authority and the club in the process of drawing up the certificate conditions. One new feature of Clause 2 is subsection (3), under which a local authority is empowered to require records to be kept of attendances and of other matters relating to the maintenance of safety at the ground.
The earlier Bill limited the terms and conditions imposed under a safety certificate to what was necessary to secure a reasonable degree of safety for members of the public. There is some difficulty over this term, however, because it might have excluded, for example, members of supporters' clubs. This problem has now been met by the definition of "spectator" in Clause 16; that is to say, any person occupying accommodation provided for spectators.
Clause 3 sets out the broad procedure to be followed when a local authority receives an application for a safety certificate. It requires them to determine, first, whether an applicant is, in their opinion, a qualified person; that is to say, a person likely to be in a position to prevent contravention of the terms and conditions imposed in the certificate. If so, they are to issue a general safety certificate to him. The issue of a special safety certificate, however, is at the discretion of the local authority because only they can judge whether it is appropriate to issue it.
Clause 4 provides for the amendment, replacement, transfer, surrender and cancellation of safety certificates. Clause 5

985
provides for appeals by interested parties against decisions or requirements of the local authority in connection with safety certificates. Appeals will lie to the Secretary of State. This is a point raised a moment or two ago by my noble friend Lord Wigg, because in this respect we have departed from the proposal of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, that appeals should be heard by a specially constituted tribunal. Apart from the need to avoid creating more special tribunals than necessary, most appeals are likely to be on technical matters and it therefore seems appropriate for appeals in this case to be made to a Minister. But the Secretary of State will have power to set up a formal inquiry along the lines recommended by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, should the need arise.
Clause 10 is an important emergency power. Should a magistrates' court, on the application of a local authority, consider that the risk to spectators at any sports ground is so great that their admission should be prohibited or restricted until remedial action has been taken, the court may make an order accordingly. This power applies to any sports ground whether or not it is required to have a safety certificate. In practice, it is not expected that the power will often need to be exercised. In the case of a small football stadium, for example, not subject (to the designation order procedure, consultations between the local authority and the club concerned are expected to secure the provision of a reasonable standard of safety on, we hope, a voluntary basis.
The Secretary of State is empowered by Clause 14 to extend to classes of sports ground other than sports stadia such provisions of the Bill as are not already expressed to apply to them. For example, it enables the Secretary of State by order to extend the safety certificate procedure to such places as racecourses. Only a class of sports ground may be the subject of an extension order under this clause: an individal sports ground other than a stadium cannot be designated until Clause 1 of the Bill has been applied by an order under Clause 14 to the class of sports ground to which it belongs. Clause 17 provides that all orders and regulations made under the Bill will be subject to the Negative
986
Resolution procedure. It also imposes a duty on the Secretary of State, before making any orders or regulations, including designation orders, to consult with such persons as appear to him requisite.
My Lords, when a very similar Bill was last before the House, a good deal of concern was expressed about the ability of football clubs to meet the costs of the essential improvements likely to be required. The Government are well aware of the financial difficulties faced by many professional clubs—in some cases rather more obvious since the last occasion upon which this Bill was debated—and have therefore been giving most careful thought to this important problem. I must first make this clear. It is a long-established principle that those who, in the course of a commercial enterprise, put the public at risk should themselves bear the cost of any statutory safety measures which thus become necessary. The Government see no reason to depart from this principle in the present case. But while no grants or loans from public funds will be made to the football clubs, we have been considering whether there are other ways in which help may be given.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt him? Would he be good enough to explain the changed policy on the part of the Labour Government? When the Labour Party was in Opposition we divided the House on this very point, rejecting the case that my noble friend is now making which was then put by a Conservative Minister. Would the noble Lord be good enough to explain the thinking which has caused the change, or is it just a change in size?
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, unhappily I did not have the pleasure of being a Member of your Lordship's House on that occasion. Therefore, I can claim at least that on this occasion I have not been inconsistent. I am saying whatever may have been said on the previous occasion, and apart from the issue of principle involved, that in the present public expenditure climate it would be wholly improper to take any other view.
The financial difficulties of the clubs were kept fully in mind in the course of preparing the safety provisions of the Bill. For example, as I have already indicated, power has been taken to implement the

987
Bill by stages so that only the senior clubs and international grounds will be affected by the first designation order. Obviously, the total costs cannot be determined in advance because the state of each ground will be different. Those clubs who have been following the long-standing recommendations of the Football Association on safety precautions at football grounds may be faced with comparatively little expenditure. Local authorities, in any case, may require only what is reasonable in the circumstances of each case, and have discretion to allow any necessary work to be completed by stages, subject to compensating safeguards meanwhile; for example, limitation on numbers, extra stewards and so on. In this way the costs can be spread over a number of years. Finally, there will be a right of appeal to the Secretary of State against any requirements of the local authority thought to be unreasonable, and in considering such appeals the Secretary of State will certainly take the question of costs into account.
Taxation relief should also be of some help to the clubs. The total expenditure on fixed plant and machinery may be offset against taxable income in the first year. This would cover such items as sprinklers, fire alarm systems, floodlighting, removable seating and so on. Moreover, following a Government Amendment at the Report stage of the last Finance Bill in another place, designed to give tax relief in respect of expenditure on structural fire precautions required by fire authorities under Section 5(4) of the Fire Precautions Act 1971, the Government have announced their intention to provide a similar type of relief in respect of expenditure on structural improvements under the Safety of Sports Grounds Bill. The recent reduction in the rate of VAT from 10 per cent. to 8 per cent. will help to reduce the outgoings of the clubs in this respect.
The Government have nevertheless been considering what further means of financial help might be arranged. One possibility might be to extend the law relating to small lotteries in such a way as to make it easier for football clubs to raise funds towards the cost of necessary improvements. Another possibility is a levy on the football pools. Neither solution is ideal, but the levy presents
988
certain additional difficulties, although the Government, at this stage, have not ruled it out of account altogether. We shall announce our decision in this respect as soon as possible.
My Lords, the main provisions in the Bill reflect the Government's desire that the scheme of control which is envisaged should operate flexibly and reasonably having regard to the circumstances of individual clubs, while achieving a degree of safety which will considerably reduce the risk of another disaster of the kind that occurred at Ibrox Park. I commend the Bill to the House and beg to move.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Harris of Greenwich.)
4.18 p.m.
EARL COWLEY: My Lords, may I first put the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, at rest by saying that we on this side of the House hope that this Bill will be "third time lucky". I should also like to thank the noble Lord for explaining the provisions of the Bill with such clarity and in such depth. I feel the whole House will be grateful to the Government and to the noble Lord for reintroducing this Bill so soon after it was lost due to the dissolution of Parliament last February. The House can only be grateful to the Government for providing Parliamentary time to ensure that the excellent work carried out by the noble Lord, Lord Wheatley, and the main recommendations of his Report are not relegated to some dusty archive, to be then forgotten. Such an occurrence would have been lamentable, to say the least.
My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has made clear to to the House, this Bill is almost identical with the one that the last Conservative Government introduced here last November. Although there have been a few minor alterations, they are chiefly to the drafting and presentation of the current Bill. I noted that the term "members of the public" which was in the old Bill, has been dropped, and the term "spectators" used instead. As the House will remember, the term "members of the public" gave rise to a certain amount of debate and confusion as to its scope during the Committee stage of the old Bill. I hope the term "spectators" fares a good deal better and does not suffer the same fate.

989
When our Bill was going through this House, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, has said, the Opposition expressed considerable concern and disapproval of certain provisions in our Bill. One of their main objections was that the Government and my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross had refused to make provision in the Bill for Government financial assistance to be given to those clubs which would need help to implement the conditions that the local authorities might insert into the safety certificates.
Since only some 10 to 12 clubs out of a total of 92 professional Football League clubs in England make a profit, the list of potential applicants could be quite long.
During the Committee stage of the Tory Bill the official Opposition, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, has also said, tried to amend it. They wanted the Government to be required to provide money from public funds for those clubs which have to make the necessary arrangements to comply with certificates for the safety of their grounds. During both the Second Reading debate and in Committee my noble friend made the then Government's policy very clear. We on this side of the House have not changed our minds and continue to support this policy. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has said, if a person wants to run a commercial enterprise and by so doing puts members of the public at risk, he must bear the cost of removing that risk, and the Government or the State should not be required to do it for him. I am glad to see that the provisions of the present Bill and the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, indicate that the Labour Party during its metamorphosis from Opposition to Government has altered its policy and its mind and has come round to our way of thinking on this matter at any rate, and I hope that this will be a good sign for future changes of policy by the Government.
The problems of public safety are not limited merely to football matches. Any form of mass gathering gives rise to problems of crowd control and of public order. Where those problems are not catered for, as has happened sometimes at pop concerts, there can be tragic results. However, it is the football matches, and the hooliganism that too often breaks out on the terraces nd outside the grounds,
990
that tend to receive the most publicity and comment. I am very glad that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is here. On behalf of my noble friends I wish to congratulate him on his gentle chiding of the magistrates' courts and on his encouragement to them to impose tougher penalties on those people found guilty of crimes of violence. Perhaps the noble Lord the Minister could tell the House the results, if any, of any negotiations that might be taking place between the football clubs and the Home Office in an attempt to find a solution for the problem of hooliganism at football matches.
The provisions of the Bill are drafted to cover those stadia with accommodation for more than 10,000 spectators, in others words mainly the large football grounds. The implementation of these provisions will, without doubt, make the thankless task undertaken by the police and other officials at these places easier to perform. As the larger of these stadia, the international grounds and those belonging to the English First and Second Division and the Scottish First Division clubs, will be the first to be subjected to the requirements of the Bill when it becomes law, perhaps when the Minister winds up he will expand and clarify a little more the proposed timetable for bringing the rest of the sports stadia and other sports grounds within the ambit of the proposed Act.
As has been pointed out, Clause 14 gives the Secretary of State very wide powers indeed; he can extend by Order the terms of the Bill when it comes into force to cover other kinds of sports grounds that are not stadia, for example, racecourses and motor racing circuits. While motor racing accidents are, mercifully, rare, especially where they involve spectators, when they do occur such accidents tend to cause widespread injury and even death. However, it is a condition of attending such race meetings that one watches at one's own risk. If the provisions of the Bill were extended to motor racing circuits, as I hope they will be, it could well alter or increase the legal liability of the race organisers and the drivers concerned towards the spectator. One would also have considerably to restrict the movement of spectators around the circuit and consequently possibly their enjoyment. Perhaps the Minister

991
could comment on these points in his winding-up speech.
The financial effects of the Bill are stated to be the same as those of the old Bill that we introduced a year ago. In the current Bill's Financial Memorandum the cost to the local authorities as a whole is estimated at £90,000 for the initial application of the scheme and the annual cost at some £30,000. The costs to Central Government are put at about £20,000, although it is hoped that this would be reduced as the scheme comes into practice. With inflation now running at 17 per cent. per annum, I find it very difficult to believe that the costs of implementing the provisions of the Bill are exactly the same now as they were a year ago. It would be most helpful to the House if the Minister could give a more up-to-date estimate of the total cost of putting this Bill into effect.
I am glad to see that the Government have retained the original appeal procedure in their Bill, under Clause 5, although, as the Miinster said, it is contrary to the recommendation of the Wheatley Report. In paragraph 52 of the Report the noble and learned Lord considered the special appeal tribunal to be a more appropriate instrument to hear appeals. During the Committee stage on our Bill last December, my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross gave three reasons for preferring that the appeal should instead lie to the Secretary of State. The procedure, first of all, would prevent the unnecessary setting up of area tribunals, which, while knowing the local conditions, would be cumbersome to operate. Furthermore, any permanent bodies that might be set up might, on the other hand, have little work to do. While taking one's appeal to the Secretary of State would ensure a uniformity of approach to the various appeals and would produce a more rapid decision. This is still our attitude.
My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House any longer. In conclusion, let me simply say that we on this side of the House welcome this Bill and are pleased that the present Government have decided not only to re-introduce it but also to re-introduce it virtually unchanged. We trust that it will have a speedy and smooth passage through this House, and
992
that it will help to ensure safer conditions for people to watch and enjoy sports in this country.
4.28 p.m.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, a year ago to-morrow this House considered a similar Bill on Second Reading. On that occasion the spokesman for the Labour Party, then in Opposition, was the late Lord Garnsworthy, and I should like to add my voice to other expressions of appreciation of Lord Garnsworthy's service to this House and for his public work generally. He served his native Surrey well over very many years. He was a friendly man and I certainly miss him a great deal, as I am sure does the House as a whole. I will say one other thing. Had he been here to-day, he would have been greatly embarrassed to have listened to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, because, of course, he was the spokesman for the Labour Party on that occasion when it divided the House on the fundamental issue of whether we are a laissez-faire society or a purposive society. That is what it was all about.
When I spoke on Second Reading, I started by saying that I thought this Bill illuminated many of our troubles as a nation. Here is a problem that has cost many lives. Ibrox was not the first one. Sixty-six people died that afternoon. But there was Bolton in 1946. Over the years there have been many occasions when lives have been lost. Nothing has been done about it. It has been left to the clubs; it has been left to the hope that it will not happen again. Of course that is exactly what influences the Labour Government to-day.
When I interrupted my noble friend I was not asking for his personal views as to why he changed. I know perfectly well that he is speaking to a Departmental brief. I know that. I almost know it by heart. I have heard it all before. At one stage I could recite it. I could close my eyes and make the same speech. Indeed, I have a copy here of the Home Office handout, so that I knew the next words that were coming. But here there is a problem. Surely wise men will look at a problem and see how it developed, how it is likely to grow, and then turn matters to their advantage by grappling with it and planning to deal

993
with it, and of course measuring what they can do against their resources.
Before I get too deeply involved, I have to trouble the House with what is almost a personal statement. I spoke on the Local Lotteries Bill, and what I said on the Local Lotteries Bill when I moved, That the Bill be read six months hence, was my own personal opinion influenced by nobody but myself, and that is my view to-day. However, that did not stop that great Conservative newspaper the Daily Telegraph publishing half of two columns to suggest that I was speaking on behalf of the bookmakers, and that my only thoughts were in order to save the bookmakers money. There have been other similar expressions. I have had to threaten one Beaverbrook paper with an action for libel to get a retraction, and there are other matters still pending. I was not saved by the fact that on that occasion I made it clear that I had had a communication from my noble friend Lord Henderson asking me to express views on behalf of the Football Association and the Central Council for Physical Recreation, and that I had received a batch of telegrams from a number of charities who would have been gravely hurt by that Bill if it had become law.
As my noble friend this afternoon once again makes the case that he is going to use lotteries, I shall have to turn back to the subject of finance. Therefore, may I, once and for all, explain my position in relation to where I stand on this matter of betting and gambling, and so on, so that in future, if I am charged with not having declared my interest to the House, I can say, "Look at Hansard for November 19, 1974, at column so and so". So I shall weary the House.
I became a member of the Racecourse Betting Control Board at the invitation of a Conservative Minister of Agriculture. I received no salary, and was very careful, being a Labour Member of Parliament and knowing how our great Press treats Labour Members of Parliament on these issues—I have had further examples recently—I took no expenses. Subsequently, I was appointed a member of the Horserace Totalisator Board. Everybody else got a salary, but I was debarred and, again, I never took a penny of
994
expenses over a period of many years. I was appointed by a Conservative Home Secretary, and my appointment was renewed by a Conservative Home Secretary.
Later I became chairman of the Horserace Betting Levy Board. I received half of what I was receiving before becoming chairman, and later on any increases I received—which always received the maximum publicity—were because other members of statutory boards received increases. So I hope it is clear beyond any shadow of doubt that I declare my interest in this matter. I show how my interest and knowledge have grown and I have tried to act honourably and straightforwardly. If it is necessary, I am quite willing to expose my bank savings to examination. But I speak to-day for nobody but myself, except for those organisations I shall mention. Indeed, it is ironical that when my mind was turning on this point, I received a communication through my noble friend Lord Henderson, from the Football League. The President of the Football League, the noble Lord, Lord Westwood (who has to be away from the House to-day), wrote to my noble friend Lord Henderson to ask him if he would contact me and ask me to speak for the Football League on the lines that the Football League cannot object to this Bill in principle because they are as fundamentally interested in the safety of spectators as anyone. However, the stumbling block is, as always, finance. The clubs just do not know who is going to produce the money to pay for all the alterations which may be necessary. That was from the Football League.
I also received a communication from the Football Association, who again asked me to speak for them. Perhaps I ought to say that never in my life have I received a penny from the Football Association or from the Football League. I have never gone into a football ground except after paying for my own ticket. I have never had a drink or a meal at their expense. On this matter, although I am asked to speak for those bodies, my views are my own.
But I must read what the Football Association say:
"This Bill concerns almost exclusively Football League Clubs and there is no doubt that implementation of the Green Code, in full, would constitute considerable hardship to many Clubs. We share the opinion of the Football

995
League that safety measures are essential, assuming the requirements of the Green Code, although we know that the Bill refers to this as being only a guide there is still the danger that many Authorities, issuing licences, would treat it as a Bible.
"An efficient appeals procedure, possibly outside the control of the Home Office, may help in this respect.
"The other all-important item is the question of the prohibitive costs that could be involved. There is no doubt that if the Government are consistent with the views they expressed, in Opposition"—
What a hope!—
"when this Bill originally came before Parliament, they will assist Clubs in this difficulty."
Then, to cap it all, I have another communication from the Central Council of Physical Recreation. Until he became a Minister, the Minister of Sport was its chairman. It says:
"The Central Council of Physical Recreation, representing the major spectator sports, whilst welcoming the safety aspects of this Bill, feel that there are three points in the Bill which are of major concern:

"(1) Finance: Sport (including Football) is almost entirely without working capital. Certainly, no more than five or six clubs can be expected to make a profit in this financial year. Sport does not make a profit and does not have the funds necessary to carry out the demands of the Bill.

"Both in the July speech made by Mr. Roy Jenkins when the Bill was previously introduced, and at the Committee stage of the Bill during the Conservative Administration last January, it was acknowledged that the cost of the Bill to Sport would have to be examined by the Government.

"As yet, no statement on finance has been issued. There is no doubt that Sport cannot afford to implement this Bill. We need Government help. Perhaps a levy on those who make a profit on Sport, e.g. Bookmakers, Pools Promoters, is the answer.

"(2) Code of Practice: The non-statutory Code of Practice will, we believe, become an obligatory standard, unless local authorities are expressly instructed otherwise by the Government.

"(3) Records Relating to Safety: Records relating to safety are a new concept. We would want to know what is meant by a 'record of safety', what is involved and how it is operated."

It concludes:
"The Government bodies of sport are most concerned that there has been no consultation with them as to the implementation or financing of the Bill. We hope that before the Committee stage, the Home Office will take the opportunity of meeting with the appropriate governing bodies."
996
I must confess that the lack of consultations over these last few months is altogether surprising, because it is perfectly clear that, whether or not it is true, the football clubs, small and large, are extremely worried about what the cost is going to be.
As I came into the House to-day a noble Lord said to me, "I hope we are going to kill this Bill, because if we don't Sheffield United are going out of existence." I think the reason for saying that is that Sheffield United were mentioned in another place, and perhaps by reference in this place, and it would cost them half a million pounds to put their ground in order. I do not know whether or not that figure is accurate, but what we need to start off with is the number of Government Departments which are handling this problem. There was an excellent report in 1968, on football by, I think he is now, Sir Norman Chester. This was drawn up at the behest not of the Home Office but of the then Secretary of State for Education. Among the recommendations were that there should be a grant by the Ministry of Education to football clubs to enable them to be used for purposes other than football. This seems to me to be a starting point. We have a generation now which is so bored with life that it must go around breaking the law—vandalism and all that goes with it. Yet we as a nation do not raise a finger either to help make spectator sport safe or to maintain its integrity; we do not lift a finger—and this is a crime—to provide for participant sports.
I posed a question on the debate on the Queen's Speech, and I put it again: is there any Member of this House who honestly believes that the Soviet Government—or the East German Government for that matter—pour out vast sums of their valuable foreign currency in order to send their athletes round the world to obtain a sackful of gold, silver and bronze medals clearly for the love of doing it? They do it in terms of national prestige. They have the wisdom to see that what I described as the totality of power matters in the modern world. To my mind it is far more important to win the World Cup, or to be present in the World Cup Final, than it is to send a frigate into Simonstown. That is the kind of world in which we live. Without any fear of contradiction I assert that our

997
young people, boys and girls alike, are physically and mentally capable of earning the highest honours in all aspects of sport if they are given the chance. But there are no chances. We let them play in the streets. They are given no opportunities.
We are the only advanced industrial country in the world without a football training centre. Of course, it all adds up to "Where is the money coming from"? The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, is new to this argument, but he falls back on the worn-out argument that in the present economic climate we cannot afford such facilities. We never can afford them. There will always be an economic climate suggesting that this is a waste of money. But let us examine the proposition. In 1964. when I was one of Mr. Wilson's Ministers, I was asked to look at this problem. The total amount of taxation on revenue received in 1964 was of the order of £33 million. To-day it is £233 million. Of course, if the situation were handled intelligently, not as the Chancellor of the Exchequer handled it in the last Budget, but if he used two qualities—brains and guts—the revenue could be much more.
Through the whole of the debate in this House and another place, the figure of £72 million was bandied about as being the amount of money obtained by taxation from football. I have done some sums, I do not guarantee them because I left school at an early age and never got much beyond the multiplication table. But for football I make the figure £85 million—it is certainly not much less. But if there are no football grounds, if they have to close because the Government here pusillanimously, belatedly, have introduced a measure that kills them off, there will not be any revenue. The same applies to football as applies to racing. Vast sums are taken out; so much so that the game is dying on its feet.
I have no faith whatever in Whitehall: certainly not in the Home Office. They would never produce a satisfactory answer to the problems of financing sport. They are concerned only with the social aspect of the problem. The Secretary of State for Education set up the Chester Report; he received the reports to Minister then approaches the Treasury; then nothing happens after that. So you have the Home Office concerned with the social
998
aspects, the Secretary of State for Education concerned about the impact on our national life through the absence of facilities for young people; and you have the Chancellor of the Exchequer looking at it through the narrow blinkers of financial necessity, backed by the Home Office who should be fighting him; and on top of that you have the Secretary of State for the Environment—so, of course nothing results. It is all consultation and no action.
I am happy to tell the House that I have talked to Mr. Hardacre, Secretary of the Football League, and to Mr. Croker. Secretary of the Football Association. I have never got any change out of the Jockey Club, but Nemesis is looking over its shoulder as well. What should happen is that all the major sports in this country, be they concerned only with spectator sports or with those well-meaning people concerned with participant sports, should come together as a prelude to action. I should like the initiative to be taken by the Government. Here is a job perhaps for the Minister for Sport. Together they should sit round the table and hammer out a common policy and then go to the Prime Minister. What we do in this field, I say without any fear of contradiction—and those who want to laugh may do so—is more important and vital to the wellbeing of the British people and for the future of this country than any money that is spent on the defence bill. This is overwhelmingly important because it goes right to the quality of the kind of young people who will grow up to manhood and womanhood and who will run this country in the years to come.
I must say that in the handling of this measure I feel sorry for the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, because he must be aware of what was said on a previous occasion. There is a case here for moving away from laissez-faire, which of course is built deep into the Labour Party's thinking, certainly when it is in Opposition. The need is for purposeful planning as opposed to the Conservative approach—which I will come to in a moment—which was itself pretty weak. The opposition to that philosophy was expressed with vehemence and clarity in both this House and in another place. The present Minister for Sport could not have been clearer on the subject in saying that the Government ought to come in and

999
handle this problem. So far as I am concerned, I do not believe that the Government need put their hands in their pockets very deeply. I reject completely the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that we cannot afford it. All I ask at this stage is that the problem should be examined without blinkers, that it should be looked at squarely in the eyes to see what can be done.
I will describe to the House what I think should happen. First, I do not believe in the weak, lame point which the noble Lord made as set out in the Home Office handout last July: "Perhaps, you know, we might do a little about lotteries". The amount of money you can get from gambling, whatever form it takes, is limited. You can call it X, but if you have it on one purpose you cannot take it off the other. What the Home Office says is, "If Peter is short, we will take it from Paul". A few years later Paul will be in the dumps, so you take it from Peter. In the meantime, all that has been done is to increase the administrative costs. In my judgment, the levy concept has worked its way out. I can understand the opposition that comes from the Treasury to any extension of the levy principle to football, because, as sure as night follows day, if for no other reason you go for football, then on top of that the dogs will want it; and if the dogs have it every other form of sport will want it. So why go to all the administrative trouble, with all the opportunity for evasion? Why not wind up the levy, do it by taxation and then make a grant to a body similar in character to the Arts Council and require each sport in turn to appoint a consultative council? That would be the paramount condition for them to set their own house in order, because the one thing we do not want at any cost is Government-run sport.
I should be horrified at the prospect of the present Home Secretary deciding whether a horse should run five or six furlongs at Epsom. I want none of that. I want each sport to run its own affairs; but it can do it through a consultative council. The Minister for Sport tells me that there is a very effective consultative council being brought into existence for cricket. Each of its members would then make its demands to this body, rather like the Arts Council. There would obviously
1000
have to be a fidelity check because it would be public money; but the purpose for which it was spent, once it was approved, would be left to the sport itself.
It would not be only for the safety of sports grounds: it would be an economy, because what I want to see (and I have said this so many times before) is each of these football grounds not only made safe for the spectators on Saturday afternoons but made into places to which the young can go—community centres—because it is on the football grounds that the heroes of the young live. That is where their heroes are to be found; and the idea, particularly in urban areas, of leaving many of these buildings undeveloped, even if they are used only on a Saturday afternoon, is a crime. Therefore, what I want is a wholehearted approach to the problem. When I say "wholehearted", I mean not only a sympathetic approach but an approach which is vigorous, an approach which has behind it a desire to do something about it.
Let us now turn back for a moment to the record of this Bill. The Ibrox disaster happened in January, 1971. The then Home Secretary, of course behaving like all Home Secretaries down and down to the present one, had one thought in his mind: to get it out of his court quickly. So what did he do? He set up an Inquiry under Lord Wheatley. The next thing was the Report, which came in May, 1972. We went from May, 1972, until the end of 1973 before the Bill saw the light of day. Then, when it came along here, the Bill adopted the Wheatley Report in broad outline; but be it remembered that when the Bill was introduced in this House the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, then speaking from these Benches, tried to get away with it by saying, "Of course, Lord Wheatley recommended that there should be no Government money". It is very interesting that the Conservative spokesman in another place tried exactly the same sort of trick. I interrupted the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, as quickly as I interrupted my noble friend this afternoon when he was trying to get away with it over the appeals, and pointed out that Lord Wheatley did not say that. What Lord Wheatley said was not that the Government should not give any

1001
money but that he went to the Treasury—he did not go to the Ministry; he went to the Treasury—which said what my noble friend said this afternoon. Does my noble friend want to interrupt?
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, I am sure the noble Viscount can look after himself when he returns to the House; but I am bound to tell my noble friend—and I pointed it out to him at the time—that he anticipated a point which I was going to make three minutes later. There is no question of trying to get away with anything.
LORD WIGG: Oh, yes, there is, my Lords. The timing of this Bill, the lack of publicity of this Bill, all points to one sort of thing—the old monkey which walks softly, if I may invert the phrase. All the evidence indicates that the Government hope to get away with this one quietly, because, of course, what they have come up against, I have no doubt whatever—and it is the same as Lord Colville came up against—is the Treasury, and the Treasury said, "Not a penny". This is precisely what happened. What this Bill now amounts to is a charade. It is safety by phases.
The first thing we are going to do after it becomes law is to lay a Statutory Instrument, and, as my noble friend said, we shall have category 1; it will apply. And, of course, as a Home Office handout said last July, it will take several years for anything very much to happen. It will take some time before anything comes out of this. But in the meantime there is the alibi—we have a Bill; it is now out with the local authorities; we hope it will go away. Of course, it is not going to go away; it most certainly is not going to go away. Sooner or later there will be another Ibrox. In all the aspects of our sport we are lagging behind in the provision of facilities. We are not keeping up to date with the march of technology, so that sooner or later there will most certainly be another occasion when disaster will overtake the general public.
The responsibility for this at that point will, of course, rest upon the Home Office—wrongly, to my mind, because the Home Office are only the spokesmen here for a philosophy which is purely linked with the question of £.s.d. Of course there
1002
is a shortage of money; there will always be a shortage of money. But here was an opportunity, occasioned by the Ibrox disaster, to get Lord Wheatley to look at the problem and, having looked at it, to make his recommendations, and then to tackle this problem along the lines not of finding a solution upon only Wheatley lines—and here I pay my tribute to Lord Wheatley, as I did on a previous occasion, for all the effort he put into it—but of using the opportunity to grapple with the whole problem of the financing of sport in order to provide not only safety but adequate facilities for our young people.
It will never be done if it is left to this or that Department with the Treasury acting as long-stop. This needs imagination; and I hope very much that particularly the Football League and the Football Association, who have done me the honour of asking me to be their spokesman this afternoon, will go away and, with all those who are concerned with the government or control of sport, will join together round a table. I hope that they will then hammer out a policy which will not, as it were, then be echoed in this House or in another place, but which will be taken out into the only place where it really matters: to educate public opinion so that there is a clamant demand on the part of the public here that these facilities should be granted, so that at least in one field, the field of sport, Britain can keep its head up.
4.57 p.m.
LORD LYELL: My Lords, I should like to begin by adding my support to the comments that the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, made in tribute to the late Lord Garnsworthy. I am sure that all of us were always impressed by his charm, his kindness and his tact; and I should like to associate myself with the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, in paying tribute to all his work over many years. But I am afraid that from now on I am probably going to differ from the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, because my views have not diverged at all over the last year. I have heard the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, on the radio and in this House, and I have read him many times in the Press; but, nevertheless, my views are the same as they were last year.
Within the last two years we have had two major debates in your Lordships'

1003
House on this subject of crowd safety, not just at the Football League grounds and Rugby grounds but at all grounds, including racecourses and other places. Those debates were brought on by the appalling tragedy at Ibrox in January, 1971, which then gave rise to Lord Wheatley's admirable Report. Useful background information to this Report was, I believe, provided by the Chester Report and the Lang Report on crowd behaviour at football and another Report just on football. Just before the debate exactly a year ago the so-called Green Code came on the scene. This appeared to have force in law in the same way as the Highway Code in the case of the roads, in that here was a code recommending a standard which all the local authorities, the fire authorities, the police and architects, could follow when deciding whether or not a stadium was safe for a particular purpose, be it football, a "pop" festival, hymn singing or anything else which might take place in that sports ground or stadium. But this afternoon I should attempt to confine my remarks to the major grounds owned and operated by clubs of the Football League and the Scottish League.
I believe there are many false ideas which float around in this House and outside as to the state of professional football in England and in Scotland. First, as I think we have heard from all the speakers to-day, only about a dozen of the 130 League clubs in both Scotland and England will make a profit, or anywhere near it, from the paying spectators in this financial year, this season: and I understand that almost all of the 92 clubs in the Football League in England employ full-time professional players, so this is a considerable drain on their finances, particularly in the Third and Fourth Divisions. In the Third and Fourth Divisions particularly the gate receipts—together with the supporters' raffles, lotteries and the like—can only partially cover the expense of paying these players a reasonable wage for their full-time occupation. In Scotland, however, the case is different. Only about one-third of the clubs are full-time and at the end of the season there is to be a big reorganisation of the Scottish League.
The second major fact about professional football in England and Scotland
1004
is the very large transfer fees paid by some of the biggest and wealthiest clubs to the smaller clubs for young players. These transfer fees represent funds which stay in football. They do not disappear into gambling or betting or anything else and they keep alive League football which would otherwise wither and die. It would not exist at all. Sadly, because of the fiscal rules of the United Kingdom, when a major club has a successful season and makes a fair profit, corporation tax is payable and the Inland Revenue collects a very large amount of the gate receipts from that club. However, so long as the club spends the profit on buying one or two new players, the funds will remain in football, and the smaller club which sells some of its players to larger clubs will at least have funds which will allow it to remain in business.
For about 80 clubs in the Football League, I believe that the message pinned up in their board rooms is one of survival. I do not believe that this is the time or the place to discuss our major spectator sport just as it stands, but I think that it is the time and place to point out that all our clubs do not have funds to implement all the innermost details of the Green Code. Personally—and I think I speak for quite a large section of the population—I am opposed to an indiscriminate hand-out of Government funds to all and sundry, for reasons which have been very eloquently explained by the noble Earl, Lord Cowley, and I think that it is a continual policy that, where football clubs or other commercial undertakings seek to entertain the public and to make profits in doing it, it is not necessarily the Government's duty to pay for the safety of the customers. In spite of all the eloquence—we have had nearly half an hour of the noble Lord, Lord Wigg—I still stick to that opinion and I believe that it is the majority opinion in the country and that we should go along with it.
My Lords, the main problems which continue to afflict professional football both in England and Scotland are those of declining attendance and hooliganism. I think that there is probably a link between these two but, where the main problem of safety affects a small club, the police, the local authority and, indeed, the club itself, all have the powers they require to protect the public. The Bill

1005
seeks only to lay down nationally agreed guidelines, whereby clubs which have the good fortune to attract consistently large crowds can be sure that they are taking the correct steps to safeguard those crowds from any foreseeable danger and from their own folly. As I have pointed out many times before—I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, would agree—the stadia do not make the disasters. It is the crowd behaviour which leads to these disasters. One great disaster which took place just within my lifetime was the Bethnal Green disaster, which had nothing to do with a sports ground. I understand that there was a rush of people going down into the Underground at Bethnal Green to sleep during the war and there was a considerable loss of life. This had nothing to do with a sports ground, though it was indeed something to do with a crowd. It was crowd behaviour and had nothing to do with the stairway of the Underground. Nor, necessarily, I believe, in the Ibrox disaster can any blame be attached to the stadium itself. I think that the disaster occurred because of crowd behaviour.
There are several chairmen and secretaries of Football League clubs to whom I have spoken and all of these are reasonably happy with the Bill as it stands. Most of the larger clubs—and I have spoken to both the chairmen and the secretaries of four—have already taken steps to ensure the maximum possible safety of their patrons and have gone far beyond the requirements of the Bill. Some large and influential clubs have problems which prevent them from implementing the Bill's requirements because their stadia or sports grounds lie among houses or factories. Naturally, the clubs cannot have much control or influence over other premises which do not belong to them. Nevertheless, clubs which can afford to pay for improvements are doing so and are going far beyond the provisions of the Bill.
My Lords, finance for ground improvements has to come out of taxed profits under the present fiscal arrangements in the United Kingdom. Therefore, as I have mentioned before, only a handful of clubs in Scotland and England are able to carry out major improvements to their grounds. The remainder of the Football League clubs are repairing their grounds very much on an ad hoc basis,
1006
often through the efforts of volunteers of supporters in the summer and in their spare time. These clubs are particularly anxious about the provisions of the Bill as they have not much idea about the total cost of bringing their grounds up to the standard laid down. It seems fair that the police should say what should be the maximum capacity of a ground when a cup tie is played or when there is a local Derby, particularly when such a match is played at a small ground which may hold up to, say, 15,000 spectators but which attracts on every other occasion in the year a crowd of 4,000 or 5,000 or even less. What I believe should not happen is that small clubs and public funds should be put to expense to cope with an influx of spectators just two, three or four times a year.
At the other end of the scale there are the clubs to which I have spoken. I have not yet had an opportunity of attending many of the games as a paying spectator and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, that it is most important to attend a match and to see what goes on in the crowd because it is not the stadium which will cause the accident; it is the behaviour of the crowd in that stadium which can put people at risk. At the other end of the scale, a few clubs in London, in the great cities of the North and in Scotland attract colossal crowds on most weeks of the season. Last Saturday, one match at Liverpool attracted nearly 57,000 spectators, another in Manchester attracted nearly 56,000 and, indeed, the average attendance at the eleven First Division matches in England was 30,600 people.
The noble Lord, Lord Wigg, mentioned Sheffield United which apparently attracted nearly 21,000 spectators. As he can see, this is below the average; it might be the weather or the attraction of the opposition, I do not know. But I view with concern, not alarm—because half a million pounds is not a very great sum—that clubs can make or lose a quarter of a million pounds in one season, but I see that Sheffield United have problems which do not afflict the three or four clubs to which I have spoken. I take that point. Any other nation in the world, I believe, would be happy and proud to have a record of an average of 30,000 spectators at big games on a Saturday.

1007
But of course large numbers of the public do not——
LORD WIGG: My Lords, I really think that the noble Lord has not informed himself. In undeveloped countries—not countries with the economic strength of this country—crowds of 50,000, 60,000, 80,000 people are quite common and stadia which hold 100,000 spectators are quite commonplace.
LORD LYELL: My Lords, I take the point, but this problem will arise once or twice a season. At Hampden Park in Scotland we can attract a crowd of 134,000 when England come to play, but it does not mean to say that a crowd of that size is attracted every week. I am talking about a common or garden weekend. This is League Football. It is not international football.
LORD WIGG: My Lords, that is precisely what I am talking about. It is a fact—and perhaps I should have brought it out—that at present attendances at English football, apart from major attractions like the match between Liverpool and Everton last week-end, are falling. The clubs are not commercial undertakings, as the noble Lord says. They are nothing of the kind. Not half a dozen of the clubs in this country are financially viable.
LORD LYELL: My Lords, I seek to differ. I believe that that is exactly what these clubs are. I may be wrong but, so far as I can inform myself, 91 of the Football League clubs are limited companies and I believe that they set out to be commercial enterprises. In their company reports and balance sheets, they state: "The business of the company is that of a professional football club." I believe that they set out to make a profit. If they do not make a profit they go into liquidation, as several league clubs have done. But they seek to be profitable. I agree with the noble Lord that attendances might not be all that the clubs would wish. The noble Lord may talk about the undeveloped countries: I should be very grateful to know to which countries he refers, because I am thinking mainly of European countries. Certainly all the European clubs to which I have spoken are very impressed with the way we organise things and with the crowds
1008
that we get—even Western Germany does not have the attendances that we have.
However, crowds of whatever size do not go to stadia just to watch the grass growing or to watch snails racing, and so on. They go to enjoy themselves; they watch football matches to be amused and to find a little variety to enrich their everyday life. Professional football in Britain can provide some of the best entertainment in the world at a reasonable cost. But to provide this entertainment clubs have to get good players and they have to encourage and develop these players so that the teams may be successful. They have to bring their grounds up to a high standard. All this cannot be done on a shoestring. Yet still I have found that clubs are willing and eager to spend considerable sums of money on their grounds, in the interests of the safety and comfort of their supporters. They also have to spend large sums of money on training grounds and on medical facilities for their players.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, has a very fine idea of getting young people coming along to the stadia, but I think he will agree with me that in his main hobby most of the training is done on the gallops, or at least so I understand. Similarly, most of the training in football is done at a stadium or sports complex sometimes up to 10 miles away from the main football stadia. Also, I do not think the existing sports stadia in our great cities could take continual wear and tear from countless teams of young people playing football. I would certainly encourage the further use of playing fields, but that is another question.
We are here dealing with sports grounds, and particularly with professional football. The training facilities happen to be a completely different thing, and whether or not the clubs admit young supporters or members of the public to their training sessions is something which it is up to them to decide. The noble Lord, Lord Wigg, also mentioned that professional footballers are regarded as heroes. To my certain knowledge, particularly in some cities in the North, professional footballers regard it as part of their duty to go to boys' clubs and small schools and teach the boys the better points of football. They encourage them to participate in and enjoy the game—not necessarily to go and watch on a

1009
Saturday afternoon, but actually to play. I think this is far more important.
I have had a look at the accounts of about 12 of the largest football clubs in England, and I am particularly grateful to three clubs which have been most kind in giving their assistance and time. But their funds are limited and from such clubs I have heard of the help given to them very often by pools promoters. It is only right to mention the gratitude which was expressed by the chairman of one major club towards the chairman of a very large pools group for his continued advice and encouragement. I think that if large sums were to be taken from pools revenue, or if the pools funds were to be in any way tapped by the Government, this club—and no doubt others—would not continue to receive the assistance and advice which is at present given.
In conclusion, may I say that the Bill seems to represent a code of practice for the clubs whereby they can carry out such improvement to their grounds as they see fit, and to fulfil particular needs where necessary. I do not think that a tax on the pools promoters should be looked upon as the ultimate salvation. I do not think that the arguments applicable to racing and the injections of public money into the industry can also apply to professional football, since bloodstock and young professional footballers are two separate commodities. However, I would seek to add my support to the Bill and to wish it a very swift onward passage.
5.15 p.m.
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: My Lords, may I first associate myself and my colleagues with everything that has been said about the late Lord Garns-worthy. He was mentioned earlier, and it is only fitting that he should be mentioned in this debate since, as my noble friend Lord Wigg pointed out, the late Lord Garnsworthy led the Opposition on the occasion of our last debate. Although I had the pleasure of knowing the noble Lord for only a short time, I have realised in what high regard he was held by Members on both sides of your Lordships' House.
May I now briefly refer to a number of points made during the debate. First of all, the noble Earl, Lord Cowley, raised the point of hooliganism. He may
1010
well recall that after the disturbances in March this year at a match between Newcastle and Nottingham Forest, my honourable friend the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment, set up a Working Party which has met on a number of occasions. It has made several recommendations already. The Working Party consists, apart from Government representatives, of representatives of the Football Association, the Football League and the Sports Council.
One of the earlier recommendations that it made was that movement on the terraces should be restricted as far as possible, which is obviously a desirable proposition. This has already been implemented by a number of clubs. Additionally, it turned its attention in September to the problem of hooliganism on trains on their way to football matches and has had a meeting with British Rail and the Association of British Travel Agents, as a result of which further recommendations were made. This process is continuing.
Secondly, the noble Earl raised the question of the Bill's timetable. Obviously, it is very difficult for me to give a complete answer to-day, because it depends to some extent on the progress made by the Bill in its passage through Parliament. However, in view of the matters with which it is concerned the Government are anxious that the Bill should proceed as rapidly as possible because nobody wants to run the risk of another Ibrox Park disaster. Thirdly, on the question of cost, the noble Earl will be as surprised as I was to find that there is no need to amend the cost estimates made in the Bill. The figures are as set out and we know of no reason to change them.
Perhaps I might now turn to the last speech, which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, before I deal with what was said by my noble friend Lord Wigg. The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, referred to the problem of the smaller clubs and indeed, as he recognised, this is one of the reasons why we decided to make an order of priorities, with first and second division clubs first, with the Scottish first division and with the big international rugby stadia. The noble Lord also pointed out something which is true and which should be recognised—to some extent my noble friend Lord Wigg

1011
touched on this point, also—that a number of the larger clubs have already made such improvements to their grounds as would obviate the need for further improvements. Many of them have already probably taken adequate steps to put their grounds into good shape and therefore their costs should be fairly limited.
Turning now to what my noble friend Lord Wigg said, he accused the Government of being rather in favour of adopting a laissez-faire philosophy on this question, because we were not enthusiastic about making public monies available. No doubt we shall be discussing this matter on another occasion. However, I would say that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has found it necessary, because of the character of the economic situation, to impose very substantial curbs on public expenditure. The reason for this is that, as was said in the Election Manifesto of the Party which now forms the Government, we are confronted with the most serious economic crisis since 1945, and indeed some might argue that this is an understatement. What I should like to say to my noble friend is this. At a time when the Government are having to impose sharp curbs on public expenditure—to take two examples, in health and in the field of education—it seems to me that it is remarkably difficult to believe that this is the appropriate moment to decide to subsidise football grounds which have to be brought into such a state that they can safeguard spectators. Whatever the view of the principle may be, it appears to me wholly impossible to justify a situation where—at a time, I repeat, when we are having to cut back in critically important areas of public expenditure—we can make open-ended subsidies to football clubs. That is why the Government have taken the view that they have taken, and I would not hold out any hope whatever that we can change our position in this matter.
My noble friend raised the question of consultation, and felt that there had been inadequate consultation. I am advised that officials in my Department have explained to the Football Association and to the Football League that so far as the Guide to the Safety of Sports Grounds, to which I referred in my
1012
speech, is concerned, we are more than ready to discuss at any time with their representatives any amendment which the football authorities might wish to suggest. That offer has been made in the past and I repeat it to-day. We are open to any approach which they may wish to make to us. My noble friend appeared to suggest that we have not been very enthusiastic about publicising our proposals so far as this Bill is concerned. I have before me a substantial Press notice issued by the Home Office on November 7. It appears, with respect to my noble friend, a weighty document. I do not know what degree of publicity it has received in the newspapers.
LORD WIGG: None.
LORD HARRIS OF GREENWICH: No doubt one of the reasons for that is that the same Bill was published on two previous occasions within a period of 12 months and I might suggest, as a former journalist, that it appears to me to be more than an adequate explanation as to why it did not receive the same degree of publicity on this occasion. All I can say to the House is that we probably all agree that we are extremely anxious to avoid a repetition of the tragedy which we had at Ibrox Park. We recognise that there will be difficulties so far as the football authorities are concerned in making a number of the changes to the grounds which are necessary in order to ensure the safety of spectators. However, I am sure that, notwithstanding those difficulties, we all wish to ensure that this Bill goes forward on to the Statute Book as rapidly as possible so that we can guarantee to people who go to football grounds on Saturday afternoons the degree of safety to which they are entitled.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
First Report from the Select Committee made, and to be printed.
BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL
Examiners Certificate that no further Standing Order is applicable: Ordered to lie on the Table.