Lords Sitting of 10 June 1976

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Saint Albans.
The Lord Spens—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

ROYAL EARLSWOOD HOSPITAL SECURITY UNIT
Lord SEGAL: 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 why the grounds of the Royal Earlswood Hospital have been considered as a suitable site for the location of a 60-bed forensic psychiatric hospital for the treatment of mentally ill offenders.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the Department of Health and Social Security has asked each Regional Health Authority to set up a unit or units for the care of mentally disordered patients (only some of whom will be offenders) who require treatment in accommodation which affords a degree of security. The South West Thames Regional Health Authority set up a Working Party which included members of the Authority and officers representing medical, nursing, social work, personnel and planning interests, which considered the suitability of sites throughout the Region. Factors taken into account include proximity to other health and social service facilities, the availability of land already owned by the National Health Service, road and rail communications, staff availability and amenities, community aspects and cost. Following consideration of these factors, the Working Party recommended land adjoining the Royal Earlswood Hospital as the most suitable in the Region and thorough consultations with local and regional interests about this are in progress at the present moment.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, I wish to thank my noble friend for that lengthy and considered reply. But is he aware of the widespread anxiety already created by the consideration of this site for the suggested hospital? Would it not be wiser to consider some alternative site, which is not adjacent to a hospital where over 600 mentally retarded people, including over 80 young children, are now receiving very excellent education and training?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, let me make it perfectly clear that we are mindful of the feelings locally, and of the opposition which there is to this particular siting; so much so that Mr. G. A. Turner of the South West Thames Regional Health Authority, with members of the Regional Working Party, has over a period of several weeks now met, I think, every objector, either groups or organisations—some 15 of them—to discuss with them the situation and the reasons why this site has been selected. Very careful consideration has been given to nine sites within the Regional Health Authority area. This particular site consists of 155 acres. I know it myself, and many of your Lordships know it even better. It is a magnificent place. The hospital, which caters for mentally handicapped people, has been there for several years, and the new security unit will cover about eight of the 155 acres. As your Lordships may know, it is intended to build a district general hospital there in the course of time, and it is desirable that this medical complex should be sited there where there is an abundance of accommodation.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, will the noble Lord press on the Regional Health Authority the importance of giving publicity to the reasons why it has selected this site instead of some of the others which have been considered? Is the noble Lord aware that so far the Regional Health Authority has refused to give the names of the other sites which it has considered, including one which, it is understood, would from every point of view be equally advantageous?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for the suggestion he has made. It is very desirable that the reasons should be given,

809
and I shall certainly see that the suggestion is made to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
The Countess of LOUDOUN: My Lords, following on from the last supplementary question, would it be possible to give publicity to the fact that the new hospital is not to be a top security hospital? I ask this question because I believe that many of the fears about the hospital have arisen due to the fact that it was leaked to the Press that it was to be a top security hospital, which in fact it is not. Could some publicity be given to that point?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Countess. I have seen the report which appeared in the Press on this matter. I take this opportunity to say that it will not in any sense be a top security psychiatric hospital, as we understand it. It will be a psychiatric hospital which can accommodate certain people who will need to be kept in secure conditions where they will be able to get the kind of treatment that their particular difficulty needs.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, is the noble Lord correct? Because it is generally understood locally that there is a need for top security here and that there will be, putting it bluntly, a large wall around it, as there is around Broadmoor.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I hasten to say that I believe I am correct. It is not intended to be a top security psychiatric hospital and should not be mentioned in those terms. The proposed unit is designed to provide treatment for those mentally ill and mentally handicapped patients who, while not having dangerous or violent propensities which require admission to a Special Hospital, cannot be managed satisfactorily in the wards of existing psychiatric hospitals. It is merely to accommodate people like that, who need this particular supervision and care, that this hospital is being built, and we are hoping that every region in the country will have a similar one.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, in his original Answer the noble Lord himself used the word " security " in relation to this unit, but he has rejected the expression
810
"top security" in relation to it. For the benefit of those who are as ignorant as I am, would the noble Lord be kind enough to state the difference in definition between those two terms?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. I was trying to draw a distinction between this hospital and the top security hospital for people suffering from grave mental disorder which we read about from time to time. I was trying to say that, while it will be a secure one, it will not be for persons who are exceptionally dangerous. Exceptionally dangerous persons will go to the two or three top security hospitals which are available at the present moment.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend whether it is not somewhat unrealistic during the present period of economic stringency to consider erecting a new hospital for breakers of the criminal law at a time when so many hospitals for law-abiding citizens are being closed down all over the country?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, that is not a fair interpretation of the situation. I thought I had made it perfectly clear—and if I did not I do so now—that it is not intended and it is not expected that this particular type of psychiatric hospital will have other than a very small number of patients who have been convicted in our courts and who need some form of security and some form of special treatment. The majority of people will certainly not come within that category.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, is it not the case that there is a need for something less secure than, say, Broad-moor but more secure than the ordinary hospital; and is not the object of an institution of this kind, wherever it goes, to provide very much needed accommodation of this intermediate category, and therefore leave more room at Broadmoor and elsewhere for the really dangerous ones?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, who has put it admirably. I was trying hard to avoid using the name " Broad-moor ", because it has given rise to a

811
great deal of misunderstanding. But that is precisely the position.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd): My Lords, I wonder whether we ought to come to a conclusion of this Question. I should have thought that nine minutes on one Question was overlong. I understand, however, that there is anxiety on this matter and I would invite noble Lords to have a word with my noble friend outside.

H.M. DESTROYERS: OUTFITTING
3.18 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: 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, in view of their letter of 25th May 1976, in reply to a question raised in the recent debate on defence concerning the progress of four of Her Majesty's destroyers, why is it stated that there have been delays owing to labour shortages when there are a large number of persons unemployed.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the unforeseen labour shortages referred to occurred among highly specialist outfitting trades.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, could the noble Lord repeat the last part of his Answer? I could not hear.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, apologise to the noble Baroness. The shortages referred to occurred among highly specialist outfitting trades—outfitting in the naval sense.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for repeating his Answer, may I ask him whether it is time for more people to be trained? There are so many people unemployed. What are the Government doing about training these people, who are so necessary? In view of the numbers damaged in the cod war, is it not particularly necessary to get these ships to sea?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the warship builders are responsible for
812
recruiting their workforce, and have substantial recruitment schemes. However, the Manpower Services Commission continues to provide opportunities for people to learn these trades if they wish. We cannot compel people to learn to become electricians and pipe-benders in this area, which are the two trades in which there is a particular shortage of labour.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this shortage of skilled labour which he has now revealed will be very widespread as the economy makes the upturn that we are all looking forward to? Could he say when the Government intend to introduce that which they promised at the time of the Election: namely, compulsory day or block release for those hundreds of thousands of young people who are getting no technical training whatever after the age of 16?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am speaking for a Department for which I am in no way responsible. As I understand it, the Government have this very much in mind and are implementing an extended training scheme in preparation for the increased growth of our economy which we are all expecting.

FISHING AUTHORITIES' REORGANISATION
3.21 p.m.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are in a position to report on the progress made in the reorganisation of the White Fish Authority and the Herring Board; and whether they are aware that the uncertainty about the future might damage the excellent and outstanding work of the White Fish Authority to the detriment of the fishing industry as a whole.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the previous Conservative Government foresaw in 1972 that the administration of the fishing industry would need to adjust to

813
changing circumstances, but they decided that the White Fish Authority and Herring Industry Board should continue under existing law for a further period provisionally set at five years. In view of this outstanding commitment, and in recognition of the need to relieve uncertainty about the future of the two authorities we are consulting with the bodies concerned and with the industry.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister very much for his sympathetic answer. I think that what he has said will reassure the interests that I am trying to represent here today, those of the very skilled scientific set-up wishing to know what their future will be.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNE-SIDE: My Lords, having represented a fishing port for very many years and being very " pro " the White Fish Authority, may I ask the noble Lord how the various fishing ports themselves have reacted to the proposals? Would the noble Lord bear in mind that I should hate anything to be done which would upset the fishing ports, which have very good remembrances of the old White Fish Authority?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, we shall certainly take note of what the noble Baroness has said. It is a little premature to say what will he the outcome of these consultations, but I can say that a document will be published in the autumn.

LIVESTOCK: ILLEGAL ENTRY
3.23 p.m.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will give orders to the appropriate authorities to destroy all livestock which is brought into this country illegally.
Lord STRABOLGI: No, my Lords.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, while deploring that Answer, may
814
I ask whether the Minister is aware that there is great and widespread worry about the animals which are continually coming into this country illegally? Would he not agree that it is high time that the Government took a stand and decided one way or the other on this very important issue? Would he also agree that. the people in the ports have not the authority at this time without a Government order to destroy any animals; that it is left to each individual magistrate or immigration officer; and that people up and down this country think that that is quite wrong?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, in the case of rabies-susceptible animals such as cats and dogs, the Government consider that the discretionary powers vested in local authorities to order the destruction of illegally-landed animals are sufficient.
Lord AMULREE: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree with me that it is a far greater punishment upon the person bringing the animal into this country illegally that he or she is fully aware that the animal will be destroyed rather than facing a fine of £400?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, not necessarily. There is evidence that some owners are not deterred by the possible destruction of their animals. Some have chosen destruction rather than meet quarantine costs. There were 12 such cases last year.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, in view of the rather abrupt nature of the original Answer, would I be right in understanding the situation as follows: first, that there is discretionary power to destroy illegally-imported animals and that it is habitually resorted to; and, secondly, that the purpose of that is a precaution and not a punishment of the owner of the animal? Is it not important that these discretionary powers should be used for the purposes for which they were intended and not simply as a means of deterring owners? Furthermore, is it not the case, for instance, that a mouse was reprieved only last week and proved to be totally innocent?
Lord STRABOLGI: Yes, my Lords. We fully agree with what the noble and learned Lord has said about the discretionary powers. We also believe that public

815
support and co-operation is far more important to our defence against rabies than the questionable, marginal advantage of mandatory destruction.
The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that there is widespread anxiety as to the existence of a back-door route from the Continent through Eire to this country without proper supervision: and will Her Majesty's Government make a statement either to confirm or dispel this publicly-held belief in due course?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, under the Rabies Act 1974 and the two orders which flowed from it, we have very wide powers, first, to order the destruction of animals where appropriate. We have powers to fine up to £400 on summary conviction and on indictment to award a year's imprisonment or an unlimited fine which could run to thousands of pounds if necessary, or both.
The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, the noble Lord has not answered my supplementary question. Is there a backstage route from Eire to this country which does not contravene any powers currently exercised by Her Majesty's Government?
Lord STRABOLGI: No, my Lords, because Eire has the same powers as we have and the same precautions.
The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, with the greatest respect, that is still not an answer to my supplementary question. Is there a route from Eire to this country not controlled by Her Majesty's Government at this moment?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, not that I am aware of. The Government keep in close contact with the appropriate authorities in Northern Ireland, the Republic of Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man to ensure compatibility of legislation and regulations and to co-ordinate defences with the collective aim of keeping rabies out of these islands.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, have not the Government read the reports which say not that the legislation is incompatible—which, I believe, it is not—but
816
that, in fact, in ports such as Cork and in other Southern Irish ports, the legislation is not adequately policed or enforced and that there is a traffic of animals from the Continent to the Southern Irish ports and thence to the United Kingdom, which is not adequately policed?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, we shall certainly look into that; but it is a different question.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that there is a great difference between some of the ports which are walled and the majority which are not walled? Would he further agree that the local authorities should be encouraged now to review their procedures for meeting animals coming off ships? I am particularly thinking of places like Middlesbrough.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, that is being done. There is a document in the Library which sets out very fully what the Government are doing. We are very aware of this and there are very strict and wide-sweeping powers.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, is not the real problem the matter of detecting those animals that do come in? Is the noble Lord satisfied that there are adequate numbers policing the animals that do come in, finding them and dealing with them?
Lord STRABOLGI: Certainly, my Lords. The ports and docks authorities have been looking into this. We have increased very much our publicity campaign. We shall be returning to that next Tuesday on another Question. I am glad to say that public opinion now has resulted in quite a number of prosecutions.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that if it was widely known on the Continent and in Ireland that pets or any livestock would be destroyed, that would, in itself, act as a deterrent and that that is what is needed?
Lord STRABOLGINot necessarily, my Lords. For example, if an owner has honestly made a mistake which he or she discovers in transit, he or she is much

817
more likely to declare the animal if there is a chance that it would be put into quarantine than if it would be destroyed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
3.30 p.m.
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 advance the following Bills and Order from Friday the 25th to Monday the 21st of June, vizt.:—
Explosives (Age of Purchase, etc.) Bill (The Lord Aylestone);
Northern Ireland (Trial of Terrorists and Witness Protection) Bill [H.L.] (The Viscount Brookeborough);
Births and Deaths Registration (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 (The Lord Donaldson of Kings-bridge);
and to advance the following Bills from Friday the 25th to Thursday the 24th of June, vizt.:—
Theatres Trust Bill (The Lord Harmar-Nicholls);
Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability) Bill (The Lord Stow Hill).
—(Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL BILL
Read 3a with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

FATAL ACCIDENTS BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on Recommitment on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on Recommitment. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question. Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Contributory negligence]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved the following Amendment:
Page 3, line 24, leave out subsection (2).
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment would delete an unnecessary subsection. If the Committee would like me to explain why, I shall be happy to do so; but my own assurance that it seems to me to be a sensible Amendment has been confirmed by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Simon of Glaisdale and Lord Russell of Killowen. I hope that in those circumstances it will suffice for me to say "I beg to move".
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: I do not think we will insist on a full explanation in this case.
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses and the Schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with an Amendment.

ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORITY (SPECIAL CONSTABLES) BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

RATING (CHARITY SHOPS) BILL [H.L.]
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless therefore any noble Lord objects. I beg to move that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Baroness Birk.)
On Question. Motion agreed to.

EDUCATION (SCOTLAND) BILL
3.34 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Kirk hill.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill (99) as first printed for the Commons]
[Nos. 1 to 10.]
Amendment No.
1 Clause 1, page 1, line 7, after " (1)", insert " Subject to subsection (7) below,"
2 line 7, leave out from " authority " to " a " in line 10 and insert " shall fix "
3 line 13, at end insert "; and any such date may he either a calendar date or fixed by reference to the occurrence of a particular annual event "
4 line 14, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
" (2) Subject to subsection (7) below, an education authority may, under subsection (1) above—

(a) fix different school commencement dates for different primary schools in their area;

(b) at any time fix a different school commencement date in substitution for any date previously fixed by them under the said subsection (1) "

5 Page 2, line 15, leave out from beginning to first " date " in line 18 and insert—
" (4) Subject to subsection (7) below, an education authority shall, in respect of each school commencement date fixed by them under subsection (1) above and applicable to a public primary school, fix the latest following "
6 line 22, leave out from " whom " to end of line 31 and insert " the authority consider of sufficient age to commence attendance at a public primary school at that school commencement date "
7 line 32, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
" (5) Subject to subsection (7) below, an education authority may, under subsection (4) above

(a) where a school commencement date is applicable to more than one public primary school in their area, fix in respect of that school commencement date different appropriate latest dates for those different schools;

(b) at any time fix a different appropriate latest date in substitution for any date previously fixed by them under the said subsection (4) "

8 Page 3, line 7, leave out " or (5) "
9 line 11, at end insert—
" (7) The period between an appropriate latest date applicable to a school and the next following school commencement date applicable to that school (whether or not the school commencement date is that in respect of which the appropriate latest date is fixed) shall not, except with the approval of the Secretary of State on an application to him by the education authority, exceed six months by more than seven days:
Provided that no such application shall be made, nor approval given, in respect of any such period which commences after 31st December 1979."
10 leave out lines 12 and 13 and insert—
" (8) In relation to any child, " school commencement date " "
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, with the leave of the House. I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 10 en bloc. These 10 Amendments revise Clause I of the Bill, which governs school commencement arrangements. These were Government Amendments tabled at Report stage in another place in the light of an undertaking given by my honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Scottish Office. to reconsider the draftimi. of Clause 1.
Debate of Clause 1 in another place focussed on the requirement that school commencement dates, and in future, the age range of children to be admitted to school on each commencement date. should be subject to approval by the Secretary of State. As I explained when the Bill was originally before this House. commencement and leaving dates are at present both governed by the same section of the Education (Scotland) Act 1962. As it was proposed to introduce new. nationally determined, leaving dates. while leaving commencement arrangements to be decided locally, it became necessary to separate the provisions.
Clause 1 as it originally appeared in the Bill was therefore largely a re-enactment of the existing legislation. The only new provisions (subsections (3) to (7)) simply gave statutory recognition to the current practice, particularly in relation to the increasingly popular single annual commencement date, of requiring an education authority to specify the age range of children they would be prepared to admit to primary school on each commencement date. These new subsections were designed to ensure that the upper age limit of

821
children being admitted to primary school was not unacceptably high. In practice, and I understand this view has received virtually unanimous support, 5 years 6 months has come to be regarded as the maximum acceptable age for entry to Primary 1.
In the course of debate in another place it was suggested that if the basic educational reason for the retention of the requirement that both commencement dates and age ranges on intake be approved by the Secretary of State for Scotland, this would ensure that no child was over 5 years 6 months on starting school. and that this might be written into the Statute in substitution for the Secretary of State's powers of approval. My honourable friend undertook to examine this possibility. The Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, whose views on school commencement arrangements were quoted widely in debate, were subsequently consulted about the possible courses which might be followed. These were either to retain the requirement that commencement dates and age ranges be approved by the Secretary of State for Scotland, or to substitute a revised section which would require education authorities to fix one or more dates for entry into primary schools in their area, and also to specify an age range of children whom they were prepared to admit to school on age date provided that the child under school age is given the opportunity to commence school attendance at the latest on the commencement date before he becomes 5 years 6 months in age.
The Convention indicated that they were firmly in favour of the latter proposal. The Amendments now under consideration modify Clause 1 to achieve the agreed objectives of securing national minimum standards for entry to primary education, while at the same time giving education authorities maximum discretion to fix their own commencement arrangements in the light of local circumstances. The Amendments reflect constructive suggestions made during proceedings on the Bill and result in what should prove to be a generally acceptable and workable provision. I therefore commend them to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Kirkhill.)
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I agree that these ten Amendments should be considered together because they make a considerable redrafting of Clause 1 of the Bill as it left your Lordships' House. Your Lordships will recall that when the Bill was passing through this House we raised some points on the Government's proposals in the matters on which the noble Lord has been speaking. We also pointed to possible alternatives. Some of these matters were taken up in debates in another place. This led the Government to make these changes to Clause 1, and I can advise your Lordships that the Government's second thoughts on Clause 1 are more acceptable than their first proposals.
Although there has been a considerable redrafting of Clause 1, I see no objection to the changes proposed. However, I should like to raise one drafting point concerning Amendment No. 10. That inserts a new subsection (8) and it seems to me that the present subsection (8) at lines 25 and 26 on page 3 should become subsection (9). Provided that is noted and there is no question of the present lines 25 and 26 disappearing the Amendment is perfectly acceptable.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and I can assure him we shall take note of that point.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 11 and 12.]
11 Clause 2, page 4, line 24, leave out " child " and insert " person "
12 line 37, leave out " children " and insert " persons "
3.42 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 11 and 12. The first Amendment was moved by the Opposition, and the second Amendment was a consequential Government Amendment. Both are merely drafting corrections designed to ensure consistency of reference and to recognise that " child " is perhaps an inappropriate designation for a young person approaching school-leaving age. I therefore commend these Amendments to your Lordships.

823
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Kirkhill.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 13.]
13 Page 5, line 10, leave out " appointed " and insert " established "
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 13. The purpose of this Amendment is to correct a minor drafting error in Clause 5.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Kirkhill.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 14.]
14 Page 8, line 3, at end insert—
" (aa) in subsection (2), for the words from " provision with " to " (v), of " there shall be substituted the words " such provision and prescribe such matters with respect to such institutions as may be provided or prescribed with respect to grant-aided colleges in regulations made under ";"
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 14. Again, this is purely a drafting Amendment relating to Section 81 (1) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1962, which sets out regulation-making powers under the headings (i) to (v). The Bill in paragraph 11 of Schedule 1, adds a new heading, (vi). That new heading should occur also in Section 81 (2), but this was inadvertently omitted and the Amendment rectifies the situation.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Kirkhill.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 15.]
15 Page 9, line 16, at end insert " Section 72 "
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15. The purpose of this Amendment is to repeal Section 72 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1962, which required the Secretary of State to publish every year a report of his proceedings under that Act during the preceding year.
824
There are probably many reasons why the report, whatever its merits may have been in 1872 (when a provision of this kind first appeared in legislation), is out of touch with modern requirements. For one thing, a calendar year is the wrong period for most of what is going on. Different aspects of the report would be better related to the school session or to the financial year. For another, the period of up to six months that it takes to prepare and publish a long and miscellaneous report robs a great deal of the content of any topicality. Again, we find that most inquiries need information in greater depth and detail than a report of this kind can normally provide. Finally much of the most interesting material that figures in the report half or quarter of a century ago is now provided in separate non-statutory publications, leaving the statutory report with an excessive load of minor and trivial matters.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.—(Lord Kirkhill.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
3.45 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Birk.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Power to erect flagpoles, etc., on highways]:
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendments Nos. 1 and 2:
Page 2, line 9, leave out (" under an enactment ").
line 13, leave out (" under an enactment ").
The noble Baroness said: With the leave of the Committee, I should like to move Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 together. As it stands at the moment, subsection (2)

825
provides that an authority shall not be entitled, to place flagpoles et cetera on a highway carried by a bridge, except with the consent of the body which has a duty under that Act to maintain the bridge or its approaches. It has been pointed out to us that there are many bridges carrying highways Which are maintained, for example, by the British Railways Board as a result of obligations deriving from Common Law, or agreements or conveyances involving particular landowners and not deriving from any enactments at all. It is just as desirable in these cases that the bridge authority's consent should be obtained before flagpoles are erected on the highway. This is achieved by the Amendment, which removes the references to " an enactment I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Control of mixing of mortar etc on highways]:
Viscount AMORY Viscount AMORY moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 5, line 4, after (deposits ") insert (" or causes or permits to be mixed or deposited ").
The noble Viscount said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Young and myself. This Amendment covers a very small point indeed. I do not know what the noble Baroness will feel about this, but I wonder whether she might think it sensible for me to speak to Amendments Nos. 3 and 5 together. They are both very small points.
Baroness BIRK: I cannot see any reason at the moment why I should object to that.
Viscount AMORY: Then I will speak to them together and withdraw on the second one if an objection is raised later. The first Amendment deals with the question of mixing cement and mortar on a highway. The direct responsibility in the Bill is placed on those who do it— who, in the normal way, one would think would be labourers, probably employed by a contractor. The suggestion is that, as those labourers will presumably be working under the supervision of the
826
contractor himself, the contractor as well as the labourers should be made liable here.
We are dealing with a case where cement or mortar is mixed on the road itself. Of course, if it is mixed on a wooden or other movable foundation, or on something which prevents it from coming into contact with the road, then there is no objection. I believe that the wooden plate on which it is mixed is technically know as a " spot ", but 1 shall not use that term because it might be a little confusing in the circumstances. This section creates a criminal offence and so it will presumably be strictly construed. The view has been expressed that, under the Bill as it stands, the contractor would be caught with the existing wording in the same way as a company can be caught if one of its employees sells unfit food. But the advice which the local government associations have obtained is that the analogy is faulty, because the contractor in this case would not mix the cement himself. So the suggestion, which seems reasonable, is that the employer as well as the labourer who is directly concerned should be liable if an offence is committed.
Amendment No. 5 deals with another aspect of the same problem. If cement is mixed on the highway, and sticks to it in any quantity, very considerable damage can arise. The liquid cement can be wafted into a sewer or other piping, and great damage may be caused which needs expensive remedial work. The object of this Amendment is to provide that, if damage is caused in that kind of way, full compensation arising from it can be claimed by the authority which has to carry out the remedial work. Under the Bill, there seems no right to recover expenses incurred in the course of the remedial work.
I understand that at an earlier stage in the discussion of this Bill the Government undertook to introduce an Amendment to deal with this question, but in fact did not do so. I believe they feel that existing powers will be adequate under Section 35 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973, the Highways Act 1959 or the Highways (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1961. But I am advised that under those Acts only discretion is conferred, and there is a limit of £400 too, which in the kind of case I am envisaging,

827
where widespread damage is done to sewers, would clearly be inadequate. It would seem fair to everybody concerned that a right to full compensation for the remedial work required should be specifically included in the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: The noble Viscount has explained the Amendment so clearly that there is no point in my going over what it seeks to do. We believe that it is a misconceived Amendment because, as the clause is drafted, it already provides that a contractor employing as a servant a labourer to mix mortar or cement would be subject to the provisions of the clause, and the Amendment is therefore unnecessary. If the Amendment were made, the person who caused or permitted mortar or cement to be mixed or deposited on the highway would be guilty of an offence under subsection (1), even though he might have no direct control over the contractor who committed the offence. This seems to us unnecessarily punitive, and is not what is intended by the Amendment.
There is no gain in prosecuting a property owner who employs a contractor to do work on his property, if an offence is committed which he could not have prevented and which, in many cases, he would not even have known had been committed. In practice, it is thought that the clause as drafted would work satisfactorily, and for that reason I am resisting the Amendment. I believe, as the noble Viscount pointed out, that a similar Amendment was moved during the Committee stage in another place and it was withdrawn, by leave, after the foregoing explanation had been given. I shall deal with the other Amendment when we come to it, because I think it would be easier to proceed that way round.
Viscount AMORY: The information which the noble Baroness has seems to be different from that which I have received. I understood her to say that she thought that under the existing wording a contractor who employed a labourer who was guilty of this offence would be liable. If that is so, then it meets the point of this Amendment. But may I ask her again whether that is what she did say, that there would be no wish to catch anybody other than the employer and the
828
labourer: for example, anybody who owned the contiguous land who was not directly involved?
Baroness BIRK: What I said was that under the Amendment it would be possible for a property owner, who was employing a contractor to do work on his property, to be prosecuted. If an offence was committed which he could not have prevented and which, in many cases, he would not have known had been committed, a property owner could be drawn into the circle of those liable without having condoned or agreed to it. That is an additional reason why I have to resist the Amendment.
Baroness YOUNG: I am sorry to pursue this point, but I think that we are slightly at cross-purposes. I believe I am right in saying that my noble friend Lord Amory and I are concerned that in a case like this a labourer would be prosecuted under this clause for the offence of mixing cement directly on the pavement. We are seeking to make an Amendment which would also render liable the employer of the workman. What the noble Baroness has said is that our Amendment is incorrectly drafted and would apply to the owner of the property who had employed the contractor. If that is the case, then of course we shall withdraw the Amendment and redraft it to meet this point. But before doing that, it would be helpful to know whether or not a contractor is liable and, if so, where that is stated in this clause. Perhaps the noble Baroness could say.
Baroness BIRK: As I understand it, this is covered by the clause. Where the employer and the contractor are one and the same person, the clause will apply as it stands at the moment. What we are anxious to avoid and what the Amendment, probably inadvertently, would bring about is the situation where, when the employer and the contractor are two different people, the property owner is brought into the case and is punished for something for which he was not responsible. That is my clear understanding, although my exposition may not have been as clear as it should have been.
Viscount AMORY: We are certainly not suggesting in any way that anybody other than the direct employer—to whom

829
I referred as the contractor—and the labourer should be caught. We were suggesting that he is the person who should be liable, not the person who placed an order with the contractor for the work to be done. The noble Baroness has not quite told us whether she thinks it would be fair and reasonable that the direct employer of the labourer should be caught. We think that the direct employer, whom I called the contractor, should be liable.
Baroness BIRK: As I understand it, the direct employer would be caught. But under the Amendment, somebody in between—the property owner—would be caught, although he would not be caught under the clause as it is at present drafted. I gather that this point was gone into very carefully in another place, and it was not a matter of the Amendment being lost; it was withdrawn, by leave, after these explanations. But what I am prepared to do, so that there can be no doubt, is to take further legal advice and write to the noble Viscount between now and Report stage, if that will satisfy him.
Viscount AMORY: I thank the noble Baroness very much. I think that my noble friend Lady Young and I will be perfectly happy if we can be sure that the direct employer will be liable in a case like this. We do not want to spread it any wider than that. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4 p.m.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 5, line 39, leave out from (" 1959 ") to end of line 42.
The noble Baroness said: With the leave of the Committee, may I move Amendment No. 4 and speak at the same time to Amendment No. 48. As noble Lords will see, these Amendments involve the deletion from subsection (3) of the affirmation that the term " statutory undertakers " in subsection (2)(d) does not include a person entitled to the benefit of a licence in respect of the highway under Section 41 of the Highways Act 1971 and the insertion of that affirmation
830
under the definition of " statutory undertaker " contained in Clause 35. These Amendments are a tidying-up exercise and move words which are interpretive from Clause 3 into Clause 35, which is an interpretive clause. They make better sense and also make the Bill easier to understand. I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: I am sure that we are all very pleased to accept any Amendments which make the Bill easier to understand.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Viscount AMORY Viscount AMORY moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 5, line 42, at end insert—
("(4) If in any case any mortar, cement or other substance is mixed on a highway in contravention of subsection (1) of this section and thereafter sticks to the surface of the highway, or solidifies in drains or sewers connected with the highway, the authority responsible for cleaning the highway or cleaning the drain or sewer, after carrying out any work necessitated by such contravention, may recover from the person responsible for the contravention, or from the person who causes or permits the contravention, the expenses reasonably incurred by the authority in so doing.").
The noble Viscount said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the names of my noble friend Lady Young and myself.
Baroness BIRK: As the noble Viscount pointed out, it is quite true that a similar Amendment was proposed in Committee in the other place and that this was at the prompting of the Association of County Councils. The Government spokesman agreed to consider the point. As I think the noble Viscount said this afternoon, it was thought that the Government agreed to introduce an Amendment. 1 understand that this was not so. We agreed to look into the matter and find out whether an Amendment was necessary. The matter was looked into and the Government's conclusion was that no such provision was necessary. Their conclusion—again as I understand it—was conveyed to the Association of County Councils. The reason for their conclusion is that a provision of this kind would not do anything at all.
If a person mixes mortar or cement on a highway in such a way that it passes into the drains or sewers and solidifies there, the authority responsible for the drain or

831
sewer would have a claim for damages against the person who had mixed the mortar or cement. This would be a Common Law claim arising from negligence and the damages which the authority could recover would include the cost of clearing the drain or sewer. I should have thought that this would be quite ample to cover the position and meet the noble Viscount's point. If the costs of cleaning the highway or clearing the drain or sewer are known at the time of prosecution, Section 35 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973 will enable them to be recovered. Sections 127 and 128 of the Highways Act 1959 and Section 8 of the Highways (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1961 also provide a remedy. If the costs are determined after prosecution the local authority can simply demand payment. If that is unsuccessful they can institute a civil action for damages under Common Law. The outcome of these remedies depends upon the courts. They will consider all the relevant facts and order accordingly.
If what is sought is an automatic right to recover the cost of clearing the drain or cleaning the highway from persons whose activities result in a drain or sewer being blocked or a highway being obstructed by cement or mortar which sticks to the surface, this would be a completely new departure. There is no such right in the whole of the public health legislation. This is branching out into an entirely new area. What is more, we are aware of no such provision for the clause in any of the local Act precedents.
The Amendment is unacceptable also since it refers not only to persons responsible for the contravention but also to persons who cause or permit the contravention. We believe that this is both unnecessary and undesirable.
Viscount AMORY: I must own that I am not as absolutely familiar as I could wish to be in every detail with Section 5 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973, the Highways Act 1959 and the Highways (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1961, so I shall have to accept what has been said by the noble Baroness—who, I presume, is familiar with every detail of these three important pieces of legislation. However, as I understand it, and the noble Baroness has not, I think, said anything to the contrary, they only
832
confer power on a court to use its discretion in making an award for compensation, although the noble Baroness did mention civil action. May I ask the noble Baroness this question. In that case, if civil action is taken, I take it that there would be no limit. What seems to me to be wrong and does not meet this case is that I understand that under these three Acts there would be maximum compensation of £400. That seems quite unsuitable for the kind of damage that might be done here. I am sure that some noble Lords have tried mixing cement in order to mend the garden path and know of the mess they can get into and the quite appalling disasters that can follow. I need not recount them to your Lordships. One can imagine that if a very small amount of liquid cement and water get into pipework and drains, the damage might greatly exceed £400. Can the noble Baroness assure me that by the course of action that she is now proposing there would be no maximum of that kind which would frustrate what was reasonable?
Baroness BIRK: Yes, I can assure the noble Viscount. What I was also sure about and now have been doubly reassured about is that there is no limit if one brings a civil action for damages. I think this is the main point about which the noble Viscount is concerned, and it is covered. The other point still stands: that this would be a departure and that it would create very great problems in a Bill of this kind if there were an automatic right to recover from persons, which would be the result of this Amendment. Having quite definitely been able to assure the noble Viscount on the point of damages, I hope he will withdraw the Amendment.
Viscount AMORY: It does not strike me with any terror that a right to automatic compensation should be provided, even though it has not been provided before. However, I will think over what the noble Baroness has said and forthwith make myself completely familiar with Section 35 of the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973, the Highways Act 1959 and the Highways (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1961. While I am doing that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Unauthorised marks on highways]:
On Question, Whether Clause 5 shall stand part of the Bill?
4.9 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: At Second Reading a point of interpretation was raised on Clause 5: whether or not this is a complete re-enactment of previous legislation, which is what I understand it to be, and, if so, whether someone who puts up a sign on a tree in his front garden which happens to overhang the public footpath is now committing an offence. After all, one might well put up a sign advertising a village ê and then discover that under Clause 5 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill one had made an unauthorised mark on a highway. My understanding of this clause, having studied the Notes on Clauses—for which, I might say in parenthesis, I have been extremely grateful—is that it is meant to apply to people who actually write signs on the public highway which might distract drivers. This seems to me to he completely reasonable. On the other hand, it also seems to me completely reasonable that someone should he able to pin a notice to a tree in his garden advertising a cat show, or the village fête, or whatever it may be, without committing an offence. I should like to know whether this is still possible.
I think I am right in saying that if you put up a notice in your garden it is supposed to be there for only a limited period of time; but I may be wrong about that, too. May I ask whether to put up a notice will still be allowed, as I understand it is at the moment?
Lord HAWKE: While the noble Baroness is replying perhaps she will shed some light upon what the Government mean by " reasonable excuse ". I see from line 34 that one can do anything if one has a reasonable excuse, but what exactly is a " reasonable excuse "? If you are very keen on Chelsea winning something or other and you paint " Chelsea " on the wall, is that a reasonable excuse? If you want the nuclear bomb banned and you
834
make one of those funny signs that people make, is that a reasonable excuse? Of course if you are having a ê or something like that presumably that is a reasonable excuse, but are the permanent propaganda exercises reasonable excuses or not? If they are not, presumably the person could be fined £200 for writing " Chelsea " on the wall. Perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, will comment on the meaning of " reasonable excuse ".
Baroness BIRK: In answer to the noble Baroness, as long as the tree is on private property this clause is not directed at that case, because as I think the noble Baroness will agree, it states quite clearly in the Notes on Clauses that it is where the notices are painted or marked up on the highway itself. So a tree on private property would be in exactly the same position as it always has been and is now.
With regard to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, in regard to a " reasonable excuse ", as I understand it this could be the sort of situation where, for instance, for some reason there was some paving up or there was some emergency or danger or a hole had suddenly to he dug outside premises because there had been a burst water main or gas main or something of that kind. Then the notice would be for the public benefit and in order to warn people. That is how I read this and understand it. if I find there is any other interpretation of it I will gladly write to the noble Lord. That seems to me to be the reason, so that anybody who had to do something suddenly would not be liable to prosecution.
Lord HAWKE: Conversely then the noble Baroness is saying that anybody who writes " Chelsea " up on the wall is guilty of an offence for which he can he fined £200. Therefore Chelsea supporters should have good notice of this.
Baroness BIRK: No, I did not say that. The noble Lord knows perfectly well that I did not say any such thing. He was asking me to give an interpretation of what I would call a " reasonable excuse " and I gave an interpretation of something which I thought could happen- in an emergency. It does not seem to me that what he is suggesting would necessarily offend, depending entirely where it was.

835
I was dealing with the point where it is actually on the highway. If it is on his own private property I should have thought he could write " Chelsea " on the wall—unless of course it offends a supporter of another team.
Lord HAWKE: If I may say so, the noble Baroness has not quite got the point. The point is that " Chelsea and similar slogans are painted on walls abutting on the highway; not on any private property. 1 do not think anybody particularly likes to see these slogans written up and I am just wondering whether it is an offence at the moment to go along the public highway and paint "Chelsea" on the wall.
Baroness BIRK: As the noble Lord knows this is a gathering together of a number of enactments that have been passed in a number of Private Bills, and it depends whether it abuts on the highway and could he considered to constitute a traffic hazard, or a complaint was made by somebody. Then the local authority would take action. These are all discretionary provisions in any case and if, say, "Chelsea" or the name of any other team is painted on a wall which is actually on the highway and not hack in an individual's garden, it is an offence, but whether the local authority would necessarily take action on it would depend on that local authority. They would have powers under this Bill to do so.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.
4.16 p.m.
Viscount AMORY Viscount AMORY moved Amendment No. 6:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
Trading near highways
.—(1) No person (other than a person selling, offering or exposing for sale or depositing for sale any foods, goods, provisions, articles or things at any market or fair for which a toll, stallage or rent is payable) shall use any shed, hut, shelter, booth, shop, stall, or other erection whether on wheels or not or any vehicle or any container used with or without a stall on the verge or lay-by of any road to which this section applies or on any land adjacent to and within 15 yards of such verge, lay-by or road for the purpose of selling, offering, depositing or exposing for sale any food, goods, provisions, articles or things whatsoever other than newspapers.
(2) If any person contravenes the provisions of this section he shall be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds and to a daily fine not exceeding five pounds.
(3) (a) This section applies to roads of any of the following descriptions—

(i) all trunk roads, and roads which are classified as principal roads by the Secretary of State under the Local Government Act 1966:

(ii) any other county road, or part of a county road to which the highway authority may by order apply this section.

(b) Before making an order under this subsection the highway authority shall cause to be published once in each of two successive weeks in a local newspaper circulating in the locality in which the road is situated, a notice stating the general effect of the intended order and stating that within a period specified in the notice (not being less than twenty-eight days after the first publication of the notice) any person may object to the application by sending notice of his objection and of the grounds thereof to the highway authority.
(c) If, before the expiration of the period specified in the notice, any objection to the application is received by the highway authority, the highway authority shall consider any such objection and shall afford to any objector an opportunity of being heard by the highway authority before making the order.
(4) Nothing in this section shall apply to

(a) any shed, hut, shelter, booth, shop, stall or other erection or any vehicle placed on private property by or with the consent of the owner of such property and with the permission of the highway authority;

(b) any building erected or work constructed with the consent of the Secretary of State in pursuance of section 194 of the Law of Property Act 1925 or of any other statutory provision or any scheme made pursuant to a statute;

(c) the sale of food, goods, provisions, articles or things from a vehicle when in use solely for the purpose of itinerant trading with the occupants of the premises adjoining any verge or land referred to in subsection (1) of this section;

(d) the sale of food, goods, provisions, articles or things from any premises used as a shop or as a petrol filling station pursuant to a permission granted or deemed to have been granted under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 or any order or regulation made there under or in respect of which an enforcement notice cannot be served under section 87 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 by virtue of subsection (3) of that section; or

(e) the sale by the occupier of land used for agriculture or horticulture, and from such land, of the produce thereof, unless in relation to any particular location on such land a magistrates' court on the complaint of the highway authority under section 43 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1952 determines because of the use thereof for the purpose of such sale would adversely affect the safety of persons using the adjoining road that the exemption conferred by this paragraph shall not apply to that location or that the said exemption shall not apply

837
until any condition imposed by the court in relation to access to or facilities for the parking of the vehicles of persons likely to frequent the said location in connection with such sale has been complied with.

(5) (a)> In giving their permission under paragraph (a) of subsection (4) of this section the highway authority may attach thereto such terms and conditions as they think fit.
(b) Where an application is made to a highway authority for a permission under paragraph (a) of subsection (4) of this section then unless within twenty-eight days from the date of the receipt of the application the highway authority give notice to the applicant of their decision on the application the provisions of paragraph (c) of this subsection shall apply in relation to the application as if the highway authority had refused to grant the permission applied for.
(c) Any person aggrieved by the refusal of the highway authority to grant pen. …on under paragraph (a) of subsection (4) of this section or by the terms and conditions attached thereto may appeal to a magistrates' court and on any such appeal, the court may—

(i) if the appeal was against a refusal by order direct the highway authority to withdraw such refusal and to issue the permission for which application was made;

(ii) if the appeal was against the imposition of terms or conditions direct that the permission shall as specified in the direction, have effect either unconditionally or subject to such modified terms and conditions as may be so specified.

(d) Any breach of any terms and conditions imposed by the highway authority under paragraph (a) of this subsection shall be deemed as regards liability to a fine equivalent to a contravention of the provisions of this section.
(6) In this section—

(a) the expression " container " includes any basket, pail, tray, package or receptacle of any kind whether open or closed;

(b) the expression " private property " does not include common land or unenciosed moorland;

(c) the expression " vehicle " means a vehicle of any description drawn or propelled along roads whether by animal or mechanical power.

The noble Viscount said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Young. I am afraid that this, and the next new clause (on which I shall not be …speaking at this minute), are rather long. I should like to make the point that no powers are being sought in either of these Amendments which are not already obtained and used by a number of county councils. We are not proposing anything additional here at all. The powers which are covered here are well precedented and well used and believed to be important.
We are dealing here with the problems that arise from a rapidly increasing
838
number of what might be called small commercial enterprises set up on the verges of main roads, particularly in the holiday areas. When my attention was first drawn to this possible new clause, I thought that if it prohibited the sale of flowers or fruit or vegetables by the occupier of a holding contiguous to that road, and on his holding, it would not be a proposal I would wish to have anything to do with because those sales seem to me to be legitimate and one likes to see them taking place and perhaps to avail oneself of the opportunity of buying a bunch of flowers or a punnet of strawberries or something else luscious that is offered for sale. That seems to me to be entirely legitimate and certainly ought not to be interfered with. It is not interfered with here because such sales arc specifically excluded.
The power which is provided by this Amendment is already much used and I believe has been taken by no less than 37 councils through local Acts. I would remind the noble Baroness opposite that our sole purpose here in proposing these new clauses is not to give any additional powers but by general powers to save a great deal of Parliamentary time and expense at both ends, as it were, which would be involved by a multiplicity of local Acts; and that principle has been thought well of. These are simply cases where it would seem to be useful to apply that principle and to make it as easy as possible for other councils to acquire these powers which are found useful in the way of general powers.
I am assured that the problem outlined here is not covered by the powers under Section 124 of the Highways Act 1959, which I would remind the noble Baroness is an Act which will be by my bedside from now on. Nor is it covered by the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967 because most of the kind of small traders we are thinking of are itinerant traders who do not set up structures as defined under those Acts. The fear has been expressed in another place that this would discourage services that are of use to long distance drivers. But the normal habit of long-distance drivers is to stop for their refreshments at places where well-established facilities are available to them.
However, this provision would enable the authorities, provided that certain conditions were complied with. to give

839
permission in an appropriate case. Therefore, every stretch of road could be considered on its merits and approval given for such trading in suitable cases. One certainly wants to have here the minimum restrictions possible. But there are many stretches of road most heavily used where small food trading posts of the kind that are here today and gone tomorrow can be a real road safety hazard. It is entirely with the aim of not endangering road safety that this new clause is being put forward. I beg to move.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: Although I support the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Amory, I can see a weakness in it, if he will forgive me. With reference to the use of containers, the Amendment says:
"…any container used with or without a stall on the verge or lay by of any road …".
If someone wanted to get round that, could he not, for instance, have a donkey and put goods on a donkey, or a pony? I do not think this Amendment would cover that. 1 make the point because, so far as I am aware, a donkey, pony or horse is not a vehicle: but perhaps I am wrong.
Viscount AMORY: I am inclined to agree with my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard that a donkey is not a container in the strict meaning of that word. I admit I had not thought exactly what role donkeys might play. However, in the event of finding any undisclosed weaknesses on that, I would move a further Amendment at that stage. But I would be glad to know what the noble Baroness feels about it, and particularly about the very serious difficulty raised by my noble friend.
4.23 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: I was delighted that the noble Viscount should have come to my aid with that, I thought, extremely exotic example. I am advised by my lawyers that the clause as drafted is of limited practical value. They were probably referring to the fact that it had not taken account of the donkey. I have looked into this at some length because I appreciate very much what the noble Viscount said about nuisance, and even the danger of traffic hazards. I appreciate that the present procedures for dealing
840
with these nuisances are cumbersome. But, nevertheless, I feel that the case that has been made out is rather an all-embracing one, using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.
For a great many reasons, mainly in dealing with the problem of the long-distance lorry drivers, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, himself referred, I find it very difficult to accept this new, obviously very carefully worded and lengthy clause. As the noble Viscount is aware, the Amendment was put down and defeated in another place. As I understand it, the motivation behind the proposed insertion is that the mobile canteens and stalls present a great road safety hazard. But we really have no evidence of that, and cannot accept it. I accept that quite often they can he a source of irritation to highway authorities, since laybys get damaged or littered. However, these mobile canteens are often extremely useful to road users, and one has to balance the two things. I can see both sides of this problem very clearly.
The ACC argue that permission can be granted for stalls, but we consider that the way to proceed is to tackle the nuisances, not to ban everything and set up what would be a new bureaucratic industry to permit exceptions, which would be doing something which I am sure the noble Viscount and his colleagues would be against in principle: the setting up of more organisations and more pieces of paper than are absolutely necessary. I believe the present powers tackle the nuisances. There are enforcement problems, but there will still be enforcement problems even if this new clause were accepted.
It is true that in an ideal world it might be possible to take a different attitude. But in this case, we are weighing the needs of people, of both the road users to whom the noble Viscount referred in his very apt simile about strawberries and other luscious things, and the question of road safety. On that, fortunately we have not found this to be a danger which should be dealt with in this way. We are dealing with a situation, it is true, which is far from ideal to noble Lords, but we feel that the need to have along the road these facilities for road users, and particularly the long-distance lorry drivers, is of paramount importance, certainly

841
at the present time, until one can find other alternatives. It is also important to keep them on the main roads used by the vehicles rather than diverting them into a byway, when the situation could arise of there being a great many cornplaints—already put forward in many areas—about lorries going through villages or small towns and creating a nuisance by their noise and by their weight. This we want to avoid. If by having the facilities along the motorways and the main roads used by lorries we can avoid this, then, while I am not saying it is a perfect solution, on balance it is better to leave the matter as it is. Therefore, I hope the noble Viscount will come along with me on that point and withdraw the clause.
Baroness YOUNG: May I press the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, a little further on this? The noble Baroness mentioned the motorways, but, of course, this does not apply to motorways, because in any event one cannot stop on a motorway unless there is something wrong with one's car. There is also provision on motorways for refreshment facilities. Do I correctly understand the noble Baroness to say now that the only reason for not accepting this Amendment is that it might inconvenience lorry drivers who now have not enough places to stop at on roads other than motorways? This. I am bound to say, is a new reason to appear.
The last thing one would want to do is to put a number of people to extreme inconvenience, but I should be interested to know the evidence on which that assertion is made. It seems to me that what the county councils are suggesting is very reasonable, but at the moment, as I understand it, mobile canteens can be set up on almost any part of a principal road, anywhere. Of course, when lorries draw up, and also private cars which draw up in large numbers in the summer time, this can be a very real road hazard, quite apart from the fact that the conditions under which the food is sold may not be the Most hygienic—hut perhaps this is not a consideration.
I feel that the arguments about road safety have been dismissed rather quickly. I know it is the practice of Government Departments to wait and see how many
842
people die at a crossing before any kind of measure is taken, but I should have thought that, as things stand at present, there are places which would be a very real traffic hazard. When considering a Bill like this, it is our job to try to make provision against that situation arising.
I am delighted that the noble Baroness does not want to extend bureaucracy any further. I am entirely with her on that. But when we come to deal with Part II of the Bill—and I appreciate that the noble Baroness will not be dealing with it at all—one can hardly have a greater extension of bureaucracy so far as the private hire trade is concerned. I do not think we can advance this as an argument against this particular Amendment, because, of course, any extension will involve an extension of supervision and no doubt of administrators.
Lord AIREDALE: If the evidence is that as many as 37 local authorities have local Acts which contain clauses along these lines, is this not an indication that there is a general need for a clause of this kind? And is it not an advantage of a general provision in a Bill of this kind that you avoid the irritation of having 37 or more separate clauses in separate local Acts, probably none of them identical, so that the law about roadside trading is just slightly different in every locality? I should have thought that a general need had been proved by the sheer number of local authorities who already have clauses, and that the sooner we had uniformity by a general clause in a Bill of this kind the better.
Viscount AMORY: I should like to thank the noble Lord for the point he has made. Indeed, I understand 37 local Acts have been obtained since 1956. I am assured by the Association of County Councils, who made inquiries, that apart from those councils that have obtained powers there are also a number of others who would wish to have these powers but have as yet not taken the step of moving for a local Act in the hope that this would be dealt with under general powers. I wonder whether the noble Baroness would look into that point a little more carefully to see what the experience has been of the 37 local Acts already there, and whether I am right in thinking that those who have to administer them find them of very great

843
practical use. We all agree that we do not want any more bureaucracy than we need have; we do not want to create restrictions unnecessarily by any means. But road safety always involves the balance of considerations, to which the noble Baroness referred, between the convenience of road users and the needs of road safety.
The evidence I have so far is that there is a road safety need for reasonable restrictions in appropriate cases, but not of course, in inappropriate cases. If the noble Baroness would be good enough to say that she will make some further inquiries on that point, the experience of those authorities, and would be good enough to write to me, I would then decide whether to press this new clause or one on similar lines on another occasion. In the meantime I would withdraw the Amendment. Perhaps she would say whether she would make further inquiries. There seems to be a difference between us as to what would be sensible.
Baroness BIRK: I appreciate very much the noble Viscount's argument, and of course I will be happy to look at it. But I think I must also point out that local authorities do at the moment have powers to deal with nuisances of any individual traders. I must say right away that the sort of blanket ban which is imposed in this very lengthy clause, on casual traders on the trunk and principal roads to which we are trying to confine lorries, certainly seems to me to be provocative, if not in many ways unuseful. If it were to be the policy for a provision to be made on this issue, I must say that I do not think this is the right way to do it. I have not the information about the 37 authorities with their Private Acts, I seem to have everything else at hand. but not that. I will certainly have another look at it and write to the noble Viscount, but I should not like to give him any false impression that I am going to say, Yes.
Viscount AMORY: I want the noble Baroness to be good enough again to look into the particular point of the long-distance lorry drivers. The advice I have is that this would not handicap them at all, because the type of temporary small trading posts we are thinking of are not those that long-distance drivers use. Perhaps the noble Baroness will look into that further, because I believe she will
844
find that there is no force at all in that argument. If there were, I would agree that it is a factor that should be taken into consideration, because these long-distance drivers have a difficult, arduous task, and from my own experience are extremely good, competent drivers. On the understanding that the noble Baroness will look into it to see whether there is more in one or two of the points we have made than she is inclined to think at the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.36 p.m.
Viscount AMORY Viscount AMORY moved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause:
Placing and leaving of vehicles near highways.
(—(1) (a) The highway authority may by order prohibit the placing and leaving of any vehicle, trailer, caravan or tent on the verge of or on unenclosed land adjacent to any part or parts of any highway.
(b) In this subsection " unenclosed land " means any waste land adjacent to and within 15 yards of the highway and any common land or other unenclosed land of whatsoever description within that distance from the highway.
(2) If any person contravenes the provisions of an order under this section he shall be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds.
(3) Where it is proposed to make an order under this section the highway authority shall have regard to the availability of—

(a) suitable parking facilities for use as an alternative to those which before the making of the order have been lawfully used for that purpose; and

(b) public sanitary conveniences in convenient situations.

(4) (a) An order made under this section shall —

(i) take effect from such date as may be specified in that behalf in the order;

(ii) specify the highway or highways and the unenclosed land to which it is to apply: and

(iii) specify the particular days and the particular hours between 9 o'clock in the evening and 9 o'clock in the morning during which the prohibition applies.

(b) An order made under this section may—

(i) specify exceptions other than those provided in subsection (10) of this section in respect of which the prohibition is not to apply; and

(ii) at any time he altered or revoked by a subsequent order made in like manner.

(5) Before making any order under this section the highway authority shall publish in one or more local newspapers circulating in the area in

845
which is situated the highway or highways to which the order applies a notice—

(a) stating the general effect of the order;

(b) specifying the offices of every local authority in whose district any part of the said area is situated where a copy of the draft order may be inspected by any person free of charge at all reasonable hours during a period of twenty-eight days from the date of the first publication of the notice; and

(c) stating that, within the said period, any person may by notice to the Secretary of State object to the making of the order.

(6) The highway authority shall also publish a notice in the London Gazette stating that they are about to make an order under this section naming the area in which is situated the highway or highways to which the order will apply, specifying the offices of every local authority in whose district any part of the said area is situated where a copy of the draft order may be inspected and giving the name and date of issue of a local newspaper in which the notice explaining the general effect of the order will be found.
(7) (a) If before the expiration of a period of twenty-eight days from the first publication of the notice referred to in paragraph (b) of subsection (5) of this section or of twenty-five days from the publication of the notice in the London Gazette, an objection to the making of the order to which the notice relates is duly made to the Secretary of State and the objection is not subsequently withdrawn, the order shall not take effect until it is confirmed by the Secretary of State.
(b) Where the Secretary of State receives any objection to the making of an order he shall send to the highway authority a copy of every such objection and the Secretary of State, after considering every such objection and causing if he thinks fit a local inquiry to be held, may confirm or refuse to confirm the order and, if he confirms it, may do so subject to such modifications (if any) as he may think desirable.
(8) Where an order has been made and confirmed under this section, the highway authority shall erect or cause to be erected on or near any highway or land to which such an order applies notices indicating the nature and extent of the prohibitions imposed by the order.
(9) Notice of the prohibition contained in any order made under this section shall be indicated 6y such traffic signs as may be specified for the purpose in regulations made under sections 54 and 55 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967.
(10) (a) No order made under this section shall apply to the placing and leaving on a verge or land of—

(i) any vehicle, trailer, caravan or tent if it is not left for more than two hours;

(ii) any vehicle, trailer, caravan or tent by or with the consent of the occupier of the land;

(iii) any vehicle, trailer or caravan placed and left because of or in connection with mechanical breakdown;

(iv) any vehicle, trailer, caravan or tent placed and left because of the illness of any person accompanying any such vehicle, trailer, caravan or tent;

(v) any vehicle when in use solely for the purpose of itinerant trading with the occupants of premises adjoining a verge or land;

(vi) any vehicle, trailer, caravan (not used for human habitation) or tent used by any statutory undertakers in connection with or for the purposes of their undertakings or by the highway authority or the local authority in or in connection with the exercise of their statutory functions;

(vii) any caravan stationed by a gipsy elsewhere than in an area designated under the provisions of section 12 of the Caravan Sites Act 1968;

(viii) any caravan which is occupied by a travelling showman who is a member of the Showmen's Guild of Great Britain and who is travelling for the purpose of his business;

(ix) any vehicle, trailer or caravan resulting from, or to avoid, any accident or emergency.

(b) No order made under this section shall apply to any land on which tents or caravans arc erected or placed in accordance with the terms of a licence granted under section 269 of the Public Health Act 1936 or in accordance with the terms and conditions on which permission has been given for the development by the local planning authority under the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 or in respect of which a site licence is for the time being in force under Part I of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960.
(11) In this section—
"highway authority " means—
(a) in the case of a trunk road with the consent of the Secretary of State, the county who are for the time being acting as the agent of the Secretary of State, under the Highways Act 1959, with respect to that trunk road;
(b) in all other cases the county council.
" gipsy " has the same meaning as in the Caravan Sites Act 1968;
" vehicle " means a vehicle of any description drawn or propelled whether by animal or mechanical power. '.
The noble Viscount said: I beg to move the new clause standing in the name of my noble friend. This clause again is well precedented, because it is used very effectively, I understand, in Hampshire and West Sussex in local Acts, and they find it extremely valuable. It deals with parking of caravans on verges. Parking on verges in urban areas is already prohibited. We all recognise that caravans are a highly popular and entirely reasonable holiday provision and have come to stay, or really come, let us hope, to move on and not stay too long in any one place. But the problem which it is sought to solve mainly arises in coastal areas at holiday times when the caravan congestion is really phenomenal. 1 heard of a case the other day in the county of Clwyd, where I

847
am told that in a 48 hour period around the recent Bank Holiday no fewer than 11,141 caravans entered Clwyd at the height of the rush, 10 caravans per minute, from England. In Clwyd there are, I understand, 4,234 approved pitches for caravans. So in those 48 hours 6,907 caravans had to find other parking space, and many were parked overnight on the main roads. In another place there seemed to be an impression that a new clause of this kind would affect gypsies, but gypsies' caravans are expressly excluded here.
What the clause will do is enable the highway authority to designate by order individual stretches of road on the verges of which caravans and tents would be prohibited. The general power sought here is in the interests of road safety, and also in the interests of public hygiene in the sort of circumstances I have mentioned, where enormous numbers come surging along the roads, almost head to tail, and have to dump down in very large numbers on short stretches of roads, where they can be a great hazard to road safety, and in certain cases to public hygiene, too. I beg to move.
4.40 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: Again this is a problem which it would be quite wrong and quite impossible for anybody with any sense or sensibility not to appreciate. It is true that it is precedented in local Acts, but I can hardly take that as a recommendation because, so far as I am aware, there has never been any order attached to them which has restricted parking. A similar provision which was included in the South Glamorgan Bill was in fact withdrawn. Once again I say that this is an enormously and probably rather unnecessarily complicated clause, and the same effect could almost certainly be achieved more simply perhaps by an extension of Section 1 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967. The provisions of the new clause range over an enormous area. They conflict with, and overlap, several other general Acts and, I am afraid, would be self-defeating because they would cause an unacceptable amount of confusion. As I am sure is readily recognised, it also would be extremely controversial and contentious, and a clause which has to include such a long list of exemptions—and I am sure that we could all think of more, and if this went ahead everyone
848
would think of more—would he difficult to enforce.
It is said that the problem is found mainly in the coastal areas during the holiday season. However, this is not strictly true. There are also a number of inland tourist areas which suffer the problem over a great part of the year—the Lake District is one instance. Apart from these practical, solid reasons for resisting the clause, there is a much more important principle at stake. The fact that the problem is a real and growing one is recognisable, and I accept that, hut it is not simply a highway problem: nor is it a road safety problem, nor is it even just a combination of public health and safety together. It is all of these. But basically it is a planning problem, and it requires a planning solution. If this is accepted, as I hope it will be, it is not something which can he solved by prohibition and bans. In other words, the person in the caravan or touring car, the holidaymaker, does not suddenly disappear under the ground or into the air because he cannot stop at the side of a particular road. What he does is that he I goes on somewhere else: either on to the road itself or away from the main highway. The problem does not disappear, it is simply transferred, and it could often in fact he made a great deal worse.
Holidaymakers—and particularly campers, or caravanners, who do not have set sites—like to travel by night, and it is reasonable in the interests of road safety that they should halt on their journey rather than drive when they are overtired, and probably precipitate an accident. There are unfortunately—and this is the basic problem on which we are all agreed—very few places for them to go. No one really caters sufficiently for their needs. Therefore, it is hardly surprising that they park where they can, stop where they can, on byways or verges, because really they have not anywhere else to go. What we really need is a network of sites related to the road system and the main tourist routes.
I now come to the proposals of the Countryside Commission in 1972. As I am sure the noble Viscount will recall, they published a strategy showing where the sites are needed. If anything is to be done in this area—and I am not for one moment saying that something does

849
not need to be done—I do not think that this clause is the way to do it. We have to look to the local authorities, and also the larger camping organisations, for the implementation of the proposals put forward by the Countryside Commission, or similar proposals, and the development of suitable sites. Then of course we come to the big financial problem. This all costs money, and even though grant aid is available, transit sites in themselves are not an economic proposition for commercial developers or camping clubs. Therefore, one comes up against the financial block there, and they are not particularly attractive to local authorities because the customers are passing through and not staying and remaining there to spend their time and money.
It seems to me that what is needed is a combination of the organised camp sites with accommodation so that you can have transit pitches, and also a willingness on the part of the campers to pay a realistic fee. What we are now doing is completing our consideration of the Report of the Camping Working Party, and hope soon that we shall have proposals for discussion with the local authority associations. It is extremely important and valuable that this whole matter should be aired, and the fact that it has been aired in the other place and turned down is no reason why it should not be discussed here, with contributions from the distinguished and experienced people in local government who are speaking to it. But what I say quite definitely is that this clause is not the way to bring this about, but the raising of the whole matter and the discussion on the clause is effective in that it is both highlighting and pinpointing this particular problem. One hopes that it will get, through the Association and other means, wide publicity about the problems, so that we get down to some sort of planning for dealing with the whole problem rather than dealing with this in what is an understandable, but really a negative rather than a positive, way. I hope once again that I can ask the noble Viscount to withdraw this Amendment.
Viscount MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: I have known instances where children have been run over because a caravan has been parked on the verge of a
850
highway, so I support my noble friend in this Amendment. I think that the further away caravans can be parked from the verges of the highways the better, and especially at night.
4.48 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: I quite understand that the noble Baroness is taking a sympathetic view of this Amendment, because I think it has pinpointed what is a real problem. I am quite prepared to believe, and I think my noble friend would accept, that the Amendment may not be quite correctly drafted; it may be drawn in too wide terms. However, I wonder whether the Government would look at this again with perhaps a view to themselves bringing forward an Amendment that would at least meet the kind of point raised by my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard. I understand that the Government are looking at the whole question of camping and caravanning, and I am delighted to hear that there is to be a report on this matter. What this kind of argument usually means is that the report will he published, it will cost a good deal of money to implement at a time when local authorities have no money at all, and in fact what we shall be saying is that nothing is going to be done for years.
In the meantime, the number of caravanners and campers will increase, and it is unlikely that the number of sites will increase all that much, and there is the real danger of unrestricted parking on public highways. Not only is there a danger that a child, or indeed an adult, may be killed, but it is really very unhygienic if unrestricted parking is carried on by large numbers of people by the roadside. I believe that local authorities are perfectly justified in asking for some powers to deal with this question.
The reasons advanced against the Amendment are that it is very complicated, that there is a long list of exceptions and that it is not really a highways, safety or public health problem but a planning one. I should have thought that it was a problem concerning all four parts of Government. The noble Baroness having agreed, I think, that there is a problem, I am simply asking her whether the Government would be prepared to look at an Amendment drawn perhaps not quite so widely but

851
designed to meet part of the point, an Amendment which the Government themselves might consider bringing forward.
Viscount AMORY: I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, will comment on what my noble friend has suggested. I was not very impressed with her argument about not liking the proposed new clause because in her view it was rather negative. It reminded me of the alcoholic who went to his doctor to seek help, only to be told, " Stop drinking -. The alcoholic replied, " I didn't come here to get negative advice, but something positive ". I hope the noble Baroness realises that this is not, in a vague sort of way, an attempt to push caravans off to somewhere else. This is suggested as a way of stopping them dumping themselves along unsuitable lengths of road, and I assure her that there are such lengths of road and that numerous caravans are dumping themselves there. I shall therefore be interested to hear what she has to say in reply to the last remarks of my noble friend Lady Young.
I am not sure that Lady Birk realises how serious this problem can become when an enormous number of caravans park themselves unexpectedly on a particular stretch of road. I will find out where the noble Baroness lives and if she has a grass verge outside her gate. If so, I will persuade several of my friends to buy caravans, and I shall do so, and we w ill go to where she lives and she will find us parked there. I think that after we have been there a day or two she will realise the need for proper public hygiene arrangements. I am not having much luck in persuading the noble Baroness this afternoon and I may have to adopt more drastic means of one kind or another. In the meantime, perhaps she will be good enough to answer the comments of my noble friend Lady Young.
Baroness BIRK: I assure the Committee that I appreciate the seriousness of the problem and, for that reason, I must repeat that I do not feel that the proposed new clause, or indeed anything very like it, would deal with it. As the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, pointed out, we do not just want to move people along to somewhere
852
else; it is not possible at the moment to I come to grips with the problem, and that I is the point I made. I said that although one might move them on to somewhere else—and from a personal point of view people might like to move them on to somebody else's piece of grass—the noble Viscount will agree that that would not deal with the problem. Unless there is somewhere else to which to move them the problem will not be solved. The road safety question is rather wider and different. After all, if a caravan or car is parked while the occupants are having a picnic lunch a child could run out and be run over, so I do not think that that is relevant to the argument.
A new clause of this type is very large and complicated and I must say straight away that it would be wrong of me to promise to bring something forward on Report. I still believe that the way to deal with it is to see how far it is possible to proceed with some of the proposals made by the Countryside Commission—to see whether they can be implemented or at least worked on in the near future—rather than deal with the problem here, because although the noble Viscount took issue with me for saying that the Amendment was negative, I said that it was negative not because the movers or drafters wanted it to be negative but because, unless one has somewhere where caravans, cars, campers or whatever, can go, it is negative to the extent that one is simply moving them on from A to B: they will still he on the move and will stop somewhere. The alternative becomes a quite Draconian and anti-libertarian procedure: that is, to say, " You can have a caravan but there is nowhere you are able to stop ". It would he quite impossible at this time, certainly in the very short term, for the Government to contemplate legislation along these lines. I beg noble Lords to allow us to look at the proposals of the Working Party on Camping—the noble Baroness, Lady Young, referred to this aspect—and the possibility of using all that has been said today and what was said on a similar new clause in another place, to see what impetus can be given to the matter. I assure noble Lords that I am absolutely with them in hoping that something can be done with as much speed as possible on the proposals, or analogous proposals, of the Countryside Commission, but it would be dishonest of me to promise more.
Viscount AMORY: When the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, first acknowledged that there was a problem here, I understood her to go on to say that this was not the way to deal with it and that it would be best done by an Amendment. I may be wrong, but I think that that is what she said before referring to something else. If she has the passage to hand, perhaps she would repeat it. In any event, she has been good enough to acknowledge that a problem exists. When dealing with a Bill such as this, in which we want to deal with matters which are not contentious and which arc precedented, I do not like the notion of pressing an Amendment to a Division, and I would not think of doing so without the agreement of my noble friend. I will read in Hansard what the noble Baroness said; I am referring to the passage before she referred to various discussions and conversations that were going on. If the noble Baroness does not have the passage to hand, I am sure that she will find it in Hansard. Having been notably unsuccessful in persuading the noble Baroness to do anything, I must withdraw the Amendment. I will leave the Committee and have a cup of tea, and I will return in the hope of being more successful later. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Safety of certain unoccupied houses etc.]:
4.58 p.m.
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 8, line 7, after (" to ") insert (" each person who is ").
The noble Baroness said: This is much more a drafting point. It covers the situation where there is more than one person who is the owner in relation to a particular property—namely, joint owners of an interest—and it is desirable that every person who, as a person having control, receives a notice leading to the closing order or undertaking should receive a notice of the council's proposals to use the powers in this clause, and this will be achieved by the Amendment which, as I say, is really a drafting one.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
4.59 p.m.
Lord AIREDALE Lord AIREDALE moved Amendment No. 9:
After Clause 7, insert the following new clause:
Supply of water, gas and electricity to premises where supply threatened.
.—(1) Where an occupied house has ceased, or is about to cease, to be supplied with water, gas or electricity sufficient for the domestic purposes of the occupants, being tenants or lessees of, or lodgers at, the house or part thereof, by reason of any default on the part of the owner, the local authority may, without prejudice to any action or proceedings which it may take under any other enactment, make such payment to the appropriate statutory undertaker as may be necessary to secure that the supply of water, gas or electricity to the house is restored or maintained, as the case may be, and may recover the expenses reasonably incurred by it in so doing from the owner.
(2) A local authority may, if it thinks tit, itself hear the whole or any part of any expenses recoverable under this section.
The noble Lord said: This is a proposal to deal with cases of great hardship which have come to light in recent winters, cases where tenants have tenancy agreements under which the tenant pays to the landlord the gas, electricity or water to the premises together with the rent. In many of these cases the tenants have paid the full rent due from them, but for one reason or another the landlord has failed to pay the electricity or gas bill and in consequence the tenant, through no fault of his own, has had his electricity or gas cut off. That is the mischief which this new clause is designed to deal with.
A clause very similar to this was put down at the Committee stage in another place and, as I understood it, the Minister there most emphatically undertook to introduce a Government clause at a later stage of the Bill to deal with the problem. The Minister said:
" We certainly hope to introduce our own clause at a later stage ".
He made other equally emphatic observations which I need not read out to your Lordships. I reminded the House of this position during our Second Reading debate and said that I was eagerly looking forward to the new Government clause. I believe that the Government Amendments were tabled last Monday. I got them on Tuesday and I searched for this new clause. I did not find it and 1 have heard nothing, and I do not know what is the position. If the noble Baroness cares to

855
interrupt me to say that the Government's new clause is on the way, I shall sit down and shall withdraw this Amendment.
Baroness BIRK: I thank the noble Lord for breaking off and for giving me this opportunity. First, he is quite correct in the story as he has told it and I owe him an apology. There was a great deal to do regarding this Bill, as he will understand. I realise now that I should have written to tell him that it is our intention to introduce the clause. There is no change in the intention and we propose to introduce the clause at Report stage. What I was hoping after Second Reading and, indeed, up to the end of last week, was that it would be possible to get the clause ready in time for Committee stage. However, the noble Lord himself may remember that the Committee on the South Glamorgan Bill took a long time considering such a clause. It is really not an easy one for the draftsmen and it has taken a considerable time to prepare. It is almost ready now but a great deal of consultation has been involved. We have been in consultation with the local authority associations, and the Department of Energy has also had to consult the gas and electricity authorities.
That is the reason for the delay. I shall not detain the Committee longer since I can happily give an affirmative answer and can say that the new clause will be introduced at Report stage. I hope that, on that basis, the noble Lord will withdraw his new clause. I shall then be saved from having to deal with the drafting imperfections which have been drawn to my attention.
Lord AIREDALE: I shall keep the Committee no longer, except to say that I entirely accept the apology of the noble Baroness. I fully realise that she has had many matters to deal with in a short time in relation to this Bill. However, it is disappointing when an important Amendment cannot be introduced in time to be discussed at the Committee stage, when the looser rules of procedure allow a freer discussion. With that note of regret, but understanding the difficulty involved, and knowing that the Government clause is on the way, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
5.4 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 10:
After Clause 9 insert the following new clause:
" Amendment of section 92 of the Public Health Act 1936.
. In subsection (1) of section 92 of the Public Health Act 1936 for the words " or a nuisance " in sub-paragraph (a) thereof there shall be substituted the words " or which is to the detriment of or otherwise interferes with the personal comfort of the occupiers thereof ".
The noble Baroness said: The noble Baroness will no doubt be familiar with this Amendment because it is similar to one which was debated in the Committee stage in another place. It is not my usual practice to repeat debates, but the point at issue here is, I believe, important, so I venture to do so. The point that arises on this Amendment emerges from a High Court decision, National Coal Board v. Thorne. Before that decision, the local authority had been able to secure the repair of a house by using the provisions of Part Ill of the Public Health Act 1936, on the basis that some items of disrepair were a nuisance. Following upon the court's decision, this is no longer to be allowed and a local authority will be able to serve a notice of disrepair only on the ground that the premises are in such a state as to he prejudicial to health. That means that it will be very difficult for a local authority to serve a notice because, as a rule before this decision, the job of determining a nuisance would have fallen to the public health inspector. Clearly, however, if a case has been made out on the grounds that the state of the property is such as to be prejudicial to health, it will be necessary to obtain the view of the district community physician. He or she is bound to be very busy and two officers of the council will have to go round to serve the notice. It will mean that it will be much more difficult to deal with the problem.
My Amendment is therefore designed to meet this difficulty and to attempt to put the position back to what it was before the court's decision. Clearly, the wording cannot be the same, the High Court having decided otherwise; but it would at least make it possible for a local authority to use its public health inspector for this purpose and not to call medical evidence. It seems to me,

857
therefore, that this is in the best interests of the people living in the property and of the local authority.
I have of course read the debate in another place and I understand that the reason why the Government declined to act on this was because they considered it to be outside the terms of the Bill. I have read the Long Title of the Bill and the explanation given in the Explanatory Memorandum. Within the Long Title of the Bill it says that it is intended,
" to alter certain supplemental provisions of the enactments relating to public health ".
That is precisely what this is doing. This is again repeated in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum at the front of the Bill. I therefore find it very difficult to understand how this can he regarded as being outside the Bill. I hope that, on further consideration, the Government will agree that this is something that can be considered within the terms of the Bill. With that explanation, I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: On the last point, the noble Baroness said that her interpretation was that this is within the Long Title of the Bill. I am afraid that my interpretation and my legal advice are quite contrary to that. They are that this would not he contained in the present Long Title of the Bill, and that, if it were included in the Bill, it would mean an alteration and an amendment to the Long Title.
The effect of the judgment to which the noble Baroness referred is that a statutory nuisance arises only if the premises are prejudicial to the occupants' health, and a mere nuisance in relation to premises must therefore now affect persons other than the occupants if it is to be a statutory nuisance under the Act and so amenable to proceedings under that Act. This clause is not precedented in local law, but apart from this objection, it is not acceptable on merits. In any case the clause does not amend a supplemental provision of the Public Health Act 1936, because Section 92 is not in Part XII of that Act, and this is why the Long Title would have to be altered. So it does not fulfil that part of the Bill, as it was originally conceived and as it went through the other place.
858
I now turn to the question of merits. The Department received representations from the London borough of Haringey shortly after the judgment referred to, and the new clause which the noble Baroness has introduced follows precisely that which was suggested by the borough. This argues that the judgment restricts the power of housing authorities to, take action under Section 92 against occupied houses in disrepair and that environmental health officers would have difficulty in establishing that a defect is prejudicial to health. However, the judgment also similarly restricts the powers of individuals to take actions. as they may, without consulting the local authority under Section 99; this could work to the advantage of authorities in cases where they owned the property concerned. The new clause seeks to restore the status quo before the judgment, so far as housing is concerned, by removing the concept of nuisance from Section 92(1)(a) and enabling action to be taken in cases of detriment to, or interference with the personal comfort of the occupiers of the property.
But this is the part which is not acceptable, because it does not restore the status quo, but as a side effect it deprives local authorities of the power to take action against premises, whether they are housing or non-housing or occupied, are a nuisance to the community as a whole or to passers-by. Local authorities have the alternative of proceeding under Section 9 of the 1957 Housing Act, through repairs notices, which is amended by the 1969 Act and can cover both fit and unfit houses, and this is the appropriate provision since it is designed for the purpose and applies the criterion of fitness which is more rigorous than that of nuisance.
If the authority in the case of the National Coal Board v. Thorne had chosen that section, there is no apparent reason why it should not have succeeded. For these reasons I have given the new clause cannot be accepted, but I can assure the Committee that the Government accept that the current state of the law is certainly not beyond improvement, and we therefore have in hand a fundamental review of the statutory nuisance provisions of the Public Health Act 1936, and it is within this area that this point—the objective of this new clause—applies and should be

859
housed. In reviewing this matter we will now bear fully in mind the points which the noble Baroness has made, and we will consult everyone who is concerned before bringing forward firm proposals. I repeat that the place for putting this right is not within the Bill which we are discussing today.
Baroness YOUNG: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that explanation, but I am sure that neither she nor I wish to embark upon a long dispute in law on what all these different Acts mean. But my advice is quite clear that although the 1957 Housing Act might be used to deal with a nuisance. the procedure is very complicated requiring at least 21 days' notice of the execution of the works, the possibility of an appeal to the county court, and in the event of failure to comply with the notice, the responsibility is with the authority to carry out the works in default, there being no penal sanctions under this section at all. This is therefore a very different proposition from the powers which local authorities had under the public health Acts to deal with a nuisance arising from the disrepair of a house. On consultation with the borough of Haringey I understand that approximately three to four cases a week come to the notice of the borough and of course far more notices than that are served by the public health inspector. So to imagine that this number of cases could be dealt with under the 1957 Act is not to be very realistic about the matter.
However, I appreciate the spirit in which the noble Baroness replied and I appreciate, too, that the Government are aware that something ought to be done about this. I should like to know from the noble Baroness when it is expected that some legislation will come forward to meet this point. After all this is a Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, and if I have understood the matter correctly the reason why this Amendment cannot be taken under the Long Title is that the Long Title refers to supplemental provisions of public health Acts and my Amendment applies only to a Public Health Act. But moving on further down the Long Title, I wonder why it cannot apply to something else:
"…to provide for certain future local enactments …"
or
860
"… orders to have effect subject to certain other enactments ".
It seems to me very broad: or
"…for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid ".
What can come under that? What I really fail to understand is how we may not debate this matter under the Long Title of the Bill and yet—I am sorry to keep referring to Part II—we are going to debate at length taxis and private hire cars. I see no mention of them at all. So, presumably, those come under these general terms,
"…to provide for certain powers of local authorities to execute works to be exercisable outside their areas."
Perhaps that is where the private hire car goes outside its area. I do not know. But if that can fall within the Long Title, I fail to see why a matter falling under the Public Health Acts cannot, and I should like to press the noble Baroness on this point.
Baroness BIRK: I shall not reveal the exciting goodies which my noble friend has in store for the Committee on Part II of the Bill, although the noble Baroness keeps on drawing in the taxi cabs, and each time my noble friend quite rightly disappears for a cup of tea out comes a point regarding the taxi cabs. Perhaps this is a lawyer to lawyer confrontation; perhaps we should set them at one another's heads or throats—I am not quite sure. But I have been through the Long Title, I have discussed it, and indeed I have raised many of the layman's points which the noble Baroness has raised herself, and I am assured that without an alteration to the Long Title this proposal has not a place in the Bill.
I think that the noble Baroness was rather less than fair when she seemed to argue that I was resting the whole case on provisions in an Act which were not working very satisfactorily, because the main point I was making was that we recognise that the current state of the law needs changing and that we appreciate that using the present cumbersome machinery is not satisfactory. This is why we have in hand a fundamental review of the statutory nuisance provisions of the Public Health Acts. To proceed in that way is a far better method of dealing with the problem in order to right it.

861
With regard to legislation, there is no legislation in the Public Health Acts sphere at present because the review must take place first. I hope that the noble Baroness will take my word for it that the intention to review is genuine and not sprung up merely to try to get her to withdraw the clause; that would be using a sledgehammer. Until we review the position—and no doubt other similar points will emerge—it is very difficult to say what needs to he done in terms of improving the Public Health Acts. But as soon as we know the position and the review is under way and proposals have been prepared, we shall conic forward with them. This is clearly recognised; there is nothing between us on this point. I am not arguing that the situation is much different from that described by the noble Baroness, with the proviso of the points on which we differ regarding the legal interpretation. I repeat that this is not the right place for this proposal, nor is this clause the right way to deal with the matter. I hope that on the basis of what I have said about the Public Health Acts and the review, the noble Baroness will withdraw the new clause.
Baroness YOUNG: I always accept that any Amendment that I put down is incorrectly drafted. I think one can take that for granted at the outset, and I of course accept that. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for expressing sympathy. We are both in agreement. I do not find it very satisfactory simply to be told that the legal advice is that this is not allowable under the Long Title of the Bill. As the noble Baroness knows very well, I am not a lawyer, but I believe in attempting to understand what it is I am trying to do, if only because, if I understand it myself, I can sometimes explain it to somebody else, which in many instances one has to do; and I must confess that I am going to be at a loss to explain to those who have asked me to raise this point why it is not allowable under the Long Title.
In order to save the Government a lot of trouble—because clearly this is a point to which we shall have to return time and time again, as to what is allowable under the Long Title—I think we ought to know. However, I will not pursue it further this afternoon. I do not really want to divide the Committee on the issue of the interpret
862
tation of the Long Title, because I do not think that is a proper way to do it. But, to be quite serious about it, I would be grateful if, in return for withdrawing the Amendment, the noble Baroness would write to me and would set out why this is not allowable under the Long Title, how we are going to know what is allowable under the Long Title and how the rest of the new provisions which have been added at Committee stage in another place fall under the Long Title. I would also be grateful to have such a letter fairly soon, because clearly I shall need to consult before the next stage of the Bill. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [Production and supply of heat, etc., by local authorities]:
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 11, line 38, after (" pump ") insert (" meter,")
The noble Baroness said: This is, I am happy to say, quite a small Amendment. The effect of it would be to enable local authorities to instal and maintain meters in connection with pipes when they are engaged in the production and supply of heat. This was really put down at the instance of the local authority associations, which suggested that authorities might need to instal meters to enable areas of heat loss and possible leakages from pipes to be identified. We were entirely in agreement that this need should be provided for, and accordingly this Amendment proposes that the definition of " associated works " should include " meter ". I beg to move.
Baroness YOUNG: I am very happy to accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Power of local authorities to obtain particulars of persons interested in land]:
Baroness BIRK Baroness BIRK moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 19, line 11, after third (" the ") insert (" nature of his interest in the land and the ")
The noble Baroness said: As Clause 15 is drafted at the moment, the provision places no requirement upon the recipient of a notice to state the nature of his own interest in the land. This Amendment will impose such a requirement. The purpose of the Amendment is really to bring the clause into line with those provisions which it will replace. It will he replacing all similar provisions which are in other Acts by a general power. The principle is well established in a great many Private Acts and also in public Acts. One example is Section 277 of the Public Health Act 1936. Again, this is really a tidying-up Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Viscount AMORY Viscount AMORY moved Amendment No. 13:
After Clause 15 insert the following new clause:
Transfer of Assets.
.—(1) A local authority may, if it considers it expedient to do so for the purpose of carrying out its functions under Part III of the Community Land Act 1975, Part VI of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 or sections 2–4 of the Local Authorities (Land) Act 1963 make arrangements with any person for the establishment under the Companies Acts and of a transfer of assets to one or more companies controlled (whether severally or jointly) by the parties to the arrangement and may take shares in such companies.
(2) In this section " local authority " has the same meaning as in section 290(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971.
The noble Viscount said: This proposed new clause, the insertion of which I should like to move, has as its object to help partnership schemes between a local authority and some other body. It has sometimes been found that positive planning can best be achieved by partnership arrangements between local authorities and some body or bodies in the private sector, and a number of local authorities, as the noble Baroness will know, are making use of arrangements of this kind, relying on local legislation. The Government, I understand, are not hostile to this idea at all, but believe that the powers already available are sufficient; in particular, Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972. I understand there was a Working Party set up which reported in 1972, really very forthrightly,
864
in favour of encouraging these partnership arrangements in the way of joint developments, sometimes of a very important kind, but that all that resulted from that was Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972.
The legal advice available to local authorities makes them really dubious whether the powers under Section 111 would be specific enough to enable a corporate body, for instance, to set up other corporate bodies. The courts, I understand, are apt to interpret powers of that kind very strictly. There was a case called A.G. v. Fulham Corporation (1920), I believe, in which the court took the view, and stated, that
" in every case it is for a corporation … to show that it has affirmatively an authority to do particular acts,"
whereas Section 111, to which I have referred, really only gives authority in a very general way indeed. If it is feared that companies set up like this might set out to do more than they were meant to do or were authorised to do, then I would suggest that the memorandum and articles of such companies would be a control on what they may or may not do.
I am familiar, of course—as familiar, possibly, as the noble Baroness—with the legal maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius. Who is not familar with such a legal maxim? But I cannot believe that the specific power that I am suggesting here, and which some local authorities are already finding useful, would narrow the general powers given to local authorities under Section 1ll. However, local authorities are extremely unlikely to commit themselves, perhaps to enormous investments like, as I mentioned, a new town centre, by means of a joint project of the kind I have indicated unless they are absolutely certain of their legal powers; and I would say once again that the best legal advice available to the local authorities is that Section 111 of the Act of 1972 is not specific enough to afford them the certain protection that they would require before embarking on major projects of this kind. I hope the noble Baroness will look favourably on the aim of this new clause, though she may find something inadequate or insufficient in the drafting of it. I beg to move.
Baroness BIRK: I shall try to keep my reply as short as possible because the noble Viscount has not only explained his case but has also more or less sketched out what he thinks will be my reply to it. He is right about the encouragement of partnership of this sort. We are again at one over this; but it is the question that we consider that Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972 has sufficient powers to enable local authorities and other parties to set up these partnerships. It really comes to the point that not only do we think it is not necessary but it could impede the working of this if one kept on putting in specific powers where the general power covers the subject extremely well. Where it does not or where there is any doubt, there is a question for specific powers; but because the power to implement such a consortia is already included in Section 111, we believe that is quite sufficient. I repeat that we are concerned not to undermine the generality by rushing into specific legislative provisions.
I can see the argument the noble Viscount put forward of making it specific and it is true it has been put forward in one if not more Private Bills; hut when we are trying, as we are in this Bill, to gather together a great many completely dispersive activities and at the same time—on which we were all in agreement when we discussed the South Glamorgan Bill—trying to keep the numbers of these provisions down, it would be quite wrong to try to add to something where it is not necessary. Rather than weary the Committee by expressing the same sentiments at great length and going over the same, ground again I can say that that is the basis of the objection.
I can point to the specific drafting of the clause but this is not the main point, as the noble Viscount, I am sure, appreciates. It is that the Government believe that it is unnecessary. If they want to do the things calculated to facilitate or he conducive to or incidental to the discharge of their functions, the local authorities have all the necessary powers for doing so in this area. The powers extend to taking shares in or participating in the promotion of a company. We feel that to go beyond these powers—which it appears the new clause may allow—would be undesirable particularly in the
866
absence of appropriate safeguards for public and private interests.
So, on the one hand, there is a duplication, and, on the other hand, where it slightly departs from the duplication it goes that much further which we do not consider would be either necessary or advantageous. I should have thought, after the thorough discussion it had in another place and the discussion the same point received on the Committee stage of the Community Land Act, everyone should be by now satisfied that the local authorities have the necessary powers when and where they want to use them.
Viscount AMORY: I dislike the Community Land Act so much that I find myself highly embarrassed apparently asking for some additional power to be used under it. I think the noble Baroness is right. There seems to be a conflict of' legal opinion here between the opinion of her advisers—which maintains that Section 111 of the local Government Act 1972 is sufficient authority and protection for local authorities wanting to enter into partnership agreements—and the legal advice obtained by the local authorities which is to the contrary. All I can suggest is that the noble Baroness might ask her officials perhaps to consult further with the officials of the local authorities body concerned to see whether they can get a better measure of agreement on the legal question.
It is simply that. It is no more we are asking than that. If the noble Baroness is right with the advice she has received: that section 111 is sufficient, there is no need for this new clause. If, on the other hand, the advice available to the local authorities bodies is right that it is not specific enough, then something is needed. I shall certainly suggest to the local authorities body concerned that they check with their advisers further on this matter perhaps in the normal course of routine consultation—and I am glad to say that the scope for consultation between the noble Baronesses' Department and the local authorities bodies is very close and easy—and we can only suggest that there should be a further get together on this narrow point of whether Section 111 is specific enough. Having said that, in view of the discussion that we have had and in view of what the

867
noble Baroness has said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 16 [Byelaws about bathing and boating within 1,000 metres to seaward of low water mark]:
5.34 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich)The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich) moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 19, line 43, after (" of ") insert (" the preceding provisions of ").
The noble Lord said: This is simply a drafting Amendment. Its effect will he to achieve rather more precision in the drafting of subsection (3). I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 19, line, 44, at end insert—
(" (3A) In subsection (I) of the said section 231 (which specifies the matters which may be regulated by byelaws under that section about public bathing), after paragraph (a) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
(aa) prohibit or restrict public bathing at times when and places as respects which warning is given, by the display of flags or by other means specified in the byelaws, that bathing is dangerous.")
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 15. The effect of this Amendment will be to extend the purposes for which byelaws may be made under Section 231(1) of the Public Health Act. The new subsection will ensure that bye-laws could be made to prohibit bathing when, by means such as red flags shown on shore or other means specified in the byelaws, the local authority considered that bathing in the sea would be dangerous. Section 231(1)(a) of the Public Health Act 1936 empowers the local authority to make byelaws:
"…to regulate the areas in which and hours during which public bathing shall be permitted for the prevention of danger to bathers ".
In using the word, " hours " the subsection permits only the making of byelaws in which the actual times of day are prescribed rather than times during which certain conditions may or may not prevail. The new subsection would enable a local authority to prevent bathing at dangerous times without being obliged to prescribe
868
permitted hours for bathing. This is a useful provision for lifeguards in assisting them in discouraging bathers from entering the sea when it is dangerously rough and having to be rescued by the lifeguards. There are a number of Local Act precedents.
Baroness YOUNG: I entirely support this Amendment. I think its object is very valuable. However, I should like to ask the noble Lord, as this is an Amendment to the Public Health Act, how this comes under the Long Title when the other Amendments to the Public Health Act do not.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: By a happy chance I was here when the noble Baroness raised this point. She will not be astonished to know I am quite unable to answer her question. I am sure it w ill be dealt with in the correspondence in which my noble friend will be engaged in the near future.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 20, line 8, leave out (" this ") and insert (" that ").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 16 to correct a drafting error in subsection (4) of the clause.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
5.40 p.m.
Lord AIREDALE Lord AIREDALE moved Amendment No. 17:
After Clause 16, insert the following new clause:
Amendment of section 233 of Public Health Act 1936 (1936 c. 49)
. In section 233 of the Public Health Act 1936 (which empowers local authorities to make bye-laws with respect to swimming baths and bathing pools not under the management of a local authority) for the proviso to subsection (1) there shall be substituted the following proviso—
" Provided that this subsection shall not apply to any swimming bath or bathing pool which is not open to the public other than a swimming bath or bathing pool provided by a hotel, holiday camp, private school or other body or person who makes a charge for any of the services or facilities they provide or by any body which requires the payment of a fee or other subscription for membership thereof."
The noble Lord said: This proposed new clause is also intended to extend

869
the application of a section of the Public Health Act 1936. I do not know whether a clash with the Long Title is involved here—we shall see. Section 233 of the Public Health Act allows a local authority to make bye-laws regarding swimming pools in respect of four things: purity of the water, the adequacy and cleanliness of the accommodation provided, regulating the conduct of persons who use the swimming pool and prevention of accidents. It does not apply to swimming pools where the public are not admitted and where no charge is made for the use of the pool. The purpose of the Amendment is to extend somewhat the application of that section, not to extend it so far as the private swimming pools in the private gardens of private householders using their own swimming pool with their own friends and relations, but only so far as what one might call the semi-public swimming pools operated by hotels, holiday camps and private schools. After all, the people who have access to those swimming pools are not very far removed from members of the public. They are indeed members of the public having the money and inclination to become visitors to the hotel, holiday camp or whatever it may be. It is thought that it would be useful to allow local authorities to use this bye-law—making power not only in respect of completely public swimming pools but the semi-public ones operated by hotels, holiday camps and so on. I beg to move.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: I do not know whether my noble friend is going to give an affirmative response to the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, but as one who swims about twice a week, winter and summer, this Amendment has attracted my attention. The Committee sill he aware of the fairly strict regulations that are already in operation over the majority of municipal baths under the control of local authorities in this country. In addition to the more picturesque regulations which cover the prohibition of what is called " bombing ", running by the side of the pool and " petting ", they make provision that the depth of the pool shall be correctly indicated at the side of the pool. That has certain safety implications and one would generally hope that the same standard that
870
is applied to local authority pools throughout the United Kingdom ought to be capable of enforcement over all other pools that invite custom for profit. It may well be that my noble friend will tell the Committee that the Amendment is unnecessary. If it is unnecessary, so be it: but if it is necessary, I hope that my noble friend will give favourable consideration to it.
Baroness BIRK: I am certainly not going to say that it is unnecessary to do something: something needs to be done, but I am afraid I am going to say that this is not the way to do it in this Bill. One of the reasons that it does not find a place in the Bill is because there is no precedent in local Acts, so it makes it inappropriate for this Bill. Apart from that, it is inopportune, but not because there is not a growing concern about the deaths from accidental drowning. The horrifying fact is that after fatal accidents on the roads and in the home, accidents at swimming pools are probably the next largest group. Therefore, it is not something about which we can be complacent. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, and my noble friend are quite right about this. In 1973 there were a total of 816 deaths from drowning recorded in England and Wales: 59—— about 7 per cent.—occurred in swimming pools, 26 in public pools, and the remaining 33 were in pools belonging to hotels, holiday camps, schools, universities, clubs, hospitals and so on.
It is for that reason that there is a Home Office Working Party on water safety which is examining the means adopted by local authorities and others to prevent drowning accidents and effect rescue. That is looking at the whole problem, how matters can be improved and what provisions should be brought in. I have checked recently and publication of the report is expected before the end of the year. The report covers safety in public and private swimming pools, including the adequacy of the existing law, the need for a code of practice of pool management and problems concerning private pools. The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, will agree that what I have read out covers precisely the points he has included in his Amendment.
With such a comprehensive Working Party at work at the moment, he will agree that it would be wrong and premature—and we should he unlikely to get it right

871
even with the hard work he has put into it, to do anything through legislation until this report is issued. Therefore this or, indeed, any other Bill would not be the appropriate place to deal with this aspect at this time. With the assurance that it is not a case of something which is going to be set up—the Working Party is at work and will publish its report before the end of this year—I hope the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, will withdraw his Amendment.
Lord AIREDALE: I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and I are both pleased to hear the Minister say that we have drawn attention to a matter of great concern. I have to accept that this may not he the right place and time for dealing with it. I am grateful for the information that something is being done and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Recreational facilities]:
5.48 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS Baroness VICKERS moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 21, line 1, leave out (" dance studios and riding schools ") and insert (" and dance studios ").
The noble Baroness said: This Amendment was inspired by the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland. On Second Reading he made a very good point about riding stables. He was not certain whether he could attend the Committee today and that is the reason why I am moving this Amendment. I realise that the Bill allows local authorities to run riding stables if they wish to do so. I do not think that we should put this provision in the Bill because I do not think it is desirable that local authorities should run this type of organisation. I should like to know whether any local authority has ever demanded or asked for this permission. When we had the South Glamorgan Bill it contained nothing about stables or running riding schools.
I agree with the noble Lord who spoke on Second Reading concerning the high risk of having to pay compensation for injuries. I do not know whether the noble Baroness is a horsewoman, but she
872
probably knows how temperamental horses are. The very quietest and most placid type of horse can suddenly shy. In a riding school they see " ghosts " and suddenly shy when there is nothing there at all. But the horse moves very quickly and this throws the rider off. Also sometimes the horse shies because of shadows which are cast from windows of an indoor riding school. In the open air a horse may shy at pieces of paper which blow across the road; and motor cars very often drive too near to horses. A horse can be upset, especially when ridden by someone who is inexperienced or perhaps not temperamentally suited to riding. In such cases a horse may harm not only the rider but itself as well.
There are some people, unfortunately, who will never make a good horseman or horsewoman because they simply have not the right temperament or the necessary ability; and the interesting thing is that a horse quickly senses this and quite often plays up more in such cases. I have done a considerable amount of riding in my life and also some show jumping, so I have some knowledge of the difficulties involved. I also think a difficult situation could arise if a ratepayer were to go along to the municipal stables and ask to hire a horse. If the person running the stables considers he or she to have insufficient skill or knowledge, will they be able to refuse the ratepayer in the same way that a private owner could do?
Another point is that running a stables is an extremely expensive business. A swimming pool or sports centre can be shut down for a day or two, but a stable has to give attention to its horses for seven days a week, and when a horse is ill very often someone has to sit up with the animal. It seems to me that running a stables would prove to be a very difficult operation for a local authority. Most stables are run as a family affair with individuals living on the spot so that they can tend the horses day or night. I would suggest that this is not really the sort of thing we want a local authority to do. One can imagine debates being conducted on certain ways in which the horses might be used. Therefore, I should like to suggest to the noble Baroness that unless there has been a tremendous demand for riding and the hiring of horses. she should give favourable consideration to my Amendment.
5.52 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: I should like very strongly to support this Amendment, and also the remarks made by the noble Baroness behind me. Yesterday, as your Lordships know, we had a debate on the state of the economy when the main theme was the desirability of reducing public expenditure, particularly in view of the fact that the public sector takes 60 per cent. of the gross national product. In this Bill we seem to be putting temptation into the hands of local authorities to increase their expenditure. I am all for local authorities embarking on as many recreational activities as possible—bowling greens, squash courts, tennis courts and so on—hut when it conies to riding schools the noble Baroness is quite right in what she says.
Some time ago in this House I introduced a Bill intended to ensure the proper regulation of riding establishments, and I can assure your Lordships that the noble Baroness is perfectly right when she says that riding schools are expensive to run. Unlike a squash court or a tennis court, a riding establishment, with its horses, has to be looked after seven days a week, and when horses get ill, as they do occasionally, they must have expert attention. There are also dangers connected with riding establishments in urban areas, where I presume the pupils will he taken out on roads. There is always the possibility of a pony shying, as a result of which the skull of the rider could be broken.
If you are to allow local authorities to run riding schools, where is this going to end? Shall we soon be having the Hammersmith Hunt, or the Clapham Harriers? What is to stop a local authority—if it is in the right area, of course—having a grouse moor? You must call a halt somewhere and think of the poor ratepayers.
Baroness PHILLIPS: As a resident of Hammersmith, I wonder why the noble Viscount selects that borough and asks about our having a hunt?
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: The noble Baroness has a point, but in fact I chose the "Hammersmith Hunt " only because it sounds right—nothing more than that. You could, of
874
course, hunt rats in Hammersmith. But I must reiterate the point: where do you stop? It is essential at the present time to control public expenditure, especially on the part of local authorities.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: I hope that my noble friend will resist the Amendment put forward by the noble Baroness. I listened very carefully to her speech and although she enlarged to some degree on the whole question of riding schools, I am certain that her Amendment also extends to dance studios—I am wrong. I beg her pardon. But I hope that my noble friend will resist the Amendment. I really cannot understand the point of view put forward by the noble Viscount in regard to public expenditure. It has been suggested for a long time, particularly by those who are sympathetic to the views put forward from time to time by the noble Viscount, that there is tremendous public expenditure in the country because of vandalism, juvenile crime and a whole series of anti-social acts which are the direct product of frustration among youth. Therefore, I should have thought that any facility which is comprised in Clause 18(1)(a) to a local authority to provide facilities, which the noble Viscount must admit are inadequately provided for by private enterprise, would he a very good thing.
As for riding schools, I do not see why it should be outside the competence of a local authority to provide such facilities as long as the local ratepayers approve of it—and presumably they will, because they elect their own councils. It is wrong that the whole question of riding schools should he regarded as the exclusive preserve of people who are fortunate enough to be in the rather more comfortable income groups. It may be a very desirable facility in some cases, though not in all, for the local authority to provide where they consider there is a real need.
Baroness VICKERS: May I just ask the noble Lord who would subsidise these facilities? Otherwise people would have to pay exactly the same price as is paid now, and they would have to pay the same price at a municipal riding stables as at a private stables.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON:I concede immediately to the noble Baroness

875
that there are many services, including amenity services, provided by the local authority which are not self-supporting. I should like to refer again to swimming pools. There are very few municipal swimming pools which pay their way on the basis of the admission fees charged. But the principle behind it is that if you provide the facility or creative recreation, as distinct from permitting destructive idleness and frustration to exist, you might be doing a good thing for the community. Incidentally, at the same time, I would ask the noble Viscount to believe that by this means you are probably avoiding a considerable amount of public expenditure in other fields.
I think that within the context of the Bill we ought to allow local authorities to take a broad view on this question, consistent with their appreciation of the local circumstances and of the needs conveyed to them by the people living in the locality, who invariably elect their own councils. It would be wrong to restrict this clause in the manner suggested by the noble Baroness, and I sincerely hope that my noble friend will resist the Amendment.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has gone off at a tangent from riding schools to a great many other things which do not come into this Amendment at all. This is the only function which it is suggested local authorities might undertake—and I am in entire agreement with him about all the rest of them—which involves the exploitation of live animals. have never run a riding school, but to exploit live animals for profit by allowing other people to use them requires very strict discipline on the part of the person who is in charge of the animals.
That people should have the facility to learn to ride is a good thing, but it will be exceedingly difficult for a local authority to inculcate the necessary discipline in managing a riding school. You must have a person who is not only fond of the animals he is looking after—which I am quite certain a person employed by a local authority would be—but who is also financially involved, and who does not want people giving his horses bad mouths, sore backs and so on. I hope that the noble Baroness will consider very strongly this one point. This and the fishing are the only two functions detailed
876
here which involve anything to do with animals. I shall be raising one in a moment which I hope your Lordships look upon in a different way, because it has a rather different background. But to bring in animals of a higher degree of sensitivity is probably not the right way for a local authority to proceed.
The Lord BISHOP of NORWICH: I hope that the noble Baroness. Lady Birk, w ill resist this Amendment on behalf of the Government because, with respect, I take almost the opposite viewpoint to that of the noble Earl who has just spoken. For 10 years. I was vicar and rural dean of Islington in the most heavily built-up area of North London, and to have any sense of contact with animals, which I believe to be an important part of children's education, was very difficult for our Islington children. In fact, it was very difficult for them even to play football. because there were hardly any grass pitches in Islington, except one at a very famous football ground which I supported very strongly, called the Arsenal, and that was restricted in regard to who could play on the pitch at any one time.
Therefore, even to put into the mind of local authorities the possibility of a riding school would bring the relationship between boys and girls and horses and ponies under good and careful public supervision, and I have always felt that there is a certain sense in which the dignity of both man and pony is increased when they have a relationship with each other, rather than when they never see each other. I say this with some experience, because as a Commando chaplain in the Far East I had never ridden properly until I learned to ride in Hong Kong and was thrown from a very fierce and wild horse which, if I had been able to go to a riding school as a small boy, I might have stayed on.
Lord LEATHERLAND: I wish to support the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, in her Amendment. I also want to contradict the suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Bruce, that riding is a sport which is almost the sole preserve of what I might call the comfortable classes. If he would walk through Epping Forest with me at some weekend, he would find scores of little typists and mechanics from Ford's factory riding on

877
horses which they had obtained from local stables.
On Second Reading, I criticised this provision in the Bill which permits local authorities to set up and run riding stables. One of the reasons I mentioned was that local authorities would find themselves inundated with claims for damages sustained as a result of pupils and riders being thrown off their horses and seriously injured. Pupils can be seriously injured by being thrown off a horse. Even experienced riders can be seriously injured. We all have in mind the recent incident which involved Princess Anne. I used to consider myself a fairly experienced rider. I kept three hunters once upon a time, and I had a very narrow escape one day in the hunting field when my horse's hoof caught the top bar of an oak fence. He pitchforked me into a ditch on the other side of the fence and came down on top of me. Fortunately, no hones were broken but I was very seriously bruised for months afterwards.
Even when a riding school has an expert riding master in charge, accidents can happen and they will. But there are so many privately-owned riding schools in existence at the moment that there will be no spare riding masters for the municipalities to recruit into their establishments. When a cavalry squadron sergeant-major is demobilised these days, your Lordships can take it for granted that he has probably never seen a horse. I have no financial or other interest in riding schools; I never have had. But I feel that the riding schools which now exist, the stables and the pony clubs are quite capable of catering for all the would-he riders.
But there is another objection which I have to incorporating this provision into the Bill. At the moment, local authorities are very busily engaged performing those tasks which the Legislature lays upon them. Moreover, local authority officials have increased in their scores of thousands during the last few years. Local authority expenditure has soared like a lark during the last few years not only to the disgust and disagreement of ratepayers, but also of Ministers of the Crown. I do not think this is the time when we should be urging local authorities to set up new establishments and spend more money than they are spending at the moment.
878
What would be the cost of setting up a stable? First, you would have to build, buy or rent the stable, and you would want a field or a couple of fields adjoining so that the horses could he put out to grass. You would need to build a house for the man in charge so that he would be on the spot day and night, seven days a week. I suppose he could have some high-flown title such as they give to local authority employees these days, like Director of Equitation or Master of the Mayor's Horse. He would have to engage grooms and instructors, and then horses would have to be bought: and those of your Lordships who have been to horse auctions and markets will know what a very tricky business that is. I know it can be said that this Bill does not compel local authorities to set up riding schools; of course it does not. But when councillors see the words " riding schools " in black and white in a Government Bill, they will get their tongue over the bit and not all the curbs in creation will hold them back. It may sound desirable to make riding schools available to everybody, but is it realistic?
There is another argument that perhaps can he used against us, which is that some local authorities may already have riding schools. They may have obtained them through Private Bill legislation. That legislation will run for a year or two and if they feel that they want to continue their riding schools they can renew their Private Bill legislation. I have always been a strong upholder of municipal enterprise, and over more than a quarter of a century in local government I have promoted many local government enterprises. However, when councils are worried about whether or not they can fulfil their housing, education and other vital services, this is hardly the moment to give any order of priority to the establishment of riding schools, particularly since the national economy is walking a tightrope. I hope that my noble friend will give further consideration to this section of the Bill.
Lord SOMERS: May I support the Amendment of the noble Baroness, and for this reason. Anybody who has any experience of horses—and the noble Lord who has just sat down certainly has knows that very specialist knowledge is needed in order to look after them. One thing that local government do not

879
possess is specialist knowledge. They have very good general knowledge of finance and other matters but specialist knowledge of horses they do not possess, since hitherto they have had nothing to do with them. It would put the public at very great risk—not to mention the horses themselves—if horses were put in the charge of inexperienced trainers, and I sincerely hope that the noble Baroness will press her Amendment.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: May I also support the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, and my noble friend. I live in an area where everybody rides and where the main festivities of the next six weeks. called the Common Ridings, take 200 people out riding on common ridings. These people do not necessarily own their own horses hut they manage to monopolise an incredible number of them. Very often, those of us who possess horses lend them if we do not intend to ride. This is an area where horse riding is available to people of all classes. Riding is our main hobby, but everybody would be horrified if the county council on which I served for so many years decided that it was going to run a riding school.
These establishments are very expensive and cost a fearful amount of money. People who own little riding schools or hire out horses spend the whole of their lives with horses—it may be that they are involved in hunting or pony trekking—and they are highly experienced people. They love riding and it provides their main source of income. Riding is not cheap, but people manage to raise money for it. particularly when it conies to events like the Common Ridings. Since local authorities are having to cut down on all the essential services that we want to keep, it would be nothing short of lunacy to encourage them to establish riding schools, especially as they are already being run by private enterprise. Not many areas arc left to private enterprise but this is one of them, and I strongly support the view that riding schools should be left in the hands of private enterprise. ft means that hundreds of people can ride in the riding areas.
By all means let us have a riding school in Islington. or wherever it was that the Bishop mentioned; but, as I have said, riding schools are very expensive. The feed has to be brought in and the hay has
880
to be bought. Last year we were selling hay at £80 a ton. The idea that municipalities should buy fodder at that cost is fantastic. I am afraid that this is a quite ridiculous idea and I oppose it very strongly. I do not oppose the idea that there should be swimming baths, although it is very difficult now to provide swimming baths because of the cost. Many people are saying—quite rightly, I think— that if there is a swimming bath in a small town there is no reason why children from another small town should not use it rather than that there should be a swimming bath in each place. But a swimming bath is a prestige symbol which many local town councils like to possess. That is another point, though; we are talking about the expense of running riding establishments.
This is a highly technical matter. Ponies are very expensive to buy. If riding schools are badly run, all kinds of accidents and difficulties are liable to occur; and if you do not feed the ponies sufficiently you will be brought before the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. This suggestion is outwith any sensible local authority and I cannot imagine that any authority would establish one.
Baroness PHILLIPS: I would ask my noble friend to resist this Amendment and to support my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington. I am a little alarmed by the suggestion made by several of your Lordships that local authorities are more irresponsible with regard to the kind of people they employ than are private riding schools. I would remind your Lordships that most of the cases which have been before the courts have concerned not local authorities but private owners. I do not believe that history shows that local authorities are less responsible in any of their undertakings than those which are conducted privately. I was intrigued to hear my noble friend Lord Leatherland say that typists ride in Epping Forest. When somebody is on a horse, I wonder how he can decide whether that person is a typist or a duchess?
Lord LEATHERLAND: May I interrupt my noble friend. They are very much the same thing these days! However, on one occasion I was viewing these equestrians with my daughter and she said to me, " Look, there's so-and-so out of my office".
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: She might have been a duchess!
Baroness PHILLIPS: That is right. I fear that there is an element of class distinction about this. I recall that not too long ago the same arguments were advanced about swimming pools being provided by local authorities. One has only to watch, as I do every day, young people patiently lining up in their dozens to go into the Holborn swimming pool to appreciate that local authorities have brought to the people in towns, including Hammersmith—which is a very worthy borough that would be a splendid place for riding stables as it has open space—all the things which were taken for granted, not even 20 years ago, as the province of one class. Now they can be enjoyed by many people.
Golf is another example. There was a period when you could play golf only if you were a member of a golf club. Now, so many municipalities provide golf courses that it is a joy to see people taking part in this activity. If we want to provide good recreational facilities for people of all ages and classes, surely the local authority is the best body to provide them. The fear that more injuries would be caused by riding schools than would he caused by some of the other activities we are suggesting—water ski-Mg, I notice, is one of them, which is an activity that I applaud—makes me wonder whether there is any evidence to support the view that more people fall oft horses than go under when taking part in water ski-ing. We should need figures to prove that that is so. I hope that an opportunity will be provided in the Bill for local authorities to ensure that everyone who wants to enjoy these sports can do so.
Lord de CLIFFORD: I am afraid that I am going to disagree with my noble friends on this matter. I hope that the Government keep these words in the Bill. I agree very much with what was said by the right reverend Prelate. At the moment, young people say that they have nothing to do, that they have no interests, and so on. We all know that it is expensive to provide riding schools, but nowhere in this Bill do I see a requirement that councils must provide riding schools tomorrow. They are simply being given the power to open riding schools when they feel that the situation is fit.
882
I believe that one of the best things one can put forward to any local council is the power to do something to encourage young people to take an interest in everything which goes on around them, and the interest in horses and the riding and care of horses is something which may appeal to many young people who now have no opportunity of doing so. Do not let us consider that we are putting it in the Bill for them to do it tomorrow. Times must improve otherwise this country is going to pieces. When there is an improvement and the local councils want to do it, let them have the power to do it. I hope that the noble Baroness will oppose this Amendment.
Lord ROBBINS: This exchange of views has certainly shown the nonpartisan and extremely grown-up discussion which goes on in your Lordships' House. As the argument has swayed to and fro I have felt a certain split personality. I completely endorse the warnings which were given by the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, and by the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, with regard to the imprudence at the present time of local authorities indulging in this rather expensive kind of amenity. I hope there is nothing in the Bill which enjoins them to do it forthwith. But I think this kind of reserve power has been supported by technical arguments—and I say this with great deference to the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers—which surely fail to carry conviction.
It is some years since I was astride a horse. I had a certain amount of instruction when I was a little boy on my father's farm, but I learned technical riding in the Royal Artillery Barracks at Woolwich. I must say to the noble Viscount that there was no evidence there that these delicate animals were ill-treated by the people who instructed the young officers in the First World War. I believe we had an extremely good training. So it seems to me that the technical argument falls down.
If and when prosperity returns, I certainly hope that the local authorities would not indulge in anything imprudent, even in those perhaps long distant days. It would seem to me to be a pity to inhibit them from making experiments on the ground that perhaps they might engage people who were not sufficiently well

883
qualified. On the whole I should be inclined to let them make experiments in the same way as other classes of the community.
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: May I briefly say how much I agree with what the right reverend Prelate said. So many of our children now get into trouble because they have not got enough to do and they do not come into contact with animals. As an animal lover who was born and brought up in the country, and on horses, I know that it is part of a child's education. I wish to support the Government in this because I believe that the more facilities that are supplied for children to come into contact with animals, the fewer children I shall have in my juvenile courts.
Baroness BIRK: What this debate has shown is that this Committee certainly gets its priorities right. Today, apart from the movers of these erudite Amendments the only time that the discussion on this rather rag-hag of a Bill came to life was when everybody brought in their horses. I find myself in a difficult position because rather like my old friend and tutor the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, I feel rather schizophrenic about it. I have listened carefully to what everyone has said on this matter: the number of runners has been considerable and the result has been a dead heat.
The points that have been raised have all been valid points: the question of expense, the question of experience and skill, the question of the care of the horses—because animals are involved. All these points have been put extremely eloquently and at one moment I thought that those in favour of the Amendment were right ahead in the field and all we had was a pair in hand—my noble friend Lord Bruce of Donington and the right reverend Prelate—but then the other one started coming up.
I think I should explain that the riding schools in the clause as it is drafted are examples. Although it says, in particular, " powers to provide ", it gives a whole list of examples of recreational facilities. I must say that if it had been overwhelmingly the feeling of the Committee that the riding schools should be omitted, I would have accepted the Amendment, because it is a case where I feel your
884
Lordships should decide, and probably we are better off in our knowledge of horses than are the Members of the other place. But as the debate is now so even I think we should leave the Bill as it is, and also for this logical reason. Under the clause as it stands the local authorities have a generality of powers, which means that any local authority could open a riding school if it wanted to.
What we are really discussing is whether this should be included in the list of options. So much has been said, and if I were not against sending so many circulars to local authorities I should feel inclined to send this extract from Hansard in the form of a circular, both as a guideline and as a warning to local authorities who might be thinking of setting up riding schools without taking into account the financial situation, health risks, the care of horses and all the other things which have been so eloquently mentioned. But since they could, in fact, do so if they wanted to, and as it is so evenly balanced, it seems to me that we should leave the matter as it is. The attention of local authorities will obviously have been drawn to this, and will no doubt he drawn to it. From the exchange of opinion in the Committee—not divided between the Parties—it emerges that this is one of the recreational options which should he approached with the greatest caution, both from the financial, the social and the working point of view of being able to do it. At a time—and I think the noble Lord. Lord de Clifford, made this point—when local authorities feel that they have the funds and the opportunity to do so, it should be possible for them to do it.
I see it as the whole range of activities. It is also true that a number of other activities were either at one time only the monopoly of those people who could afford it or, as has been pointed out, were considered to have elements of danger. But almost anything one does, even at times walking down the street or crossing the road, can be dangerous, and I think that must be taken into account. Having heard what your Lordships have said, and quite genuinely wanting to get the feeling of the Committee on this, I think we would all agree that it should rest as it is. I believe that would represent the feeling of the Committee at present.
Baroness VICKERS: I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for taking such an interest in this Amendment. She has not replied to one point. I asked her whether any local authorities ever requested the right to run riding schools. I should like to say to the right reverend Prelate that ponies bite at one end and kick at the other. They are not exactly the most friendly animals for children to play with.
Baroness BIRK: If I may interrupt, the noble Baroness is quite right and should like to answer her question, which I forgot. I was not trying to hide anything. We have no record of any request from local authorities for riding schools. so it must have been some enthusiastic rider from another place or in consultations; or it may he that Parliamentary counsel ride out on horses sometimes. Therefore, the idea that riding schools will suddenly spring up is not very likely.
Baroness VICKERS: I sympathise with the right reverend Prelate with regard to Islington, because I began my social work in Islington. I used to take the children to Whipsnade Zoo several times a year, and they arc much safer there than playing with ponies. If I may mention the word " danger ", we have four Members of this House in wheelchairs because they were thrown from and rolled by horses. This is a very dangerous sport. One Member of this House I know was injured in a motor car. This is just an example of the fact that in this House alone, before our own eyes, we see the results of accidents that can happen to individuals.
I am slightly worried about the question of horse riding coming into politics, if these schools are to be run by councillors. Let us suppose that someone wants to hire a horse for hunting. Many councillors are against blood sports. Are they going to debate whether or not they should hire out horses for hunting? Quite seriously, people may need to come to a decision on that matter in one way or the other. Therefore, I think there is more in this than meets the eye, and I should be grateful if we could consider it in the future. As the noble Baroness said she is schizophrenic about it, perhaps she would look into the matter, and we can discuss it again on Report.
Baroness BIRK: I will look again into it. I cannot say that anything more will come out of it. I think the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, is quite wrong over the hunting question, because a riding school quite specifically is a riding school. It is not a question of leasing or renting out horses for hunting. That is not what is meant by a riding school. However, if I can get any further information, I shall be happy to write about it to the noble Baroness. We were both listening very carefully, and she knows as well as I the feeling of the Committee. There is no compulsion or encouragement —this has also been made clear in the case of local authorities who embark on this activity— but it is just one of the options, like so many other things, open to them.
The Earl of CRANBROOK: Then can the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, compose some form of Amendment between now and Report stage? I do not think any of us would object in any way to a riding school where people were taught to ride within the school. What worries me certainly, and I suspect a number of others, is a local authority providing what most of us look upon as a riding school, being a place where horses are hired out to people, to have under their exclusive control for an hour or so. That is what most of us would interpret as being a riding school. If people are purely to be taught in the riding school by the instructor in charge of the horses, I think few will object. If it could be defined in that way I should be perfectly satisfied. I am not satisfied at the moment.
Baroness VICKERS: I am sorry, but the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, is wrong about riding schools. Of course you are taught in a riding school: you hire a horse for an hour. But you can also hire a horse for hunting. I have done it many times myself. When I first began, I used to do this from a riding school in Ascot, so I think the noble Baroness is wrong on this point. Perhaps she will get herself corrected before the next debate.
Baroness BIRK: In order to save the time of the Committee, I will look very carefully into the definition of " riding school ". I should have thought it was different from a hacking stable, but I will look into it. I shall be grateful to receive any messages or any definitions

887
from members of the Committee who, I think, probably know more about this than I do.
Baroness VICKERS: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord STRABOLGI: I suggest to the Committee that this may be a convenient moment to halt. If that is acceptable to your Lordships, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

ROYAL ASSENT
6.35 p.m.
The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Education (Scotland) Act 1976,
Crofting Reform (Scotland) Act 1976,
Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1976,
Atomic Energy Authority (Special Constables) Act 1976.

EAST KILBRIDE DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
EDINBURGH MERCHANT COMPANY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

MEDICINES (SPECIFIED ARTICLES AND SUBSTANCES) ORDER 1976
6.36 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL rose to move, That the draft Medicines (Specified Articles
888
and Substances) Order 1976, laid before the House on 18th May, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order is a preliminary to the extension of the controls of the Medicines Act 1968 to those intra-uterine contraceptive devices not already subject to the Act and to contact lenses, contact lens blanks and associated fluids. As such, it constitutes part of a small widening of the scope of the Act.
The Medicines Act makes provision for regulating most aspects of the production and marketing of medical and medicinal products. The Act's definition of what constitutes a medicinal product is, necessarily, a general one, and it was realised at an early stage in the Act's preparation that there would be some products that would fall outside its terms and which it would be desirable to control. Already, the powers of the Act have been used to bring within control some types of surgical sutures and dental filling materials. The Committee on Dental and Surgical Materials, which was set up under Section 4 of the Act to advise on these sutures and on dental materials, has a membership which includes experts on the specified articles and substances covered by this order. Ministers will therefore be able to seek such expert advice on these products.
I should say that some intra-uterine contraceptive devices are already held to be medicinal products because they contain substances which have a chemical or pharmacological effect inside the body: but other intra-uterine contraceptive devices which are inert can only be controlled if powers are given to us by this order. This class of products is thus divided into two legal categories as the result of falling into a " grey " area in respect of the Act's definition of what is a medicinal product. As your Lordships know, all intra-uterine contraceptive devices are placed inside the body for a considerable length of time, and we believe it is important that all such devices should be subject to proper quality assurance; and that powers should be available to regulate their sale.
Turning to contact lenses, those of your Lordships who do not use them may not be aware that the wearer of contact lenses makes regular use of fluids to disinfect, lubricate or hydrate his or her lenses; he or she therefore uses a " system " consisting of the lens and the fluids that must be used with it. It is important to

889
ensure that this " system " does not provide a home for bacteria that may damage the eye because the contact lens itself and some of the fluids used with it are applied directly to the eyeball for long periods. The use of a plastic and a fluid may also create the possibility of interaction. When research recently cast doubt on the safety of some of the contact lens fluids on the market, we immediately held discussions with the manufacturers of these products. All of them were willing to submit technical information to us and we set up a Working Party to report on the standards which should be used to assess contact lens fluids. This Working Party will report, we hope, in the near future, and will have provided a sound basis for the introduction of statutory control as proposed in this order.
The Medicines Act provides a wide range of regulatory powers in relation to the sale, supply, manufacture, import and export of medicinal products, and these controls are centred on the licensing system. In outline, the production and marketing of a medicinal product can be regulated by the issue of a product licence, and the manufacture and assembly and wholesaling of a medicinal product can be regulated by the issue of appropriate licenses. Within the licensing provisions, there is scope to take account of the significant difference in the way that trade in different types of product is organised.
I should like to stress that this order, if approved by your Lordships, would not bring the controls of the Act into force immediately. Further orders and regulations would have to be made which would lay down a timetable for the introduction of licensing, and provision would be made for transitional periods to allow manufacturers and others to accustom themselves to the requirements of the Act. We intend to propose different dates for the introduction of licensing for the different classes of products covered by the order. The comments of professional and trade organisations involved in the area would be sought before our proposals were finalised.
These proposals have been generally welcomed in the consultations which we
890
have undertaken, and I hope that your Lordships will feel, in view of that, that this order can be accepted. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Medicines (Specified Articles and Substances) Order 1976, laid before the House on 18th May, be approved.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wells Pestell, for explaining the provisions of this order, and I would ask him one or two questions about it. As your Lordships will be aware, the Medicines Act 1968 allows, by special clauses within it, for extension to the powers granted, and in particular this order relates to two particular products. I should like to ask the noble Lord, first of all, what types of intra-uterine contraceptive devices this order has in mind, and also whether he can give us any approximation of the numbers likely to be involved in using these devices? One must be cautious here, because, of course, the Medicines Act is part of an international arrangement within the World Health Organisation, and we naturally accept that the numbers involved will be very considerable. Nevertheless, in view of the fact that the Medicines Act 1968 covers a very large number of products of considerable variety and type, I would be grateful if the noble Lord could give some indication.
In regard to contact lenses, I was particularly glad to hear what the noble Lord said in regard to consultation with bodies, especially those concerned with the manufacture and the trade. I wonder whether the noble Lord could indicate with whom the consultations have taken place within the professions concerned, as this would be valuable. Further, it would be valuable to know whether this took place with bodies within the EEC, because, as your Lordships will be very well aware, there are a large number of orders relating to optical devices which come before us and are subject to the scrutiny of the European Committee.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, for his comments and observations. With regard to the intrauterine contraceptive devices, there are two types, as I understand it, of IUCD,

891
if I may be permitted to use the initials. The " inert " type consists of a sterile plastic loop or coil which fits into the uterus. The " active " type is similar but incorporates an additional substance, such as copper or a hormone designed to give additional protection against pregnancy. The " active " type is already controlled by the Medicines Act because of the presence of this additional substance. There are no comprehensive centrally collected statistics which would indicate how many IUCDs are currently in issue. The best estimate suggested is that there are between 350,000 and 400,000 women who are currently using IUCDs, and we certainly know that the number is increasing. Four different brands of " active " IUCDs have been licensed under the Medicines Act, and there are four brands of the " inert " type which I mentioned at the beginning. My understanding is that there have been no discussions in relation to this matter with the EEC.
Coming on to the outside consultations to which the noble Lord referred, the following organisations were consulted in February 1975 concerning the products covered by this order: the British Medical Association, the Medical Research Council and the medical Royal Colleges; the British Dental Association and the General Dental Council; the Guild of Hospital Pharmacists, the National Pharmaceutical Union, the Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain and the Worshipful Society of Apothecaries; pharmaceutical trade organisations, including the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry and the Proprietary Association of Great Britain: consumer organisations, including the Consumer Association and the National Federation of Women's Institutes; finally, the British Optical Association, the Joint Committee of Ophthalmic Opticians and the Guild of British Dispensing Opticians; the Contact Lens Manufacturers Association, and, if I can lump them altogether, most of the leading manufacturers in the contact lens field.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SCHOOLING FOR THE CHILDREN OF MIGRANTS
6.50 p.m.
Lord FULTON Lord FULTON rose to move, That this
892
House takes note of the Thirty-third Report of the European Communities Committee of this session on Schooling for the Children of Migrants (R/2085/76).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. I do so with some trepidation for, although the title of our discussion seems innocuous, not to say soporific, the European Communities Committee decided that it touched on important issues of domestic policy as well as in relation to our membership of the EEC. The hour is already advanced and I shall try to respect your Lordships' natural desire for brevity.
The proposed draft Directive which, if enacted, would have binding effect throughout the Community defines migrant workers' children as:
"…children resident in a Member State who are the responsibility of persons working in an employed or self-employed capacity in that Member State, be they nationals of another Member State or of a third country ".
As paragraph 2 of the Report explains:
" The Directive proposes to improve conditions of freedom of movement while maintaining equality of treatment for Community and non-Community migrants by facilitating the gradual adaptation of the children of migrant workers to the educational system and social life of the host country whilst ensuring that the linguistic and cultural links are maintained between the children and their country of origin.
The Directive would require Member States to provide free reception classes for the children of migrant workers, including a crash course in the language of the host country. Each Member State would also be expected to provide, as part of the school curriculum, free tuition in the mother tongue and culture of the country of origin throughout the entire period of full-time compulsory education and in accordance with the educational standards normally observed by that state. Finally the Member States shall train the necessary teachers and, where necessary, make use of foreign teachers ".
My Lords, this is of course a debate on education and the House has the good fortune to have as a Member the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterhill, who has unrivalled experience in the practice and administration of school education in this country. The Committee naturally relied heavily on him in the course of its deliberations, and he will speak later in the debate. I shall leave the core of the educational argument in his skilful hands. It may, however, be convenient for your Lordships if I try to put the strictly educational problem in its setting. And to do that one must first turn to the com-

893
plex problems of the migrant workers themselves, the parents.
There are at present over 6 million migrant workers within the Member States of the EEC. Germany has the largest number, over 2 million, primarily migrants from Turkey, Yugoslavia, and Greece; France is next with just under 2 million, primarily from Spain, Portugal and Algeria. The United Kingdom follows with over 1½million, nearly 500,000 from Ireland and nearly I million from the new Commonwealth countries—a large proportion from the West Indies. It therefore will not escape the notice of your Lordships that in the case of the United Kingdom a very large number of migrant workers' children have parents who at least have English as a second language. In addition, of course, the United Kingdom has those from its former territories who, under the varying conditions imposed by current legislation, have entered the country by the right of citizenship, and whose children, for that reason, are formally excluded from the provisions of the draft Directive; although, from the point of view of the schools, they have needs similar in many respects to those of the children whose parents are migrant workers and covered by the proposed draft Directive.
The causes of the displacement—if that is the right word—of these large numbers of workers are at least threefold. First, the Treaty of Rome laid down that there should he free movement between Member States; and in giving effect to this, it has been necessary to ensure that free movement between Member States should not be impeded or thwarted by loss of social benefits and the protection, for example, of a trade union or a professional association. Freedom of movement within the Community for the citizens of the Member States and freedom of establishment for the self-employed were no doubt intended by the authors of the Treaty of Rome to help in building the conditions for a future further advance towards European union as well as to promote the strictly economic aims of the Community.
The second cause is that in the aftermath of the Second World War there has been a lack of balance as between different geographical areas in the distribution of
894
capital and other resources, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the supply of the workers needed to fructify the investment of the available capital. In the United States of America in the three-quarters of a century after 1850 or so, the jobs attracted the men who moved in great numbers from the Old World to the farmlands and the growing industries of North America, where the investment and development was taking place. Something of the sort has happened on a growing scale in the EEC during the 1950s and 1960s. The present economic recession has halted but hardly reversed the process. And the projections suggest that despite unemployment, for example, in Germany, the migrant workers there will number no fewer in 1990 than they do today. Indeed, it is calculated that if Germany closed its doors tomorrow to future migrant workers the numbers would have increased by some 40,000 or 50,000 a year by the natural processes of growth in the families.
Thirdly, two World Wars and the march of history have brought about new power systems in the world: super Powers have replaced the imperial powers of Victorian England; and the British Commonwealth has given way to a new Commonwealth of independent sovereign States. Many of the inhabitants of these new States have moved to the former metropolitan Power (the Committee, I am bound to say, regretted the generally disappointing weakness of the statistical evidence), relying on the constitutional rights conferred upon them under the former political arrangements.
This is a rough and ready picture of the state of affairs in the field of discussion. The present draft Directive is intended to redress, to a considerable extent, the disadvantages suffered by migrant workers hitherto. But so far as I at least have been able to discover there is no step in contemplation which would lead, say, to the Turks in Germany winning full German citizenship in the future; though it is clearly the intention to confer upon them the primary social security benefits which are enjoyed by the full citizens of the Member States of the EEC. The concern for the education of the migrants' children's education is the first step in this programme.
It can, I think, be said that the picture is—no doubt for the historical reasons I have already referred to—significantly

895
different in the United Kingdom. We would have wished to present a more complete statistical picture. Apart from those from the new Commonwealth who have entered as citizens in their own right as holders of British passports, there is an opportunity for those who have spent not less than four years in this country to apply for United Kingdom citizenship and thus, if successful, to enter into a relationship which recognises not merely the economic link with the migrant worker but one which also accepts on both sides the moral, social and political obligations of full citizenship.
I come briefly to the educational issues involved. The witnesses from the bodies representing the teachers felt that their job was to help all children in need in the process of creative adaptation to their stay in this country, whether long or short, permanent or temporary. If they felt that they could best do this by helping them to perfect their knowledge of English and English culture, they certainly did not rule out the importance of using in that process the resources of indigenous language and culture nor undervalue the importance of harnessing the help of the family or the community group to which the child belonged. I would be doing less than justice to the evidence of the teachers if I failed to bring home to your Lordships t heir conviction that the adaptation at which they are aimed, was a creative two-way process, as it had been in the I Jnited States during the historical epoch of the " melting pot ". And they were anxious that, apart from formal teaching, the work of voluntary bodies interested in the welfare of the migrant workers' children should be assisted by appropriate training schemes and the loan of buildings.
Your Lordships must be made aware that, so far as one can understand the position, there are two broad classes among the predominant group of migrant workers' children in this country. There are those who, whether formally or not, have thrown in their lot with us for good and those who, perhaps for long undecided, will decide to return mutually to their countries of origin. The schools must be under immense pressure sometimes from parents who wish their children to he fully equipped to move on, for example to a form of higher education—for whom the attainment of appropriate A levels is a high priority—and at other times from parents who hope that their children will return to their land of origin, fortified
896
by their stay in this country but for whom it is not the final compulsive goal over-riding the claims of contact with the land of parental origin. No clear mark will enable the schools to recognise one group from another, because they cannot predict human choice, except perhaps the ardour with which the second group pursue their informal links with the past.
I am, however, trespassing on the ground that belongs to the noble Lord. Lord Alexander of Potterhill. He will no doubt make clear the concern of your Lordships' Committee about the proposal that by a Community legislative enactment a significant part of the school curriculum should be prescribed. The only existing legislative provision affecting the curriculum of schoolchildren in this country is the requirement in the Education Act 1944 that the schools should offer religious instruction. Our country has drawn from its history a different attitude on this subject of educational authority to that of its fellow Members of the EEC. We have put our trust in the teacher to teach in the interest of the child without interference from political or bureaucratic sources. Thus the teacher's responsibility has not been weakened by the curriculum imposed from outside the school or by the superior status of an authorised doctrine or book. It is therefore an issue of some importance whether what is denied to Westminster and Whitehall should be conceded, as in this proposal, to Brussels.
It was strongly represented to us that the course to be preferred should be a general aim or objective recommended by the EEC rather than a Directive with an obligation to make periodical reports on progress. Certainly the history of our administrative arrangements for the schooling of our children has been one of decentralised control. In this respect we have gone in a direction sharply different from the course taken on for example in France and the substitution of a recommendation for a Directive would enable us to preserve this.
Before I close these remarks I am tempted to go further and ask this fundamental question about the future course of the European Community: is it possible that it could, in the pursuit of a closer union. avoid the fate that has overtaken most, if not all, such efforts in human history? Union throughout history, whether through conquest or consent, has too often been identified with uniformity. But what

897
is Europe if it is not a tribute to the diversity of human genius? The question is whether that diversity is to be nourished or stifled. There can be no doubt about the immensity of the challenge to achieve what has eluded all the empires of history. Perhaps we may claim that the Commonwealth came nearer than any other to realise this ideal. With that experience behind us we should be in a position to enrich the Community, to which we confirmed our adhesion a year ago.
My Lords, if that is our ambition, we cannot achieve it by hanging back until proposals have emerged from the machinery of the EEC. We have only too often in your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Communities during the past months seen this happen, and our country has been put into the uncreative role of declaring that proposals coming forward do not suit us. If we are to contribute, the essence of what our experience of the partnership of people and Parliament in democratic Government has taught us is that it must be brought in at the start as a real ingredient; it cannot be added at the end to a dish already cooked to suit other tastes. Perhaps that suggests too harsh a judgment. Perhaps we are still too recent adherents to have been able to fulfil our whole potential. At any rate, it was encouraging to read in yesterday's Times that the Foreign Secretary regards it as his first priority to assess the role of this country in the European Community, and we must wish him well in that task. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Thirty-third Report of the European Communities Committee of this session on Schooling for the Children of Migrants (R/2085/76).—(Lord Fulton.)
7.8 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I am not a Member of the Select Committee whose report we are debating this evening, but I have greatly profited from reading their evidence and from studying what they have presented to your Lordships' House. I agree straight away with the noble Lord, Lord Fulton, that a Directive is an entirely inappropriate instrument for achieving or attempting to achieve what is required here in this field. I say that for three reasons. First, it is impossible for a Directive to reflect and allow for the diversity in the educational systems of the Member countries of the EEC. It
898
cannot allow for the variations in the nature of the problem presented by the individual children of the different kinds of foreign workers, whom many of us have in large numbers. Nor can it allow for the variations in complexity of the problem presented by the different mixtures of children in many classrooms. expecially in the schools of Britain. Flexibility is essential and therefore a recommendation would he far more appropriate than a Directive. Furthermore, I agree very much with the Committee that three years is totally inadequate, especially if it is to be a Directive. and quite unrealistic as a period of grace. even if sufficient funds and qualified staff were certain to be available, and it is reasonably clear that there is no certainty in those important respects.
Although the drafters of the Directive do not seem to recognise it, there are. as the Select Committee was quick to point out, at least two problems here. rather than one. There is one problem with the children of migrant parents who are here for a spell and entirely another with the children of immigrant parents who are here to stay. Nevertheless, the two are lumped together in the Directive. Then there are subsidiary problems in that. although most migrant parents want their families to maintain their mother language and their mother culture, some of the immigrant families may also wish this but large numbers do not and are not concerned that their children should maintain their mother tongue and culture. Therefore, to impose compulsory instruction in those subjects upon immigrant families who do not want it is undesirable. and an attempt to get it done in the standard school curricula is unrealistic. A requirement to make such a provision obligatory on LEAs in this country would be a major departure in British education policy which, in my view, we should not accept. I hope we shall hear the noble Lord, Lord Alexander, confirming that that is also his view.
On the other hand, where migrant or immigrant parents wish their families to be well versed in their mother tongue and mother culture, I agree that provisions should be made. Whatever instrument is finally adopted should give every encouragement for appropriate steps to be taken. In my view, such encouragement can only be given by selecting and publishing a number of examples—pilot schemes—from different Member countries, illustrating the best practical methods that have

899
been adopted for this purpose in a variety of the more acute and the most typical circumstances. My choice for a sample from Britain would be Bedford. Bedford has one of the highest proportions of migrants in its population of any town outside London. These people are Italians. The proportion of Italians to natives in Bedford in 1972 was 24 per cent., which is far higher than in many places which have been in the headlines over immigration problems. The children of these Italian families are taught according to the Bedfordshire curricula at LEA schools alongside children of English families. In addition, five lower schools, seven middle schools and one upper school are made available by Bedfordshire outside normal school hours for Italian classes made up of the Italian children who are taught by teachers employed by the Italian Government. This seems to have been a rational, fair and practical division of costs and labour. It may well he that since the days of Bunyan, Bedford has become particularly adept at persuading Cavaliers and Roundheads, Anglicans and Dissenters. Italians and English to hold firmly to their distinctiveness and at the same time to live at peace together.
There is one rather special example from a place taking the highest number of migrants that I know of outside London which would serve as a pilot scheme. There may be many others but it is quite impossible, with the variety of our problems, to lay down in a Directive what should be done about mother language and mother culture. I hold strongly to the view that it is right to place a firm obligation and to lay it firmly on every Member country of the EEC to give the children of its immigrant and migrant workers as good an education of their own kind as it gives to its own children. On the other hand, each education authority in each Member country should be left free to decide how that is best achieved.
Tuition in mother tongue and mother culture is quite another matter. It is more a matter of choice by the immigrants and is more susceptible to development by way of example. It is quite inappropriate to attempt to provide it by compulsion within the standard curriculum of the host country.
7.17 p.m.
Lord ALEXANDER of POTTERHILL: My Lords, I am particularly delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, apparently learned so much about the
900
thinking of local education authorities in his relatively limited period at the Department of Education and Science. He illustrated particularly well the way in which he has understood their thinking. I wish to speak strictly about the education of the children. The noble Lord, Lord Fulton, has put the matter in a wider context, but my concern is solely with the children. There are two aspects of the problem. First, there is the need—and this is equal for migrants and immigrants—to be integrated into the life of this country to which they have come. I think it would be fair to say that we have done this increasingly successfully. Special provision in the English language is generally practised and the courses for teachers coping with immigrant children have been developed quite extensively.
The second aspect of the problem is the one which in my judgment presents a completely impracticable proposition. It is the requirement to maintain as part of the curriculum in the schools the language and culture of the country of origin. I think of a school where 35 languages would be required to be taught. I do not know where one would find the increased number of teachers who would be necessary, and such a step would of course increase the staffing ratio very considerably.
It is therefore the view of the local education authorities that we entirely accept the rightness of enduring full educational rights for every child who comes to this country, whether as an immigrant or a migrant. That is not in doubt and we should take the necessary steps—either by reception classes or by using specially trained teachers who can handle the problem—to secure that. On the other hand, we could not accept any possibility of embodying within the school curriculum provision for the maintenance of the language and culture of the country of origin. It would not be a practical proposition; it simply could not be done.
What we have sought to do—and the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, gave a good example—is, where there is a sufficient group involved, to make provision by making premises available and by giving such help as is possible to enable a community from its own resources to have classes or groups in the language or the culture, not merely for the children but in many cases for the children together with their parents. I am certain that all local education authorities would be glad to give such help.

901
There is the final point, which I think is fundamental in this country. If my memory is right, when I made my maiden speech in your Lordships' House I devoted a considerable time to the importance of the distribution of power in the education service as the fundamental in my judgment. Any suggestion of a Directive from Brussels, which had to be applied in this country, which prescribed curriculum, would be a major departure from our tradition in education over the past 100 years or more, and would prove to be quite unacceptable. Nor do I think that it would be practical in operation. On the other hand, a recommendation to meet the second obligation would be received perfectly reasonably. As the noble Lord, Lord Fulton, said, our colleagues from the teachers' associations quite clearly sought in some cases to use the language and culture of the country of origin, to the advantage of the school as a whole, where it was a significant group. This is being done, and can be done.
But I hope that your Lordships will support the concept of a recommendation so that we leave, as we have always done in this country, the head teacher of a school to find how best to give the fullest educational opportunity to every child in his or her care. I believe that this will lead to the best results in the genuine purposes of the Community's purpose—but not by prescription. I think your Lordships would find the fullest support from local education authorities and from the teaching profession in the fulfilment of such recommendations. I think, too, that your Lordships would find total opposition to a Directive such as this proposal.
7.22 p.m.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, I want to be brief. Most of the things which I wanted to say have already been said, and therefore I shall fill in what seem to me to be one or two gaps. Why are we talking about this draft proposal? One of the witnesses to the sub-committee (of which I am not a member) put his finger on it very well when he gave evidence on the 10th March. Mr. Hudson said:
" I think there was a had conscience in parts of Europe about the conditions under which guest workers were living, and the extent of their participation in the social services of the host countries."
This is the feeling that has led to the
902
proposal which we are discussing this evening. Our experience of these guest workers is different because of our Imperial past and the complications of our citizenship law, and the history of our immigration control is different from that of almost every other Member State of the Community, with the possible exception of Holland.
So it is hardly surprising that something coming from the Community, when we have not been a Member very long, is not wholly suitable to the way in which we are accustomed to doing things. But—this is my first point—it would be a sad mistake to continue to give others the opportunity to say that Britain only drags its feet when the Community comes forward with an initiative. In this field, of all fields, we have special experience that can contribute to the solution of what are Community problems, and in criticising what we are rightly criticising today I hope that we can send a message to the Government to be positive in their criticism, and not merely to carp at the details of a proposal for whose objective most of us in this House would have much to say in support.
I shall not touch on the particular history of the independence of the British educational system from central direction, nor will I dwell on the details of the proposal. I remind your Lordships that we are really talking about a White Paper rather than having a Second Reading debate, because although the Council of Ministers are, I understand, to decide on this matter soon, they act as a legislature. and we are considering something that, if not still in embryo, has not received the proper scrutiny from national Governments that it will receive in the Working Parties of the Council before the Council of Ministers. Incidentally, I hope that the noble Lord who is to reply to the debate can tell us when this decision of the Council of Ministers is expected. So there is room for Her Majesty's Government to manoeuvre to adjust this proposal in a constructive way before it enters into the law of all the Member States.
If we are looking at the problem to which this proposal is addressing itself, perhaps we should ask the Government what is their view of the importance of mother tongue teaching and the preservation of the culture of those who come here? Let us put on one side for a minute the arguments between migrants and immigrants; these are technical debates about

903
categories which become increasingly blurred, and I do not think that it really matters how we describe the people about whom we all know we are talking. What is the view of the Department about the importance of mother tongue teaching? Do the Government go along with the recommendation of the Bullock Report that confidence and ability in their language—that is, their natural language—would help children to have the same qualities in their second language, English? Do the Government sec the possession of a different language at home as a handicap, or as something that can be used to a child's advantage—not something that has to be eradicated? Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, can tell us whether the Department has looked into the effects of mother tongue teaching in other countries where there are multilingual communities.
It may well be that this proposal which we are discussing will never come into force, but something on these lines from the Community will come into force some time, as the noble Lord, Lord Fulton, made plain in the conclusion of his remarks, which 1 admired so much. This is the beginning of positive action by the Community in this field. It is the first step. In preparation for other steps of a similar nature, will the Government undertake a survey of the kind for which my noble friend Lord Sandford was pressing? Will they look into the best practices of local authorities already? There was a precedent, in 1971. There was issued an Education Survey on The Education of Immigrants. One of its objects was stated to be,
" it described practices which have been found successful in different educational situations and institutions ".
It was not direction from the centre: it did not erode the freedom and independence of local education authorities. But it gave hints and guidance as to where the best practice had been found. Is there any chance of the Government's following up my noble friend's suggestion in preparation for other Directives or proposals coming from the Community in this field?
My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord who is speaking for the Government—and we all recognise that he is under considerable pressure; 1 do not know when he went to bed last night—will be able to encourage us that the Government are not trying to put a stopper on what the
904
Community is attempting to do to discharge its social obligations to those who came here to make us all richer. We have different traditions and experience, but if Britain is seen to be, or can be said to be, holding out against the Community responding to its conscience when the conditions of these people are being improved. then I think that would be very sad; and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give us some encouragement that, whether or not the details of this particular proposal are satisfactory, the Government will look at this, the first step in a long process, in a constructive and encouraging way. If possible, is he able to tell us whether the Government will be able to make an oral Statement after the Council of Ministers meeting at which this is discussed, so that we have a firsthand report in this House as to what the Government have done after what I believe has been a most interesting debate on a very fundamental question?
7.31 p.m.
Lord PARRY: My Lords, I hope I am not adding to the pressures already upon my noble friend Lord Donaldson, who is to reply to this debate, by asking to intervene in it at this point. I wanted to make three points which relate to those made, from a similar point of view for the local associations, by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander. The teacher associations have expressed in their evidence to the Committee, and have reiterated since the presentation of the two documents, three items, one relating to the research upon which any scheme of education must be based, another to the resources available to carry out any scheme of education and the last to some reservations that they have about some of the aspects raised in the Directive. It is to these three points that I should like to address myself for the moment. I should like to say, first, specifically in relation to paragraph 10 on page 2 of the document before us, that the Committee thinks that the United Kingdom draft Directive should distinguish between the types of immigrant children, and that the teacher associations felt and said in their evidence that the amount of research carried out, and the type of research carried out, was not in fact sufficient. There is available to those who are interested a great deal of research which has in fact gone on within this country.
In addition to those migrant populations who come in and are threatened with

905
losing their own language—and the teacher associations accept, as I understand it, the impracticability of trying to keep all those languages alive—there is, of course, within our native population, the parallel problem of nations such as the nation of Wales which has been trying to keep its own mother tongue alive. In the process, through pieces of research carried out by the Schools Council and by the Department of Education and Science and bodies related to it, it has been possible to monitor the decay of a native language within this country. So there is some considerable evidence to support the contention of this report in relation, first of all, to the value of the mother tongue and the culture, which is quite undeniable, and, secondly, to its proposal that there should he a positive attitude towards bilingualism. I think, in fact, that if a criticism can be made of those who care so much for their mother tongue that they wish to see it kept alive, it is that they wish to see it kept alive at the expense of another language which, perhaps because of circumstances which cannot be denied, forces intolerable strains upon the mother tongue. So I welcome very much, and I think teacher associations also welcome, the emphasis placed upon this positive attitude to the native language and then a positive attitude towards making the incoming migrant bilingual. It is a very simple statement that the man who has one language is one man, the man who speaks two languages probably moves towards being two men.
This brings in very strongly the point that Lord Alexander made: that the resources available to carry out research and to continue to expand the research already going on are not available to us at this time. It should be said here that the schools themselves and the teachers in them, and indeed the education authorities themselves, are under great pressure. Indeed, to ask teachers simply to co-operate in schemes of research at this time is to impose on them a burden which they would find it very difficult to meet. So there are, then, these reservations about resources. There was one specific point which the teachers made in their evidence to the Committee, and that is that the bringing into this country, at a time of unemployment among teachers, of specialist teachers in the native language would itself, of course, cause difficulties.
I have risen in this debate to emphasise
906
simply these three points: that there is a need for far greater research, that there is a need to co-ordinate that pool of research which is already available and to place it at the disposal of the Department of Education and Science, and that there is also a need to recognise the stress under which our colleagues in the schools are working at the present time.
7.37 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I intervene for one very brief minute to make one point? I think the report is absolutely right to draw distinctions between immigrants and migrants. Immigrants, as I understand it, are those who come here with the intention of staying here for the rest of their lives. The situation in Europe has for so long been quite different in this respect, that there are movements of workers between different countries in Europe. They may spend a few years here, and then go on to another country and spend a few years there; and the children themselves may be educated in several countries, one after the other. This is something which has to be borne in mind, and this is something which, in the long run, has to be worked out within the Community.
That is a rather different question from the question of acclimatisation, which I think is the word the Dutch used to use and which the Israelis have also used in respect of the many people coming into Israel speaking all kinds of different languages when they are being taught with a view to learning, throughout their education, in the language of the country to which they have come. They may be a different proposition from the case of those who come for a year or two, who will learn for two or three years in one country, who will then go on to another and move around. There is no easy solution to this. I think that, from the point of view of teaching children the language, to a large extent they can be taught in the same way when they move from one country to another. All I want to point out is that there are some children who will be pursuing their studies throughout their educational period in the language of the country to which they have just come, whereas there will be others who will be going from country to country. As I have said, this is something which will really have to be worked out within the European Community over a lengthy period of years.
7.39 p.m.
Lord ARDWICK: My Lords, I should like. if I may, to intervene for a moment, perhaps rather rashly since I have not been able to read the report of the Select Committee, but I am a Member of the European Parliament and I was a member of the Education Committee of that Parliament before they, in their zest for education, abolished that Committee and put it into the Social Affairs Committee. I am a great enthusiast for Europe. I have very few criticisms to make of the way in which the European Parliament operates and in which its Committees operate; but I must say that I thought the debate on this subject was totally confused and ill-informed. and that nobody seemed to have any idea of the scope or the scale of the problem.
What happened is that it got mixed up with the debate on the European schools which are provided for the children of the officials who are going to move back into a complex school system. What they really want is for the English children to be educated so as to be capable of taking O-levels and of going on to universities in England: and the same thing with the French and the Germans and so on. These are two problems, the problems of the children of the migrants and of the children of the officials of the Community, and they have got mixed up. The feeling is that if the children of migrants are going to return to Spain or to Turkey or from wherever they come, they are entitled to the same kind of education as are the children of the officials. This perhaps would be true if the problems were on the same scale; but the problem of the children of the officials is a comparatively small one while that of the migrants must be quite vast.
We have not been dragging our feet. From what I have heard—and one has only heard gossip and rumours, for there are no facts and figures of what goes on in Europe—and from what I know goes on here, I think that we have done an immense amount for the children of immigrants—far more than any of the countries of Europe have done for their migrant workers.
7.41 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge): My
908
Lords, we have had a very interesting and positive debate. The Government, and 1 as their spokesman, are extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Fulton, for his and his Committee's examination of this problem and for the very clear lead which he has given to the Government as to how he thinks they ought to behave. Every speaker today mutatis mutandis,, with one or two small variations, has endorsed this. This is a particularly suitable occasion because the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, asked when this is going to be discussed. My information is that it will be on 29th June. The Government will go with a clear idea of what the Select Committee and a number of extremely experienced noble Lords from this House think that they ought to do about it. So that I think that, whatever else this debate is going to be, it is going to be useful and it has come at the right time because it comes in a way in which it can he used by the Government as support for doing what, by the time I have finished speaking—which will not he very long-1 should say is unequivocally accepting the advice given.
The EEC draft Directive deals with three points: an educational reception system for the children of migrant workers for the crash course in the language of the host country; the inclusion of instruction in the mother tongue and the culture of migrant children in the normal school curriculum; and specialised training for home teachers. Everybody who has spoken—and. I think, the Government—would take the view that the first and third, at any rate, were wholly desirable objectives which we are already putting into practice in our own decentralised way; and that the middle Directive, the inclusion of instruction in the mother tongue and culture of migrant children, is something which, as several noble Lords have suggested, probably needs further study before one advances with the very considerable expenditure which would be required and in view of the difficulties confronting the teaching profession (to which my noble friend referred a minute ago) and of the various stresses and strains which exist. But I do not think there is any feeling in the advice the Government gets that this would necessarily be a wrong thing to do.
The feeling of the Government—and this has been endorsed by everybody who spoke today, by the noble Lord's report and by the various consultations they have

909
had—is, however, in principle against an inflexible Directive. The noble Lord, Lord Sandford, made this point extremely clearly and I think we all agree with this. If we could have these three suggestions as a recommendation, I think we could do what the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, has asked us to do: which is graciously to welcome them, to see to what extent we are already doing what is suggested, to see how we can do more about it, to do research into the subject and, generally speaking. to respond in an absolutely positive way.
If this comes to us in the form of a Directive, then I think, as the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Potterton, thought, there will be trouble. The way the Government should negotiate, when they come to do so, is clear to all of us: they should respond in a positive way and I can assure noble Lords that, roughly speaking. that is what I feel confident they will do.
In discussing this very interesting subject I should like to say a word or two about instruction in a second language. There is no doubt that many European nations have always easily learned two languages. On the other hand, it is suggested by sonic experts that for a child who is confronted with an actual need in his daily life to learn a new language, to continue with the old language may be a positive handicap. I do not. think anybody knows the answers to problems like this. They are the kind of things that we must look at. It seems to me that a Russian aristocrat of three and a half years who spoke his native language to the servants and French to his mother—and this was the standard position 80 years ago—is not in the same situation as a boy who comes strangely to school surrounded by people speaking English, a language he does not know. It may be that he should be instructed in that language rather than have special lessons in whatever his native language may be. Here I must refer to what I think was said by the noble Lord. Lord Fulton. that there arc 1½ million immigrants of this kind in the country, 500,000 of whom arc Irish and that most of the remaining number have English as their second language. I would suggest that most of them have English as their first language, and that this makes the case even stronger.
There has been a good deal of thought about this. In a paper prepared for a
910
conference on bilingualism Dr. Verity Kahn has said that many of the children attending mother tongue schools in Britain speak marked dialects and, in consequence, when confronted with their mother tongue they are actually or nearly in the situation of learning a new tongue. In such circumstances, this means two new tongues; so that one must be careful that this extra challenge is not to be one too many for a child who is already struggling with a new and different environment.
Of course, one can understand why there is a wish to see the mother tongue taught in schools. The differentiation between the immigrant and the migrant which has been clearly made by a number of speakers —and I will not re-define it—is a fluid one. Some people arrive as immigrants and go back as migrants; others arrive as migrants and go back as immigrants. There are no hard and fast lines here. In many cases a particular language is a necessary element in religious tradition. There again, you have a different situation. In a multiracial society, which I am proud to be able to call ours, it is surely desirable that the languages and cultures of minoric ethnic groups should be accorded and seen to have acceptable status. I hesitate to call the Welsh a minoric ethnic group; but I suppose that is a rough definition though perhaps one which is not entirely acceptable to my Welsh colleagues.
Our problem is really one of multilingualism rather than bilingualism. It is a most interesting and difficult problem. The noble Lord, Lord Bullock, in his report advocated a positive attitude in the school to its pupils' bilingualism, and recommended that there should be further research into the teaching of their own language to children of immigrant communities and into the various aspects of bilingualism in schools. But whatever is done must he done in a carefully considered way for sound educational reasons. Everybody who has been concerned with this feels that a Directive would not be able to meet those needs, though a recommendation might be a very welcome one.
There is so much agreement among us that I do not think it is necessary to prolong the discussion. We have, as we learnt yesterday when 30 noble Lords spoke on the subject, very severe financial constraints. It is perfectly obvious that even if tomorrow we had research which suggested that it would be very desirable to employ mother tongue teachers for all our visitors, it would not

911
be possible to do so financially. I was rather attracted by the Bedford system which the Italians seem to have adopted, of the mother tongue paying for it with their " mother money ", if you see what I mean. There are a number of problems which have been stressed regarding the teachers. As I do not think anybody is advocating this, I do not think I need go into it any further.
The main argument on the 29th will be whether this is to be a Directive or a recommendation. The Government will continue to work for a solution which, in form and substance, takes into account the differences in circumstances which exist both between and within the Member States of the Community, and not least a solution which respects the diversity of the needs of individual pupils as these are perceived by their parents and teachers. Lord Fulton's Committee concluded its report by stating that in its present form the draft Directive was not appropriate to the conditions prevailing in the United Kingdom. The Government are in broad agreement with this conclusion and we shall give it full weight in the further stages of negotiations in Brussels.
7.53 p.m.
Lord FULTON: My Lords, I rise to thank those who have taken part in this interesting debate. It is tempting—especially for an ex-academic—to pursue some of the fascinating trails which have been laid for us. Some of them are not very academic, either. We have had a great experience in our past in teaching children who have a different culture and origin from ourselves. We made dreadful mistakes. We have taught little girls in West Africa to recite the theogony of Zeus when they ought to have been sitting
912
at their mothers' knees listening to fairy tales in a language they could understand. We too often gave them story books which were full of pictures of English flowers but which never grew in their own environment.
We have learnt an immense amount since then and it ought to be put to use with advantage to those being taught in our schools. An important fact to remember is that this is a profoundly important subject. One knows by going to Africa the vast significance of being taught in a francophonc part of Africa or an anglophone part. It is a cast of mind, and so we are handling extremely combustible material. Also, it matters at what stage the kind of instruction that is necessary is given because, as I said, the little child has to have it at the right time if its imagination is to be stretched, not after it has acquired a new language and at a much later stage than is suitable for that function.
I must not take this further now. 1 should like to end by saying how in particular I responded to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, because it brought us back to the problem of how we can co-operate and not appear to be taking a negative attitude. I find this difficult because I think that the things I try to say about our traditions and education are not the results of vested interests; they are a profound legacy from a past in which we have had our triumphs in entertaining the spirit of non-conformity in our society and making the most of it. It would be a terrible pity if the legacy were lost when our duty in Europe is to introduce some of that spirit among our fellow Members.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at four minutes before eight o'clock.