ORDNANCE SURVEY CHARGES

HL Deb 21 June 1976 vol 372 cc119-49

7.53 p.m.

Lord TEVIOT rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that the charges being made by the Ordnance Survey for the production by publishers of information are reasonable. The noble Lord said : My Lords, maps have been published in this country since the 16th century. The National Survey was set up in 1791 for defence purposes in Scotland. The first map in England was that of Kent published in 1801 and this country can be very proud of its achievements in cartography throughout the world; we set the pace which others have followed. The industry can also be proud of its export achievements.

Many of the well-known companies in commercial map publishing, too, were established in the 19th century. It is true to say that they derived their base material from the National Survey under licence agreements. However, they have been dependent on other sources besides the Ordnance Survey to ensure that they give accurate and up-to-date information, and they maintain constant contact with the ground, particularly the recent development in projected and completed streets and roads, information which is not readily available from Ordnance Survey material. In short, they are understandably dependent on public resources for their information, but one must emphasise that commercial map publishers are not in direct competition with the Ordnance Survey.

While admittedly they do this in anticipation of making profits, they do so with a view to providing the public with current information in the combination and form they want. To acknowledge use of the National Survey base, whose sole original purpose was defence, commercial map publishers paid the Ordnance Survey a small fee for each map produced. A special scale of payments was issued by the Ordnance Survey to assist in the administration and collection of the charges, and the publishers paid accordingly. The scale was designed to discount charges on long print runs, thus ensuring the economic production of map products to the mass market. It was therefore the policy of the Ordnance Survey to assist the availability of lower priced maps to the public, including of course all types of educational institutions from infant schools to universities and technical colleges.

However, in 1973 the Ordnance Survey wished for consultation with the commercial map publishers to discuss the mechanics of implementing a new system of royalty charges. Three years of discussion followed, at which point the Ordnance Survey declared their intention to increase those historic charges to map publishers by colossal sums of money—to use its own words—millions and not thousands of pounds. Unfortunately, there was no way in which the Ordnance Survey would bend ; it was dogmatic in its intention to go ahead with its proposed plans. Thus, with effect from 1st January of this year, the Ordnance Survey have introduced a new, increased scale of fees, with further rises planned to take effect from 1st January 1977 and 1st January 1978 which will have a highly damaging effect on the ability of the industry to produce maps without increasing prices substantially.

The Map Publishers Group of the Publishers Association believe that these new fees, which appear to be based on the policy that the Ordnance Survey should be more self-supporting, are damaging to the public interest and mistaken in their intent. Their major arguments are, first, that the Ordnance Survey by nature is principally a national service which cannot be financed substantially by the production and sale of maps; secondly, that the increases imposed are, in the words of the Department of Prices Policy and Consumer Credit, " astronomically and admittedly steep "; thirdly, that the Ordnance Survey has included maps of smaller scale which were not previously subject to fees and which, because of their scale, owe little, if anything, to Ordnance Survey material; fourthly, that if allowed to go through, the new scale is bound to affect the cost of maps to the general public and have a damaging effect on employment in the publishing industry; and, fifthly, that by its policy, the Ordnance Survey appears to be taking on itself certain decisions as to whether commercial publications should or should not be published by virtue of the size of fee imposed.

I come to the Government Trading Funds Act 1973, where it was proposed that the Ordnance Survey should be financed by means of a trading fund. While there was no argument with the principle of the Act, there was considerable concern at that time about the inclusion of the Ordnance Survey. I will not go into the arguments against because they apply equally now as they did then. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, moved an Amendment in your Lordships' House on 17th October 1973 in the names of my noble friend Lord Balerno and other noble Lords. I am pleased to see this evening that both noble Lords are here, together with other distinguished noble Lords. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Sandys, who has had more than a basinful with local government, horticulture and now maps.

I should like to know whether the Government have plans to make the Ordnance Survey a trading organisation. If not, could they give a positive assurance that they have no intention to do so ? The only way that they could do so is by an Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Gowrie, who in any event said that the area would have to be fully discussed before both Houses of Parliament. In that debate, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said—at col. 1965 of the Official Report—that he would not like map users, particularly in the academic community, to be charged through the nose simply in order that the trading fund, when established, could break even. We owe it to the academic community, the universities and schools, to provide them with these services at reasonable cost. This is exactly what has happened in the present situation, which I intend to go into more thoroughly when I have discussed the effect of the new scale of fees upon education.

The new scale of fees is set out in Ordnance Survey Leaflet No. 23, which appears to be a very contentious document so far as its legality is concerned. One peculiarity is that the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office, in whom copyright is vested by Royal Letters Patent, has delegated powers to the Director General Ordnance Survey for the day-to-day administration of copyright in Ordnance Survey maps, including the determination of terms and conditions under which permission for their reproduction is given. This seems, to say the least, very odd as the Controller himself is being charged royalties on the use of his own material. It should also be mentioned that, with few exceptions throughout the world, information of this nature is considered to be in the public domain and is open for all to use without charge.

It must also be re-emphasised that these are only the first stages of the increases which, as I have already stated, will result in the disappearance of many lower priced products from the market. These include basic road maps, walking books and guides. It is at this point that I must declare an interest because I have published two small walking books on Sussex.

The Ordnance Survey charges to a commercial publisher are and always have been treated as a production cost. Any increase is therefore totally reflected in increased costs to the public. The publishers themselves must also bear substantial increases by providing working capital to pay these fees. For example, a major map publisher will have to pay increased fees of £400 on a print run of 20,000 copies of a plan. As the firm has over 100 plans in its published list of titles, many of which are large print runs, it is now expected to raise an extra £50,000 to fund the same operation as in previous years. Add to that figure its other map products on which the new fees are now to be levied, and the burden may well become unbearable both for the publisher and the public.

The point should be made that publishers do not sell direct to the public, as the Ordnance Survey well know. They have themselves to distribute products through an established system of structured trade discounts, both wholesale and retail. I could quote many examples of individual increases to the public, product by product. However, I felt that, due to the many hundreds of titles involved, it would be more practical if I merely instanced two examples of increases to publishers. One is a collective increased charge and the other relates to an individual textbook. The London Transport Authority's publications produced in 1975 were charged £1,300 by the Ordnance Survey. In 1976, the figure had become £46,000, recoverable only from fare-payers. In the field of education, a text book printed in 1975 attracted a fee of £272. If reprinted now, the fee would be £3,200, recoverable only from capitation fees.

I now come to the second question of which I have given prior notice, and which I should like to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman. Are costs of the National Survey included in the fees charged, and are costs of the National Survey included in the cost of Ordnance Survey published maps? Surely plant, preparation and plate-making costs should be set against the Exchequer in support of the National Survey which, both historically and traditionally, is a national responsibility. The Estimates Committee Report for 1962/63 clearly lays down the costing policy to be followed. The map publishers have been informed that prices have been increased on Treasury orders to recover part of the cost of this Survey, but should commercial publishers be expected to recover that cost for the Ordnance Survey? The answer to this question is of great importance, particularly as the Department for Prices Policy and Consumer Credit has called the new fees levied on commercial maps, " astronomical and admittedly steep ". Also, their implementation coincided with a letter from that same Government Department asking publishers to hold down book prices and inviting them to join the " Price Check " scheme.

Apart from the colossal increase in fees levied on map products which conditionally carried a royalty charge, the Ordnance Survey have arbitrarily increased the coverage on which fees are now due, thus encompassing many types of publication previously exempted. In short, they have extended the previous scale limitation of 6 miles to one inch to 16 miles to one inch. In a letter to the Bookselleron 24th April 1976, the Ordnance Survey attempted to justify the change by stating that it was done to protect the sales of their own route planning map (scale 10 miles to one inch) and to include in their scales charges for reproducing part of an Ordnance Survey map for revision purposes. However, the effect of the new fees and the extension of scales will immediately put into jeopardy a number of educational text books and atlases.

Price increases in the Ordnance Survey maps—traditionally a working tool for both teacher and student—will also add to the educational burden and the extra costs can only come from already hard-pressed capitation fees and will doubtless mean fewer books for children. A well known publisher who has a substantial educational list, pointed out recently that a mapwork textbook with a printing of 20,000 copies would face a 1,100 per cent. increase in the royalty charge, which on this one book represents an increase of £2,900. That same publisher has stated to Ordnance Survey that, " it becomes clear that a very steep rise in the copyright fee charged will have a very serious effect on our list." This attitude is shared by many other publishers who are similarly placed, and it is confirmed by the Educational Publishers Council.

An article was published on this matter in the Times Educational Supplement of 2nd April, 1976. Also, to quote the view of educational establishment authorities, I have heard from a Head of Department of Geography at London Polytechnic that the increases have seriously hampered the work of his department in that they are now unable to buy many products which are essential to them. A letter in the Geographical Magazine (Vol. 48, April 1976) from a Senior Lecturer at the University of Durham confirmed that he considers that the Ordnance Survey's policy will have significant ramifications in the educational organisations in this country, particularly schools. He suggested that a loss leader in the map sales to schools might immediately benefit the Ordnance Survey by introducing more children to a range of products from our national mapping institute.

For many years, the Ordnance Survey have encouraged commercial publishers to invest heavily in and develop an industry which they themselves could make no real attempt to influence or support. They are now, under the guise of being more commercially minded, riding on the back of private enterprise, with possibly a view to taking over the market for themselves. The increase in map sales in this country, which the Ordnance Survey's present action will now halt, has been achieved by the commercial map publishers producing goods at fair prices to meet and nurture a growing public demand. This was recognised by the Ordnance Survey in their decision to enter into the market some years ago; it is surely their failure to compete on equal terms which has led to their ultimate attempt to change the rules so that only they can win.

One wonders by what right this has been done. It must be accepted that, unless these increases can be halted, there will be the usual dreary acceleration of cut-back which we hear of almost every day in your Lordships' House, job losses in a previously profitable and expanding industry, and a carry-over into the already troubled areas of specialised printing. The net result will be a considerable loss to the Ordnance Survey of the now punitive revenue they are hoping to collect from that industry.

While the map publishing industry will applaud any action which is designed to transform a Government Agency dependent on subsidies from the taxpayers into a commercially viable operation, apart from the cost of the National Survey, they are greatly concerned when the methods employed are to the detriment of an industry developed to serve both public and educational needs. Can it, therefore, be justified in terms of fair trading to recover increased benefits from commercial map publishers to make the Ordnance Survey more competitive with those same publishers? If so, the suggestion arises that the only way a Government Agency can become competitive is either by a subsidy from the Exchequer or from its competitors. May I ask if every publisher of maps is subject to the regulations laid down by the Ordnance Survey's Leaflet No. 23, because the Ordnance Survey have repeatedly stated that the new scale of charges was introduced to correct anomalies in the previous structure? In effect they have increased those anomalies.

A guide and handbook contains a 48 page map section, produced at a scale of 10 miles to one inch, which is technically within the new royalty coverage. Yet because the map is reputed to have been based on material other than the National Survey no royalty is payable. Also, even though the Ordnance Survey have declared that the information used to up-date and amend any map of this country must have been derived from Ordnance Survey sources and must therefore he subject to a royalty charge, again in this instance it is reported that no royalty is payable. Can it be that these new scales, introduced to correct anomalies, are open to negotiation? A point in question would be the case of the oil companies' maps where the proportion of Ordnance fees in the selling price has risen from 8.25 per cent. to 3615 per cent. Due to these new fees now imposed on them there is every likelihood that they will be produced by a publisher who is reputed not to pay fees to the Ordnance Survey, as it is said that their maps are not based on information from the Ordnance Survey. Should this change of publisher occur due to the fees now imposed, Ordnance Survey will lose fees they are intending to collect and the existing publisher will lose a considerable amount of turnover.

In the letter (previously mentioned) to the Bookseller, the Deputy Director of the Ordnance Survey Publications stated that Ordnance Survey attempt to establish an authorship right in all maps published of this country. To quote an example, the managing director of a company producing walk books, who visited the Ordnance Survey recently, was told that technically a sketch map he had produced himself to guide him from his office in Buckinghamshire to the Ordnance Survey in Southampton was subject to a royalty charge as the information used must have been derived from Ordnance Survey sources. This seems far-fetched in the extreme. This point was also brought to light by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, in 1973 when he stated that if you reproduce an Ordnance Survey map, or get maps printed by someone who has not got a licence, you are liable to a royalty charge. On the point in question this map was produced from memory and was not a direct reproduction from Ordnance Survey. However, royalty would appear to be claimed by them in exactly the same way.

I should like briefly to get back to the Government Trading Fund Bill for the moment, in relation to which the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, made the point that the application of copyright policy to the area in which the information is available only from Government sources has very serious implications. The map publishers asked the Ordnance Survey to wait until after the Whitford Committee reported on their findings into the copyright law of this country, and in both cases they were refused. As submissions by both the map publishers and the Ordnance Survey have been presented to that Committee, I should like to ask whether it is known when the Whitford Committee's findings will be published, for that information is not yet readily available. Perhaps the noble Baroness can enlighten me on the matter. In view of the serious implications of this matter, I hope that the noble Baroness and the Department of the Environment, together with the Ordnance Survey, will agree to delay the implementation of the new scale of charges until a full inquiry is carried out, as was requested by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and acknowledged by my noble friend Lord Gowrie in 1973—particularly as I understand that the Ordnance Survey are now considering concessions for educational publications.

My Lords, one must firmly emphasise that all mapping products are, in one form or another, educational to the user and it would appear that the Ordnance Survey are now beginning to realise the full implications of their own actions. In view of these doubts a full inquiry with all parties concerned must be called for at the earliest possible time.

8.14 p.m.

Lord SANDYS

My Lords, the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lord Teviot for bringing forward this Unstarred Question upon an issue of very wide concern, as has been demonstrated by letters in the Press and in a number of articles which have come to your Lordships' attention. My noble friend has digressed at considerable length on the details of the situation, but in introducing my own short remarks I wish to say first what a pleasure it is to take part in a debate with the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, a former President of the Royal Geographical Society. As a Fellow of that same society for the past 20 years I am also a map user but of a very much less experienced nature.

This evening the Ordnance Survey are in the witness box and it is an unfortunate situation because here is a very old and well respected Government Department. T think that everyone who has had any contact with the Ordnance Survey can claim them as a friend of education and a friend of the Armed Services of this country and of many countries overseas. Many Governments can I think attribute their own National Surveys to the Ordnance Survey because experts from the Ordnance Survey of the United Kingdom have gone to the four corners of the globe to advise on surveys. It is not only a national institution ; it is an international institution known throughout the world.

What has taken place in this present dispute has been brought about by circumstances, and it can be demonstrated that a succession of events has achieved what was not originally intended. It would be beneficial to dwell particularly on the positive aspects and not on the negative ones at present. I should like to echo what my noble friend Lord Teviot has asked and to say that I believe that the solution to many of the points he raised may lie in the ambit of the recommendations of the Whitford Committee, and I hope that we shall hear from the noble Baroness about when we may expect to receive the report of the Committee.

We have before us the new leaflet No. 23, which the Ordnance Survey published and which was referred to by my noble friend. It is a melancholy fact that this seemingly innocent looking document, with its tables and its terse and somewhat unilluminating remarks on castings has given rise to the present situation. It is remarkable to me to read leaflet No. 23 and then to listen to my noble friend Lord Teviot say that it has given rise to no less than a 1,100 per cent. royalty increased charge in the case of one particular publication. Surely once again here is an unintended situation coming forward, arising out of a number of circumstances which taken together have produced something wholly unacceptable to the map using public.

I should like to refer to correspondence which appeared in the Bookseller in April and May this year. I believe that two letters—one from the Deputy Director of Publications of the Ordnance Survey, on 24th April, and the reply, on 22nd May, from the Chairman of the Map Publishers Group—will give us in essence the case as set before your Lordships. Turning first to the situation as set out by the Ordnance Survey, it struck me as remarkable that over 90 per cent. of the Ordnance Survey copyright revenue comes from the holders of business licences; that is local authorities, the Post Office, public utilities, and businesses and professions concerned with the development of land and buildings. My Lords, as I understand it, this is quite outside what my noble friend Lord Teviot was pleased to term the general public users; that is to say, the users of oil company maps of very large number, the users of educational publications, et cetera. Therefore, the Ordnance Survey, when writing in April, claimed that a very high proportion of their revenue comes from this relatively small but very important group of users.

The second point I wish to make is that we are looking at a three-stage group of increases, 1977 being the second stage and 1978 being the third. I would put it to the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, in view of the very welcome announcement made by Her Majesty's Government at the weekend that the rate of inflation has been cut to 15 per cent., that perhaps this may be a further argument for the reduction of these charges; because, no doubt, built into the pricing system being adopted by the Ordnance Survey is the assumption that the level of inflation would perhaps be higher than it has turned out to be.

We are speaking after a three-year discussion, 1973 to 1976, which took place between the Ordnance Survey and the map publishers, and it seems remarkable to the layman, like myself, that in the course of this very long discussion there should not have been some point or some evidence, some initiative by one side or the other, which could have given rise to an agreement. It is a matter of regret that these talks broke up without any agreement being reached ; and we shall look forward to hearing the Government's view as expressed later in the debate.

8.22 p.m.

Lord MANCROFT

My Lords, I should like to offer a few words in support of the contention put forward by my noble friend Lord Teviot. I, too, share his view that this policy of the Ordnance Survey is very much to be regretted, and I think it will have far-reaching and unfortunate results. I think the reasons they put forward this new policy are perfectly respectable and praiseworthy. They desire to make themselves commercially viable, and nobody can grumble at that point of view. It is the way they are trying to do it. They have put up their figures to a degree which no commercial concern would dare to imitate, and they are surprised that there has been some measure of protest. We must not fall into the usual political trap of saying that we must have a widespread degree of Government economy, but not here; that Government expenditure must he cut to the bone, " but not my bone ". Similarly, we have frequently heard Members of another place say, " There must be widespread Government saving, but not in my constituency ". So let us not fall into the trap of saying, " Of course, we must have economies everywhere, but not in the Ordnance Survey "; and I do not say that. I think their reasons for trying to do this are good: their methods are extortionate.

I take one point only in order not to take up too much of your Lordships' time. I have for 25 years been concerned in one way or another with tourism and the travel industry. I still am, though no longer in a commercial role. This decision has been greeted with widespread dismay in the tourist world. The effects will be far-reaching. It will surely mean that certain publications will go out of business. I will not waste your Lordships' time by telling your Lordships how widespread the use of maps is in the tourist industry, from the modest little books of which the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, is the author, as he has just told us, to town plans, tourist maps, road maps, very expensive posters and the like—the whole field.

I am told that the British Tourist Authority are extremely anxious about this because their costs are going up as a result of this decison by something like 700 per cent. Many maps are going to be far too expensive for the ordinary tourist. Many publications which are welcomed by tourists to this country are going to go out of business. For 10 years I had the honour to be President of the London Tourist Board. We used to produce this little map, The London Mini-Plan, which was very popular. It did not cost a great deal, and we used to produce it in such numbers that we could afford to give it away free in large numbers, too. I understand that the cost of producing that little London mini-plan is going up by 300 per cent. It will be quite impossible to make it commercially viable or to be able to give it away. Incidentally, I have in my other pocket several spare copies, and if any noble Lord should like one while stocks last he has only to say so.

My Lords, I must not concentrate solely on tourism. There are, of course, other and equally important, if not more important, aspects where this policy will touch. The noble Lord mentioned defence, of course. As the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, said, in our map industry we do indeed have something of which we can be immensely proud, and other countries realise that. Defence is a particularly important subject in which the map world is concerned. Where are we now? It is mid-June. In mid-June 32 years ago, like many others of your Lordships, I found myself walking about the roads and fields of Normandy, greatly helped in my task by the quite superlative maps with which we were supplied, which made our tasks infinitely easier—many of them, I suspect, made by the colleagues of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, in the RAF photographic unit. They photographed the beaches and the sand dunes almost every day, and we knew where every blade of grass was—and we blessed them for doing it. That standard of map-making is the envy of the world, and I fear that the policy of the Ordnance Survey may prejudice that standard by unbalancing the supply and demand ratio.

It was not always so. We did not always have that standard in the Armed Services. I remember the late Lord Leicester, who died at a ripe old age during the war, showing me a very scruffy pencilled map in his home at Holkham Hall. He said, " That is the map upon which the First Battalion of the Scots Guards went into action at the Battle of Tel el Kebir. It is the only map we had. What do you think of it? " I said, " How did you come by it? ", and he said, " My soldier servant and I crawled about all the night before on our stomachs making it for the commanding officer because he had no map. He went into battle victoriously on the map I made, and the other two battalions in the brigade had to advance led by a Royal Naval officer with a small pocket compass ". It was even worse at the Battle of the Crimea. Lord Raglan fought the battle of Al'ma without a map and never knew where the River Al'ma was. He would not have done much better if he had known, quite frankly, where the River Al'ma was. What I fear, therefore, is that if we are going backwards—and this is a retrograde step that I believe the Ordnance Survey, with quite respectable intentions, are taking— we shall all end up as a nation of mapless Raglans; and I, my Lords, for one part, do not approve.

8.29 p.m.

Lord BALERNO

My Lords, may I follow the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, with another anecdote of a different nature? Way up in the North of Aberdeenshire is a parish which is called King Edward—two words, "King Edward ". It is spoken of by the natives there as " Kineddar ", and it has been known as " Kineddar " for some centuries. The reason it is called " King Edward " is that rather more than 100 years ago, when the Ordnance Survey were making the one-inch map of the district, the sergeant who was commanding the survey party asked a native what it was called and, on hearing that it was called " Kineddar ", he put down " King Edward ". So we had a King Edward church, a King Edward station and the whole parish of King Edward—two words. Unfortunately, both the church and the railway station have now disappeared, but the Ordnance Survey have done a wonderful piece of work. I have just checked up on the last issue of the map: they have produced a Castle of King Edward.

My Lords, I say this because I think that the Ordnance Survey have every right to the copyright in the name " King Edward " in relation to that part of Scotland. That does not give them a copyright on the name of Aberdeen or London. A most useful function of the Ordnance Survey has been to establish uniformity in the spelling of place names. Why should other map publishers have to pay a fee to Ordnance Survey for maintaining this uniformity which is necessary if we are going to have things done in proper order?

I should like to approach this subject from an academic if not a slightly moral point of view. I trust I am not going to bore your Lordships; but this unilateral and massive increase by the Ordnance Survey in their so-called royalties demands a probe into their justification for any payments at all by the map publishers. I would immediately grant the right of Ordnance Survey to charge royalties on the reproduction or near reproduction of any map they produce. The law of copyright justifies this. And where an Ordnance survey map is copied for the purposes of a Government inquiry or any other administrative commercial requirements. Then the Ordnance Survey would be justified in making a whacking charge. If you take the Oxford English Dictionary definition of " royalties " you will find that it reads: A payment made to an author, editor or composer for each copy of a book, piece of music etc. sold by the publisher or for the representation of a play. That would cover the reproduction of a map. But by what right can it he said to cover also the information covered by the map—that was a point which my noble friend Lord Teviot made—and not only places but also the location and elevation ?

I submit that where what is really public information is taken from an Ordnance Survey map and reproduced in a totally different form, as for instance, a road map, and on a totally different scale, the question of royalties does not arise. There is no copyright on information itself, but only on the way it has been produced, be it book or map. A very great deal of scientific research is ordered or subsidised by the Government. This research is eventually published in scientific journals and books. While verbatim extracts from such books or journals are subject to copyright with the consequence of a possible royalty payment, the information contained in them is free for all who care to read and understand and to use as they think fit without any taxation at all. Nobody would suggest that such information should be taxed in order to pay for the cost of research. But that are precisely what the Ordnance Survey are intending to do: To move to full recoupment of losses on its services. Those are the words contained in a letter from the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection. Information conveyed by the Ordnance Survey maps must, therefore, also be freed from this absurd proposition. The user of the information and not only the user of the Ordnance Survey map must contribute substantially to the cost of running the Ordnance Survey. Maps, whether they derive from Ordnance Survey or elsewhere, are as much the infrastructure of our civilisation as the scientific and technical knowledge which makes its wheels go round and raises the standard of our living.

It seems to me that the map publishers have been very generous in accepting these levies made on them by the Ordnance Survey under the guise of royalties. I think that it is their inherent decency that has led to the Ordnance Survey making this extortionate levy on them now. The Ordnance Survey have compounded their crime in two ways. First, there is a Committee sitting on the copyright law. The Ordnance Survey have refused to defer the introduction of the new charges until the Whitford Committee have reported. This seems to savour somewhat of bureaucratic arrogance. Secondly, the Ordnance Survey have, on occasion, copied many improvements and innovations in cartography made by other printers and publishers of maps. They do not acknowledge this on the maps that they publish; but they insist that all maps published by others must carry acknowledgements to them.

In conclusion, my Lords, the very high charges which the Ordnance Survey are demanding leads me to the suspicion that they may be trying to get a monopoly in map production in the United Kingdom. They are attempting to break up any competition. This is a pity ; for the record for the work of the Ordnance Survey stands so high. I suppose that no other country in the world has a better service both of survey and of mapping and it has rightly earned the gratitude of so many of its citizens. What a pity it should now be made to play this dirty trick!

8.36 p.m.

Baroness VICKERS

My Lords, I should like to say that I am not gatecrashing by speaking before the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. I am doing so because I am probably the least qualified person to speak in this debate and he is probably the most knowledgeable. Therefore, I am giving way with grace and happiness that we shall be hearing from him something that is really worth while.

I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, on such an erudite speech and one on which, obviously, he has done a great deal of work, but I should like also to support those who have said what a pity it is that the map publishers stated that they were prepared to abide by the findings of the Whitford Committee but that this was not agreed. If it had been agreed we should not have needed this debate tonight at this late hour because both the Group and the Ordnance Survey had said they would agree to the findings.

I was slightly worried about the wording of the Motion. I thought it only too easy for Her Majesty's Government to say that they were satisfied with the increased charges although they had not agreed to them in the first place; but perhaps when the noble Baroness comes to reply she will not merely say they are satisfied but will give us some details of the reasons why she may not be satisfied with all of them.

I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to a letter written by George Philip, which, I think, puts the case in a nutshell. He was replying to a letter of the 24th April which was written by Miss Betty Drewitt. He says: Is Betty Drewitt seriously claiming that the Ordnance Survey consider themselves to be the author of a map produced by another publisher? It might just as well he said that Beethoven should pay royalty to Steinway because he composed his 5th Symphony using a Steinway grand. Let us be honest and forget the word royalty, for the Ordnance Survey royalties are no more than fees and are arbitrary at that. That sums it up very well. I hope today that we shall be able to agree, and persuade others, that these increases are not satisfactory.

I want to quote another passage from the letter quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, by the Prices and Policies Consumer Credit department, which stated: I can fully understand your concern at what in some cases represents as astronomical increase in fees. It goes on to say that it is also admitted that a private sector firm may increase the price of a loss-making product to afford a small margin over the total cost. I should like to know what is a small margin. Perhaps the noble Baroness will be able to tell us. I understand that in 1896 an Inter-Departmental Committee was appointed to consider the prices of Ordnance Survey maps and that there was a recommendation that maps should not be sold at a price less than the cost of printing; that is to say, excluding the cost of the survey division and the preparation of plates. We all recognise that printing and paper costs have risen fantastically in recent years. Though I understand it has been the policy of the Ordnance Survey to assist the availability of lower priced maps to the public schools and universities, I believe the Crown Copyright Reserve will be sufficient for a reproduction of fewer than 200 square centimetres in an atlas or guide book. Full acknowledgment is required to be put in a prominent position. It appears that the copyright charges have risen over recent years by 30 per cent. so commercial publishers may now have to limit certain titles and discard others.

I am particularly interested in the educational aspects of this. Ministers are requesting local authorities—and we have had a number of them—to cut back expenditure; but many schools, technical schools and colleges of further education need these maps. Schools are likely to be the hardest hit. Mapwork is part of most of the geography courses. There is compulsory mapwork in most geography examinations. Examination boards, for example, supply each candidate with his own map. This was 65p in 1975 and this year is now £1.15. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, referred to the increase in the number of copies. If the educational authority wishes, for example, to order 20,000 copies, that is a 1,100 per cent. increase. Last November it would have cost £272.69, but the reprints will be £3,200. The charge for each extra copy was 1 p and it will now be 16p. Surely this is not reasonable. In regard to dealing with education, a book of four maps which was 1p per copy is now 4p per copy.

Mr. Mothersole, the Director of the Educational Publishers Council, stated that he did not have any idea of the effect of the new charges when they were first planned. The Ordnance Survey are dependent on Exchequer funds. Again, we come to the rate and taxpayers and this affects education. It appears that the Ordnance Survey's recent action has completely changed the basis on which maps are published in this country. It would seem that the only result will be fewer maps being published at higher rates, and fewer being produced for educational purposes. It is not just the schools which are affected, but the Scouts, the Duke of Edinburgh's award and young people who use maps; also the Services—which have been mentioned before—use them, and if one may be parochial here, we have been hearing of the necessity for maps on " The Archers " because they have had trouble with the bridle paths.

It appears to be in contradiction to the hydrographic maps and surveys—and the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, is wiserthan I am on this subject—which, by their overseas sales, I understand make a profit, or they did last year. So one can infer that it is intended that there should be State control in regard to the publishing of Ordnance Surveys by means of increasing royalties or withholding permission to produce certain products. Several publishers are wondering if this is not the thin end of the wedge. Map sales by commercial map publishers have been up-to-date increasing, producing the goods at what I think everyone will agree are fair prices. Will the Minister state what further increases are contemplated for 1977–78?

In conclusion, I should like to say that in their determined effort to make the map user pay for what is a public responsibility—the National Survey—the Ordnance Survey have inflicted such increases on the commercial map makers as may well ensure that their own operation has no viable competition. Historically, copyright has been for the protection of the originator; Ordnance Survey are now using it both to make profits and to damage an independent industry. I hope that at the end of this evening's debate the noble Baroness will give us some comforting words and that the people who have been working so hard on behalf of the publishers will see that they have a future.

8.45 p.m.

Lord SHACKLETON

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, for allowing me to change places with her on the list of speakers. The reason why I asked for this change was that I understood that it was the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, that I should wind up this debate for him. The fact that I happen to be sitting on the same side of the House as the Government is no indication that I am on their side in this matter. Indeed, it will be apparent very soon that I am not on their side. I would not wish to follow the noble Baroness into the question of the Hydrography Service because that is also a very sad story, but it is an area in which I believe there are some signs of repentence on behalf of the Government, signs which are wholly lacking in regard to the actions of the present Government regarding the Ordnance Survey. Your Lordships will usually regard me as somebody who uses fairly moderate language in your Lordships' House, but I believe that the matter we are discussing tonight is something which amounts very nearly to—and, indeed, may be—maladministration by the present Government. I should like to say why I believe this to be so, and why indeed it is necessary, in order to explain the background to the issue which the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has so rightly raised, to look at Government policy.

I was very glad, not for the first time, to find myself in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, and, indeed, my old ally, the noble Lord, Lord Balerno. He is also a past president of the Royal Scottish Geographical Society—perhaps he is still president. I am glad that we should be in alliance in this matter. But I do not believe this to he a plot by the Ordnance Survey to destroy the publishers, though if the policy of this Government is not changed regarding certain matters, it will be very damaging. It has long been my theory and view that a high proportion of the mistakes of Government are due to incompetence rather than malice. In this case, I am beginning to be doubtful as to whether there is not a degree of malice. I would not attach that to the Ordnance Survey but to the Department which is responsible.

I would not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, that what the Ordnance Survey and tile Government are trying to do is reputable. I do not regard either highway robbery or monopoly extortion as reputable. I use these words deliberately because this is the position as it appears to many people. I shall wait with great interest to see how my noble friend, who is so very highly regarded in this House, will answer these matters. That she will answer them competently I do not doubt; whether she can answer all the points that are made, I doubt. I must say that if it is not possible to answer them properly, this matter w ill continue to be discussed.

I did say that we cannot consider this matter in isolation from what Government policy may be. This is a matter on which I am in some difficulty. I have given the noble Baroness some notice of the difficulty that I had. Noble Lords will remember that at the time of the Trading Funds Bill, when your Lordships amended it to leave out the Ordnance Survey, at that time the Government had declared four Aims, and the Government gave an undertaking. I quote from a statement made in another place by the then Government: The Government have given the undertaking that as soon as possible in the coming months they will publish a review, which will be open for further discussion, showing the background of the statement of aims of the Ordnance Survey which my right honourable and learned friend announced last February "— this was back in 1973; and this is the Conservative Government — secondly, the outsome of the three studies—the 2½-inch maps, the tertiary levelling and the large-scale maps."—[Official Report, Commons, 24/10/73; col. 1443.] Noble Lords will remember that one of the great follies which we succeeded in stopping was the abolition of the 1/25 thousand map and an attempt to scrap the work on tertiary bench marks; so we have got that chalked up all right. In addition, they said that the Royal Society had undertaken to carry out consultations.

I wrote to the Secretary of State, who was then Mr. Crosland, to ask him what the Government were doing about those particular aims—I have them here but I will not trouble your Lordships with them. The most important of them was to seek to maximise returns on all products and services, subject to any limitations imposed by Government. I asked the Secretary of State whether they proposed to publish the survey which justified the policy. The letter I received from the Secretary of State reads as follows: To begin with, I must point out that the position of the present Government in this matter is not the same as the Conservative Administration. The latter announced the four Aims, were criticised for doing so and promised a document explaining how they came to act as they did. The present Government merely inherited the Aims. They were not parties to their production and cannot be expected to explain their provenance. If there is to be a statement on Government policy—I have yet to consider whether one is desirable—it will be a statement of the present Government's thinking, not an explanation of that of the Conservative Administration. But what is the present Government's policy?—because all the evidence is that they are continuing the policy of their predecessors. But they are not admitting to it; nor are they explaining the situation. I personally have a high regard for the Secretary of State—of course, he has now moved to grander things—but I told him I have rarely had a letter so unsatisfactory and, I might say, almost impertinent, from a Minister in reply to a serious and friendly inquiry. To say that the present Government merely inherited the Aims and cannot be expected to explain their provenance does not really help. It does not say whether, having inherited these Aims, they are carrying them forward. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to tell me whether, having inherited these Aims, in what respects the present Government's policy differs from that of the previous Government.

This is fundamental because, as noble Lords have pointed out, the historic background of the Ordnance Survey in this country is the provision of the most admirable survey maps and information. The greater part has been in the public domain, as in other countries. To me it is surprising that a Labour Government —and I am not wishing to drive the Government, who have stumbled and worried about certain Health Service charges—are prepared at a time like this to multiply charges to a degree I can only describe as extortionate, and without any explanation other than in a document published by the particular organisation who are levying those charges.

I would ask the noble Baroness to consider one or two matters. The noble Lord, Lord Balerno, said it was reasonable to charge royalties on copies sold in certain matters, but of course they are not charging them. They are charging them on the print run, with the prospect of getting their money back, having had the use of it for a little while, if they do not sell all the copies. I must say I was pleased to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, refer to the education side, because I am told that if you make even a Xerox copy of a map you are liable to pay a royalty. At the time of the previous announcement, the Ministry of Education were then totally uninterested and said that the matter did not concern them. Even today, those of us who are involved with learned societies such as the Royal Scottish Geographical Society, the Royal Society and the Royal Geographical Society, who are themselves involved in education, are deeply concerned. I am only sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, who is also a member of the Council of the Royal Geographical Society, is not here to give backing on this matter.

I think we ought to wait for the Whitford Report, but I would ask the Government : Would they not again consider setting up an inquiry or even publishing some of the information which is made available to the Map Users' Conference? I am told there is no difficulty in arranging this. But the truth of the matter is that this is one of those specialised subjects which is not within the comprehension of Government at either ministerial or departmental level. No one has defended the Civil Service more steadily than I have, but this is a matter in which the Treasury are calling the tune. On the face of it, it appears reasonable that people should be charged for this, but when one examines the way in which it is worked out one finds it is totally unreasonable and indeed very destructive.

I am bound to say that for a Government, without explicitly inheriting the policy of their predecessors, to put it into effect or allow it to be put into effect in such brutal form, in the face of the clearly expressed views both in your Lordships' House and subsequently in another place —on that occasion they were rather late in waking up to the issue—must amount to something very near maladministration. I have never used that word before, but I think we need a very frank explanation. Of course, nothing I am saying in any way reflects on the noble Baroness in this matter. I regret I have had to use strong language in a matter where I think the behaviour amounts to highway extortion, and is not reputable.

8.57 p.m.

Baroness STEDMAN

My Lords, it is with some trepidation that I rise to speak before what is so obviously an experienced and knowledgeable group of your Lordships. The noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, said that she was the least experienced—but I think there are two of us here. However, I am glad to open my reply this evening by responding to the remarks which have been made in commendation of the activities of the Ordnance Survey which I think many of us tend to take for granted. I believe that it can be said truthfully, as has been said tonight, there is no other country which has been so thoroughly surveyed. We rightly place a great deal of confidence in the accuracy of the maps which are available to us as a result. As just one indication of the Ordnance Survey's activity and the popularity of their products, I can perhaps mention that in the 175 years of their life the Survey has supplied over 40 million copies of their maps to the general public. What is even more remarkable is that over half that number have been supplied during the last 15 years. Clearly this demonstrates the extent to which as a nation we are getting to know our own country either by car or on foot. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, said, he even got to know his way around Normandy as a result.

Accordingly, I am sure there is general agreement that there should be a national survey and mapping organisation and that the Ordnance Survey are the right body to continue to have that responsibility. I believe there is also general agreement tonight that the Survey have been working to high standards and that it is right that these standards should be maintained. But it must be remembered that surveying and map production are essentially labour-intensive operations. They require a high degree of skill and considerable investment in sophisticated equipment. This necessarily means that the Survey's operations are particularly sensitive to increases in labour costs, despite the tight control which is maintained over manpower. In fact, the current manpower complement is now about 4,450, that is, 200 lower than four years ago.

Nevertheless, price increases have been inevitable, and I know that the recent general increase of about 40 per cent. in prices and other charges has attracted a great deal of attention, particularly at a time when the Government are maintaining restraints on prices generally.

Lord SHACKLETON

My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend? She is referring to the Ordnance Survey's own maps, is she not? She is not referring to the astronomical royalty?

Baroness STEDMAN

No, my Lords; I am referring to the Ordnance Survey's own maps. The recent price increases have been inevitable. I know that they have attracted a lot of attention, and have led many people to ask how the Government can justify the price increases and what policies govern the Survey's activities in this area. In response, it is first necessary to set the background. It must be borne in mind that the total costs of the Ordnance Survey during the financial year just ended amounted to £23 ½ million. Only one-third of this was recovered in receipts from sales from maps, mapping services and receipts from fees: the remaining two-thirds are borne by the Exchequer. Clearly, any restraints on prices could only have the effect of transferring the burden to the Exchequer; that is to say, from the purchaser or user of the Survey's services to the taxpayer.

Ministers are very conscious of this problem and, as a Government Department, the Ordnance Survey are subject to the disciplines imposed on Government prices and charges. These disciplines are analogous to the Price Code and require that price increases must reflect increases in costs. Constant attention must be paid to ways of decreasing inflation and cutting costs, and the Ordnance Survey have tried to adhere to these disciplines. In a time of severe financial restraint, we cannot have it both ways. There must be some move towards recoupment of costs. As I said, Ministers are very conscious of this problem and an examination is being made of the Survey's costs and revenues, so that fuller guidance may be given on pricing policy. For the time being, I can assure the House that the Survey are expected to take full account of the impact of increased costs with the particular aim of containing their already very substantial dependence on Exchequer support.

The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, to whom we are all grateful for having raised this subject tonight, mentioned the question of the effect that the new copyright charges have for the map publishing industry, and put several very cogent points. In commenting on this subject, I should explain that as well as the general increase of Ordnance Survey prices and charges to which I have already referred, there has been a restructuring of royalty charges for map publishers. These two changes were for rather different reasons. The general price increases were designed to contain the rise, due to increased costs, in the Survey's dependence on Exchequer support. The royalty restructuring was intended to produce a fairer balance of charges between different classes of user, and, in particular, to eliminate the former anomaly whereby there was a relatively high copying charge for small numbers of copies, but progressive discounts leading to minimal per-copy charges for very long print-runs.

Under the former system, the Survey were by no means obtaining a fair reward for the work put in by their surveyors and cartographers. The new system more fairly reflects the value of the Survey's material, and is more in accordance with the normal commercial practice in relation to copyright royalties in that a flat per copy rate is charged, and not a rate which reduces with quantity.

Lord SHACKLETON

My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend? When did the Government decide to make a charge for the work of the surveyors? My noble friend will be aware that this is the major charge. If she looks at the report of the Select Committee in the Commons and the Treasury Minute, she will see that there was no charge for the cost of the survey, and the charge was only to, …take into account the cost from the printing stage onwards ". When was this change made?

Baroness STEDMAN

My Lords, I regret that I am not able to give my noble friend an answer to day. I will inquire into it and write to him. This is a cogent point in this instance. What we are trying to do is to recover a fair charge for the services which are provided, and I should have thought that included surveying as well as printing.

Lord TEVIOT

My Lords, I apologise for interrupting so soon after the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, but surely that is one of the questions of which I gave prior notice. I asked the noble Baroness to let us know what charges the increased royalties were supposed to cover. The map publishers acknowledged that printing costs would be covered, but we want to know what is the situation now.

Baroness STEDMAN

My Lords, I will do my best to answer as I proceed, and if I have not fully covered the noble Lord's point I will take further advice about it and write to him again.

Lord SHACKLETON

And we will have another debate.

Baroness STEDMAN

Yes, my Lords; we will have another debate which will include hydrography at the same time. The new system may have given rise to substantial increases in royalty charges when expressed in percentage terms, but this is only the case because the former charges were unrealistically low. The new charges are themselves quite small ; in most cases, only a few pence. May I take, for example, a typical oil company map where it is not unusual for as many as 100,000 copies to be printed? Such a publication would have qualified for the maximum discount under the former method of charging, and the royalty payable per copy would have been less than 1p.

These maps are compiled from the Ordnance Survey quarter-inch map of which there are 17 sheets covering Great Britain, currently retailing at 80p per sheet. A typical oil company map printed on both sides of the paper would cover an area equivalent to about three Ordnance sheets. Under their new arrangements, the Ordnance Survey are charging a royalty of 2.6p for such maps—true, an increase of over 300 per cent. on the previous charge, but is 2.6p really so unreasonable for a map based on a great deal of Ordnance Survey material ?

I was asked by my noble friend Lord Shackleton about the charging of royalties on a print-run basis and collecting them in advance.Under the new scheme, although charges are assessed on a print-run basis, they may by arrangement be collected in six monthly instalments over a period of two years. The Ordnance Survey have no objection in principle to a sales-related basis of collection, but, in the course of the negotiations which we had prior to the implementation of the scheme, the publishers stated a preference for the print-run basis on the grounds of economy in administration. Rebates are allowed against publishers' claims for spoilage, et cetera, and the Ordnance Survey are currently considering whether it is possible to introduce an alternative sales-related basis of collection for those publishers which prefer it. My noble friend was a little harsh in his comments about my Department and I know that he would not expect me to accept the charge either of maladministration or of malice within the Department. I have seen copies of the correspondence between my noble friend and the former Secretary of State. I will certainly draw the attention of my right honourable friend the new Secretary of State to the comments to see whether we have anything further to add, and also to my noble friend's suggestion that an inquiry might be set up. Also, I will certainly read tomorrow in Hansard what my noble friend has said and draw it to the attention of my right honourable friend.

Lord SHACKLETON

My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for saying that she will draw the attention of her right honourable friend to these points. Will she also ask him to interpret the paragraph that I quoted?

Baroness STEDMAN

My Lords, I will certainly do that. It has been pointed out that the maps which the petrol people use are redrawn and that they contain a substantial element of the publishers' own work. Again this is indeed the case, but the Ordnance Survey have taken this fully into account in devising their new structure of charges. They allow a reduction of about 80 per cent. from what is called the facsimile rate; that is, the rate chargeable for an exact reproduction of the Ordnance Survey map.

In addition, the Ordnance Survey have also devised a new scheme to supply publishers with copies of all their most up-to-date revision material. The charges for this service will be no more than the normal costs of making paper or film copies of the revision information. Publishers availing themselves of this new revision service can now obtain information more up-to-date than that available on the latest edition of most Ordnance Survey published maps.

Turning to other specific points made by the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, and other noble Lords, I was asked whether the costs of the national survey were included in the fees charged and in the prices of published maps. If by this is meant, are the costs of the national survey covered by the fees and map prices ? the answer is, No. As I have already mentioned, only one-third of Ordnance Survey costs are recovered through map sales and copyright fees, whereas work on the national survey accounts for about 70 per cent. of these costs. If, however, the noble Lord is asking whether any part of the survey costs is recovered through prices and fees, the answer is that there is a contribution towards the survey. This would seem reasonable, since all maps are to some extent dependent on the survey and some, indeed, are wholly derived from it. These issues are being considered in the examination of the Ordnance Survey costs and revenues to which I referred earlier.

We were asked why we had not waited for the Whitford Report. The Whitford Committee is considering possible changes in the law of copyright and is expected to report later this year. I cannot give a more firm date than that. The new Ordnance Survey royalty structure for the publishers has been designed within the framework of the existing law and therefore has no particular relevance to the work of the Whitford Committee which is considering possible changes in the law of copyright; and Ordnance Survey have submitted evidence to the Whitford Committee.

I was also asked whether all map publishers are subject to the regulations set out in the rather complicated leaflet No. 23. I can give a positive assurance that this is so and I believe that the Director-General of the Ordnance Survey wrote to the publishers concerned to this effect last December. There may be a few exceptional cases of special agreements entered into earlier with individual publishers which are still in force. If there are any cases where the rules seem to operate especially harshly, or where there are grounds for believing that there has been some misassessment I am sure that Ordnance Survey will be glad to look into it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, asked what further increases were expected in 1977-78. There will be increases for redrawn commercial maps only, from approximately 2.6p for a typical oil company map to 3.2p in 1977 and 3.6p in 1978. These prices are subject to any additional sum that may arise from any overall increase in prices or charges during that period, but for facsimile and near facsimile there will be no further increases.

The next point referred to the possibility of the conferment of trading fund status on Ordnance Survey. I have read the long debate in which my noble friend Lord Shackleton played a major part when this possibility was discussed before I became a Member of your Lordships' House. I know that this is a question that caused concern to many noble Lords when the Government Trading Funds Bill went through this House in 1973. In this context, I should like to say that a full system of trading accounts is in course of introduction in the Ordnance Survey and this is proving to be of considerable assistance to management in their analysis of the costs and revenues related to particular activities. But, until we have had a longer experience of the working of these accounts, it would be premature to consider whether a formal trading fund ought to be instituted.

Reference has also been made this evening to the particular problems of educational textbooks. These are the books which contain for educational purposes extracts—often facsimile—of Ordnance Survey maps, and because of this they are subject to the facsimile copying rate. In certain cases the application of this rate can bear quite substantially when there is a large amount of material.

I have listened carefully to what noble Lords have said this evening and I will ask the Ordnance Survey to examine this matter again in the light of what has been said in your Lordships' House. But I should say that in recognition of the special needs of schools the Ordnance Survey has for many years supplied schools direct with maps, giving them normal trade discount terms.

Finally, I should like to emphasise that the Ordnance Survey are very conscious of the wide diversity—

Lord TEVIOT

My Lords, on the point of the Ordnance Survey giving trade discount to the educational establishments, would the noble Baroness also bear in mind that the map publishing industry has supplied schools with products which the Ordnance Survey could not produce, and which are not subject to the same discounts?

Baroness STEDMAN

My Lords, I was not intending to be ungenerous to the other services that have been provided for education, and I acknowledge those. Every speaker tonight has referred to the wide range of mapping interests. In order to ensure that the resources we can afford to devote to the Ordnance Survey are used fairly and effectively to meet these many varied needs, consultation machinery has been built up in recent years between the Ordnance Survey and many bodies representative of map users. The interests represented range from public administration, business and professional users, education, academic and scientific interests to a very wide variety of recreational interests. The educational requirements for mapping are regarded as being so important and specialised that it has been decided to establish separate consultative machinery in this area under the auspices of the local education authorities.

My Lords, we have had an interesting and detailed debate tonight, although a very short one. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, for giving us an opportunity to air this. I have certainly learned a lot from it. I have a renewed interest in the Ordnance Survey and their work and I hope that I may continue to maintain that interest and perhaps be more helpful to your Lordships on some future occasion.