Lords Sitting of 4 March 1976

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lora Bishop of Blackburn.
The Lord Inverforth—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

WEEKEND COURSE AND LOCALAUTHORITY FUNDS
Lord INGLEWOOD: 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 their attention has been drawn to reports in the Press of payments from local authority funds, arranged through certain educational welfare officers and social workers in the London area, to enable certain children, described as members of Young Socialist groups, to attend a weekend course at Parwich in Derbyshire to study "ways of smashing the capitalist system "; and whether they will arrange for a copy of the text of the lectures to be placed in the Library.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge): My Lords, I have checked the Press reports referred to in the noble Lord's Question, and I regret to say that they are more or less accurate. A payment of £5 was made by the London Borough of Hackney Social Services Department to a16-year-old girl who is in their care, and two payments of £5 each were made from charitable funds administered by the Inner London Education Authority to a boy and girl both aged 14. These payments were agreed without knowledge of the political nature of the weekend's activities, and both of the authorities involved are taking steps to ensure that this does not happen again.
As regards the last sentence of the Question, this is a free country and people
1140
may give what lectures they like within the law. I have no intention of putting the text of any private lecture in the Library, even if I had it.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for the first part of that Answer, which was very full, may I ask whether he would agree that these lectures might be much more interesting than many of the papers which find their way into the Library? Further, would it not be reasonable of us to want to know who the lecturers were, and to see for ourselves how far their theme and the course they advocate accords with or differs from the policy of Her Majesty's Government?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I am quite unable to decide what interests the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. I have no intention whatever of going into this field of propaganda, either from one side or the other, and I think the House would favour the view of leaving the matter where it stands.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, bearing in mind the unexceptionable sentiments of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, on both parts of his reply, may I ask what steps the Government are taking in view of the serious breaches of trust disclosed, either of public money or charitable money in the two cases, to see that it is paid back by those who are responsible for the breaches?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, no steps are being taken to retrieve the money. Steps have been taken to see that such a situation shall not occur again.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, since money to the extent of £15 has been spent from public funds on sending these children to be educated in this way, would not the noble Lord the Minister agree that we should get something back if these papers were put in the Library? Is it not for the benefit of your Lordships' House that we should be informed about this?—because ours is a free country, too.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, an inexpensive stamp would obtain these papers just as easily.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, would the noble Lord the Minister give me the address, so that I can write —or perhaps the Library has the address?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I will give the address to the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, later.
Lord CHALFONT: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the activities of an organisation known as the Centre for Marxist Studies, established in Leeds in May 1975, to promote the spread of Marxist ideas in the Labour Movement and on the Left generally? Is he further aware that one of the aims of this organisation is to form provincial centres round this country? Would he say whether there is any truth in the report that has been published that the Centre for Marxist Studies was connected with the weekend mentioned in the Question of the noble Lord opposite?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, this is an entirely separate Question, and one of some interest.
A Noble Lord: It is related.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, would put down a Question, I will answer it.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend the Minister—and there are no reds under my bed—whether it might not be more dangerous if these lecture papers were put in the Library of this House?—because some Members opposite might very well be corrupted!

WATER: RESERVES AND CONSUMPTION
3.12 p.m.
Lord de CLIFFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what water reserves are now being held in the reservoirs in the United Kingdom compared to the same period in 1975; and what action they are taking to ensure the utmost economy in the use
1142
of water by consumers both private and industrial.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, water reserves in reservoirs throughout England and Wales and in certain Eastern districts of Scotland and of Northern Ireland are in general a good deal lower than they were a year ago due largely to a long spell of exceptionally dry weather. Responsibility for action to ensure economy in the use of water rests with the water supply authorities—water authorities in England and Wales, regional councils in Scotland and the water services branch of the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland. Some of the authorities in England have already taken action to conserve supplies by imposing bans on the use of hosepipes and a number of drought orders are in force mainly to enable the authorities to obtain additional supplies. The officers of the Departments in England, Wales and Scotland arc in regular contact with their water supply authorities so that they may watch how the situation is developing. They will be watching particularly the situation in Wessex where water supplies in reservoirs are at an exceptionally low level.
Lord de CLIFFORD: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for her reply, I begin to feel that I am talking about a situation like the Post Office. Is she aware that overall, as I understand it, the country is short of a rainfall of 10 ins. and the reservoirs are at an extremely low level? While I understand that the water authorities are doing something, may I ask whether she can tell me if the Government will continue to watch this situation?—because we shall be in a very difficult position unless something is done about it.
Baroness STEDMAN: Yes, my Lords; the Department are in almost daily contact with the water authorities throughout the country.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether she will state how much water is being taken from the aquifer by boreholes to supplement any shortages in the reservoirs?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, would the noble Baroness be kind enough to repeat the question? I am afraid I did not hear it.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness how much water is being taken from the aquifer by bore-holes in order to boost the water in the reservoirs?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am not in a position to tell the noble Baroness that at the moment, but I will find out and write to her.
Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that, in view of the exceptionally slight rainfall this winter, the National Water Council is collecting reports from the 10 regional water authorities and intends at the end of the month to state just what the prospects of supply are?
Baroness STEDMAN: Yes, my Lords.

RAIL FARES AND PASSENGER DEMANDS
3.15 p.m.
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords. I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their estimate of the numbers of passengers travelling by rail and the likely increase or loss in revenue due to the proposed increases in fares by British Rail.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness BIRK): My Lords, there are no estimates of numbers of passengers as such. The most recent estimate is that in 1975 passengers made about 730 million journeys and travelled about 18,800 million miles. British Rail estimate that the likely increase in revenue from the increase in fares which will take place on 28th March is £30 million in 1976 and £40 million in a full year.
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask whether she is aware how unsatisfactory it is? Are we to understand that the Government have authorised these increased fares without any knowledge of what the estimated traffic, the number of passengers, is likely
1144
to be? Is not the serious situation which is developing on the railways another indication that the Government must produce their White Paper at a very early date so that we can assess just how quickly Government policy as a whole is closing down the railway system?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, my noble friend is not quite correct about not being able to calculate the possible decrease. In 1975 passenger miles were 2 per cent. less than in 1974 but the earnings of British Rail went up by £88 million. This was despite fare increases of 49 per cent. and the effects of the economic recession. We are, of course, very conscious of the situation, and the transport policy review to which my noble friend referred will, we hope, be published very shortly indeed. This is a consultative document, and this is in fact where all these matters will be discussed.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that railway fares have actually increased about four times in the space of six months? So far as I know, the cost of no other product has done so, even in this time of high inflation.
Several Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, before noble Lords opposite say "Hear, hear! "—
A Noble Lord: We have said it, It is afterwards.
Baroness BIRK: Well, in view of noble Lords opposite saying, "Hear hear! ", but before they say it again, may I point out that the railways, like all nationalised industries, have had to make up for past price restraint, and part of this restraint was due to the Conservative prices and incomes policy. Secondly, the railways, like everyone else, have been hit by inflation. The alternative to increased fares is increased subsidy. We are all aware, on both sides of the House, that this could be given only at the expense of other demands on public expenditure, such as housing and measures to reduce unemployment.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, is the noble Baroness really being quite frank with the House in the first half of her

1145
last answer? Is this not exactly what we were told last summer was going to happen, after the latest pay awards?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I am sorry, but I did not get the point of the noble and learned Lord's question.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, the noble Baroness was trying to attribute part of the blame, as usual, to the late Conservative Administration. I was asking her whether that was an altogether frank answer in view of the warnings given to us last summer that this increase would be the direct result of recent pay awards.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I was bringing in that point in answer to the question put by my noble friend when she referred to the very substantial increase. The point is that if there had not been these restraints the increase could have been phased up more gently. I also very carefully pointed out that this was one of the ingredients. The others were inflation and the necessity not to increase Government subsidy.
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that we fully endorse the reply to Lady Phillips? Is she further aware that the policy now being pursued is a direct consequence of the Beeching/Marples era, and directly the responsibility of members opposite who dealt with this problem? Will my noble friend give some assurance that in this forthcoming White Paper we shall receive an indication of Government thinking towards a complete change of policy so far as transport services are concerned?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, the biggest hope on the last part of my noble friend's question on the policy review and the discussions that have come from it is that really for the first time the whole of transport will be discussed together, road and rail, rather than continuing to pursue this competitive system of road against rail.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, is the noble Baroness really doing herself justice? Is she not aware that this business of discussing road and rail together is at least 25 years old, and that there have been about five different reviews on that basis since then?
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, could I ask the noble Baroness whether she would say, before the Government agree to increased fares, what information they have on which to base the increase? Do they in fact go into it in detail or do they just do what the Chairman of the Railways Board asks for? I should like to know what part the Government play before the increases are in fact agreed.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, the Government get British Rail to put forward its proposals but then the Government make their decision. Indeed, I imagine that it would not be unnatural for British Rail to want a very much larger subsidy to help it along than the Government are prepared to give. It is then calculated on the basis of what is considered—and I have already given this answer—would be a possible drop in passenger journeys as compared with the increase in earnings. It is on this calculation that the increase in fares is based.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, would that last answer by the noble Baroness perhaps be a clue to why nobody is prepared to run a nationalised industry?
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: Answer, please!
Baroness MACLEOD of BORVE: My Lords, could the noble Baroness tell me whether, as with other nationalised industries, fare increases have to go to the Price Commission before the Government make up their mind?
Baroness BIRK: Yes, my Lords; they do.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, could the noble Baroness tell us why it is virtue to hold down private enterprise in many spheres to5 per cent. or similar limits, and yet nationalised industries seem to be able to double their prices within 12 months and that is considered to be perfectly all right by the Government?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I have already said at least three times that the reason for the steep increase is that the fares were artificially held down before; and even so the fare after the increase represents something between 2p and 3p

1147
a mile, which is cheaper than running a car for many commuter journeys.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that this is a particularly unfortunate time to increase the fares on the railways in view of the review report? Would she not agree that in the interim time there will be greater demand for the use of road transport, which is cheaper now in many commuter belt areas than the new proposed rail fares?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, it is always a bad time, and it is always very unfortunate to have to increase fares. I must make quite plain that neither the Board nor the Government are happy about it at all. At any time when there is an increase there is always a problem. But past increases have not shown that this has had very much of that effect. What happened very often was that some people used their cars for travelling to work and they have cut down on them for leisure activities.
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the nation as a whole realises that they are now spending something like £3 million a mile on developing motorways? Is it not right to offset that against the increase that is now taking place in fares? This additional subsidy that has now been given to the road lobby and oil lobby is something that I hope the Government will take care of in their White Paper.
Baroness BIRK: Yes, my Lords, these are all matters which will be discussed in the White Paper. I am sure that my noble friend will agree that the comparison is not quite so simple and direct as that.

INCOME TAX RELIEF ON FARES
3.25 p.m.
Lord HALE: 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 what circumstances it is permissible for an employed person to charge against taxable income the cost of transport to and from his place of employment.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, in general the cost to an employee of travelling to and from his normal place of work is not allowable as a deduction for tax purposes because this is a personal expense. Special considerations arise where there is more than one place of work, but each case has to be considered on its own facts.
Lord HALE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the contents of a recent survey which show that the upper income bracket pay virtually nothing in fares, which is charged to the Government—and indeed charged often in to to not merely as against income tax—while on his own Answer it is the lower paid employee, and the lower middle class, who are being called upon time after time to bear this constantly increasing burden? Finally, is he aware that British Rail are already giving publicity to indicate that these increases will not meet their expenses in full, and indicating that further fare applications are on the way?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I think it must be appreciated that when someone in a high position within a firm or company uses the company's car then he is liable to tax on the personal use of that car, and that includes transport from his home to his place of work. Secondly, I wonder whether my noble friend appreciates that if there was an allowance for transport between home and place of work, then the allowance would be given at the highest rate paid by the taxpayer, so that those with the greatest wealth would get the greatest relief and those with the lowest wealth would get the smallest relief, and that is a policy which would be inconsistent with the general policy of Her Majesty's Government.
Lord HATLSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I am not asking the noble Lord to anticipate his right honourable friend's Budget, which is imminent, but does the noble Lord agree that really the personal allowances, in the light of recent inflation, have become much too small, and that the right way to deal with this particular problem is to increase the Personal allowance across the board at the bottom?
Lord JACQUES: My Lods, I am quite sure that that is a better way of dealing with it than what is suggested in the Question.
Lord GAINFORD: My Lords, may I ask whether the Government can possibly give some encouragement in these matters to people of modest income and in important industries such as the building trades, particularly in connection with their travel? I ask this question based on personal knowledge of men in the building trade who often have to travel vast distances to get to their place of work.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, that is another question, but my experience of the building trade is that the employer usually bears the cost when the transport is at a considerable distance and much further than the headquarters or local depot of the particular firm. The cost in general seems to fall upon the employer rather than the individual worker
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that he has not, in my opinion, very satisfactorily answered my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham? In view of the fact that Public sector inflation has put up both railway fares and taxes while controlling salary increases, would it not now be only fair if railway costs were allowable against tax?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I cannot anticipate the Budget. I can only repeat what I said formerly, that the proposal of the noble and learned Lord for an increase of personal allowances is much better than the proposal underlying the Question. I cannot take it beyond that.
Lord HALE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Question does not make any suggestion whatever as to the type of action which is best suited for meeting a very substantial grievance, and an increasing burden on those who travel to and from work? There is no suggestion of any kind that the question of income tax allowances, or indeed the question of exemption of incomes to a certain figure, which I very much prefer, are matters for consideration before the Budget. Would the noble Lord bear in mind that the suburban services are getting virtually no improvements, no benefits, no planning, yet are bearing a very high share of the burden?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, my noble friend has referred to a number of factors which my right honourable
1150
friend will take into account when determining his Budget.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, will my noble friend send a copy of our Hansard to his right honourable friend so that he may fully understand the points of view which have been expressed on this vital social issue?
Lord JACQUES: I am quite willing to do what my noble friend suggests, my Lords, but I am sure that my right honourable friend is fully acquainted with the kind of lobby to which we have been listening this afternoon.

FATAL ACCIDENTS BILL [H.L.]
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Fatal Accidents Acts. I beg to move that this Bill be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la.—(Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of H astoe.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

INVERNESS HARBOUR (CITADEL QUAY etc.) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a, and passed.
INVERNESS HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a, and passed.
CITY OF ABERDEEN DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

SHOPS (HOLIDAY RESORTS-SUNDAY TRADING BILL [H.L.]
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble

1151
Lord objects, I beg to move, pursuant to Standing Order No. 44(2), that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Baroness Phillips.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WATER CHARGES BILL
3.34 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. In considering this Bill we are, in a sense, completing a full circle, for it has its origins in the decision of this House, in its judicial role, in the Daymond case. I cannot imagine that anybody needs reminding that the decision in this now celebrated case was that the South-West Water Authority was not entitled to charge Mr. Philip Daymond the sum of £4.89 as a sewerage charge on his house in Plymouth because that house had no sewerage. Here I must declare an interest, in that I shall be a beneficiary under the Bill when it becomes law, though I hasten to add that this is not why I am moving it or why the Government are anxious to put it on the Statute Book.
We accept that we pay rates which include a payment for education even where people have no children. We accept that we pay tax towards the whole range of Government expenditure, although there may be specific areas from which different individuals, according to their life patterns, do not feel that they benefit directly. On the other hand, we would not supinely pay a gas bill when we are not connected to gas. So it may seem odd that there should ever have been any question of making a specific charge for a sewerage service not received. But of course it is not as straightforward as that; things seldom are. Indeed, it was so far from being a simple question of black and white that your Lordships' Appellate Committee found for Mr. Daymond by only three votes to two. This indicates the intricate soul-searching involved in the judicial decision.
If Mr. Daymond is the hero of the story. His victory is one in the history of the individual's fight against what he
1152
believes to be iniquitous and unjust, and I passionately believe in the individual's right to take on the Government when he feels the Government are wrong; but in this instance there are, I am afraid, no real villains. In demanding the sewerage charge from Mr. Daymond, the Plymouth City Council, which acted as the agent of the water authority, was complying with an order made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State; and in making that order, my right honourable friend was following the intentions of his predecessors in the Conservative Government because both Governments thought that the Water Act 1973 gave them the power to make the orders in question. There is no dispute between the past and present Governments about this.
Now before the water industry was reorganised by the Water Act 1973, sewerage and sewage disposal were the responsibility of local authorities. Like other local government services, they were financed through the general rates, paid of course by everyone liable to be rated whether or not their properties were connected to the sewers. The Water Act took these services from local government and set up the new regional water authorities, which were made responsible for all water services. The Act provided for the water authorities to be financed by charges for services provided—not by general taxation—and it was the clear intention that eventually only those actually connected to the sewers would pay the sewerage charge. But it was also recognised that it would take some time to identify which properties were connected and which were. not. There was nothing extraordinary about that because until then there had been no real reason for anyone to need to know.
So, for a transitional period, it was necessary to continue the current arrangement, which meant that everybody who paid rates paid the sewerage charge; it was the Conservative Government's clear intention and belief that the Water Act included the necessary powers. It is true that, following that in this House, I firmly and, I thought, frequently and eloquently defended this position. But the decision of your Lordships' Appellate Committee was that in fact the Water Act as drafted did not contain the necessary

1153
powers; so the charge to Mr. Daymond was illegal. This meant that all charges for sewerage and sewage disposal levied on unconnected properties in the two financial years since reorganisation were illegal, and the main purpose of this Bill is to provide for them to be refunded—and for me personally to eat a number of very indigestible words. It is extraordinary how dry a Water Bill can be!
It was clear during the discussions on the Bill in another place that a very good case can be made out for requiring all properties, whether or not connected, to pay a proportion of the sewerage charge. I well remember arguing this very point myself last summer when the noble Lard, Lord Braye, questioned the Government's decision to confine the relief to unconnected domestic properties to 50 per cent. of the charge. I pointed out then that all members of the community, whether or not their properties are connected to mains drainage, benefit from the existence of adequate sewerage and sewage disposal facilities through improved public health and a cleaner environment.
Your Lordships may well ask why, in view of these compelling arguments, this Bill does not provide for a proportion of the sewerage charge to be levied on all properties. The answer is that the Government consider that this Bill must be treated as an emergency measure to deal with the immediate repercussions of the Daymond judgment, and that it would be wrong to include anything in it which might appear to be in any way attempting to overturn that judgment. An emergency Bill is not the vehicle to introduce any wider changes in the powers of the water authorities. Once this principle is accepted—as I am sure it is—it is vital for the local authorities that the Bill should be enacted before 31st March, so that the collection of charges for the next financial year can go ahead without causing any delay in issuing rates demands.
Most local authorities have already begun the process of printing rate demands on the assumption that this Bill will be passed largely in its present form, and any fundamental change of approach contemplated at this stage would, I really must stress, cause grave difficulties of cash flow for the local authorities. This
1154
is really the importance of getting this measure through as swiftly as possible.
My right honourable friend the Minister of State drew attention to these difficulties during the debates in another place, when the Opposition moved an Amendment to allow a proportion of the sewerage charge to be levied on unconnected properties. He explained then why, though we were sympathetic to the proposal in principle, the Government are unable to accept such an Amendment at this stage. However, he undertook to raise the question in the consultation paper on the Review of the Water Industry which the Government intend to publish later this month. This consultative document will also discuss the question of charges for emptying cesspools, which was also raised in the debates in another place, and the related question of whether that particular function should be the responsibility of local authorities—as at present—or of the water authorities. But these are problems which, I hope your Lordships will agree, cannot be resolved in this Bill.
I think that at this point I must emphasise that where services are clearly undertaken for the benefit of the whole community, and where it is quite impossible to attribute the charges to specific users, there is no difference of opinion that the water authorities should be able to charge all ratepayers for those services. These services include pollution control, the provision of recreation and safeguarding of amenities. All these are spelt out in Clause 2 of the Bill, so I shall not weary your Lordships by going through them one by one. These services account for between 2 per cent. and 5 per cent. of the general services charge. The variations are due to differences between authorities. However, it is true that some part of the cost of these services can be recovered from direct users. One example is fishermen.
Nevertheless, most of it cannot be attributed in this way and must remain a legitimate charge on the whole community. Because the Daymond judgment threw doubt on whether the Water Act, in its present form, gives the water authorities any power to charge for these services, Clause 2 of this Bill re-enacts the relevant part of Section 30 of the Water Act to make this crystal clear. But,

1155
in line with the Daymond judgment Clause 2 also makes it plain that for sewerage and sewage disposal water authorities may charge only those who are connected to the sewers, and who therefore use the sewerage service.
I now turn to the main provision of the Bill, the refund provision in Clause 1. The clause provides for the refund of all charges for sewerage and sewage disposal levied on unconnected properties in each of the last two financial years, and for the cost to be recovered in higher charges to the connected properties. The clause imposes a duty on the water authorities to make the refunds because there is no general obligation to refund money which has been paid under an error of law. Without this duty they would be open to challenge from another consumer who might object to his charges going up in order to meet the cost of refunds. Yet if a positive duty is to be imposed, it is essential to define its extent with meticulous care. None of us wants another Daymond case next year. There is a limit to the human and social capacity to absorb reversals of this order. That is why Clause 1 is as complicated as undoubtedly it is.
The Bill defines an unconnected property as one with no connection to the sewers, either for foul water or for surface water. This, too, is in accord with the Daymond judgment, which found that a water authority is entitled to charge only those who avail themselves of its services. Surface water drainage is a service—indeed, to a very large extent it is impossible to separate it from the foul side of sewerage—and it costs money, which must be recovered from those who use it. There was, however, considerable criticism in another place that Clause 1(7)(a) is not very clear about the circumstances in which a property is to be regarded as having surface water drainage, and I feel it helpful to say now that if the Bill receives a Second Reading, as I hope it will, the Government intend to bring forward an Amendment to narrow that definition.
My Lords, at this point I should mention one other Amendment which the Government have in mind as a result of further consideration following discussion in another place. An Amendment was moved there to add to the sums refunded
1156
any court fees or costs incurred by people who resisted the sewerage charges on unconnected properties before finally paying up, and who were subsequently vindicated by the Daymond result. Ministers were naturally sympathetic to this in principle, but explained that there were considerable difficulties of definition. However, my right honourable friend undertook to look at the problem again. We have now done so and have decided not only that we can, but that we should, do something to deal with this, and I will be bringing forward an appropriate Amendment in due course.
I cannot imagine anyone disputing the principle that people should get back charges they have paid in good faith, but which have subsequently been declared illegal. This applies equally to industrial and commercial ratepayers, including the nationalised industries, as it does to householders. But the unpalatable corollary of refunding this money is that other people's charges will have to go up to meet the bill—an inevitable financial see-saw. I know there is a strong view expressed that since the refunds that have to be made arise from a mistake by the Government's legislation, the Exchequer should pay. We simply cannot agree with that because we cannot possibly add an extra £60 million to Government spending in present circumstances, and it would still have to be paid for by the community. In any event, since the Daymond judgment means that for the last two years the sewerage charge should have been levied only on connected properties, this means that if that had been done those consumers would have had to pay more. Indeed, they would have had to pay the money now to be refunded. This would have been spread over those whose properties were connected. So although understandably unpalatable, it is not entirely unfair for them to bear the burden now.
But to alleviate the situation, which we recognise as being very difficult and unpleasant, we have agreed to waive recovery of any special domestic rating relief paid on account of sewerage charges in 1974–75. This will of course have to be deducted from refunds, otherwise people will be getting back more than they actually paid, which is not our intention. But the water authorities will be allowed to keep the money deducted

1157
in order to provide some help for the connected consumers, and this will reduce the cost by about £6 million.
Let me make it clear that the Government are not happy about this wretched situation. The water authorities estimate that the £60 millon to be refunded will mean, on average, an extra 21 per cent. on charges to connected consumers. It has been suggested that to ease the load the water authorities should spread the cost over two or three years, but I honestly do not think this would be satisfactory, since it would increase the cost in the long run, because water authorities would have to borrow to cover the deficits which would result. The water authorities have so far balanced their books and managed to avoid the deficits which have plagued so many nationalised industries. This is a matter of great importance, and it is in nobody's interest, whether or not they are connected to main sewerage, that they should run into deficit now. However, the Bill will not prevent from doing so any authority which wishes itself to phase the cost.
My Lords, as I have already indicated, this is not a Bill which any of us would have wished to have to put on the Statute Book unless the Daymond judgment had made it necessary. Now it is absolutely essential that it should pass as quickly as possible so that it should be firmly on the Statute Book and be so drafted that there can be no mistake about it. A detailed scheme for making the refunds has been worked out with the local authorities, subject to Parliament's approving this Bill, and the authorities need the statutory power in time to start making refunds as offsets to the rates from the beginning of the financial year. In all these circumstances. I hope your Lordships will feel able to give this Bill a swift passage.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, may I ask her whether she is aware that her Ministry is alleged to have advised some local authorities, at any rate, to start proceeding on the basis of Clause 1(7)(a) as unamended? My local authority has sent a questionnaire round to ratepayers to find out whether they come under Clause 1(7)(a)(i) as at present drafted. If indeed this clause is going to be amended, that will have been a great waste of ratepayers' money. Will the noble Baroness's
1158
Ministry stop these people jumping the gun?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, one of the reasons why I indicated as quickly as I could this afternoon what was going to appear in the main Government Amendments was not only so that Members of this House should have notice of the fact, but also so that it should be noted by local authorities and others who are concerned. Of course, the problem here was the question of time, and also, because these problem arose in debate in another place, we are in fact trying to make the Bill rather more equitable than many people there—and no doubt the same problem would have been raised here—have thought it to be. So we are trying to do all we can, and anything that the noble Lord or his colleagues here or in another place can do to publicise this would, I am sure, be very helpful. I am quite certain my own Department has this matter well in hand, because the Amendment will in fact be tabled tomorrow. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Baroness Birk.)
3.53 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, may I as one of those who is going to have to foot the bill, congratulate the noble Baroness on her good fortune in being about to receive a refund? I should also like to thank her for her explanation of how the need for this Bill arose in the first place and of the way in which it is intended to work out in practice, and to assure her of our intention to help the Bill on its way to the Statute Book in good time for those who must tidy up the disarray that we are in as a result of the Daymond judgment. The noble Lord, Lord Rhodes, yesterday reminded us that we are now entering Lent, a season for repentance, sackcloth and ashes; and it seems that this posture is still required today, coupled, perhaps, with prayer for rain as well. For though in the summer of 1973 we had many spirited debates on what is now the Water Act and some of the most learned legal brains in this House were brought to bear upon it, no-one spotted anything amiss with what is now Section 30 or sought to move any Amendments to it,

1159
though we had many Amendments to other parts of the Bill.
I well remember that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, who was one of the five noble and learned Lords sitting in judgment on the Daymond case, was indeed active in handling this Bill in Committee, but none of us, including himself, noticed anything amiss with Clause 30 at that time. This was perhaps because the noble and learned Viscount was, as a fisherman, more concerned with the purity of the rivers than he was, as a Law Lord, with the precision of the Bill's drafting. In any case, we are in a situation which now requires this Bill to put the original legislation right. Although this has been, as the noble Baroness said, a classic and most controversial case, I venture to think that the Bill will be largely agreed, though I was glad of notice of the Amendments that the Government are still proposing to put down. There was a moment, I must confess, when it seemed as though Her Majesty's Government might seek, through legislation, to give retrospective legality to what have now been shown to be illegal acts. as they did in the case of the Clay Cross affair; and inasmuch as they are not proposing to do that, I welcome this further act of repentance on their behalf.
My Lords, I would not want to let this occasion—this rather awkward situation—go by without paying a tribute to the new regional water authorities that were brought into being by the original Bill. They are not, and never have been, the most popular authorities in the land, coming to birth, as they did, as further generators of public expenditure at a time when all hands on all sides were bent on curbing public expenditure. They could hardly have come into existence at a more awkward moment, but that is not their fault. However much debate there may have been about ways and means, there was never any doubt about the need to reorganise the water industry and to put the supply of water, the disposal of sewage and other associated functions on a stronger footing. That has been done. As the backlog of deferred, neglected and misdirected investment has been undertaken, the tasks that the regional water authorities have been set are daunting and prodigious, We are
1160
sorry that there has been this hitch, for which we all bear a responsibility, but I think it would be right to express our admiration for what the regional water authorities are doing to meet the difficulties that they are in, besides the particular difficulties to which this Bill is addressed. As long as they spend our money wisely, we wish them well as they tackle their task, and particularly as they tackle it in this very dry weather.
3.58 p.m.
Lord WINSTANLEY: My Lords, I must begin by seeking the indulgence of your Lordships' House on two counts. First, I must apologise for speaking with the beginnings of a rather nasty cold. I mention that so that noble Lords will understand if I become inaudible before I finish and so that your Lordships will know that doctors are just as delighted to discuss their own ailments as anybody else. Second, as this is the first time I have had the honour of addressing your Lordships' House, I must also seek the special indulgence which is shown to noble Lords making their maiden speeches. Having done that, I am bound to say that on the many occasions when I have come to your Lordships' House to listen to debates—and a very instructive, interesting and enjoyable experience that has been, providing great relief from what has been going on in another place—it has always seemed to me that noble Lords invariably show extreme indulgence to all speakers, whether they be speaking for the first time, have in fact spoken just once before or have spoken over and over again. So, if I am to enjoy a special indulgence in addition to that normally given, I am indeed fortunate, and I must make good use of the opportunity. I must also see to it that I adhere to the guidelines.
My Lords, I shall be brief, though I was reminded in an excellent maiden speech by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, yesterday that it is not so much how long a speech actually takes as how long it seems to take that really counts; therefore, not only shall I in fact be brief but I hope that I shall also seem to be brief. I shall also try to be non-contentious, although it seems to me that there are important matters of principle which could emerge from this limited measure and perhaps I should be better serving the interersts of this

1161
House if I drew attention to those—the noble Baroness has already underlined one or two of them—rather than merely to indulge in the exchange of amiable pleasantries. The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has explained the implications of this measure with great clarity and the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has elucidated some of them still further. I am grateful to them for that. As the noble Baroness has said, this is a limited measure and essentially a short-term measure, but I believe that it could have serious and significant repercussions if we do not take great care.
My Lords, my involvement in this subject is two-fold. First, as a doctor, I have an interest and, perhaps, even some professional expertise in the matter of our sewers and how they are filled and emptied and, if I may develop the first involvement, may I say that, as a doctor, I honestly believe that our national sewerage and sanitation system has probably done more to promote the public health of our country than all the work of my medical colleagues put together. In that connection, we should guard very carefully against the danger that, by giving cash compensation, and very substantial compensation to the tune of £65 million, to those who do not enjoy this very necessary and important public service, we might somehow encourage these people to regard themselves as not being deprived, but as being privileged. I hope that we do not live to see the day when properties are advertised with a special asset that they have no sanitation and, therefore, financial advantages could accrue.
The real answer is to ensure that all our citizens enjoy the benefits of our truly excellent national sewerage and sanitation system. I think it right to say that we are not here dealing only with the people who live in the extremes of isolation; in many cases, we are dealing with people who live in the heart of our industrial towns, in the industrial North, the place which makes the nation's wealth and—perhaps this is not altogether unconnected—the place which also makes a great deal of the nation's sewage and effluent as well. I have a letter from a lady who lives in the centre of a Yorkshire town complaining, not that she has an outside lavatory—that is something about which too many citizens can still
1162
rightly complain—not that she has her own private cesspit, but that all she has is a tub which must be emptied and which she must share with her next door neighbour. That is in the centre of an industrial town.
The real answer is not cash compensation to people deprived of a service, but to ensure that, speedily and economically, we see to it that all of our people's homes are connected to our main sewage system. It would be dangerous if we encouraged people to retain or to try to perpetuate their own do-it-yourself sewage disposal system; for that is not the long-term answer at all.
Next, we also have to guard against another danger, to which the noble Baroness referred. It is that this measure should become the thin end of a very dangerous and damaging wedge whereby people come to believe that somehow they can opt out of public services and not pay for them. We cannot contemplate the day when childless couples can say, "Why should we pay the education charge? "; or when the dyslectic should be able to say, "Why should I pay for the libraries; I cannot read? "; or when the elderly should be able to say, "Why should we contribute towards the swimming baths? We cannot swim and we do not want to try." That is not the kind of thing to do at all.
Fortunately, we have two answers; and they are answers which I think we should underline with great care. First, no citizen can opt out altogether from the production of sewage; that sewage, sooner or later, must be disposed of somehow and, in the end, it will be disposed of at the public expense. Secondly, as the noble Baroness has pointed out, the general service charge covers many other matters like recreational facilities, fishing and so on, environmental control, the cleaning of our rivers and all those things which justify at least a part payment by those not connected with the sewage system; so we are not only dealing with domestic sanitation. There is a second, and more compelling, argument which we must underline. We are not dealing with people who have voluntarily opted out of some service which is available; we are dealing with people who have to pay for something they cannot have. That is a very different thing.

1163
Here we have a rather important precedent which comes from a field of activity that I have been concerned in, the National Health Service. Under the National Health Service Act and the regulations which are made under it, the State has the obligation to provide general medical services for any man, woman or child who needs or requests them. In the very rare instances—and they are very rare—in which no National Health Service practitioner is available in an isolated area, there is a provision under the Act and under the regulations for people who need medical care to seek to obtain it privately and, then, to obtain reimbursement of the cost. I can give an example. I had experience of such a case when I was a member of the Lancashire Executive Council, the body responsible for domiciliary medical services in North Lancashire, in Furness, now part of Cumbria, where, for a short time, there was no National Health Service doctor. Until it was possible to obtain one, the patients were encouraged to seek private care from an elderly retired doctor who gave it privately and, then, they could obtain reimbursement from the State. It is a very different situation indeed from the situation whereby people try to opt out and not pay for something that they just do not want. It would be deplorable if this limited measure led to an escalating round of opting out campaigns from people who did not want to pay for things that they did not use.
Let me move on to my second involvement on this subject. For six years I have been involved in the preparation and presentation of a television programme in the North on citizens' rights. This is an information programme rather than a campaigning programme, which seeks to explain to people the sources of help available to them and the way in which they can obtain that help. It is an information service. We back up that programme with an advice bureau—probably the biggest citizens' advice bureau in the country. We deal with about 1,000 letters a week from puzzled people who write to ask what they can do about this or that; how they can get this or that; whether they are entitled to
I can say that at the time this matter first surfaced—and we all remember it it. Every one of those letters is answered
1164
in detail by an expert, if necessary. clearly—we were flooded with letters from people totally confused about what was happening, what was likely to happen and what had happened; from people who were not sure what their rights were or what they were going to be; whether they should pay and whether they would get it back. This underlines the fact that there is nothing more conducive to public resentment than doubts and uncertainty.
Therefore, I come to the point which is crucial. When this measure is enacted —and I hope that it will be enacted, and speedily—I hope that we shall take very active steps to ensure that those whom it concerns are fully informed of its implications. It is easy for the water boards to identify those who are connected with the public sewers. I am not, myself, so sure that it is so easy for them to identify the people who are not connected. We must let them know the position. Are all these people known? Do they have to do nothing but wait and get their money in the form of a deduction from their future rates, or do they make application? If so, to whom, how and when? I would stress that this is a very crucial matter. It is all very well to pass a necessary, wise and just measure, but it is very important that knowledge of it goes fully to those for whom it is intended. It has been my experience when trying to give help to groups of people that help does not always arrive at the people who are most in need. Very often those most in need are those who do not know where to go for help. I hope we will ensure that when this measure is enacted it will be brought closely to the attention of all those whom it will concern so that we do not have any perpetuation of the kind of doubt which leads to so much frustration, resentment and discontent.
With that, I will merely say that I and my noble friends will support this measure. We agree with the noble Baroness that it must be enacted quickly for the sake of the local authorities and to help their cash flow difficulties. I conclude by saying that it is a simple and short-term measure. There is nothing to reform our rating system as a whole. Direct taxation is an extraordinary system which pays no regard to the ability of people to pay, which collects the same amount of money from the house with

1165
the widow and six children as it does from the identical house next door with seven working adults. It penalises people who improve their homes at a time when it is socially and economically necessary that people should improve their homes. It is a system which is well in need of overall reform. This is a limited measure; let us see that it does not become the thin end of a dangerous wedge, and let us see that it is fully explained to those whom it concerns. I am grateful to noble Lords for listening to me. I hope that I shall receive the same attention if ever I am fortunate enough to be able to speak to the House on a matter more congenial than that of sewers and sewage.
4.11 p.m.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken need ask for no indulgence for his maiden effort, for many of those who have long since lost their virginity in this House cannot equal his standard of persuasive eloquence. I should like to endorse his principle that it is right that we should pay for local authority services from which we derive no benefit, just as we pay education rates if we have no children at school. My Lords, I have to declare an interest here. One matter that the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, did not mention was the situation of persons like myself. I speak as the owner of an unconnected septic tank. If my tank is to be connected—which, in the noble Lord's view, is clearly my public duty—it will cost me several hundred pounds for which I shall get no relief from local authority or government. It will also mean the destruction of a shrubbery which has taken me 20 years to grow. I am now fairly well on in years and I do not much care what my house will be worth when I die, not having any heirs who are particularly interested in its value. For that reason I am extremely reluctant to ruin my garden and estate and incur heavy expense, which I would find very difficult, in order to fulfil this public duty which I entirely recognise.
Lord BURTON: My Lords, I apologise for not putting my name down to speak. One small misconception has arisen which the noble Baroness nearly touched upon. May I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, on his
1166
maiden speech. He referred to whether his speech seemed a long or short one. It lasted for 13 minutes, but it did not seem that length to me, and I congratulate him on his remarks. This matter, however, is rather different from the reference made by the two noble Baronesses, where people are charged for education although they have no children. In the case under discussion they may well have already paid out a considerable amount of capital and at considerable expense provided themselves with either water or sewerage connections. They may have a perfectly satisfactory connection, not necessarily destroying a shrubbery as the noble Baroness may need to do, and it seems rather hard that in addition to what they have already provided and found to be perfectly satisfactory they still have to pay.
Lord DOUGLAS of BARLOCH: My Lords, while congratulating the noble Lord on his maiden speech, which was delivered with great facility and confidence, I am afraid that I must differ from him slightly regarding the principle involved in this matter. I must confess I am an interested party. The matter is not as simple as it may appear at first sight: there are a great many houses in this country which are not connected to sewers and which cannot be connected to them because of their geological situation. If it is proposed to compel everybody to pay rates for sewers, whether they benefit from the service or not, there is a simple corollary which ought to be remembered: they will have to be given the right to insist upon being connected to the sewer, and the rest of the ratepayers will not enjoy footing the Bill.
4.14 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, this has turned out to be an interesting short debate. I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, on his interesting and extremely good maiden speech; I join in the congratulations of other noble Lords. I should like also to thank the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, for his support from the Opposition Benches. He said we ought perhaps to pray for water: he certainly rained down a great deal of repentance all over the place! I am grateful for his support

1167
because it is a recognition of the need for the expedition of this measure.
The noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, made some interesting comments regarding public health and inadequate arrangements. I know the noble Lord will agree with me that some of the points he raised will have to be considered, both by the water authorities and the local authorities, in a much wider context. As I said when I was introducing the Bill, we are awaiting the consultative paper. I am sure some of the points he raised will have relevance in a much wider framework than the subject we are discussing today. One point—and this gives me the opportunity to dispel some misconceptions which might arise—is that this Bill can in no way be seen as an encouragement to people to make their own inadequate sewerage arrangements.
The total refund is £60 million and not £65 million. Refunds will be made to people who, because of the error in the legislation, had paid when they should not have done so. Therefore this measure is not an incentive to anybody to set up cesspools or septic tanks of their own which, as the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, said, would be an expensive enterprise; its purpose is to refund money which is due.
I was extremely pleased that the point about Government publicity was raised. This is something after my own heart. I could not agree more that doubt and uncertainty about what is going on, whether by central Government, local government or public bodies, is eroding the quality of life of people. Often people have no idea as to what they are entitled or how to set about dealing with these matters in our extremely complicated society. There will be Government publicity and publicity by local water authorities about this. This is a case where people will be much more aware of where their rights lie than in many other cases which the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, probably had in mind. The Bill refers to people who, although they know their homes are not connected, have paid these sewerage charges as part of the water rate. Nevertheless, I take the point, and will do all I can to see that my Department devotes sufficient publicity to this matter.
1168
My noble friend Lady Wootton is a fellow septic tanker—if I may refer to her in that unflattering way as we both share the same interest in this matter. There is nothing in this Bill at the moment so far as I am aware to connect the unconnected. This Bill is to make a refund to those who have, to put it in a shorthand way, overpaid. There is a certain amount of truth in a much more general way in the point that she was making in answer to the noble Lord. Lord Winstanley. The Public Health Acts require adequate arrangements and in fact well maintained septic tanks and cesspools are frequently quite adequate. So far as expense is concerned, the emptying of cesspools can be quite an expensive operation because it is highly labour intensive and when one is thinking of places which are remote in the country one realises what it involves in terms of expense.
The noble Lord, Lord Burton, if I understood correctly, made the point that there is a difference, which I tried to pinpoint when I was introducing the Bill, between paying generally for education services or, as the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, pointed out, for maternity benefit and part of our welfare services and for anti-pollution services generally, and paying directly for a sewerage service which one has not got, and the example which I gave in regard to paying for gas if one is not connected.
The noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, made all the points on behalf of the rest of the septic tankers and cesspoolers—if I may put them together in that way—and both the geographical and geological difficulties attached to this. Although this has been an interesting context in which to discuss this more narrow Bill this is not really the objective of the measure before you today. I feel from the contributions that have been made by noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate that we have the support of this House so far as this measure is concerned.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned during pleasure: House resumed by the Lord Chancellor.

ROYAL ASSENT
4.23 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): 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:
National Coal Board (Finance) Act 1976,
British Railways Order Confirmation Act 1976,
Brownies Taing Pier Order Confirmation Act 1976,
Inverness Harbour (Citadel Quay &c.) Order Confirmation Act 1976,
Inverness Harbour Order Confirmation Act 1976,
City of Aberdeen District Council Order Confirmation Act 1976.

INTERNATIONAL CARRIAGE OF PERISHABLE FOODSTUFFS BILL [H.L.]
4.24 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of this Bill is to enable the United Kingdom to accede to an agreement made by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, known as the ATP agreement. Those initials are the abbreviation of the French title of the agreement. It is appropriate that the agreement should be universally known by that description because the French Government was responsible, more than any other, for its initiation and successful completion.
ATP was opened for signature in Geneva in 1970 and has now been signed and ratified by five countries; namely, France, Spain, West Germany, the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia. It will come into force as between those countries on 21st November, 1976. The fact that the agreement is supported by countries so widely separated both geographically and politically as Spain and Russia testifies to its technical and non-controversial character. Many other European countries, including all the remaining countries of the European Economic Community have initiated the constitutional procedures necessary to enable
1170
them to accede to it. It is to be expected that in due course ATP will be applied throughout the Continent.
The purpose of ATP is to establish common standards of efficiency for refrigerated and heat-insulated transport equipment used in the international carriage of perishable foodstuffs. Our adherence will not make a great deal of difference to the standards practised by British transport operators because those standards are already, in general, as high as or higher than those prescribed by ATP. Nor will it make any appreciable difference to the quality of food sold in the shops in this country, because the authorities responsible for food controls already have sufficient powers under existing statutes. It might seem at first sight, therefore, that this country has nothing to gain by appending its signature to this agreement.
But I should now like to put before your Lordships three good economic reasons, and one political reason, why it is important that this country should become a contracting party to ATP. The first reason is that there is a growing amount of trade in frozen and other foodstuffs covered by the agreement which involves British refrigerated vehicles in transport operations to many European countries. Unless we become a contracting party to ATP we shall not be able to ensure that those vehicles can travel freely to their destinations without being delayed or turned back by frontier controls. British operators might therefore be faced with the necessity of having to send their vehicles abroad to have them tested in order to obtain internationally recognised "ATP certificates ".
The second reason is that for some products, such as meat exported from Northern Ireland, the condition of the load when it arrives at its destination is, to a large extent, dependent upon the temperature conditions under which it has been transported. An ATP certificate not only certifies that a vehicle or container has passed a stringent test for thermal efficiency, but it also gives it a classification according to its refrigeration potential, that is to say whether it can maintain temperatures of minus 20 degrees centigrade, minus 10 degrees centigrade or 0 degrees centigrade and for how long. Classification of transport equipment into these categories will assist exporters to make sure that the vehicles

1171
to which they entrust the carriage of their produce have been officially certified as able to carry out the job required of them.
Thirdly, this country is interested from the point of view of the manufacture of road vehicles, railway wagons and containers, and the refrigeration units which are installed in them. When ATP comes fully into force throughout Europe, users of transport equipment will expect to purchase from manufacturers who can deliver complete with certificates which are assured of recognition by all signatories to the agreement. If the United Kingdom were to remain outside, our vehicle manufacturers would be at a disadvantage compared with their competitors in, say, France or Germany.
Over and above these economic reasons, there is the poltical aspect to be weighed. ATP is not a Common Market instrument, but all the other EEC countries support it and are taking steps to become contracting parties. If we were to stand outside, we would not only lose the political goodwill which can be gained by joining but we should also deny ourselves an effective voice in future deliberations of the Geneva Working Party which drew up the agreement and which will be responsible for keeping it up to date. In the last few years we have played a useful part in proposing amendments which will improve the efficiency of the test procedures laid down in the Annexes and reduce their cost. Our continued ability to make useful contributions to development in this technical field would depend on our accepting the full responsibilty of becoming a member, so to speak, of the "ATP club ".
What are the responsibilities that membership entails? They can be broadly summed up as follows. Contracting parties undertake, first, to ensure that the perishable foods specified in the ATP annexes shall not be carried in international transport except in equipment that has been tested and certified in accordance with the technical provisions laid down. The foodstuffs concerned include all frozen foods, meat, meat products and red offal, game, poultry, and rabbits, and milk, butter and other dairy products. Secondly, the parties undertake to recognise one another's certificates; and thirdly, they must see to it that transport equipment is so selected and used that
1172
the temperature conditions prescribed for the various foodstuffs can be complied with throughout carriage.
One provision of ATP is especially important for the United Kingdom. By Article 3, where an international journey involves a sea crossing of more than 150 km. the conditions of the agreement do not apply to that crossing. And by Article 5, containers arriving at European ports after sea crossings of more than 150 km. are exempted from the certification requirements. For this reason, Clause 1 limits the application of this Bill to international journeys which either do not involve sea crossings or which include sea crossings of less than 150 km. in practice this means that the only traffic that will be subject to the provisions of the Bill will be that carried by road vehicles, railway wagons and containers on the following routes: cross-Channel routes from Newhaven-Dieppe to Harwich-Zeebrugge inclusive; the shorter crossings of the Irish Sea to the Republic of Ireland; and cross border traffic between Northern Ireland and the Republic. Those shipping companies which carry cargoes of frozen foods on transoceanic routes have their own systems for testing and certifying the efficiency of their refrigerated containers.
The Bill will enable effect to be given to these undertakings through the medium of regulations. There will, as in any vehicle testing scheme, be regulations to establish ATP technical standards for the various categories of equipment, methods of testing, forms of certificate, and so on. Provision will be made for the appointment of personnel and the setting up of authorised testing stations. All this is provided for in Clauses 1, 2 and 3. Testing stations may be either Government-owned or privately-owned and designated for that purpose. Under Clause 4 powers are given for the type approval of equipment produced in quantity, in order to avoid the necessity of carrying out full tests on all units of a standard type individually.
A survey of the existing facilities that are available for testing, mostly at manufacturers' premises, has been made and sufficient capacity has been found to be available, provided certain additions are made to the test equipment. Clause 5 gives power to make loans to designated stations for this purpose. If, as we

1173
expect, agreement can be reached with the firms concerned it will not be necessary to set up any Government stations. Testing will be done at designated stations by personnel individually approved by the Government, and test reports will be sent to the DOE certifying officer who will be personally responsible for the issue of the certificate.
So much for our positive obligations. On the other side, Clause 7 of the Bill makes it an offence to engage in the international carriage of perishable foodstuffs using transport equipment otherwise than in accordance with the regulations. However, in any proceedings under this clause a defence is offered to a carrier for hire and reward—which includes BritishRail—whereby he can contract out of the obligation to secure compliance with any particular regulation and so offload that responsibility on to the consignor of the goods.
To facilitate enforcement, powers are given in Clause 6 whereby examiners may inspect transport equipment and in some cases enter premises for that purpose, and may require the production of certificates by drivers of road vehicles. A special problem arises here, as in the enforcement of other regulations, in regard to foreign road vehicles because their owners are usually outside the jurisdiction of the courts and the drivers are seldom here long enough to be brought to account by prosecution in the normal way. The Bill, therefore, follows the precedent set in the Road Traffic (Foreign Vehicles) Act 1972 in giving power to an examiner to prohibit a foreign road vehicle believed to be in contravention of the regulations from being driven on a road. An attempt by the driver to evade the prohibition may lead to his arrest.
The remainder of the Bill is concerned with the matters of procedure, interpretation, and ancillary matters. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 16 which provides for the possibility that the Act may need to be amended to enable effect to be given to amendments that may be made to ATP. Such amendments will undoubtedly have to be made from time to time in order to take account of technical developments in the fields of transport and refrigeration. Some, indeed, have already been agreed to in Geneva. Most of such amendments will
1174
be taken care of by amending the regulations but it is possible that, for some of them to be adopted, the regulation-making powers themselves may need to be modified. Clause 16 specifies the sections of the Act which might be affected and provides that they may be modified by Order in Council after a draft has been approved by both Houses of Parliament—in other words by Affirmative Resolution procedure.
Some of your Lordships may be wondering how much all this is going to cost. There are two ways of looking at this question. First, how much will it cost an operator of refrigerated transport to have his vehicles regularly tested and certified in accordance with the provisions of the Bill when enacted? Secondly, what would be his costs if the Bill is not enacted? We must remember that, whatever we do here, ATP is coming into force on the Continent and British vehicles carrying perishable foods will not be allowed to land unless they can produce recognised ATP certificates. If they cannot get such certificates here, they will either have to operate with foreign certificated vehicles or take their own vehicles to foreign testing stations to get certificates.
The French Government have already introduced regulations requiring the production of certificates which, to all intents and purposes, are ATP certificates although the agreement is not yet in force. By a temporary arrangement with the French authorities, British vehicles are able to enter France on production of a certificate issued by the Ship owners Refrigerated Cargo Research Association at Cambridge which has been designated for this purpose by the Secretary of State.
This arrangement will come to an end when ATP comes into force. The present cost of these certificates amounts to about £100 after a full test in their test chamber and £40 for one issued after an examination under the so-called "transitional provisions "of ATP, which do not require a full test but which are available for a limited period only. The former certificate is valid for six years, the latter for three. Both these figures will have to be raised to meet current costs.
It is impossible to say now what the eventual cost of a full-scale ATP test at a designated station may he when the scheme comes fully into force here, but

1175
there can be no doubt that it will be in excess of those figures. In France, the charge for a full test is about £400. A lot will depend on the use made of the type approval provisions which will enable the cost of testing one vehicle to be spread over the whole batch. On the other hand, the cost of some new test equipment will have to be met out of fees paid by the vehicle owner or manufacturer. Here, also, there is an element of uncertainty. One of the most expensive pieces of equipment—namely, a fan to keep air flowing at a specified speed over the equipment while it is being tested —may not be necessary if proposals made by the United Kingdom at Geneva are accepted and embodied in amendments made to the Agreement.
There will also be administrative costs to be added in. These will be kept as low as possible by the use of firms' staff at the testing stations, and of the Department of the Environment's existing staff of examiners to carry out such enforcement action as may be necessary. The total number of Government personnel expected to be needed exclusively for work arising out of the Bill is estimated at three. All of them will be on the testing scheme itself; one certifying officer, one examiner to supervise testing at designated stations (of which there will probably be not more than six) and one clerk.
What will be the position if this Bill is not enacted? The first thing that will have to happen is that, in order to save exporters the cost of having to get their equipment certificated abroad, we shall have to try to organise a voluntary testing scheme on the lines of the present arrangement, using the Cambridge test station as a base, and to make bilateral arrangements with foreign countries individually as and when they become contracting parties to ATP. This would be expensive in administrative time and travel. Our bargaining position would not be good, and there could be no guarantee that we would be successful in persuading all countries to recognise British certificates, whose authority they would know was not backed by any legal sanctions. As the law stands, it is no offence to have in one's possession a forged ATP certificate which is intended for use exclusively abroad. Even if we
1176
were successful in making agreements with ail countries, there would still be no saving in the cost of testing and certification here, because the full ATP tests would have to be applied, and the saving in Government administrative costs resulting from the testing scheme being voluntary, instead of statutory, would be minimal.
If we were unsuccessful even with a few countries like, say, Czechoslovakia, Austria or Hungary, owners of vehicles wishing to enter those countries to deliver consignments of perishable foods, or to transit their territories to make deliveries beyond, would be unable to do so, unless they had had their transport equipment certified at test stations in Continental countries belonging to ATP. The probable result is that the big companies, whose international operations are Continent-wide, would take the precaution of having all their vehicles tested and certified in ATP countries whose certificates were guaranteed recognition everywhere. Add to this the gratuitous political cost that we would incur from being the odd man out in an exercise designed to promote people's health, and the conclusion is that if this Bill is not enacted there will be both economic and political costs which will greatly outweigh any possible savings.
To sum up, my Lords, this Bill is a piece of legislation which is designed to serve a useful purpose in promoting safety to health in the international transport of perishable foods. It will not at all affect domestic transport in this country. Left to ourselves, we should not have thought the extra burden it will necessarily impose on the food and transport industries was justified by the negligible advantage it might bring to the domestic consumer. But we are not alone. We are part of an international community which has decided it wants this measure. We have nothing to lose by conforming with the line taken by our European neighbours, and our international trade and good will will benefit. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Baroness Stedman.)
4.45 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I am sure that the whole

1177
House would like me to thank the noble Baroness very much for her extremely thorough explanation of this Bill. I am equally sure that the House would not want me to comment on every point in this Bill, most of which is technical, and which is intended to implement the ATP Agreement made by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. It is totally non-contentious and non-political. I think it would cause the utmost boredom to your Lordships if I tried to be clever by picking out points in an endeavour to make an interesting speech. So I hope that your Lordships will acquit me of ally rudeness to the noble Baroness if I keep my speech extremely brief and just thank her for introducing the Bill and make a few comments on one or two points.
I was particularly glad to hear the noble Baroness say that the Bill will not make very much difference to our refrigerated and cool transport. After my discussions with various carriers and transport associations, I know that that is a view which is fully shared by the industry itself. Only this morning. I was trying to pin somebody down and was asking what will be the difference to an almost new vehicle which has been equipped with our method and is now to go over to the European method. The answer is probably a cost of £300 on a £10,000 vehicle. So, although it may be a little annoying, looked at in terms of capital, it is not large, especially bearing in mind that such a vehicle might be used in Britain only, and that it would not cost much extra to adapt a new vehicle to conform to this standard. I fully agree that we must take this step, because we have to help our carriers to get into Europe and to have the full benefit of our membership.
I know that it is not totally germane to this Bill but, with the indulgence of the House, I should like to say that I hope that Her Majesty's Government will follow up measures like this, which are all to the good, with strong further support for our carriers in getting more licences in Europe. Up till now, the industry has not been as well pleased as it might be with the quantity of licences given to it by our partners in Europe. This is something for which successive Ministers of Transport have been fighting, and I hope that the present Minister is still fighting.
1178
As regards Clause 7, some of my noble friends have pointed out to me that they wonder whether it is really necessary to have fines of up to £100 on conviction, when the most expensive penalty for not complying would be having a lorry turned back when it had reached, say, the borders of Russia. That would be a much more severe penalty than being fined a mere £100. I should have thought that the Clause 7 offences were not really necessary.
The other point which must be made—and which always appears when we debate consumer matters—is that, at the end of the day, however much perfection we achieve in the various forms of transport, whether it be railways or long-distance lorries, what counts is the quality of goods put into the refrigerated plant. If you put in shoddy goods, you get shoddy goods out, and the industry must always think about this.
I should explain to the House that the noble Baroness was kind enough to ask her office to send to me a copy of the ATP Agreement. This was far too complicated and technical a document for me to appreciate, but there is one point of English that I do not understand. It seems that "quick frozen "has become synonymous with "deep frozen ". To my layman's mind, "quick frozen "is what I thought one put in the ordinary part of the 'fridge, whereas "deep frozen "is rather different. However, in European "lingo "I gather that it is the other way round. I do not suppose that the noble Baroness will know the answer to that question now, but I should be grateful for a reply later. With those few words, I should again like to say, "Thank you "and point out that, had we been in power, this is a measure that we should have introduced. I am most grateful to the noble Baroness.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend on the Front Bench what happens to me if I, as an old-fashioned European curmudgeon of a farmer, decide to send my produce by rail? I can see nothing in the Bill which would prevent me from evading the law if I decided to send it by rail. There are farmers who still send their produce by rail. After 1981, for instance, only viscerated poultry will be sold anywhere in Britain, except at the farm gate. Under the Bill, I think I could get away with

1179
that. I could send it by rail, for there are still railway wagons in Europe which carry meat, and get it into England. Can I or can I not do that?
4.52 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord opposite for his reception of the Bill. I had a feeling that I was making rather heavy weather of something which was not contentious, but I hoped that it would explain the general outlines of the Bill. To deal with the question which the noble Lord was good enough to give me notice that he was going to ask, I have taken advice and understand that the Department are following up very strongly the question of making sure that we get our fair share of all the licences. In fact, I understand that even today some of my officials are negotiating on some of these points in Europe and we shall continue to do so. I take the noble Lord's point that if the consignment cannot be delivered, this is perhaps a greater deterrent than the fines. I will look at that point and perhaps will be able to go into it in more detail at Committee stage.
I was equally puzzled about the "quick frozen "and the "deep frozen ". However, I understand that "quick frozen "is the American term that was inserted into the agreement at the request of the U.S.A. Perhaps, therefore, we have become Americanised in one more sense.
I must say to my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek that I am not too sure of the answer to his question. Refrigerated vans are used by rail and certainly it would be an offence, once we have signed the ATP Agreement, for anybody to try to evade it by any means, even the noble Lord's old curmudgeon of a farmer in Europe. However, I will go into that point in more detail and write to the noble Lord about it. I am grateful to the House for the way they have received the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT 1963 (DRIED FRUITS) ORDER 1976
4.55 p.m.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move, That the draft Weights and
1180
Measures Act 1963 (Dried Fruits) Order 1976, laid before the House on 5th February, be approved. At the same time may I speak to the Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Edible Fats) Order 1976. I understand that in this House, as in another place with whose procedures I am much more familiar, it is traditional when addressing the House for the first time to avoid controversy. I think I am on fairly safe ground this afternoon because I am sure it would be difficult to find a subject less controversial than dried fruits and edible fats.
I am encouraged in that thought by the fact that over 80 organisations were consulted about the provisions of these orders. They represented manufacturers, wholesalers, retailers, consumers and enforcement authorities, and all of them welcomed the orders. One or two points of detail were raised but the majority of those organisations wholeheartedly supported these orders. Their purpose is to permit the foodstuffs mentioned in them, most of which, under the provisions of the Act, may now be prepacked only in prescribed imperial quantities, also to be prepacked in metric quantities. Although the orders will permit both metric and imperial packs to be sold, in practice manufacturers will phase out imperial packs and adopt only the metric quantities permitted. We have set 1st January of next year as the effective date for both orders, this being the date when the first metric packs of either group of products can be produced. The rate of change to metric will vary from industry to industry according to the problems obtaining in each, but all manufacturers recognise the need to complete the conversion as quickly as possible in the interests of consumer protection.
The House will be aware that a Bill has recently been introduced into another place to empower the Government to phase out the use of imperial units of measurement, and no doubt we shall quite shortly be dealing with that Bill. If Parliament approves this Bill, the Department will in due course enter into discussions with all affected interests to determine suitable terminal dates for the use of imperial quantities in the sale of the products concerned. This will also apply to all other products that are covered by metrication orders.

1181
So far as the EEC is concerned, as yet no EEC legislation has been adopted on any of the products concerned in these orders, although draft legislation exists on all of them, and the proposals contained in these orders are substantially in line with the draft EEC proposals. I understand that there are a few details to be settled, but we do not anticipate that there will be any difficulty in resolving those points. The new metric packs will hold roughly 10 percent. more by weight than the imperial packs they will replace. If I may give one or two examples, the ½ lb. pack of butter, which weighs 226 grammes, will become 250 grammes, and the 12 oz. or 340 gramme carton of dried currants will become 375 grammes. Naturally we must expect, in relation to prices, that there will be increases in prices to cover the extra product in the new packs and, of course, industry will need to recoup the costs of conversion of its machinery. This is being examined in the industries concerned, but we are not expecting that the conversion costs will be a significant factor in reaching the price of the new metric packs.
There are one or two points of particular interest arising from these orders that I should like to mention. The first concerns education. Orders have already been made in respect of flour and sugar. Those two commodities, together with those with which we are now concerned, namely, edible fats and dried fruits, are the prepacked ingredients used most frequently in household cooking. Metric packs of these four groups of products will help the housewife more readily to understand metrication and will facilitate teaching home economics in metric.
The second point is that we have freed packs of dried fruit of 75 grammes and below from the provisions concerning prescribed quantities. This is in order to permit the industry to bring back the small packs which were sold as snack food. These disappeared when the 1963 Act came into force and we are enabling that to be reversed.
Thirdly, in the order on edible fats we have included products such as low fat spreads and solidified edible oils for which the Act itself does not prescribe standard quantities at present. The last special point I should like to make is that we are setting 10 kilogrammes as the
1182
upper limit to both orders. This is as high a figure as is ever likely to be used in retail trade and one which also conforms with EEC legislation. We are naturally concerned that the changeover should take place as smoothly as possible, and with the minimum confusion to the consumer and with the minimum cost for conversion borne by the manufacturer.
As I said earlier, we are looking to the manufacturers to complete the conversion in as short a time as possible, but we are aware of their need to ensure that there is no unnecessary waste of materials or needless expenditure of any kind as the result of the conversion. As part of its campaign to familiarise the public with metric weights and measures the Metrication Board intends to give advance publicity to these changes before the effective date. All metric packs will have to be marked clearly with the words "metric pack "in capital letters and the quantity will be indicated on all packs in both metric and imperial weights. It is our intention to press ahead as quickly as possible with the metrication of food generally. The Department are having discussions with other sectors of the food industry and we hope to lay further orders before the House fairly soon. My Lords, I commend these orders to the House.
Moved, That the draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Dried Fruits) Order 1976, laid before the House on 5th February, be approved.—(Lord Oram.)
5.3 p.m.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to welcome the noble Lord, Lord Oram, and to congratulate him on making his maiden speech, not only in this Chamber but at the Dispatch Box at the same time, in such a controlled and lucid and competent manner, and I look forward with pleasure to having him explain to your Lordships the more complicated pieces of legislation which will be entrusted to his hands in the future, in a manner which will enable us to understand them much more readily, thanks to his patient exposition.
There is not a great deal to be said about these two orders, which are just another example of the old system of measurement dying by inches, except in areas already touched on by the noble Lord. First, it is agreeable to find that in this at least we are ahead of the rest

1183
of Europe and that nevertheless our legislation is in line with their draft proposals. I hope we need not be alarmed by the minor details which the noble Lord has said remain to be cleared up and that, if there is a discrepancy, for once Europe will conform to us and not we to Europe.
However there is another point which gives me a little more pause and that is the increase in the basic units of 10 per cent. of average over the equivalent sizes in the old scale of measurement, because this must necessarily apply, among all the others, to the smallest unit and it is in the smallest unit that the poorest members of our community usually buy these commodities. From time to time your Lordships have your attention drawn to the position of old-age pensioners going in for their small quantity of sugar and their small quantity of tea. It is a fact that small quantities come dearer, whether they are sold loose, when they take more to turn the scales, or whether they are packaged because of the extra packaging costs which they have to bear. Ten per cent. in addition to the minimum amount which one can spend on half a pound of butter is, after all, lop in the £ and that is a very considerable increase on a narrowly budgeted weekly expenditure for a single old-age pensioner, for example.
We have considered, and are in the future to consider, the position of those most at risk in the present days of inflation and I hope your Lordships will bear this particular instance in mind because, whereas dried fruit is something which may not be regarded as a necessity of life, edible fats do constitute a necessity of life; and I hope that in their future orders Her Majesty's Government will have it in mind to make any variation of the smallest unit in which essential commodities are sold as little as possible, and preferably in a downwards direction. I can see that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, who to our great regret is relinquishing the reins of authority in this sphere, does not agree with what I have said but I am sure he will seek an early opportunity of saying it so that we may all hear.
In the meantime, I would refer your Lordships to the other matter touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Oram; namely, the question of education. I am
1184
glad to hear that these packs will be clearly identifiable so that they will not just seem to be much larger or, even at the same size, more expensive packs. But there are all sorts of problems now in the culinary world. We have cooking stoves marked in Fahrenheit and cookery books printed in Centigrade; we have butter and sugar in grammes and recipes written in ounces. Therefore, I think it is a good thing that the Government are giving advance notice of what is being done, and I hope the Metrication Board will not be too astonished at Mr. Bernard Levin's raillery against their campaign and will continue to educate the public in an area where it is of great practical importance to them. In conclusion, my Lords, may I once again say that we are glad to have the noble Lord, Lord Oram, among us and welcome him. As he has said, his debut was with something which could scarcely be called controversial but even less could it be called glamorous. I am sure that greater glory will accrue to him in the future.
5.8 p.m.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for his kind personal welcome and comments and I am glad that he had no very controversial matters to raise. I share with him the hope that, in so far as there are differences between ourselves and our partners in Europe, we maybe able to persuade them that our point of view is the proper one. I believe there will be one or two instances where that will occur. The noble Lord is right, of course, to ask us to look carefully at the effect of metrication on the poorest—on the old-age pensioners and others who have to rely on the purchase of small quantities. For instance, I recall that there was a controversy over the introduction of the ½p, and what might have seemed to more affluent people something not worth arguing about was indeed worth arguing about for the old-age pensioner and those on very small incomes, and we need to look at this question in a similar way.
I think on reflection the noble Lord will agree that in relation to these commodities the small quantities are so small that when we add 10 per cent. to the smallest quantity permitted by these orders it will not really make much practical effect from the point of view that he has expressed. So, although I share

1185
his thoughts that we ought to watch these things very carefully from that point of view, I do not think there is any real danger in this respect. I mentioned that we had consulted a great number of organisations about the effect of these orders. Included in those bodies were organisations, representative of consumers, which would have in mind the kind of point expressed by the noble Lord a moment ago. They have not raised the difficulty that he has raised, as I understand it, so I think the noble Lord can rest content that it is not considered that there is any great problem in this connection.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT 1963 (EDIBLE FATS) ORDER 1976
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Edible Fats) Order 1976, laid before the House on 5th February, be approved.—(Lord Oram.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PUBLIC EMPLOYEES AND CIVIC DUTIES
5.12 p.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL The Earl of KINNOULL rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether public corporations should be allowed to impose conditions of employment on their employees which could interfere with the responsibilities of those employees who are elected members of local authorities. The noble Earl said: My Lords, my Question has nothing to do with edible fats! Some years ago, I put down a Question on a similar general topic in the form of an Unstarred Question. When the Government came to reply by way of the formidable noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, he started by saying that he was tempted to say "no ", and sit down. I am glad to say he did not, and we had a most illuminating reply from him. Tonight, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, when he comes to reply on behalf of the Government, will give an equally illuminating answer to the Question on the Order Paper, because I believe this general issue is fundamental to our democracy; indeed,
1186
I believe that it is an issue which is as sincerely and as passionately felt as the issues in the Trade Union and Labour Relations Bill which we discussed earlier this week. It is an issue which has been drawn to my attention by the National Association of Local Councils. The issue is whether a public corporation should in any way influence an employee when he is democratically elected to represent his community—that is, whether the corporation should at all influence his duties as a council or, possibly in its own interests.
My Lords, the matter would fall into two parts. The first is whether this should be so, and the second can be expressed by the question, where does the employee stand when he is employed by a public corporation and when his council, on which he represents the members of his community, is in conflict with that corporation over some issue? The case to which I wish to draw attention tonight specifically highlights the general issue. It is a case which occurred some two months ago, although in fact it "blew up "three or four months before that. The case concerns a village called Kielder in Northumberland.
This village is somewhat unique, because it is situated in the midst of a forestry complex. It was originally designed and sited—and, indeed, is largely owned—by the Forestry Commission. Almost all those employed in the village are employed by the Forestry Commission. I may say that in mentioning this case I do not in any way intend to castigate the Forestry Commission over this issue. Indeed, the Chairman of the Commission is a distinguished Member of this House. I took the opportunity last week of giving him notice of this Question. I understand the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has been briefed to give an answer on this case.
My Lords, as I have said, Kielder is a unique village to some extent, but it is not exceptional. Most of the homes are owned by the Forestry Commission; I believe the figure is 90 per cent. The Forestry Commission employ some 80 per cent. of its working population, and therefore have a substantial influence on the community. Nevertheless, like all good villages, it has a democratic, active parish council. I believe that three-quarters of the members of the council are employees

1187
of the Forestry Commission. A conflict arose some months ago between the parish council and the Forestry Commission. I understand it was a disagreement concerning certain planning proposals which the Commission intended to introduce. It specifically involved what is known as "a sleeping policeman ", and a Commission road, but it was a road which was nevertheless used by the public and by the school transport to serve the village. I believe that it also involved the local village plan.
All these issues are of burning interest to the community of Kidder. I am told that the parish council initially tried to act as responsibly as it could. It tried to seek agreement with the Forestry Commission privately, to discuss the matter in as sensible a manner as was possible. But when this failed, the parish council eventually sought to solve the disagreement publicly. Not unnaturally, in this case, statements were made publicly criticising the policy of the Forestry Commission. It was at that stage, last January—two months ago—that the handling of this particular case became somewhat disturbing.
My Lords, I am told—and I hope the facts are correct, but perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, will put me right if they are not that the chairman of the parish council was summoned to a meeting at Newcastle, some 60 miles away, to discuss the contentious issue with the Commission's conservator and chief administrative officer. I presume that the chairman of the parish council went to the meeting as an employee, presumably to discuss his actions and, indeed, the actions of the parish council, as an elected representative of the people. I am not privy to the conversation that occurred on the 19th January 1976, nor have I deliberately spoken to the gentleman involved, because, frankly, I think it might embarrass him.
Two days later, on 21st January, the chairman of the parish council who had attended this meeting publicly put on record his letter of resignation as chairman. Perhaps I can briefly read a short synopsis of part of that letter:
" Following my interview on Monday, 19th January, 1976, the conditions imposed by the Commission make it no longer possible for me to carry out my duties as chairman or councilor in the manner expected by the
1188
electorate. Therefore, with great regret, I tender my resignation from the Kielder Parish Council with effect from the above date, and wish to thank all members of the council for their full and loyal co-operation."
There, apparently, we have a case of undue influence by a public corporation acting as an employer on its employee when the duties of that employee occurred when he was wearing his other hat as an elected member. Where do the loyalties lie in this matter? That is the nub of the general issue.
The repercussions of this case, before one briefly questions the general issue of the parish council of Kielder, are of great concern to the other members of the parish council, because not unnaturally they feel that, as a number of them are employees of the Forestry Commission, they are unable to discuss matters concerning the Commission at the present time. I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, can give us some satisfactory answer on this case tonight and can reassure us that the matter is being put right in some way.
My Lords, on the general issue, as I see it, the first question was whether it was right for an employer, the national corporation, to summon the employee 60 miles to discuss business which was his concern as an elected member of the council. Secondly, was it right for the employee, as chairman of the parish council, to be associated with a public disagreement over actions of a public corporation of which he was an employee? Thirdly, how many other cases are there of this nature? Is this perhaps the tip of the iceberg? Fourthly, is there a feeling that all members of elected councils who are employed by national corporations are automatically muzzled when it comes to any question of disagreement with some public policy that the national corporations have instigated, perhaps from the head office in London. concerning an issue miles away? What view do public corporations take of allowing their employees to attend meetings? Do they lose earnings? What rights are protected under, for instance, the Employment Protection Act, 1975? I hope the noble Lord will spell this out. My Lords. I have made a number of inquiries with various national corporations and I find there is a disparity between them—I will not mention specific cases—as to the generosity of treatment

1189
of employees. I would hope that there would be a basic standard which perhaps the noble Lord could explain.
On the general issue of conflict of interest, I have sought advice from a number of people on this issue. I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Colville will be speaking later, because I feel that with his legal expertise and wide knowledge he brings a very important view to this issue. I am looking forward to hearing what he says. I am told, briefly, that in the case of employment in a private company the issues are often more narrow as regards the employee of a company vis-à-vis his duty as an elected councillor. The issue is often more narrow and he often stands down, partly as a matter of loyalty, but also, and more seriously, because there could be a pecuniary interest.
But where an employee has some conflict of interest with a public corporation I believe the situation is very different. Take, for instance, a policy by the Post Office who decide that a branch office in a village is to be closed down. It could well be that the postman working that village, who has served the community loyally for many years, is also a councillor. Is he really to be muzzled? His knowledge is not private; it is public knowledge what the corporation wish to do. is he to be muzzled and thus rendered unable to help the community to fight the issue of the closure? The same thing might apply with the railways. You might have a stationmaster whose branch line is to be closed. Is he really to be muzzled? Is this really democracy? Is this really a split in one's loyalty, on a policy about which he has had no discussion and probably not knowing who made the decision? I hope this is the sort of issue to which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, may address his mind this evening, and that the particular issue of Kielder is a matter about which he will be able to reassure us. It is a matter, as I said at the beginning, which raises wide and not easy issues. It is a matter which many people feel, as in the case of Kielder, raises disturbing factors, about which I hope the noble Lord can reassure us tonight.
5.26 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, it seems to me that my noble friend Lord Kinnoull has asked most of
1190
the questions that could arise out of this case, but nevertheless I hope that I may be able usefully to add a few words to it before we hear what the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has to say. Among other things, I was impressed with the point my noble friend made, that there may well be other examples of this sort of thing having happened which did not, for some reason or other, come to the attention of a Member of this House or of another place, and where there is still time to do something about it. I very much welcome, therefore, my noble friend having broadened this question out a little, so that we can look at the more general principles which underlie what has happened. Equally, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, in a moment, will make a speech which is applicable as well to the Forestry Commission as to any other of the large public bodies with whom I think we are primarily concerned this evening.
My Lords, some Members of this House, perhaps particularly the people who have been involved in local government, might think that the easy answer to a situation of this sort is that a member of a council who is also an employee of a large public corporation should seek to keep out of any discussion which involves that large public corporation, because of a clash of interests. As my noble friend has just suggested, in the case of some private organisations it may be that he has to do so, because of the possibility of having a financial interest to declare. But, unfortunately, this case itself shows that that is not the simple or the satisfactory answer. In the first place, as my noble friend has said, if that were to be applied in the case of the parish council at Kidder, there would be virtually no parish council left to discuss the issues so far as the Forestry Commission are concerned, because most of them are in the same position as the chairman, being employees of the Forestry Commission. Therefore, that would not be satisfactory.
The second thing that occurs to me is that to create such a general rule would be a pity, because it would deprive that council of the intimate knowledge of the facts and the policy of the public body concerned which would be available to the council through that very employee who was concerned with the day-to-

1191
day activities of it. In the same way I rather regret the Addison Rules in this House, whereby distinguished chairmen of all sorts of public bodies—who probably know far more about them than any of us—are disallowed, as a rule, or at any rate disallow themselves, from giving us their intimate knowledge of the things we are talking about. So it seems to me that that is not the answer.
I can perhaps go a little further than my noble friend, because I know of cases where precisely the opposite of what happened at Kielder has come to pass. I do not want to go into the details, but it will not be only parish councils which are concerned with this sort of thing. There are areas of the country where, for one reason or another, it is likely that a large number of members of a council may be concerned with the basic industry of the area. I have only to cast my mind to West Yorkshire to think at once of areas where members of the council are very strongly linked to the National Coal Board, because many of them are miners who are concerned with it. I hasten to say that this is in no way a criticism of any of them, but simply an illustration of what happens.
A district council may be involved in this way. It would, I think, be preposterous for anybody to suggest that the councillors on a district council—which is a planning authority and has many other important functions—should not be allowed to discuss things like the progress of the coal mining industry. They are not in any way so disallowed. The Coal Board does not take the sort of attitude that has occurred in this case with the Forestry Commission and, I would suggest, for extremely good reasons. After all, the geographical position of employment has important byproducts in the form of the proper use of the infrastructure of an area, the social effects on those who live there, the possibility of the basic employment being taken away, and hardship and other disadvantages arising as a result of that. On occasions like this it is not only necessary but essential that councillors should be able to discuss the broad implications in their official capacity and should be able to negotiate with a body such as, if you like, the National Coal Board, and should take part in any public disputes about the way that plans are to be drawn
1192
up and implemented. And they do, because I have been there when they have done it. So far as I know, nothing amiss has ever come to those councillors who have sent their officers off (after taking the decision themselves) to state the case at whatever the forum may be.
The only thing that seems to me to be necessary—I hope that it is this simple—is for the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, to say that that is the sort of attitude that public corporations ought to take. I appreciate that when one says this one has to bear in mind that it will no doubt be the duty of the employee of the public corporation to phrase his criticism, or his approbation, of what his employer is doing—that is to say, when he is talking about this sort of thing as a councillor—in a sensible, tactful and restrained way. He must be careful, and I should think that the employers equally would like to be careful before they were to impugn what has been said by a councillor merely because he happens to be one of their employees and is mixed up with the matter under discussion.
I am sure that both parties in this kind of affair would be well advised to be careful in what they said and how they said it. But once that standard of conduct has been reached, it seems to me that it would be only right for the Government to do what I know is done on many occasions (as I have just explained by one example); that is, to underline the fact that, normally speaking, the Government would not wish to see public corporations censuring, or putting into positions of impossible difficulty, employees of that corporation who were acting properly in accordance with their duty as an elected member of any local authority of whatever size. These are said to be burning issues in Kielder. These things usually are burning issues at whatever elevation you are in the local government world, however big or small the council you may be on, and I would hope that there will be no bar on these things being discussed freely and openly, if tactfully and carefully, by all those elected to do so.
5.33 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the last words of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, "tactfully and carefully "have a great bearing on the particular case with which we will be concerned. The noble Earl has raised in his

1193
Question the general issue, and I should like to deal with that first. The general issue raised is about the conditions of service which public corporations may lay down for their employees. He is rightly concerned that people who perform public duties, and give service to their local community as elected members of local authorities, should not unreasonably be prevented by their conditions of employment from performing these valuable functions. On the other hand, I think the House will appreciate that an individual also has certain obligations to his employer. Occasionally the interests of his employer, and the nature or requirements of his public duties, may come into conflict.
In the Government's view, public corporations should not be in a different position from other industry in this matter. They should be free to lay down such conditions of employment as they consider appropriate, subject of course to their carrying out proper negotiations with unions representing their employees about terms and conditions of employment. As noble Lords will recognise, there are some occupations, or particular jobs—especially those involving professional and managerial employees with considerable responsibilities—where there could be an overlap of interests between the requirements of the job and the requirements of duties as a local councillor. Where the employee concerned is a public servant, this overlap can be particularly difficult. We have to bear in mind how the relationship between an individual's employment as a public servant, and his voluntary public duties, may appear to the public. If public servants are to retain the confidence of the public, they must be seen to be above suspicion, and not be put in situations where their integrity might be questioned.
This is recognised in, for example, the Civil Service Code on pay and conditions of service. Civil servants are classed into three groups—broadly, those who are free to take part in national and local political activities, subject of course to moderation and discretion—and I should like to repeat "subject to moderation and discretion "because it has a very important bearing in this particular case. Secondly, there are those who may take part in such political activities subject to certain conditions; and, thirdly, those who may not take part in national politi-
1194
cal activities but may seek permission to take part in local political activities. I may say that the chairman of the parish council in question comes in the first category; that is to say, he could take part in local politics subject of course to moderation and discretion. It is one of the distinctive features of our Civil Service that civil servants do not mix politics with business. That is a restriction which civil servants accept when they accept employment in the public service.
Parliament in fact recognised this principle in legislation only a few months ago. The Employment Protection Act 1975 places an obligation on employers to allow their employees reasonable time off work for the performance of certain public duties, including duties as a local authority member. But we recognised in the legislation that, although people in Crown employment should not have unreasonable restrictions in terms of time off work placed upon their participation in public duties, it is right that their conditions of employment restrict the nature of the duties which they could undertake. Section 121 of the Act provides that the obligations on an employer to allow time off for certain public duties does not extend to allowing time off for certain political activities, or activities which may conflict with an employee's official functions, if it is part of his terms of employment that his right to take part in such activities is restricted. In other words, the Act takes note of the Civil Service code of conduct and says that the employee cannot have time off to do things which he is forbidden to do by the code. That is the general principle underlying conditions of employment for public servants.
I now come to the case mentioned by the noble Earl relating to the Kielder parish council. I think it would assist your Lordships if I described briefly the special relationship that exists between the Kielder parish council and the Forestry Commission. The Forestry Commission have a very large area of forest in the North Tyne Valley and have established a forest village at Kielder, which is for the most part occupied by their employees. Indeed, those employees, together with their families, form about two-thirds of the people living within the area of the parish council. It is not unreasonable therefore to expect their interests to be strongly represented in the

1195
council. Three of the six parish council members are at present Commission employees.
Given this background, I am sure that your Lordships will recognise that a special relationship between the Forestry Commission and their employees serving on the council is desirable in order to avoid as far as possible any conflict between those employees' private interests and their employment as Government servants. The Forestry Commission, like other public bodies, places no restrictions on their employees participating in parish council affairs. Indeed, it welcomes and facilitates such participation by allowing time off with pay when this is required, thus going beyond the obligations imposed by the Employment Protection Act. However, it naturally expects that any servant of the Crown should try to conform to the general principle of conduct applied in the Civil Service Code, which requires him to avoid conflict between his official duties and his private interests.
The recent resignation of the chairman of the Kielder Parish Council arose, it has been said, because conditions were imposed upon him by the Forestry Commission as his employer. I am sorry if the employee in question felt that the discussions he had had with the Commission's local conservator of forests made it necessary for him to tender his resignation from the parish council on these grounds. The council has assured me that these discussions were in no way intended to interfere with parish council affairs, nor to bring any pressure to bear on him. Rather, the intention was to try to secure better relationships and balance between his official duties and private interests.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I think the noble Lord referred to the council. Did he mean the council or the Commission?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the Commission have assured me that these discussions were in no way intended to interfere with parish council affairs, nor to bring any pressure to bear on him.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord.
Lord JACQUES: Rather, the intention was, my Lords, to try to secure better relationships and balance between official duties and private interests. It was with regret that the Commission heard of the chairman's resignation. They felt that it is perfectly possible for an employee to combine the obligations he owes to his employer with the services he offers to local government. I have read the papers relating to this particular case and I would advise the House, having read those papers, that I have firmly come to the opinion that the Forestry Commission are the piggy in between two pressure groups both consisting of employees, The roads in question are private roads, which belong to the Commission, and at the request of the local management the Commission took steps which would cause vehicles to slow down and drive less recklessly. That was done at the request of the local management.
Shortly afterwards, the employee representatives on the consultative committee of the council pressed the Commission to go a little further—in other words, to make the humps rather bigger humps so that the speed would be more drastically reduced—and, as a result of that pressure and some monitoring of speeds, the Commission went a little further on the understanding that it was for a trial period of six months. Later, another pressure group of employees in the parish council took the opposite view; they did not want the more extreme measures which had been insisted on by the employees' consultative committee. Thus, we had the two pressure groups competing to get their way with the Commission. I might add that some of the more extreme measures that were taken have already been undone, so, at least in part, the wishes of the parish council have been met.
Finally, I can tell the House that a meeting of Kielder Parish Council is being held today at which the conservator of forests will be present. I hope that the outcome will be a better understanding of the problems which affect the local affairs of this remote community and that the meeting will lead to closer harmony of the interests of the parties. However, I assure the House that on my reading of it, this is a case of pressure groups of employees operating in different ways on the Commission. I am sorry for the Commission.