Lords Sitting of 19 February 1976

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford.
The Lord Manton—Took the Oath.

TYNESIDE EMPLOYMENT AND SAUDI CONTRACT
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is still their policy to support employment for Tyneside and if so why, when a contract was ready for signature for the building of a university in Saudi Arabia, which would have given employment to a Tyneside engineering firm, it was interfered with in such a way as to send the contract to the USA.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, it remains the policy of Her Majesty's Government to support employment for Tyneside. It is an overstatement to say that a contract for the building of the university was ready for signature at the time when the Government initiated the formation of a team to make proposals for the implementation of the whole project; the project was then still at an early stage. The Government's action was taken in response to approaches from several United Kingdom firms, including the one for which the Tyneside firm had done some initial planning work for the project. Eventually, the Saudi authorities decided to hold a limited competition between three selected firms of architects. An American firm won the contract for the design and construction management of the university. I am glad to say that a British firm of architects is associated with them.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, I thank
566
the noble Lord for that rather unsatisfactory Answer. Is the noble Lord aware that an official flew out to Saudi Arabia with the contract for signature? I have all the papers in my hands. Is the noble Lord aware that we in the North of England shall not be satisfied until we really know who interfered with this contract and why this interference took place? Is the noble Lord also aware that a letter which I received from Mr. Clinton Davis did not give any information at all, and that there is a real feeling that somewhere bribery took place? I accept, of course, that all sides of the House are in favour of maintaining employment in all areas in which there is unemployment. Will the noble Lord ask the Prime Minister whether he will initiate a proper inquiry, so that those who are concerned can see what happened and who offered bribes in connection with this contract?
Lord WJNTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I led that delegation, so perhaps I am as well informed about it as anyone. There was no interference at any point. Her Majesty's Government made proposals. At the end of the day, the Saudi Government made their decision, and I am not here to speak for the Saudi Government.

AIRLINES AND PASSENGER OVERBOOKING
3.9 p.m.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: 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, in view of the reply given on 24th June last to the question on airlines and passenger overbooking (Col. 1274), they are now in a position to announce the date on which they expect to receive the report on the working of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 of the Interdepartmental Committee under the chairmanship of the Director General of Fair Trading; and whether it is intended that action on the overbooking problem with relation to section 14(1) of the Act will be taken prior to consideration of this report.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the Committee hopes to make its final

567
report to my right honourable friend in the course of the summer. It is only sensible for the Government to see what changes, if any, are proposed in Section 14 and how these affect airline practice on overbooking. In the meantime the Civil Aviation Authority hopes to have its scheme for the compensation of offloaded passengers in operation by the summer. This scheme is intended to cover off-loading, whether as a result of overbooking policy or otherwise.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that that seems to be a contradiction in timing? If I understood him correctly, he said that the report was expected in the early summer. Does that mean before the Director General leaves his present position at the end of May? That is the first point. Secondly, as the report was to consider the Trade Descriptions Act, including the working of Section 14(1), did he just tell us that, irrespective of what might be in that report, the Civil Aviation Authority proposes to continue with a scheme dealing with the overbooking of passengers on which consideration was to he given in the report which has been demanded?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, as I understand the noble Baroness, what I was trying to say politely to the second half of her question was, "No. "
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, I do not know whether the Minister recalls what was said, at column 1275 of the Official Report, on 24th June 1975, but the Minister replying to me said that it was hoped that when this report was published
" the Committee will publish a consultative document, and at that point any interested parties can make representations. "
Do we now understand that the report will not be submitted as a consultative document, and that interested organisations will not be able to make any representations before decisions are taken?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the noble Baroness goes back a long time. I cannot improve upon, or add to, the reply given to the noble Baroness by my noble friend the Leader of the House on 3rd February.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: Well, my Lords, I should like to come back to 3rd February, which is not going quite so far back as 24th June. I should like to ask my noble friend—I do not know whether he has it there—whether he is aware that at column 1282 my noble friend the Leader of the House told us that he had no doubt that airlines would be seeking to make some changes in their terms, and he went on to speak about the small print? Do I understand that the small print, and the changing of the terms, will be undertaken, first, before this report has been published; and, secondly, before interested organisations have had a chance to comment?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I cannot answer for interested organisations. But I feel that the noble Baroness has some up-to-date information on this subject, and I suggest that that is as far as I can go today.

EAST TIMOR: UN RESOLUTION
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 further action the British Representative on the United Nations Security Council proposes to implement the resolution of 22nd December calling for the withdrawal of Indonesian troops from East Timor.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, as requested in the Security Council resolution, adopted unanimously under United Kingdom chairmanship, the United Nations Secretary General despatched a special representative, Dr. Guicciardi, to East Timor. He has now left the area, and his report is expected shortly. The Secretary General is soon thereafter to submit recommendations to the Council. Our further action will be decided in the light of the report and the recommendations.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, does this not illustrate the tragic weakness of the United Nations in its present form? Is it not the case that there has been outright aggression by Indonesia on this

569
territory, contrary to the decision of the Security Council, and that the envoy appointed by the Secretary General was not able to reach part of the area? Is it not time that the United Nations was given some power to carry out the decisions which it reaches?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the United Nations enjoys, and will enjoy, the power given to it by its own members. I should have thought that this procedure, whereby a united Security Council instructed the Secretary General to inquire into the facts of the situation, which has now been done, with a report to him, and to make recommendations to the Council, was the right procedure to adopt. We shall see, in the light of the report and the recommendations which may be made by the Secretary General, what will be our attitude and the attitude of other members of the Security Council. I would hope that we would not be asked to propose any procedure which might cut across the procedure unanimously adopted by the Security Council, at least until that procedure has had a chance to work to its full fruition.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while appreciating that reply, may I ask my noble friend whether it is the case that the United Nations envoy to Timor was prevented by Indonesian forces from reaching part of the territory to carry out his fact-finding commission, and does this not illustrate that the United Nations should have some more power to carry out its own decisions?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I think it would need some time to ascertain precisely why the envoy was not able to cover all the ground that he hoped to cover during his visit to East Timor. For instance, it is known that the Australian authorities found themselves unable, on grounds of safety, to make an aircraft available to him. After all, the situation on the ground was one of great danger. Dr. Guicciardi was in fact able to consult a wide range of representative opinion, including sympathisers of Fretilin, who in turn included Dr. Horter, the Minister for External Relations and Information on the Fretilin side.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, the noble Lord has observed
570
that the power of the United Nations is limited by the power which its members give it, and since its members have had the wit not to give it any power it is necessarily futile on all these occasions. Why do we waste money on these antics?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I think it goes a little too far to say that the efforts of the United Nations, particularly of those members of it which consciously and assiduously support its original intentions, should be abruptly ceased. It is precisely because the World Authority encounters these difficulties that countries like ours—and there are many others in the world, still members of the UN—should remain there and do their utmost to get the United Nations to be an effective World Authority.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that the United Nations Force is the only one in existence in the world which is battling for peace? Certainly we on this side of the House would always support any action of the United Nations which moved towards a peaceful settlement rather than aggression.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, it is not perhaps the only international organisation battling for peace; but I join the noble Baroness wholeheartedly in saying that the purpose of the United Nations, and certainly the purpose of countries like, ours, who remain active members of it, is peace and stability in our world.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether, when we talk about the power of the Security Council and the power of the United Nations, it means that whenever the Security Council reaches a unanimous decision we go to war with a country?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Of course it does not, my Lords. It means that we strive to get an effective consensus within the World Authority, and certainly within the Security Council, to follow correct and effective procedures whenever the peace of the world seems to be threatened. In this particular case, the case of the East Timor situation, the Security Council, under the leadership of

571
the United Kingdom, has adopted exactly the right procedure.

EXOCET AND ARMS PURCHASES
3.19 p.m.
Lord ORR-EWING: 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 is likely to be the overall cost to Britain of the French missile Exocet and to what extent the cost will be offset by French purchases of United Kingdom arms as agreed under the Carrington Memorandum of Understanding.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I have nothing to add to the Answer given to the noble Lord on 3rd December 1975.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, is it not a fact that Britain was the first country to place an order for this surface-to-surface missile? Is it not equally true that by spending upwards of £150 million we have financed much of the development and production of this missile, which has now been sold to 14 other nations? Is it not time that France—this refers to the second part of the Question—now honoured the Carrington Agreement and placed orders for some of the admirable missiles and other armaments which we are able to offer NATO? If this is not done, will they not have abrogated a solemnly entered into agreement and contract?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the Exocet agreement, which is still in process of negotiation, will he negotiated within the terms of the 1973 Carrington Memorandum. The financial arrangements of the purchase include the provision that United Kingdom contractors should receive orders for the supply of components that would at least compensate the United Kingdom in full for its expenditure on this weapon. If the agreed level of offset is not reached, any shortfall will be taken into account under the 1973 Memorandum of Reciprocity in defence equipment purchases. Under that agreement, up to September 1975, the balance was in favour of this country.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, is it not a fact that the possible production in common of weapons comparable to the French Exocet will not be contemplated in the framework of the recently constituted Armaments Procurement Agency, to which, as I understand it, the French are now happily a party?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, one hopes that the creation of this organisation will facilitate balancing arrangements such as those mentioned.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, does my noble friend consider that the suggestion that the French have not kept their word in order to serve French interests is a wanton attack on one of our Community partners?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the noble Lord was merely asking for clarification. There was no question of an attack on our relationship with France.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, will the noble Lord be a little more forthcoming? He did not mention the cost, but he must have a rough estimate—say, £150 million? It has escalated enormously and it has been delayed; we had hoped that it would be available long before this.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, as the noble Lord is aware, it is the principle not to inform anyone of the actual cost of projects such as these.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, in that case, perhaps the noble Lord can tell us what were the financial and technical considerations which led the Government to order this missile in preference to anything produced in this country?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, it was a suitable weapon available at the time.
Several Noble Lords: Who ordered it?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given to the Lord Kirkhill to advance the Second

573
Reading of the Education (Scotland) Bill from Thursday the 4th to Tuesday the 2nd of March.—(Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

MAPLIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (DISSOLUTION) BILL [H.L.]
3.23 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Stedman.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD CHAMPION in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Transfer of property and dissolution of Maplin Development Authority]:
On Question, Whether Clause 1 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness YOUNG: It is not my intention to speak at any length on this Bill, but I cannot let the opportunity slip by without putting on record the very strong representations which have been made to me since we had the Second Reading debate on this matter. I recognise that the Bill before us is a very short Bill with a quite specific purpose, but the fact is that the general issue of a third London Airport is a matter of enormous public interest, and although it might appear to be outside the terms of the Bill immediately before us, nevertheless the Bill is part of the whole of the airports' strategy and policy.
What appears to be happening is that there will not be another London airport, but there will be quite considerable growth at Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton and Stansted without there being any opportunity to debate the matter and without there being any recognised policy statement on it; and I am taking this opportunity to raise it at this time because it is one of the few opportunities given to us at all. The objections to this overall policy have come in particular from the Town and Country Planning Association,
574
a much respected organisation which, I am bound to say, was extensively quoted in support of the Community Land Act when that matter was going through this House. I hope, therefore, because the Government were so glad of its support and very much supported the recommendations it made, they will consider with some care some of the points that it has raised on this general policy document, which has come in fact from the Department of Trade, on an airports' strategy for Great Britain.
I should like just to touch on two particular points which have to do with planning and the environment. The first concerns population growth round the airports. The population statistics are set out clearly, and paragraph 5(5) of the Report makes the statement that there are approximately 1,000 to 2,000 employees for each 1 million passengers going through an airport. I believe these figures to be quite incorrect. The latest published figures show that at Heathrow there are 2,500 employees per 1 million passengers going through that airport each year. Whether or not that figure is correct, on the forward estimates it seems to show that there will be only 400 employees per 1 million passengers up to the year1990. It is really stretching the incredulity of anybody to imagine that the productivity of each employee can rise six-fold in the intervening years. I think one needs to look with great care at the population projections round the four airports.
Looking again at the same paragraph, for each 1,000 employees it is estimated that there will be at least 600 jobs created by way of service industries around the airports. I believe that this too is a gross underestimate of what could happen; because it would mean in effect the addition of 12,000 service jobs at Gatwick when there will be eventually 20,000 extra employees, and yet the total population is put at about 45,000. At Stansted, where the same ratio of direct employment to local service work would produce over 20,000 additional workers of both kinds, the corresponding air supported population growth—to include the families of both local service workers and airport employees—is put at upwards of 20,000 within a radius of ten miles. At Heathrow the additional labour demand, including the off-airport service workers, would be over twice the 1973 total of employment

575
among 1 million workers living within a 30 minute journey of Heathrow.
The fact is that, looking further in the Report, a much more realistic estimate is made. In paragraph 8(16), every 1,000 workers at a large international airport could be regarded as supporting a total population of 4,000 or more. Taking that as being the more correct one, the proposed developments would support a population increase of 54,000 at Heathrow, 43,000 at Gatwick, 50,000 at Stansted and 20,000 at Luton.
I have raised this point because the figures themselves indicate the magnitude of the change we are talking about. Even if both sets of figures are marginally wrong, there is enough in this for it to be of major planning concern. This first point to which I wish to draw the Government's intention concerns what is becoming planning by stealth by allowing an enormous amount of growth at four airports without there being any real discussion.
I was very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, for writing so fully to me after the last debate. The second point I should like to raise is one she confirmed about statutory planning procedures for growth round the airports. She has said that in fact the growth which will come within the perimeters of the airports will be subject to the General Development Order of 1973 and, as such, will not be subject to the statutory planning procedures, and there will be no right of a public inquiry or objection. Most of this development will come within those perimeters and will be outside the normal planning procedures. She said in her letter:
" The British Airports Authority have in fact undertaken to consult the local authorities on all proposed developments which they could carry out under the General Development Order, even though there is no statutory requirement for them to do so ".
This is all very well; but, as anybody knows who knows anything about planning at all, it is easy to consult people and, having consulted them, not pay the slightest attention to any objections which are made. For an objector what matters is the right to make an objection at a public inquiry where the whole matter can be fully debated. None of these people is going to have that opportunity.
576
My two concerns are as follows: First, the enormous growth of these airports. This is leaving aside matters such as aeroplanes, noise and access roads. I am concerned about what will be required to support the population projections which are looked for. The second concern is that almost no one round those airports is going to have the right to a public inquiry and the normal planning procedures. If I am right in my interpretation, this seems a major matter of policy. It means—as the Town and Country Planning Association has pointed out—that we are going back to the assumption that Stansted is going to be the new third London Airport. If this is the case, then the Government owe the public a duty to say so. They ought not to pretend, by a series of rather small Bills and reports, to try to deceive a great many people. I do not think that those people will be taken in; and they have the right to know what the government propose for the areas in which they live.
Baroness STEDMAN: The noble Baroness has ranged somewhat outside the scope of the Bill. I had hoped that at the earlier stage she and noble Lords opposite had accepted my assurance that there would be a full debate in your Lordships' House on the document on airport strategy for Great Britain. I would have thought her speech this afternoon was more relevant to that discussion, when it takes place, than to the business before us this afternoon. Some of the arguments we have heard were premature in that respect.
I do not think any noble Lord has the right to assume that the Government by backdoor stealth have decided that Stansted is to be the third London Airport. This is still a matter for consultation; it is still a matter for decision of both Houses of Parliament. I hope that noble Lords will accept the assurances that we will have that full debate and will be able to go into considerable detail, not only into the points which the noble Baroness has raised this afternoon, but many others which will be raised as a result of the discussions and consultations on this lengthy document.
The Town and Country Planning Association is a little wary at the moment as to what might happen; no doubt it will make its views known to the Department. Up to this moment it has not

577
done so. There will be consultations with the Association and with the Department of Trade when we are discussing the future of the airports of this country. There will be ample opportunity for fuller debate. I am sorry that the noble Baroness has not completely accepted the assurances I gave her in my letter. In that, following the quotation which she read, I pointed out that it was also open to the Secretary of State for the Environment, on his own initiative or at the request of the local authority, to direct that any proposed development otherwise permitted under the General Development Order, should also be subject to the normal planning procedures. I will certainly make the views of the noble Baroness known to my right honourable friend; but I hope those views will not prevent this Bill from going further forward this afternoon.
Baroness YOUNG: It is not my intention to hold up the passage of this Bill; but I do not feel that was a satisfactory answer. Regarding the Town and Country Planning Association, I hope the Department of the Environment will take the opportunity to discuss this matter with the Association. One of the most disqueting features of these proposals is that the document comes from the Department of Industry and not from the Department of the Environment. Many people are extremely concerned that in all this the environment is completely forgotten, that a great deal of good agricultural land will be used up and a great deal of planning will take place without the consent of the people.
I did not read out the rest of the letter that the noble Baroness sent me. This was not because I did not consider it important, but because I do not believe even the assurance that her right honourable friend the Secretary of State would look at this matter is really good enough. At the end of the day, what matters is whether the individual can object. It is the individual who is going to be affected—the individual living near one of these airports—not the Secretary of State, not the Government, not myself. A great many other people are going to be affected. They should have this right; but they do not have that unless the Secretary of State cares to confer it upon them. They ought to have it as a statutory right. The public ought to be far
578
more fully informed than we have heard so far as to what is going on.
Baroness STEDMAN: Will the noble Baroness accept my assurance that I will ask my colleagues in the Department of the Environment if they will have consultations with the Town and Country Planning Association off their own bat? We are particularly concerned about the environment and will do our best to see that environmental views and the views of the Department of Trade are put forward with equal force.
Baroness YOUNG: I accept that assurance, and I am glad to hear it.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Remaining clauses and Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without Amendment.
Report received.

PAROCHIAL RECORDS BILL [H.L.]
3.38 p.m.
Lord TEVIOT: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I must declare an interest as I sometimes obtain fees for searching parochial records. In order to put in a nutshell what this Bill is about, I must reiterate its Long Title:
" A Bill entituled an Act to provide for the better custody and preservation of parochial registers and records and to amend the provisions of the Parochial Registers Act of 1812 ".
The parochial registers are registers of baptisms, marriages and burials dating in some cases back to 1538. Parochial records consist of a variety of matters dating from the time when an ecclesiastical parish was not just a religious unit but more of a unit of local government. It controlled the Poor Law, the maintenance of highways, pest control and it was responsible for keeping law and order.
Both the parish registers and records are unique documents and comprise very much part of our national heritage. Some of your Lordships may recall the interesting Unstarred Question which was dealt with in your Lordships' House in 1971, thus breaking a silence on this subject that had lasted for many years. I am pleased to see that some of your Lordships who took part in that debate are

579
also taking part this afternoon, and they have been joined by other noble Lords and by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford who will be representing the point of view of the Church of England. The Church in Wales cannot be represented here, unfortunately, but I have a letter stating the opinion of their Bench of Bishops and I shall be referring to this later.
These registers and records are used by genealogists and people seeking to compile their family history; but not solely so, as is often thought to be the case. To give a few examples, there are some elderly people who are trying to establish their entitlement to a pension and are unable to find their birth certificate because their parents failed to register their birth with a district registrar. Therefore a baptismal certificate has to be produced instead. Similar problems arise in other cases. For instance, it is becoming increasingly common in connection with our immigration laws, when persons try to trace the baptismal certificates of either their parents or grandparents, particularly in cases where they were born before July 1837, when registration began—that being then the only record. There was a recent example of a council housing programme which involved the title to land in which a 200-year lease had just expired and the heir to the reversion had to be traced through parish registers. Other parallel needs arise in the case of intestacy. There is also a useful academic value attaching to parish records for economic historians, demographers and biographers. Statistics of population trends, fertility and mortality in England before the agricultural and industrial revolutions have been of value to those who are concerned with population trends in the underdeveloped Third World. These figures are largely drawn from parish registers.
Legislation to improve the safe keeping of parish registers has a long history. The original order instigated by Thomas Cromwell in 1538 states that parish registers should be kept in a strong wooden chest with two locks. Section 5 of Sir George Rose's Act in 1701 replaced that requirement by stating that parish registers should be kept in "a dry, well-painted iron chest." The proposal contained
580
in this Bill for a fire-proof safe with a hygrometer shows a logical sequence of progress. There was a Church Assembly (Parochial Registers and Records) Measure in 1920 which gave the Bishops the power to direct that registers and records should be kept in a chest or safe,
" to give security against fire, damp and wrongful interference."
There were also specific requirements to effect this. The new proposed Parochial Registers and Records Measure that is at the moment going through the Synod does not lay down a specific container, but it is stated that it will do so in its code of practice.
The current situation concerning the preservation of these records gives much cause for alarm. Since 1831, when a census of records was taken, it has been estimated that 2,400 volumes of parish registers have been lost or destroyed. Put another way, this means that over the last 144 years we have lost on average a volume of parish registers every three weeks. In the South of England, one vicar recently disposed of many important historical records of his parish by getting the local refuse department to take them to a corporation tip. This is, of course, an extreme case, and it must be said that since then there has been some contrition on the part of the incumbent. Luckily, the records were in polythene bags, so that a band of helpers were able to recover them more or less intact from a great pile of rubbish.
Another recent case concerns a South Midlands parish where the Church had been broken into many times and where the registers were not locked away but left in a chest under one of the pew seats in the nave. In due course the Church was broken into again and on this occasion the thieves took the chest containing the registers. Happily, these were recovered later. In a parish near to my home, the registers were left in such a dreadful condition that they have more or less turned to dust and can never be read again. Other recent examples include an occasion where a newly-arrived rector produced his first register which began in 1732, but on making inquiries an earlier volume covering the period 1634 to 1732 was traced. It had beeen lent by the previous rector to a parishioner, who had kept it in a drawer in his desk for 18 months.

581
Another example was where the registers had been inaccessible for nearly two years because they were kept in a wooden chest made circa 1620, with three locks of the same date, which had jammed. The Vicar simply turned away all requests on these grounds until a complaint was made to the Bishop, who ordered him to employ a locksmith to open the chest. There are other classic stories of registers which have been found in parsons' garden sheds, under the sink in a disused scullery or left lying on the floor of an empty house.
The other major cause of loss is by fire. Losses by damp are insidious and slow, but losses by fire are large and dramatic. Most early registers are written on parchment, which is particularly vulnerable to heat. It is here that the iron chest stipulated by the 1812 Act is very inadequate, because it acts like an oven and the parchment shrivels into a tight, illegible lump. Indeed, it is the opinion of archivists that the iron chest stipulated in 1812 was one of the least satisfactory conceptions. It does not offer protection against fire and, if the inside or the contents get damp, it provides the finest climate for growing mould and mildew. Precise causes of loss are difficult to come by, but on a sample survey it was 42 per cent. by fire, 42 per cent. by damp and 16 per cent. from other causes, a major one being lax custody.
At last, having explained the background of the Bill and the necessity for it, I will turn to its specific provisions. Clause 1, first, repeals Section 5 of the 1812 Act, which, as I have said before, lays down that registers are to be kept in an iron chest. This requirement is replaced by the specifications laid down in Schedule 1. They call for a fireproof safe, for a hygrometer to British Standard No. 3292, and for a relative humidity in the safe not exceeding 65 degrees. A great deal of thought has gone into this and it is appreciated that although the provisions of Schedule 1 do not represent the most perfect method of storage, they are easily attainable and considered reasonable for a parish to accept. The first stipulation is that registers should be kept in the parish church, being the ancient and proper place. However, in Committee we could consider whether the incumbent's house might be included, because there, there would be less risk
582
of damp, but with a greater fire risk than in the church. With a fireproof safe, the fire risk is eliminated, but if documents are kept in an unventilated container damp must be eliminated; hence the need for a hygrometer to measure humidity and thereby see that it does not rise above 65 degrees, that being the minimum needed to control damp, and no more.
Subsection 2(b) gives this clause, and indeed the Bill, the necessary flexibility. There are, for example, many parishes, some of which I know personally, which have arrangements for the storage of their registers and records which do not absolutely conform with Schedule 1, but do conform with the intention of it, regarding the protection of the archives. Therefore this subsection permits the chief officer of the record office to certify this as adequate. It also allows flexibility for other purposes, where registers and records maybe removed from the parish from time to time for exhibitions, repair, and microfilming.
Clause 2 provides exemptions to Clause 1. First, it exempts modern records in current use. Secondly, it exempts registers and records already deposited in a record office. In effect in England, although not necessaily in Wales, this means the diocesan record office; perhaps here I should give a brief explanation of a diocesan record office. The Church Assembly (Parochial Registers and Records) Measure of 1929 gave power for these excellent places to be set up and they are already in existence. They are usually in the same places as the county record offices, which are run by professional archivists; these county record offices have a parallel authority to receive and care for parish registers and records given to them by the Local Government (Records) Act 1962. The third exemption is a formal necessity to exempt certain items for which Parliament has already provided, and these are listed in Schedule 2.
The practical effect of Clause 2 is to provide an alternative to the rigorous requirements of Clause 1. When a parish so wishes, it can retain its records in current use, but deposit all its earlier records in the record office. This, my Lords, is the primary intention. There is no objection whatever to parishes retaining their registers and records provided

583
they do so properly. Here I would add that there are so many people who come here from the new countries, and it is very difficult for them to get to grips, genealogically speaking, with the parish from which they have come. Also, in many cases, the incumbent enjoys this contact with these people from the past. But, if they are unable or unwilling to retain and care for their records, they can hand over their responsibility to the care of the record office and the professional archivists, rather like a private individual who prefers to deposit his jewellery in a bank. The choice is theirs.
The remainder of the Bill deals with enforcement and technical details. Clause 3 is straightforward and provides for the chief officer of the record office to apply to the county court for an order for compliance with the Bill. However, I shall be drafting an Amendment to be moved in Committee to alter the word "shall "to "may "on page 2, line 11, which I have been asked to do by local authorities and archivists. Clause 4 is different; it endeavours to close some potential loop-holes in the application of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 to parochial registers and records. The need for this is that the criminal sanctions of the 1812 Act, which protected parish registers and provided inter alia for punishment by 14 years' transportation, were removed by the Statute Law Revision Act 1888 and, while there is a certain amount of protection afforded by the Forgery Act 1861, the application of this to earlier records and registers which are more subject to Canon Law than to Statute Law is debatable, as the 1861 Act protects only records kept by statutory authority.
An example of the limitations of this can be given by quoting a case where the bishop specifically warned incumbents about the activities of one man, who was trying to prove inheritance to a title from the Byzantine Empire; in fact, a prince. Despite the warning, the parsons concerned loaned their registers to this man, who erased genuine entries and inserted forged ones in the registers. Although this was undoubtedly forgery, the point is that this man was trying to prove a title from an empire defunct for 500 years and the only person he could possibly have defrauded or deceived was himself, and without proof of intention to defraud or
584
deceive there can be no prosecution under the Foregry Act 1913. However, the real difficulty is an historical one, for it has yet to be defined in the Church of England to whom the parish registers and records belong. Most probably they make up part of the "parson's freehold ", and therefore they are the property of the in-incumbent for the time being. But in the province of Wales these doubts are removed; they belong to the representative body of the Church in Wales.
The application of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 depends on the question of to whom property belongs. Clause 4(1) therefore lays down that a defence of ownership should not apply in the case of damaging or destroying parish registers and records. Subsection (2) provides that failure to take reasonable precautions to care for parish registers and records, resulting in their damage or destruction, shall be deemed to be reckless for the purposes of the 1971 Act, but that complying with Clauses 1 and 2 of this Bill should be a good defence to a charge of being reckless; and subsection (3) very simply lays down that forgery without intent to defraud or deceive, and therefore outside the scope of the Forgery Act 1913, shall be criminal damage within the meaning of the 1971 Act. Subsection (4) clarifies the position regarding the destruction of unimportant records, if done with due authority. The reason for this is that, from time to time, entirely superfluous records turn up in parish muniments; for example, in one recent instance a parochial church council had a 50-year series of old cheque-book counterfoils.
Clause 5 is no new departure, placing the financial costs of taking proper care of registers and records on the parochial church council, which is precisely in accordance with the Church Assembly Measure of 1929 in England, and the 1812 Act which applies to the Church in Wales. There is the further point that, taking advantage of thefacilities provided by the Local Government (Records) Act 1962—which, again, is not a new departure but is already provided for by Parliament—if a parish chooses to relieve itself of its duties towards its registers and records by depositing them in the record office, it is also relieved of the cost of doing so. This is not placing any new burden on local authority finances as it is doing

585
no more than complying with the 1962 Act. It is not foreseen that any additional costs to local authorities will arise. In fact, most, if not all, local authority record offices have made contingent provision in their planning for the necessary storage facilities—this is most important —if, as a result of this Bill, there is an increased number of parish registers and records deposited with them. The extent to which parishes have already taken advantage of the 1962 Act to deposit their registers and records varies from under 25 per cent. in Wales—that is an average figure—to well over 90 per cent. in a few English counties.
The final nine words of this clause are, to some extent, a new departure. In England under the Ecclesiastical Fees Measure, incumbents arc entitled to fees for searches in parish registers. They remain so entitled when registers are deposited in record offices, although in many cases this is waived. However, where fees are not waived they are entitled to share them 50 per cent. with the record office. This causes a great deal of accounting for record office staff and, not untypically, at the end of a year an incumbent is sent a postal order for some such sum as 30p. This Bill seeks to abolish that; indeed, it is not fair that a parish should be able to discharge its liabilities for custody of its registers to a record office but still enjoy the benefits of search fees which are supposed to be for supervision.
Clause 6 deals with interpretations. Those for "parish "and "parochial "are self-explanatory and need no comment. I shall, at the suggestion of the legal assistant to the governing body of the Church of Wales, be drafting an Amendment to be moved in Committee to add a definition of "parochial church council ". The inclusion of civil records in ecclesiastical custody is a need which arises from the historical dichotomy of the civil and ecclesiastical function of parishes in the past. This embraces such matters as the poor law records which remain in parish custody and a miscellanea of other items. For example, it was not unknown for private persons to deposit their deeds in a parish chest for safe keeping, much as today one uses a bank strongroom, and some of these—forgotten by their owners —are still there.
586
The question of record offices is complicated by the ecclesiastical situation. We have, on the one hand, the Church of England in the Provinces of Canterbury and York with one legal and administrative structure and the various Measures of the former Church Assembly and the present General Synod; and, on the other hand, we have the Church in Wales, with a separate structure and organisation.
Moreover, the ecclesiastical boundary between the two is not the same as the civil and political boundary.
In the Provinces of Canterbury and York we have a structure already of diocesan record offices, most of them being local authority record offices fulfilling the same function under the Local Government (Records) Act 1962, although a few of them operate a parallel function under the Museums and Libraries Act. By defining a record office within these two provinces to be the diocesan record office appointed by the Bishop under the Measure of 1929, this Bill reserves the choice and appointment of respective record offices to the Bishops and the Church, while taking advantage of the facilities provided by Parliament through the Local Government (Records) Act 1962 and the recent Museums and Libraries Act.
In the Province of Wales, however, matters are different. First, there is only one diocesan record office for the entire Province, that being the National Library of Wales at Aberystwyth. There are local authority record offices functioning under the Local Government (Records) Act except for the very rural County of Powys, formerly the Counties of Brecknock, Radnor and Montgomery. Unlike England, registers and records within the Church of Wales arc not the property of the local parish or the incumbent for the time being but are the property of the Representative Body of the Church in Wales, and as things stand at present the local record offices have no power to accept the deposit of parochial registers and records, only the National Library. But I understand that this is under review and that the Representative Body is currently negotiating with the local record offices. The Bill as drafted leaves it open for the Representative Body to appoint local record offices if they so wish, but without compulsion. As in the Provinces

587
of Canterbury and York, the choice of record offices is left entirely to the several Church authorities.
I shall not detain your Lordships for very much longer. Clause 7 provides, first, for the Short Title; secondly, that Clauses 1, 2 and 3 shall not come into force for two years, thereby giving parishes two years of grace to make their arrangements. However, the provisions for application of the Criminal Damage Act shall come into force as soon as it is passed. Thirdly, the Bill applies to England and Wales only. Scotland, I should say here, has its own arrangements whereby all early parish registers have been called into the Record Office in Edinburgh.
That, my Lords, is the Bill explained, and in conclusion I should like to make certain remarks comparing this Bill and the proposed Synod Measure. In principle they both agree, but with certain differences. First, the Measure does not lay down a method of storage in parishes but includes this in its code of practice. I ask your Lordships, is this enough? —namely, codes of practice. Surely these ancient, precious documents deserve more protection for their preservation. Secondly, a Synodical Measure cannot contain enforcement provisions. Thirdly, it cannot obviously legislate for the Province of Wales. Besides all this, in the Synod debate in November, most of its members who spoke declared that their Measure did not go far enough. As I understand it—and I hope that the right reverend Prelate will enlighten us further —there are already more very far-reaching amendments put down in their own revision committee. For example, I believe—this is not like the House of Commons, for the Synod is another place but we can talk about what goes on there—that Canon Welsby from Rochester and Mr. John Smallwood from the Southwark diocese wish all records before 1837 to be compulsorily deposited, except in cases where a parish can prove that they can maintain their records to a certain standard and apply to the Bishop to retain them. On this, I would say that compulsory deposit would not be welcomed by the professional body of archivists and would not be desirable.
This Bill seeks to achieve the desired effect by providing a voluntary choice of
588
either efficient arrangements for custody or, alternatively, deposit in their record offices. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford felt that there was a need for the Church to be rid of this kind of thing so that the Church could get on with its own affairs, and I believe that he also has put down amendments of that Measure in the Revision Committee. May I say how much excellent cooperation I have received from the General Synod Office and the Representative Body in Wales. The Church of Wales is not represented here, except in the presence of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, who I know has an engagement later on in the evening at Stoke on Trent. If he wishes to leave at any time after he has made his speech he will not have to crave our indulgence because I know what it is like trying to get anywhere. We are delighted that he is to speak, for he made an excellent contribution to our debate in 1971 when I bullied him into speaking. After I sent a copy of the Bill to the Bench of Bishops to consider. the Representative Body of the Church in Wales wrote to me and the letter reads as follows:
"The Bench has now had an opportunity to read the Explanatory Memorandum and the copy of the Bill. They welcome your initiative in introducing this legislation to Parliament ".
The letter goes on to say that the Bishops:
"… were quite content for you to proceed as you intend, knowing that both they and you have received the helpful advice of Miss Patricia Barnes ",
who is a Principal Assistant Keeper of the Public Record Office. I believe that this Bill strikes the right balance. There are probably quite a number of things to be put right at some time but on the whole I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Teviot.)
4.6 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, the whole House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Teviot for the way in which he has introduced the Parochial Records Bill. He has gone into the matter in great detail and has shown detailed knowledge of the subject. We all knew he had it, and my noble friend has taken a great deal of trouble to explain to us the intentions behind

589
the Bill and its background. Therefore, we are very grateful to him.
It seems to be my fate always to be talking to a Bill with another Bill wafting about over one's shoulder, to be talked about at some time in the near future. The last occasion I did this was a few days ago, when we did not know what the Government's Bill was going to be. We have known for some time what this Bill would be like. However, it is always disconcerting to discuss a Bill knowing that it will probably not see the light of day in the form in which we are discussing it.
Parochial registers and records are, as your Lordships know, only a very small part of the total records which historians and archivists use for research. For instance, I do not know how many of your Lordships know that up to the break with Rome in 1534 the Central Church Archive was kept in the Vatican. It is only in the last 80 years that the Public Record Office has arranged for these entries in the Papal Registers about this kingdom to be published here in some 14 volumes. The Church records in this country, other than these parochial records which we are now discussing, are held by the two Provinces of Canterbury and York, 43 diocesan offices, 103 arch-deaconries and the deaneries of Jersey and Guernsey which form part of the diocese of Winchester, although, oddly enough, they are not in England. Then there are many cathedral chapters and also some 50 peculiar jurisdictions, the whole forming some 248 archive groups. So we can truthfully say that the Church is well experienced in the management of registers, muniment rooms and libraries.
My noble friend Lord Teviot's Bill asks us to arm the Church authorities with powers to enforce better protection for the parochial records which have not got the protection of properly prepared storage. As my noble friend Lord Teviot mentioned, it was in 1538 that Thomas Cromwell, acting as Vicar General to King Henry VIII, issued on his master's behalf an order to the parish clergy to keep their parish books detailing every wedding, christening and burial in one sure coffer with two locks and two keys, one key to be kept by the parson and the other by the churchwarden. I feel sure that some 240 years later fireproof safes and
590
hygrometers are a sensible suggestion to add to what was essentially Thomas Cromwell's instruction.
If the parish does not want to do this they have only to hand the books over to the local record office for safe keeping. I am sure that the Church authorities in these days would not make the mistake of a former Bishop of Chester—not our friend the past Bishop of Chester who is now in London—who ordered in 1748 that the records of the Western deaneries in Westmorland and Lancashire, which were part of the Archdeaconry of Richmond, should be removed to Richmond, and there they journeyed in mid-winter in open carts, one or two turning over in various becks in Wensleydale and Wharfe-dale. I am sure the Church has learned since those days.
Centralization and codification of records is of the greatest help to the researchers, although it can have tragic results as we saw—before my time, of course—in 1922, with the total destruction of the Four Courts in Dublin with all their irreplaceable documentation, and again to a lesser extent with probate records in the bombing of Exeter in 1942, which caused great loss to West Country records.
But these were acts of man against man. What we are here dealing with, as my noble friend said, is protecting these records from damp, fire and theft, and although he mentioned damp and fire as being each roughly 42 per cent., and I think he said 16 per cent. other causes, I personally suspect that damp is the most dangerous and insidious. You always know when you have a fire, so there is no doubt in that case. Quite often there is evidence of a break-in or of theft, although not always if it is something that is hidden in a coffer at the back of a church. But with regard to damp I do not believe one always knows when one's papers are suffering from damp. Possibly when you or Iare dead and our successors go to that coffer to get something out they will find that the papers are all covered in mildew and damp. So I am by no means convinced that the figure for damp is right; I believe it may be much greater.
We have also heard about the other vicissitudes which these documents have suffered at the fate of their temporary masters, which if this Bill and the Church

591
Measure were law would not happen so much. This little Bill does not have the detail of the Parochial Registers and Records Measure and which I imagine the right reverend Prelates and the Church will wish to see become law, but in my opinion my noble friend's Bill in no way offends in principle against the Church Measure. In fact I suggest to your Lordships that it would strengthen the existing and proposed provisions. The conditions of safe keeping as laid down in Schedule I are particularly to be commended and I hope the Church authorities, the Government and my noble friend will be able to arrive at a formula agreeable to all. I suggest that my noble friend's Bill, suitably amended, might well be complementary to the proposed Church Measure, the more so since, as we have heard, the Church Measure can never take effect in Wales. In the meantime, I hope we shall give this Bill a Second Reading.
4.14 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of CHELMSFORD: My Lords, I feel greatly chastened by the iniquities of the clergy of the Church of England in the past century or two, but somewhat cheered that we have done quite well over a longer period and on a larger canvas. Speaking for the Church of England, we give this Bill a general welcome because we recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, is seeking exactly what we are seeking. Indeed, this Measure of which mention has been made is before us and seeks to do very much the same thing as the Bill. The difficulty of course is that they have come up for consideration at much the same time. It could be called a happy coincidence, but perhaps in this company we might call it providential.
The Measure before the General Synod of the Church of England has been mentioned and it was in fact last November given general approval by the General Synod. Therefore it goes forward to a revision stage, we hope fairly rapidly. With the permission of the House, I will speak to the Measure to show where it differs from and where it coincides with the Bill. We are seeking to do exactly the same thing. We hope and will that, where possible, parochial registers should be kept where they belong, in the parishes to which they belong, and we are as concerned
592
as the noble Lord that the way in which they are kept should be proper.
The noble Lord has himself expressed slight doubt about his Schedule 1, and our own council, the name of which I forget for the moment, which looks after these things has certain minor criticisms of that Schedule. It will be part of our Measure to see that proper conditions are provided, but not, as he suggested, in the Measure itself. Let it be said—and indeed it has been said several times already—that we cannot legislate for Wales. Others will have to decide in this matter whether Wales remains devolved or undevolved. So obviously there will be a need for a Bill there. There are also the interests of other Churches, although by virtue of the case almost all parochial registers are in the hands of the Church of England.
I now turn to the strengthening of the procedures which will be made mandatory under the Measure. The persons made responsible under the Measure will remain the Bishops of the diocese, and herein of course we differ somewhat from the Bill where a secular officer is put in charge. Certain mandatory duties will be laid upon the Bishops, and also their hands will be strengthened in this matter where, as has been made plain to us, their policies have not always been adopted.
Under the draft Measure diocesan Bishops will be required to issue directions for the safe keeping of all registers and records in parochial custody in their dioceses, and to institute a system of quin-quennial inspection of such records by or under the supervision of qualified archivists. Here I suggest the Measure goes usefully beyond the provisions of the Bill. It also deals with the complications which arise when churches are made redundant or when various pastoral reorganisation takes place whereby the records or registers are transferred or have their homes taken from them. Provision is made for that.
At the moment, as we have heard, not every diocese in the Church of England has a record office, although under the draft Measure the Bishop of the diocese will be under a duty to designate or establish such an office where none already exists under the 1929 Measure. There-for, while I suspect and hope that most of the records will remain under strict regulation in the parishes, some will go

593
—and I think in my diocese, which is typical of many, most have already gone —to the local record office, where the county archivist is also my diocesan archivist.
In cases where, following his investigations and surveys, a Bishop learns that records are not being properly kept and in proper conditions he will have strengthened powers under the measure to enable him to insist in such cases on ther permanent deposit in a record office of any parochial registers which are, in his opinion, of special value or interest, whether or not they are exposed to immediate risk of loss or damage. The noble Lord suggests that compulsion is not desirable, either from the point of view of the Church or from the point of view of the county archivists, but I think in such cases, especially where there is danger of damage, the archivist would be only too pleased.
Your Lordships will see from these matters which I have mentioned—and I am not dealing with the matter in any detail, because it would take too long—that greater powers are to be given to the Bishops to see that the records are properly kept. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, rightly suggests that when this matter comes up for further discussion before the General Synod there will be a number of amendments. The noble Lord mentioned one of them, that all completed registers before 1837 should be compulsorily deposited. It is not for me to suggest in this House, or any other, whether in fact this Amendment will be adopted. Another amendment requires that microfilming of all parochial registers and records should be carried out. The reason for this is supported by the disaster mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, when the entire record office at Exeter was destroyed by bombing, and earlier a not quite similar disaster destroyed all the records in Dublin. There may be something in this. There will be other amendments, but I will not waste the time of the House speculating on what they may be, or what their fate may be. However, it would seem to be certain that their effect will be to strengthen the measure rather than weaken it. We believe that parishes will take advantage of the improved facilities for depositing records if they wish to do so, and that the loss
594
of valuable historical material will be virtually eliminated.
My Lords, a question has been asked about the penal clauses. It would be ultra vires for the General Synod of the Church of England to attempt penal clauses. However, it has already been objected by some that the introduction of penal clauses for forgery and for reckless damage to registers, set out in the Measure, are an undesirable innovation; although, as the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, reminded us, the Act of 1812 provided for transportation for such offences. In spite of the awful stories he has told us, we think this is perhaps taking things too far, and might imply taking people too far, but this is for discussion.
If a parish wishes to keep its registers and other records, it is obviously right—and we are agreed—that at its own expense it should provide adequate facilities for such safe keeping, as envisaged in Clause 5. The Council for Places of Worship (the name which eluded me before) has some reservations. It is true that in the Measure we have not set out a similar Schedule to Schedule 1 demanding certain standards, hygrometers and the like, but the Council is already at work, under the auspices of the General Synod of the Church of England, on recommendations to be issued to diocesan Bishops, and by them to all parishes on standards of care to be laid down as part of the directions of the Bishop. Work has already started on such a code of practice, and we believe that this is probably a better way to do things because the code can be amended as need suggests and time passes.
Therefore, we give a general welcome to this Bill, although we have some reservations about points of detail. We are a little anxious about possible confusion that may arise from the point of view of the Church of England over the partial overlap between the Bill and our own draft Measure. Of course, it is a matter of timing. As I said, the draft Measure is now before a revision committee of the General Synod. It should comeback from the revision stage at the July group of sessions. It should then be ready for final approval by the General Synod in November. We hope this will mean that the draft Measure might come before your Lordships' House for Affirmative Resolution early in 1977, and go upon the Statute Book shortly after that. It

595
is not for me to speculate about the timing of this Bill if it goes forward, but I believe it would be surprising if it received the Royal Assent as soon as early in 1977.
My Lords, I see from Debrett that the motto of the family of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, is sero sed serio—late, but in earnest. We have enjoyed the earnestness of the speech he made. I could wish in my heart that the noble Lord could have made it a little later or perhaps a little earlier, because then we should not have this slight confusion between the two. But it appears to me from the tone of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, that it should be possible for further consultations. There have been very happy consultations between the noble Lord and the Synod secretariat. Further consultations will take place between him and them to bring the Bill and the Measure more into line so that, as has been suggested, they really do complement one another, and confusion departs.
Lord FLETCHER: My Lords, I do not want to interrupt the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, but I should like to ask him a question if he will allow me to. Am I right in thinking that, if Parliament were to enact the Bill now before us, it would still be necessary for the General Synod to proceed with the Measure? Or would the General Synod prefer to see whether this Bill is enacted by Parliament, and then consider what supplementary Measures are required by the Synod?
The LORD BISHOP of CHELMSFORD: My Lords, I stand open to correction, but my belief would be that whichever arrives at the winning post first will imply that the runner-up has to provide a complementary Bill or Measure. My own feeling is that if by some procedure the Bill could be held back a little, it would be possible to have two complementary Measures from the beginning, and I hope it may so prove.
4.27 p.m.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, I will not speak for long. The House will be delighted to know that I have an appointment about half-past eight about 150 miles away, so at least your
596
Lordships can know that "that fellow "is not going to talk for a long time. May I say to the noble Lord opposite that it is a pleasure to support and cheer him. There was the voice of approval there, qualified approval nevertheless, which may need to be looked at again after the General Synod has had its professional discussions—and I use that word in the best sense and in an ecclesiastical sense if necessary. I know the way the Government timetable is crowded, and I know that my noble friend is loaded with work, but, whatever work there is, the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has served a purpose and I will try to say why in this noble House in about six minutes. Consequently, I hope the Front Bench will look at this matter with sympathy and find a formula by means of which the co-operation between the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford and his colleagues and the House can produce a very necessary Bill at this juncture in our very materialistic history. I will not go into details, because people who relate with the Church or the archivist will read with interest the speech carefully prepared by the noble Lord opposite who opened this debate, and it would be very remiss of me to reiterate those well-thought-out remarks of his.
My Lords, I am conscious of something, having lived in West Wales, South Wales and Mid-Wales—and it must have been the gypsy in my family that sent us all over various parts. The lovely little churches appealed to me in my youth. We always looked to see where the best choir was, and joined it in order to improve our music and to improve our ear. I am conscious that many of these churches still have precious documentation. I was looking at Murray's English Dictionary, and according to that dictionary the word "parish "is not found in English until about the thirteenth century. Chaucer may have mentioned it in passing. I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, say that all the archives were kept at the Vatican at that period; until the Tudors came along in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries that was pretty well true.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I should not like to be on the record as saying that that applied to all the archives; I merely referred to some of the essential archives.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that qualification; we do not want to mislead anyone. What interests me is that we should revive interest in these things. I know little churches in remote places where the archives in the belltower only hear the sounds of the rooks or the swinging of the bells or the moaning of the wind in wintertime; nobody goes near them. There is precious documentation there. I do not know what has happened to the youngsters of today. In my grammar school days, and in my small old-fashioned Welsh elementary school in Cardiganshire, we were encouraged to take brass rubbings and encouraged to be interested in local history.
I think the Church might co-operate with the education committees, not so much on scripture but in developing young archivists. Now that we are keeping children at school until 16 years of age, they often say that they do not know what to do in their last year. Here is a great wealth of documentation redolent of the history of Britain. Weird epitaphs appear on tombstones. I have read many of them; we found them for ourselves in our village churchyard. Man is a funny creature; there is an ambivalence about this ape, the mix-up of his instincts. There is nothing that appeals to him more than stories of the day before yesterday. This nostalgia—that is not quite the right word looking at the etymology of "nostalgia "—this feeling of looking back and feeling where he comes from. I thought the noble Lord opposite wanted to interrupt me because he was making the thumbs up sign; I did not know if we were in the Roman arena.
I would say that the BBC could help with its school broadcasts. Perhaps they could offer local prizes, a good book, for youngsters who have made researches into the local church history. I am sure they would get the co-operation—the right reverend Prelate would agree with me—of the local vicars and parish priests. Here would be a remarkable resurgence of interest in the history of this country. Everyone seems to have gone all European at the moment, but European man, whether he is a Celt, Iberian or whatnot, at some time or other had a similar origin. We are very proud of ours right back to the days of Geraldus Cambrensis, when we claim we discovered everywhere, including the United States. One of our
598
claims was that St. David helped to Christianise Ireland I do not know how successful we were about that.
I would say that this debate could very well revive an interest in the local schools throughout Britain in following up what the Church has to say about our past or what the documents have to say. As Murray's Dictionary points out, and the Daily News pointed out in about 1896, the local vestry at one time was responsible, too, for civil government, and mixed up with the ecclesiastical documents in many cases there are documents of value for civil government. I sincerely hope that the Synod or others will try to rescusitate an interest in the schools. I hope, too, that the BBC can consider a series of school talks, half a dozen or so, to revive the interest of young historians.
My Lords, I have spoken two minutes longer than my intended five. I am coming, your Lordships will be pleased to know, to my recitative. There is one thing that makes me sad. I was visiting a church that was always left open. I will not say where it is because some wicked vandals might take the opportunity. Whether or not one is an Agnostic, some of us still like to move into the quiet of the church in the lovely quiet villages. It is a sad thing today that many of these documents have been vandalised; that many treasures of the church are vandalised. It is a sad thing to feel that in many lovely country villages in England and Wales church doors have to be closed. I sincerely hope that a revival of interest will make the young people realise that here is a great treasure which tells about our greatness, our misdemeanours and successes. I sincerely pay atribute to the noble Lord who initiated this debate. This is my last sentence. I see from the researches that he has done—I have the letter which he was kind enough to send me but I will not read it—that the Representative Body of the Church of Wales, as the right reverend Prelate will know, also welcome the effort of the noble Lord.
4.36 p.m.
Viscount MONCKTON of BRENCHLEY: My Lords, first I must declare an interest as President of the Institute of Heraldic and Genealogical Studies at Canterbury. Secondly, may I say what a pleasure it is to follow the

599
noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, and hope that he may join the institute at Canterbury even if he lives in Wales. For the last ten years my Institute has been pressing for such a Bill as this one before your Lordships today. We are very far behind the other countries of Europe in looking after our records. It seems to me a great pity that more positive care is not taken. Two years ago a bookseller in New York advertised an Elizabethan register from a parish in Yorkshire. How did it get there? We do not know. We were glad to hear that we got it back and it is now where it should be. This kind of thing has gone on and I believe is going on.
My grandfather spent the last 20 years of his life transcribing 78 parish registers of Kent; the right reverend Prelate from Rochester will have seen something of this. He then typed by hand three copies, one for the parish, one for the diocese and one for himself, and when he died they went to the Society of Genealogists. I should have thought that we want more of this kind of thing. If you come to my library you will find 78 books on the pedigrees of cows, and I suppose the thousands of members of the Friesian Society look at the trouble we have taken to make sure that the breeding of the cows is right and the records are straight. What little trouble is taken and what few books on genealogy and records of local parishes one has in one's life.
I welcome this Bill. I can see problems arising on timing. Perhaps a little delay would be no bad thing if they can be conjoined with the Bishops Conference. I wonder also whether my Church, and indeed the Catholic Church and other Churches which keep records, should not be persuaded, or ordered, to keep their records equally safe so that all the records of the Christian communities are preserved. And why only the Christian communities in Britain? Anybody who has records of births or christenings or other religious ceremonies should keep them safe. I hope your Lordships will give this Bill a Second Reading.
4.39 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I, too, should like warmly to welcome the Bill which my noble friend Lord Teviot has brought before us this afternoon. I was one of those who supported him in his
600
debate in your Lordships' House in 1971, and I do so again today in the capacity of a churchwarden, and I should declare an interest here. Churchwardens, as your Lordships are well aware, are enjoined, in taking their annual oath, to care for the registers and records of a church. In the particular case of the parish in which I am involved the records are now on deposit, so our parish will not be concerned with the purchase of a safe or the possibility of the question which is concerned here. Nevertheless, I should like to direct my remarks almost solely to the question of the interpretation of Schedule 1. The words of Schedule 1 you will find are:
" In a fireproof safe."
A little above that, under Clause 5, we read:
"The cost of complying with section 1 of this Act shall be borne by the parochial church council … "
Naturally, my inclination as a church-warden was to examine it in the light of what I believe would concern fellow churchwardens throughout the country over the interpretation and the carrying out of their responsibilities under this Act. I carried out some research to discover the type of cost which it might be incumbent upon a PPC to meet, if they were so desirous, in order to purchase a safe. I found a wide variety of different types of fire protection. So I return to the phrase in Schedule 1:
" In a fireproof safe."
If your Lordships decide today that the Bill shall go forward, no doubt we shall have an interpretation of what this means. But I have discovered that there is a variety of different equipment on the market. There are fire protection files; fire protection cabinets; fire resisting records cabinets; fire protection safes. Each one has a slightly different meaning, a slightly different specification, and a widely varying range of price.
In the case of fire protection cabinets a well-known manufacturer produces a price range between £440 and £1,000. The same manufacturer is willing to offer a fire-resisting record cabinet at a price range between £160 and £300. If a parish is somewhat concerned at present with its greatly increased cost of maintaining the parish church and finding its quotas, these are substantial sums for that parish to find. So what is the parochial church

601
council going to do? Should it wish to follow the course of action of depositing its records, it would find one solution; but in a number of parishes it is surely desirable that they should remain within their parish.
I most warmly commend what has been said on both sides of the House in regard to the interest, which not only people in this country but foreign visitors have, in visiting the parish itself and examining both the tombstones, the physical records within the parish, and also the documentary evidence to be found in the registers and deeds. In many cases in my parish I have known great interest to be shown by visitors and lasting satisfaction to be obtained by those who have come to this country. Perhaps here it is worth while recollecting the growth of the tourist trade in the past 20 years or so. We have figures between 1950 and 1970, when the tourist trade grew by 900 per cent. from approximately 590,000 to over 6,500,000. Many of those will not perhaps be concerned specifically with parochial records but a large number will; surely we should cater for their desires in going to the parish and finding the records in a satisfactory condition.
The second part of Schedule 1 refers to the question of a hygrometer. I most warmly commend this provision which my noble friend Lord Teviot has included. In order to ensure dryness within a safe, one can use a chemical called silica gell, which attracts damp and can be re-used repeatedly by simply drying it out in an oven or some device of that kind. Damp is a great enemy, as has been recognised, I believe, and the provision of a hygrometer is a most important factor. I commend this thoughtful suggestion which is before your Lordships. I conclude my remarks by warmly commending to your Lordships the Bill before us this afternoon.
4.45 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I want to resist the temptation to add to the debate this afternoon my pieces of the history of this business, because they have been very adequately covered by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, and the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton. What I want to say at the beginning is that the Government believe there is a need for a Bill of this kind setting out in clear and
602
precise terms what is needed for the safe keeping of records of the nature that are contained in the Bill. Whether or not it will eventually be covered by the Bill of the noble Lord or by a Measure of the General Synod of the Anglican Church only time can tell. Certainly the Government support the Bill of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot.
Having said that, I want to make one or two things perfectly clear. I ought not to give your Lordships the impression that, while the Government support the Bill in general and in principle, we feel that, in the Bill's present form, it is workable. I must point out that there arc various Government Departments which have an interest in the Bill. The Registrar-General is not directly concerned with the Bill, since marriage registers maintained by incumbents under the Acts for which the Registrar-General has responsibility are excluded from the operation of the Bill because the Marriage Act 1949 provides already for their safe keeping.
The Lord Chancellor's office, who are concerned with the jurisdiction of county courts, consider that the drafting of Clause 3 is unsatisfactory in two respects. I think I ought to say to your Lordships that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, and I have met before this afternoon. We have discussed his Bill—I will not say in detail, because we were aware of it—and I have been able to discuss with him (perhaps, in fairness to him, I ought to say superficially) the difficulties which various Government Departments have. He knows our thinking on this and he has been extremely co-operative. As I have said, the Lord Chancellor's office find Clause 2 unsatisfactory in two respects.
In the first place it would force the chief officer of the record office to go to the county court whenever there was failure to comply with Section 1 of the Act. It would be sufficient if he were given power to do so by saying that he "may "instead of "shall "apply, and the noble Lord has dealt with that. It involves going to the county court whenever there is a failure to comply with Section 1 of the Act, and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor feels that this must be looked at very carefully, because at this stage we are not able to say whether this is really desirable. Secondly, he can only apply for

603
an order that the Act be complied with. An order in this form would lack sufficient particularity to enable it to be enforced by contempt process. Therefore that is another matter that has to be looked at. It ought to be an order to secure compliance with the Act so as to enable the court to specify exactly what has to be done.
The Home Office consider that the whole of Clause 4 is unsatisfactory, particularly because of its attempt to bring this under the Criminal Damage Act 1971. I do not want to argue against their point at this stage because we have conceded that this is a Bill which we want to see on the Statute Book, but the Criminal Damage Act 1971 deals with reckless and intentional damage and, if the criminal law is to be used to encourage the preservation of parochial records the provisions of Clause 4 need to be thought out again from first principles. It may be right to tackle this subject by use of the criminal law but the particular method adopted in the Bill causes serious problems. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, will see that we are trying to help in pointing out the difficulties at this stage.
The 1971 Act is a major piece of codifying legislation and any attempt to alter its effect calls for serious consideration. Some of the provisions of the clause seem to be unnecessary to achieve what the noble Lord has in mind and others apply the provisions of the 1971 Act to matters for which they are not appropriate, but this does not mean that this is an insurmountable problem. It would not be right to comment in detail on every provision of the Bill at Second Reading, but it may help if I illustrate our concern by reference to Clause 4(2). This subsection would make the custodian of parochial records guilty of an offence if he has failed to take adequate precautions to protect parochial records and if parochial records are damaged. This would mean that the criminal liability of the custodian would arise solely through chance, as a consequence of some occurrence over which he has no control. I realise that this is quite extravagant but I should point out that it would also make him liable to a sentence of up to 10 years' imprisonment on conviction on indictment for failure to take specified precautions. That was never
604
in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, any more than in that of the Government. This penalty seems to be out of proportion to the mischief done. I am not being facetious about this, but when one wants to bring something under a specific Act the conditions of that Act must apply. However, there arc of course ways of dealing with this.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment also has some interest in this Bill. His principal concern is with local authority records, and he has examined and will continue to examine the Bill closely. He will consider whether it effects any change in the law relating to those records. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, touched on local government records, but my right honourable friend is concerned because he will want to see whether the Bill, when it gets through all the stages and arrives on the Statute Book, will entail increases in local authority manpower and expenditure. I know that the noble Lord has said he does not think it will, but that is not the view taken at the present moment by the Department of the Environment. Having said that, it means, in our view, that a good deal must be done to put this Bill into thorough working order. As I said, I have discussed the matter with the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, and there is no reason, if and when it is necessary, why we should not get together with the various Departments concerned and with the Parliamentary draftsmen to put this Bill into a proper state so that there will be no difficulty. The noble Lord understands the position and knows the situation with regard to Parliamentary time during this Session, but, as I said, the Government welcome the Bill and—
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the noble Lord's sympathetic reply, but is not this a case where the Bill should be sent to a Select Committee of this House, as has often been done in the past?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will not seek to carry that suggestion into effect because we feel that it would be much better to do as we suggest. The noble Lord Lord Teviot knows the position. I did not make any reference to the Measure which the Synod is bringing in. I believe he understands the position and that we

605
would prefer to deal with it in the way I have indicated. I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue the matter.
I do not feel that there is any need for me to say more, other than to repeat that the Government welcome the Bill and will give whatever help is necessary.
4.57 p.m.
Lord TEVIOT: My Lords, we have had a most interesting debate on this matter. I believe that the best way to sum up—a process which I always find intensely difficult—is to go through the various speeches in turn. I therefore begin with the very interesting speech of my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton. He kindly agreed with what I had said and I felt that he had a good point as regards damp. I believe that one should do much more.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford mentioned a number of matters and spoke very kindly about a Measure which was similar to a Church Measure. He explained the Church Measure in detail and explained what was intended and what would be the result of the present Bill. He also referred to various points where the Bill could achieve something which that Church Measure could not. I dislike the term "penal clauses "and prefer "enforcement measure "With important documents of this kind one would like to think of this as a preservation Bill so that, in the same way as so often in your Lordships' House one seeks the preservation of flora and fauna, one can see this Bill as one for the preservation of documents. The Church Measure as it stands deals, among other things, with the method of storage. I have merely taken a continuation from 1538 to 1812 to what I believe to be acceptable in 1976. The Church Measure is rather splendid. It contains a code of practice divided into two parts. It will be a lovely glossy, booklet provided by the Council for the Preservation of Churches—I have probably got that organisation's name completely wrong, but the right reverend Prelate will understand what I mean. If the right reverend Prelate thinks my fireproof safe rather stark, I feel that his may on the whole be somewhat pedantic. We want something done fairly quickly because these are important records.
My noble friend Lord Monckton of Brenchley said that we were lagging
606
behind other countries in Europe. He knows more about that than I do. His grandfather, whose name he did not mention, was a gentleman called Sir Thomas Colyer-Fergusson, who copied a great many records and genealogists will be grateful to him. My noble friend said that not only the Church of England should follow these proposals but that the records of other Churches should be preserved. At one time we would have spoken of Dissenters but one might refer to other Christian and non-Christian Churches. I thought of that when I introduced the Bill but I came to the conclusion that it could not be dealt with in this Bill, but in another one.
My noble friend Lord Sandys went into much greater detail, and I am grateful to him, about fire protection cabinets and he quoted their prices. When the Church comes to its code of practice, I hope that it bears that in mind and that it goes into the question of damp. The noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, was typically himself, and was most amusing and put everything on. But I do wish that he came down to the fundamentals of Wales. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, in our discussion on a day previous to today did not mention that, but I believe that the Welsh Office was rather concerned about this Bill, although I quoted the pleasure of the Welsh Church. It is extremely important that the Welsh Church should probably do rather more than it is doing, as the right reverend Prelate mentioned, because so few of its records are deposited.
One of the other points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, concerned the Lord Chancellor's Office. I agree, and I should say before that that I have friends in the archivists' world and they pointed out the very points which were brought out by the Lord Chancellor and the Home Office; they were rather worried about those things. I am quite sure that those are points which can be brought out in our future discussions, which I hope will take place rather soon. With regard to the Criminal Damage Act,the proposals were drawn up because other Acts did not seem very suitable. I did not quite understand its implications. They are more modified than the 1812 Act and the matter of transportation. But, equally, I do not think that the noble Lord realised the situation until I quoted instances.

607
There was an extraordinary instance of someone trying to prove that he is a Byzantine prince. I heard that the Byzantine prince tried to make a Birmingham businessman a count of his order. That type of thing can probably mushroom. It probably will not, but it can lead to something else. However, true life is stranger than fiction and extraordinary things can happen.
In that context your Lordships have been very kind regarding this Bill, and have given it one and a half hours of your time. Since 1812 I do not think that very much time has been given in this way, apart from the registration Act of 1836–37, and there were one or two Bills in the 19th century. The Bill in 1887 was rather stronger than mine, but it did not get very far. It was strangely akin to the Measure I mentioned of the Church Synod, which is about to come up. Even the great Lord Salisbury did not have a Bill on this matter. Your Lordships have been very kind in offering this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

NATIONAL COAL BOARD (FINANCE) BILL
5.3 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of ENERGY (Lord Lovell-Davis): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The National Coal Board (Finance) Bill is a short Bill, but an important one, as has been stressed throughout its proceedings so far. As with the 1975 Coal Industry Act, this Bill has its roots in the final report of the 1974 coal industry examination, the tripartite discussions between the Government, the National Coal Board, and the unions. At that time the Government endorsed the major investment programme by the National Coal Board based on the broad strategy for the industry over 10 years to 1985, contained in Plan for Coal. This programme has been endorsed with the affirmation that, as far as possible, the industry should operate free from burdens of the past. The 1975 Act clarified the National Coal Board's right to work coal and restored
608
the compulsory powers of the Opencast Coal Act of 1938. These measures were essential if the Board was to meet the Plan for Coal projected output of 135 million tons per annum. This meant stabilising deep-mined output at around 120 million tons and expanding opencast production from 10 to 15 million tons.
In addition, the Act provided for a contribution of £100 million to be made to the compensation scheme for pneumoconiosis sufferers, worked out between the Board and the unions, which arose directly from the tripartite meetings.
A good start has been made, but there remains much work to be done. The Bill at present before the House is another step towards the consolidation of the industry's future. The longer term framework for the industry is a matter which may be considered in a more comprehensive piece of legislation next Session, but it is important that no time should be lost in implementing certain decisions. The aim of the Coal Board's Plan for Coal was to provide 42 million tons of new capacity by 1985: 22 million tons by expanding existing capacity and 20 million tons from new pits. The National Coal Board has already set in hand some 60 major projects which would yield about 12 million tons of that new capacity. Its proposals for a major new mine at Selby producing 10 million tons a year would increase this figure accordingly. The cost of the 60 major projects referred to is expected to be in the order of £190 million.
This progress shows the Board's determination to secure the positive contribution that the coal industry examination envisaged that coal could make to the energy output of the country. In order that the targets of Plan for Coal can be reached on time, especially when the lead times between investment and the realisation of benefit can be quite long, it is important that a rapid build-up to an early peak in capital investment should be attained. The financing of this investment plan and the Board's need for further working capital arc naturally increasing the Board's borrowing requirements.
Clause 1 of this Bill, by increasing the statutory limit on the National Coal Board's borrowings, will enable the Board's investment programme to continue according to plan over the next two

609
years or so. The Board's borrowing requirement beyond then will be catered for in legislative proposals, which may be introduced in the next Session, to set the long-term framework for the industry. The industry should know that they have the fullest backing from us, and from the country, in exploiting our indigenous resources and helping us towards self-sufficiency in energy, especially in these days of high-cost imported energy, which almost every country has to rely upon to some extent. We are fortunate in our energy resources and it is imperative, therefore, that we make the greatest and most sensible use of them.
Clause 2 deals with mineworkers' pensions. The mineworkers' pension scheme was established in 1952, and for a small contribution paid a pension of 10 shillings a week. Subsequent measures in the pension were financed by creating a deficiency in the fund which was met by the Board, making annual deficiency payments. The Government have also made deficiency payments, totalling £25 million over the last three years. In April 1975 the Board revised the scheme to bring it more into line with modern practice, and this scheme was well received by the National Union of Mineworkers. This revised scheme is earnings related and applies to men who were serving mineworkers on, or alter, 6th April 1975. A man will now receive a pension of half his final wages at the end of 45 years' service.
People who were in pension before 6th April 1975 will receive their pensions on the basis of the scheme as it was then constituted. Broadly, there are four categories of such people: mineworkers who retired before 6th April 1975; widows and dependent children of men who died before that date; widows and dependent children of men now in pension; and men who left the industry before April 1975,and have a right to a deferred pension to be paid at age 65.
In the coal industry examination the Government recognised that the past contraction of the industry presented a financial problem for a viable pension scheme because of the consequent exceptional ratio of pensioners to contributing members (which approaches 1:1 instead of the more normal 1:5), coupled with the fact that pensioners can neither make further contribution to the pension fund,
610
nor can they contribute to the industry's performance. In order to help the Board with this burden of the past, the Government undertook, subject to Parliamentary approval, to assist in meeting the existing deficiency in the pension fund so far as it relates to beneficiaries and prospective beneficiaries under the pre-April 1975 rules.
There is no precise way of determining how much of the total deficiency in the Fund is related to beneficiaries and prospective beneficiaries under the pre-April 1975 scheme, but in making a generous contribution of £250million the Government have aimed to match the broad order of magnitude of this part of the deficiency. It is proposed to spread the payments forward over 20 years, during which most of the liabilities to the existing pensioners will be discharged. We are advised that this means a payment of £18 million a year. Pensions of the pre-April 1975 pensioners will have to be increased from time to time in line with the rise in the cost of living, and this will result in an increase in the amount of the deficiency related to those pensioners. When this happens, my Lords, a review will be made of the state of the Pension Fund and the Board's general finances. If, in the light of this review, and with the advice of the Treasury, an extra Government contribution seems called for, authority will be sought for it by laying an instrument subject to the approval of Parliament.
Clause 3 of the Bill is necessary to put right a minor anomaly arising out of Section 7 of the 1973 Act, which enables the Government to make grants to the Board to assist with the cost of stocking coal and coke. These powers do not extend to helping the National Coal Board with the costs they incur when they deliver stocks to major customers for deferred payments. This clause will ensure that, in future, aid can be paid in respect of such stocks. This is an important factor in encouraging the Board and their major customers to enter into arrangements for delivery of stocks in excess of immediate requirements—arrangements which enable the National Coal Board to avoid the cost of double-handling and to keep coal moving away from the pithead.
My Lords, I commend this sensible strategy as the most logical and economic arrangement. The actual use of this enabling power would of course

611
have to be considered against the Board's overall financial position and the level of stocking undertaken by them. The three clauses I have described deal with disparate elements of the Board's finances. But there is a unifying principle, and that is the Government's undertaking, following the coal industry examination, to chart a new path for the future of the industry, and one freed of the burdens of the past. It is on this forward-looking constructive note that I recommend this Bill to the House. My Lords. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved. That the Bill be now read 2a. —(Lord Lovell-Davis.)
5.12 p.m.
Viscount LONG: My Lords, I should first like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, for explaining this, the second such Bill we have had within the last year. I know he has been away a great deal; and he has explained it in record time—though, looking at the figures, quite a lot of money is being spent. My Lords, I often think that, looking at a second Bill such as this, the noble Lord presenting it might soon be wearing a "dog-collar ", for I have the feeling he might be saying, "If you know any just cause or impediment why these two should not be joined together, ye are to declare it ", and so on, because already he has announced that there is a third Bill to come, so we can finish the vicar's words on the occasion of a marriage.
As to this Bill, my Lords, we on this side of the House quite openly understand and agree it, and tonight I am merely going to probe into the corners of it and make observations to see whether I can help the coal industry in any way. It is to the point that we are not able to go any further with this Bill beyond Second Reading on the nod "because it is a finance Bill, and so for my own part I want to make only a few observations. I should like to begin by saying that I believe—and I am sure there arc other noble Lords, not only among those here this afternoon but also among those who are not here, who also believe—that, within the energy industry, coal is both an economical and an essential item as against oil. It is a product which we have been mining
612
for many generations, and we have the experience, the men and the machinery. I feel that we shall be beginning to lose our senses, my Lords, if we believe too much in oil when we have enormous seams of coal in this country. These seams, I am given to understand, could last us over 200 years, whereas in the case of oil we might not have it from the North Sea after approximately 50 years. We in Parliament, or anybody outside, would not be sensible to ignore the importance of the coalmining industry.
My Lords, a moment ago I mentioned the word "oil ", and I stress very strongly that we must keep our minds firmly fixed on the coal seams, the miners and the engineering that is involved. It was only just recently that a new coal seam, far greater than the one at Selby—much larger, I understand—was discovered in Nottingham. I also feel that it would be disastrous for us to ignore the mining industry and to let it run down. No one knows the mines better than the miner himself. In the last ten days there has been a rather cold wind blowing across the industry, and I suspect that some of us must have wondered what was going to happen. It was because of the closing of a certain mine, and also because the miners were going to vote for the banning of overtime.
I think it is worth mentioning at this moment that a certain union leader by the name of Mr. Gormley has once again jumped straight into the breach and has held his miners. It is a very tough world, and I think Mr. Gormley is doing a very fine job. I bring that thought before your Lordships because he inspires his members. He inspired them in more difficut times three years ago, and he is doing it again. No one knows more than he the difficulties of unemployment and of the running-down of a mine which may be uneconomical and yet keeping on the mines that are economical. I feel it is worth mentioning this afternoon that we have a great stalwart in Mr. Gormley, and I notice from tonight's rapers that he has just won the vote again. He has stuck his jaw out, and he has done a very brave deed for the industry, because he knows that oil and other parts of our energy industry could well overtake the mining industry if he were for a moment not to lead his men.
Having said that, I think I ought now to turn to the Bill itself. It is not a

613
very big Bill, but I should like to make one observation to your Lordships. It concerns the difference between private enterprise and the nationalised industries. We are constantly seeing too much of the nationalised industries plunging themselves into trouble in one way or another and then coming to Parliament cap in hand, asking Parliament to dig them out of that trouble. I think that for them to do this is unfair, and is a disadvantage, to private enterprise. A few months ago we had the example of Chrysler running into difficulties. Let us face it, my Lords, they had had an enormous export market for this country for many years. We also had the case of a very large oil company, Burmah Oil. Members of the Labour Party considered this to be a very nasty piece of inefficient, capitalist working. But, in my view, it is unfair for the nationalised industries to cut across the path of private enterprise.
It is probably a dream, but I should like to see the nationalised industries getting on their feet one day (or being pushed on to their feet by a Government, whenever that may be) and then, when anyone nationalised industry goes wrong or needs help—and as an example, I give British Rail; for they will never have a product to sell and will always need help —the other industries will come in and help. My dream may never come to reality, for I do not think it will be possible. One would like to see the group of nationalised industries giving help, provided they make a profit, to the others who need it. That is my observation on the nationalised industries.
My Lords, I come to Clause 1. The noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davis, has given us the figures and explained why the National Coal Board needs this money. I know from the report of the National Coal Board that they were in bad straits due to enormous wage increases and so on. I should like to congratulate the NCB on their report. I thought it was a good one and easy to read. It was criticised by certain Members in another place for being a somewhat glossy, public relations type of magazine—those were the words, I think. In my view it is a good report. Clause 1 allows the NCB to borrow further money for pensions and other items. In view of the enormous amounts for which the NCB are asking, can I ask the noble Lord to tell us more
614
about the use of these millions, because they are to be up to £18 million a year? For instance, there is the matter of timing. How long will the loan last? With inflation running as it is, the Minister or the NCB could well be coming back to the Government next year for more help. Is this to last for one year or is it the idea to come back to Parliament every two or three or five years?
While I am on the subject of borrowing powers, I notice that the Coal Board put up their prices recently both to the domestic householders and industry. Can I ask the noble Lord why the nationalised industries are allowed to put up their prices when, if I am right, the price control exercised by his right honourable friend Mrs. Williams has nailed down prices so that no one is allowed to put up prices, retail or otherwise? How is it the nationalised industries are allowed to get away with this? If I or if anyone else goes out into the streets, we will find that the average pensioner cannot understand why coal is allowed to go up in price—in fact, immediately coal went up, electricity went up. Perhaps the noble Lord could explain why these prices are allowed to rise whereas private enterprise must hold prices down.
In the last Bill we discussed pneumoconiosis and we dealt with pensions for that; I am sure that we are all pleased that these pensions are now more in line with present day living conditions for pensioners. I will not comment further on that—and I am sure this will go also for my noble friends—except to raise one point. May I ask the noble Lord whether these pensions are aligned to Civil Service pensions? Perhaps the noble Lord can tell us how these are worked out?
I come to one further point. I notice that these pensions are to be looked at for the next 20 years. Is inflation to last that long? I understand that inflation is beginning to come under control, yet we are looking at 20 years—up to 1995. I think. I hope that inflation is not going to last that long. Perhaps the noble Lord can answer me on that point. The third clause deals with stocks. I am not going into this. We went into the quantity of stock and the powers that the Minister of State has for the control of stocks. Perhaps he can give us some idea of the stock figures round the generating boards at the moment. I believe that before

615
Christmas we had three months' reserve stock.
I shall not detain the House any further. We on this side of the House understand the Bill. We agree with it and we await the third part which is to come next year or next Session. Perhaps then all the Bill can be put together in one. We are grateful to the noble Lord for explaining it to us. Anything that we in this House can do to help the National Coal Board and the mining industry, we should do.
5.27 p.m.
Lord LOVELL-DAVIS: My Lords, I do not wish to detain the House for long on a Bill which can in no way be controversial, as the noble Viscount will agree; but I would stress that this is an important Bill. It is a further step in the procuring of a more competent and productive coal industry in this country and it will help, for the first time, to have a proper fuel policy, both forward-looking and flexible. The noble Viscount pointed out that we must not depend too much on oil; and I agree. Oil is a magnificent bonus for this country and we are very fortunate in having it as an additional energy resource, but we must never overlook the fact that coal is also vitally important to us and, more significantly, is a longer-term energy resource than oil.
I should like briefly to answer as best may the points that the noble Viscount has raised. T should like to join him in his fulsome praise of Mr. Gormley. As noble Lords will know, the National Union of Mineworkers National Executive Committee have reconsidered the matter of the overtime ban. I understand that the ban is to be called off immediately and that a national ballot of the membership is to be held. The noble Viscount referred to the borrowing requirements. As noble Lords will know, NCB borrowings have built up rapidly since the beginning of their financial year due to heavy capital expenditure and substantial stocking of coal at the pitheads and under deferred payment arrangements. Such a rapid build up of stocks was not anticipated earlier in the year when the legislative programme for the last Session was under consideration. In view of the present borrowing position and the expected requirements of the Board during the rest of this year, this
616
Bill was introduced at the earliest possible moment in the Session.
Reference was made to the time scale. The new limits proposed in the Bill cover the NCB's estimated requirements for capital investment over the next two years. The longer term requirements will be dealt with in a later, more comprehensive Coal Bill, as I have already mentioned. The proposed limit does not make specific allowance for inflation but includes some small contingency allowances. Regarding pensions, I was asked whether the pension scheme was in line with the Civil Service scheme. The post-April 1975 pension scheme is broadly in line with the Civil Service scheme in that it will give a man a pension equal to half his final wage at the end of 45 years. In the Civil Service scheme, for instance, the term is 40 years. The noble Viscount also referred to the £18 million per annum which remains the same for 20 years. This is not inflation-proofed; but of course it may be increased in order to take account of pension increases and possibly future inflation. I wish I were in a position to say how long we were going to continue in an inflationary situation.
On the matter of prices, as the noble Viscount pointed out, the NCB have announced price increases averaging about 15 per cent. for industrial and carbonisation coal from 1st March, and of about 11 per cent. for domestic coal from 1st April. At the same time, the Board announced that a further domestic increase would be necessary after the summer. It is expected that coal, including that delivered to power stations, will retain its general competitive position this year. The purpose of the increases is to meet increases in miners' wages and in the cost of materials and services used by the Board. The increased revenue will also be used to assist the Board to carry through its investment plan involving the development of new mines and the expansion of capacity at existing collieries to ensure that coal can play its essential role in meeting energy needs to the end of the century and beyond.
As noble Lords will know, it is the Government's policy that the nationalised industries should at least cover their costs out of revenue. The Board have done all they can to alleviate the harsher effects of this realistic pricing of energy by

617
holding down coal prices for as long as possible, and by weighting increases as much as possible on the coal used by industry. Coal is not included in the selective price restraint scheme; but the Coal Board have done and are doing their best to limit the impact of price increases on the domestic consumer. For their part, the Government have taken steps to cushion the impact of the fuel price increases on the poorer sections of the community by increasing retirement pensions and related benefits by 16 per cent. in April and 15 per cent. in November.
Finally, the noble Viscount raised the matter of stocking. I have the figures available, but I am sure it would meet with approval if I did not detain your Lordships in taking time to go through the figures. If the noble Viscount will allow me to do so, I will gladly write to him and set out the current stock levels. My Lords, I hope I have summed up all the points raised by the noble Viscount. I wish to say no more except that in a sense this Bill makes the background against which the Board is working clearer and more tidy. It is part of a larger, overall plan and, as such, I hope it will be well received by your Lordships. I beg to move.
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

WATER CHARGES BILL
Brought from the Commons; read la, and to be printed.