Lords Sitting of 11 May 1976

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: THE LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Norwich.
The Earl De La Warr—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS RESTRICTION
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what conclusions were reached at the conference of the seven nuclear exporting countries on the restriction of nuclear weapons in other countries.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, I assume that the noble Lord is referring to the meetings last year between officials of certain countries to discuss common problems in the field of nuclear energy. By agreement these discussions were confidential. Individual Governments were, however, free to state their own policies publicly. A detailed account of Her Majesty's Governments' policy on nuclear exports was given in another place by my right honourable friend the then Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, now Prime Minister, on 31st March.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I appreciate the need for confidentiality in order to get certain Governments co-operating. Nevertheless, can the noble Lord say whether the reports which have leaked to the Press are accurate in suggesting that the only decisions were to ask countries receiving nuclear weapons not to use them for war purposes? Is it not now desirable that we should accept the proposals of outlawing nuclear
846
weapons altogether and having international inspection to ensure that that rule is observed?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I cannot comment on Press reports, especially on this delicate subject. With regard to the safeguards to which my noble friend referred, certainly the whole purpose of these discussions is to strengthen and apply safeguards for the proper use of nuclear technology. So far as the question of outlawing the use of nuclear weapons is concerned, certainly this country—and I imagine most countries would agree to that if there were proper procedures of verification and inspection.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, is it not the case that recently Mr. Gromyko, after his vist to this country, accepted international supervision and verification, and has that not been actually confirmed in negotiations on peaceful nuclear explosions held in Moscow between the United States and the Soviet Union?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, if that is so, it makes this very difficult and vital subject that much more susceptible to universal solution. We are always ready to consider with the representatives of the USSR and other countries proper and full methods of verification of disarmament.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, can the noble Lord say how many of the other six countries have made statements of their policies to their respective Parliaments, or elsewhere in their own countries? Is the noble Lord aware of what has been said, and, if so, can he tell the House?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS, My Lords, I am officially aware only of what the present Prime Minister, as Foreign Secretary, said on 31st March with regard to our policy. This is the procedure agreed with the other participants in these meetings, whatever the number may be. I believe that three, possibly four, others have taken the same course and have publicly stated the guidelines which they are using in this matter. Obviously at the right time we shall be exchanging with each other full information on our national policies.

LAW OF THE SEA CONFERENCE: LANDLOCKED STATES
2.40 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what reply had been made at the Law of the Sea Conference to the letter from 49 landlocked and geographically disadvantaged States asking that their legitimate rights and interests should be considered.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the conference has devoted a great deal of time considering the claims of States which are landlocked and States which claim the status of being geographically disadvantaged. The issue has been discussed both in the conference's second Committee, and in a series of meetings called specifically for the purpose by Mr. Evensen, the leader of the Norwegian delegation.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I welcome that Answer, but is it not a fact that the landlocked nations, which now constitute a third of the world, have asked that they shall share in the revenues and in the organs of international authority which are proposed, in order to express the view that the oceans are the heritage of all mankind? Did the British delegation give support to the landlocked countries emerging there?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, that question is one of a number for which this conference was convened. The conference has met for the fourth time, and I understand that it will meet for a fifth session between 2nd August and mid-September. The question of how best to deal with geographically disadvantaged countries under the new Law of the Sea will, I have no doubt, both in committee and in plenary session, be increasingly discussed. I think that it will be within the recollection of this House, and of the other House, that the British contribution to this important conference has already been very substantial, and I have no doubt that it will continue to be so in the next session of the conference.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that the situation as it will develop in the next round will be critical in view of the fact that the American Secretary of State, Mr. Kissinger, has announced that he will be leading the delegation himself and that if there is no effective outcome of the conference the United States will go it alone?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am very glad to join my noble friend, who has considerable expertise in this matter, in stressing once more the urgency of this question. It is of the utmost importance that there should be an acceptable convention ruling the seas and coastal waters as a result of this conference, and at the New York meetings in August-September we shall certainly be pressing for an early and generally acceptable decision. I entirely agree with the point my noble friend has made.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that the first duty of Her Majesty's Government is to look after our own people? Can he say when there will be some arrangement whereby we can protect the fishermen, especially of the South-West, from the Russian fishing fleets "hoovering" the bed of the English Channel?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, indeed, my Lords, it is the duty of the Government—of any Government—properly to protect the interests of their nationals and their national economy. The best way to do it in this context, certainly, is to work hard for a generally accepted new law of the sea.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, will my noble friend explain in simple terms what my noble friend who put down the Question really means in regard to "landlocked nations"? We would be most interested to know what is behind the description "landlocked nations".
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am tempted to say, "So would I". However, my noble friend Lord Brockway, whose performance at Question time evokes the admiration of us all, contrives to pack into the most innocent supplementary question a veritable

849
treatise on international affairs, so I would ask the House to forgive me if I do not rise to the bait dangled before me by my equally noble friend Lord Slater and do not answer his question.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, my noble friend has spoken of the need for a quick solution. Can he draw aside the veil from one corner of British policy by telling us who he thinks is holding it up, or who is most guilty of holding it up at the moment?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: No, my Lords.

LAW OF THE SEA CONFERENCE: NEW YORK SESSION
2.46 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a Statement on the results of the New York session of the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the conference held intensive negotiations on the basis of the Single Negotiating Text. At the conclusion of the New York session a revised Single Negotiating Text was presented by the conference president and the chairmen of the three main committees, taking account of the views expressed at the session. I am taking steps to make a copy available in the Library of the House. It was agreed that the conference would resume in New York on 2nd August.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. While it seems that some progress has been made at the recent session, it appears that nothing has yet been enshrined in formal agreements. Does the noble Lord agree that the question of economic zones is one of the greatest urgency for the British fishing fleet? Will the Government give an assessment of the situation in the debate
850
next week which the Opposition are providing in order to discuss all the subjects negotiated by this conference?
Lord GORON WY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords; in the debate next week we shall do our best to meet the wishes of the House and, certainly, of the noble Lord. As to the status and achievement of the fourth session, as I would call it, in New York, it was progressive rather than decisionary. Notionally, at least, and certainly hopefully, the fifth session in August-September of this year might be decisionary—although I would not hold out too many hopes on that score— so that, as we have said, we could move some time next year to a final meeting at which signatures will be possible.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that some of us are unable to deal with these complicated questions by these exchanges? Would he arrange for a debate in the House upon this very important issue?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, it is always open to my noble friend or anybody else to have a talk with my noble friend the Leader of the House on the possibility of a debate. I am bound to say that my noble friend's complaint that he is unable to deal with complicated matters at Question Time is fully shared by me.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that there is to be a debate next week, Wednesday, May 19th, and that the Motion on the United Nations Law of the Sea Conference appears on the Minutes of Proceedings today?

DISABLED PEOPLE AND PUBLIC BUILDINGS
2.49 p.m.
Lord CHELWOOD: 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 advice is now given to authorities responsible for designing new public buildings or modernising existing ones

851
about providing easy access for disabled people; what powers the Secretary of State can and does exercise if this advice is not followed; to what extent the new National Theatre fails in this respect and what modifications are to be made, and when and whether the facilities of the whole South Bank complex can now be reviewed and, where possible, improved as regards nearby parking and aids such as ramps, low kerbs and handrails to enable disabled people, whether in wheelchairs or not, to have easier access to these buildings including refreshment rooms and cloakrooms.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, local authorities have been advised of their statutory obligations and have been asked to remind private developers of theirs. My right honourable friend has no coercive powers. The National Theatre facilities are generally good, but improvements have been made and the South Bank Theatre Board are considering more.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, I confess that I find that reply very disappointing. May I ask the noble Baroness whether she is aware that, despite the excellent guidelines issued by the Government and despite Section 4 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, there are many examples of buildings which do not come up to standard where provision for the disabled is concerned, and that the National Theatre is definitely one of them? Secondly, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she is aware that there is often, even where provisions have been made, a breakdown in communications, as a result of which when disabled people make inquiries of staff inside or outside public buildings or premises they are quite unable to find out what provisions have been made for them? That is very disheartening.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, so far as the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question is concerned, I should be grateful if he would let me have details of any particular building where he is aware that they are falling below these
852
standards. On the second part —the question of information by staff to disabled visitors—this is a matter for the management concerned; but it would be extremely beneficial to everybody if visitors to a building so informed the management. If the noble Lord has any particular building or theatre in mind, I will do what I can about it.
Lord COTTESLOE: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware—my noble friend Lord Donaldson will be—that, so far as the new National Theatre building is concerned, the two main theatres, only one of which has yet been opened, provide better facilities for the disabled than almost any other theatre in the country?—as should be the case.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, would the Minister bear in mind that there is a great possibility of helping a considerable number of people by the Government bringing their influence to bear on sports authorities to ensure that, when rebuilding or remodelling of sports grounds takes place, facilities are made available for disabled people? Would she consider the possibility of inviting the attention of the Chairman of the Royal Commission on Gambling—which is considering how to raise more money for sporting activities —to the desirability of considering this concept, which would mean that with little cost a great number of people could be helped?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I shall certainly pass on the points made by noble friend to my honourable friend the Minister for Sport who I am sure will take this into account. From the point of view of the Department—in my case, the Department's buildings which come under my care—I have already initiated discussion and investigation on how to improve facilities and access.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness whether she thinks that the time has come to make mandatory Section 4 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, this is a matter for the Government generally and it involves Departments other than my own. It is something that I think

853
we should all support in spirit and intention; but, even if it is put into the Act, it is a case of it being practicable and of people carrying it out. I think that the circular which went to the local authorities with the 1970 Act made a tremendous start. Those authorities and private developers which have been able to undertake it have made a tremendous difference. But unless people are prepared to carry it out—and it is also unfortunately a question of resources there does not seem to be much point in making it mandatory.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, may I, in full support of my noble friend's Question, ask whether the noble Baroness agrees that it is quite deplorable that we have to go on asking for action without getting wholehearted support? Would it not be a good idea if the names of those local authorities who follow the guidelines were published as an example to those who do not? Would she agree that we must take some action to ensure that the requirements outlined by my noble friend are put into operation as soon as possible?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, a great many of the requirements have been carried into operation. As the noble Lord opposite pointed out, the facilities in the National Theatre are generally extremely good. In existing buildings and, too, as more buildings are put up, more facilities are being introduced and people are becoming more conscious of this. Of course, everything is not happening as it should overnight. Many of us would like to see it all going ahead much faster; but to imply that this is not being understood by Government Departments or being undertaken by most local authorities would he quite wrong.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, what does the Minister mean when she said that there is no point in making it mandatory unless you know it can be done? Surely the Government know it can be done. Ought it not to be an absolute condition of granting planning permission that every possible effort be made to comply with the law and the guidelines laid down by the Government?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, so far as planning permission is concerned, this is
854
to do with the Land Act. This matter does not fall within that Act. I was saying that it would not be practicable to make something mandatory that cannot be carried out. One cannot on the one hand —and we discussed this in the debate last week—cut down the expenditure of the local authorities and, at the same time, keep on adding other responsibilities to them. One must take a balance, however strong one feels about it. That is all I am saying.
Lord CHELWOOD: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that some of us think that she has the balance absolutely wrong?
Viscount INGLEBY: My Lords, would it not be helpful if the local authorities could be asked to compile a list of buildings which have been made accessible since the 1970 Act, together with a list of buildings which are still not accessible, and that this list should be publicised locally?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, there is a directory, the distribution of which in the London area I have supported. We are encouraging this idea. I will inquire how far this has gone in other parts of the country and will write to the noble Lord.

Mr. G. J. DAVIS: ROYAL PREROGATIVE
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich will be repeating a Statement on the Royal Prerogative of mercy and the remission of sentences.
AUSTRALIAN AGRICULTURAL COMPANY AND SUBSIDIARY OMPANIES BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

CROFTING REFORM (SCOTLAND) BILL
2.58 p.m.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to

855
acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Crofting Reform (Scotland) Bill, has consented to place Her Prerogative and interest so far as they are affected by the Bill at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—[Lord Kirkhill.]
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, there is at least one point on which we had expected there would be a Government Amendment before us today, since this is the last opportunity for Amendments to be made. This is on the particular point of forestry. I presume that the Government have decided as a result of our previous discussions at an earlier stage that it is not necessary for the Bill to have an addition made to it. Therefore, I am now seeking assurance at this stage from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, so that he can make clear what the position is and say whether it is the fact that such an Amendment is not necessary.
It is important that this should be done because if forestry is not mentioned in the Bill and no provision is made for it—which is as the Bill stands at present—the Land Court in Scotland might well consider that they had no mandate to take forestry into account. There are only a few crofts with timber of value which might be involved. But this point, none the less, should not be ignored and the Government have accepted that. If it were to be ignored, it could mean that a transaction would be wholly distorted because a valuable asset was not taken into account. For example, the asset of forestry could in certain cases be more valuable than the whole of the rest of the croft put together which was the subject of the transaction. Alternatively, timber might have to be felled when it was immature, and this of course would be against the national interest.
The Bill has as its main principle a system whereby transactions take place if possible by agreement between the landowner concerned and the crofter.
856
Having been the Secretary of State who announced and introduced this principle—and, indeed, took the Second Reading of a Bill in another place just before an Election—I am well aware that the Government have reintroduced exactly the same principle and almost the same Bill. Therefore I accept that the absence of a mention of forestry is something which my own Government at the time would also have had to consider and take into account during the course of the subsequent debates.
The situation which we have to consider is when agreement is not reached between the crofter and the landowner, because then the Land Court has to adjudicate. It must be made clear that they will have a mandate to take into account forestry and not simply the other assets of a croft. The timber may belong to the landlord or it may belong to the crofter. It is perfectly clear from its history of planting to whom it belongs. That value should be taken into account during the Land Court's consideration of each case. The Minister has written to me about this. I understand from his letter that the situation is covered by the Bill, but this should be made public and should be on the record not only for the guidance of the Land Court but also for others who have been involved with this Bill and the future of the crofting system.
May I also take this opportunity of thanking the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for the way in which he has dealt with many points, largely technical, on a subject which affects only one part of the country and the way in which he has taken a great deal of trouble in dealing with everything which has been raised on both sides of the House.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, in the absence of the Leader of the House, may I direct a question to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor who is sitting on the Woolsack. When a Bill comes up for Third Reading, is the form of procedure that we can only ask questions on the Bill as it is before the House and no other matter may be raised?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, in answer to my

857
noble friend, may I say that it is perfectly in order to have a general discussion on any matter at this stage of the Bill.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, I cannot let this Bill pass without saying that those of us in your Lordships' House who have taken an interest in crofting and the way of life of crofters hope that the result of this Bill will enrich the life of crofters and bring them greater prosperity. I should like to reinforce the words spoken by my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy and say that although we have differed with the Minister, we thank him for his courtesy within the House and the trouble he has taken outside it. I am sure that we have the common wish that this Bill will improve the lot of crofters in the future.
3.4 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I am glad to be able to confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has said about the valuation of timber on croft land. This is a minor problem which the Government recognise may nevertheless have significance in a small number of cases. I made it clear, however, at Report stage that croft land with timber on it cannot become part of a croft without the specific agreement of the landlord. The question of timber is not therefore a point which, in the Government's view, calls for a specific provision in the Bill, because the problem is accepted as being a minor one and because adequate 'means 'of dealing with it are available to prevent any possibility of injustice to those few landlords who may be affected. As the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has indicated, the landlord's safeguard lies in his right to make a submission to the Land Court, and I have the fullest confidence that landlords will continue to receive justice in accordance with the very high tradition which the Court maintains.
My Lords, before we end the consideration of this Bill in your Lordships' House, I should like to express my appreciation of the contribution that your Lordships have made. We have had some useful and well-informed debates which have focused attention on subjects of primary concern to noble Lords as proprietors of crofting estates but, at the same time, have reflected their general feeling for the interests of crofters and the rights of the individual.
858
I should like especially to thank publicly the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for his constructive help to me at all times and for his consideration to me as Minister as I sought to guide the Bill through your Lordships' House. I should also like to thank publicly the noble Lords, Lord Balfour of Inchrye and Lord Burton, for their acuity and diligence in going through the fine print of the Bill and formulating Amendments on a wide range of important issues. At the same time I think I have been able to reciprocate by clearing up one or two misconceptions about crofting law.
My Lords, as I said on Second Reading, the objectives of the Bill are to remove the constraints on crofting development and give proper recognition to the crofter's interest in his land by conferring on him acquisition rights in relation to his house site and his croft land, as well as a right to share in the value of any of his land taken for development; and by these measures to bring flexibility into the use of the crofter's most precious asset, his land. In the constructive debates which we have had—and I have already confirmed that in my view they were constructive—on many different aspects of the Bill, we have made a number of Amendments which I feel have resulted in a better Bill. I am confident therefore that it has the support of the whole House as we refer it back to another place.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, may I, with the leave of the House, put a slight gloss on what I said a moment or two ago. I was slightly taken by surprise by my noble friend. Where I said it was perfectly proper to discuss any matter, may I say "any matter arising out of the Bill in front of us".
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I am bound to say that I am confused by this rather strange procedure. As a matter of clarification, do we understand from what my noble friend has said that on Third Reading one can introduce new matter, matter that has not been considered on Second Reading or during Committee stage?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, we all know that

859
my noble friend is capable of introducing new matter under any guise, and we will never discover it. In fact this would not be proper on Third Reading. It is what is relevant and what has been discussed during the passage of the Bill.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord Slater, and others who have raised this matter, and have been interested in pursuing it, it is clear that the matter which I raised has been discussed at various stages of the Bill. The question I was asking concerned the interpretation of the Bill as it is now before the House.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

FRESHWATER AND SALMON FISHERIES (SCOTLAND) BILL
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Freshwater and Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Bill, has consented to place Her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament, for the purposes of the Bill.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

PUBLIC LENDING RIGHT BILL [H.L.]
3.10 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Establishment of public lending right]:
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge)The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 5, leave out from beginning to first ("right") in line 6 and insert ("In accordance with a scheme to be prepared and brought into force by the Secretary of State, there shall be conferred on authors a").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is sometimes necessary to hold informal consultations, and I must apologise for the fact that these overlapped the beginning of the passage of the Bill. I beg to move Amendment No. 1, but it may be convenient to deal with Amendments Nos. 1 and 3 together. They concern subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 1 and also affect the Amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. At Committee stage I was unable to accept the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, which would have involved an inaccurate description of the Bill.
As I explained, the Act itself does not confer the right on authors. This right is contingent upon registration of individual books in accordance with the scheme in Clause 1(7) and Clause 1(1), which states that the purpose of the Bill must reflect this. I promised to look again at the wording, and I hope that my Amendments will be acceptable to your Lordships. The first Amendment substitutes for the words to which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, objected, the sentence:
"In accordance with a scheme to be prepared and brought into force by the Secretary of State, there shall be conferred on authors a…".
I beg to move.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for introducing this Amendment, which meets us on this side in a number of respects. I, in turn, should like to apologise for the untimeliness of our unofficial consultations at the beginning of this exchange. Taken with Amendment No. 3, this seems also to deal with the question of syntax, which both of us felt should be dealt with. Therefore I shall not move my Amendment, No. 2. We are grateful to the Government for meeting us on this point.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.13 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 13, leave out from ("with") to end of line 16 and insert (" the scheme; and in preparing the scheme the Secretary of State shall consult with representatives of authors and library authorities and of others who appear to him to be likely to be affected by it.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment. It is partly

861
consequential on the first Amendment and partly goes to meet the desire of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, that the words "others for consultation" should be included. At Committee stage, we agreed that "others" was much too wide, that one could not saddle the Secretary of State with consulting others, and that I should try to find a phrase which limited it to his satisfaction. The phrase now is:
"… others who appear to him to be likely to be affected by it."
I hope this will be satisfactory and I beg to move.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I think it is proper for me at this stage to draw the attention of the noble Lord to Amendment No. 4, which proposes an amendment to No. 3. Perhaps I could speak to them together. It appears to me that the Secretary of State will be the sole judge of who is likely to be affected by this clause and it is therefore open to him, however grave an omission from his list of those whom he has consulted, merely to say that this person, this institution or these people and so on, do not appear to him to be likely to be affected by the scheme. That is a defence which cannot be broached in any way, and I should like at least some comment from the noble Lord on this interpretation. I take it that there is a precedent for dressing up the Minister in this armour, which seems to us a little thick. Perhaps the noble Lord could use this opportunity to explain his reasons.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, there are many precedents for not landing the Secretary of State with an open-ended obligation, which this would represent as it stands now. The obligation is to consult,
"those representing authors, local library authorities and others."
This would be open-ended, and I do not think anyone could accept it on behalf of their Secretary of State. Certainly, I cannot. I said I would look again at the wording. My Amendment seems to make perfectly clear the obligation to consult representatives of authors and local library authorities. I can give your Lordships a clear assurance that it is the intention of the Secretary of State to act reasonably and in good faith towards the others. But it must be for
862
the Government, I submit, to judge what other interests are likely to be affected.
The noble Lord has tabled this Amendment, but I hope very much that he will not press it. The position is that unless one allows the Secretary of State to judge who is interested the world is available, and somebody could come forward to challenge what is done on the grounds that he was not consulted and, by Statute, was obliged to be. It would be an impossible position. I think we have gone a long way towards meeting what was in the minds of the noble Lord and the noble Viscount, and I hope they will be able to accept this Amendment.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that reply to what was in effect a question, I should like to say that we are grateful to him for the extent to which the Government have met us on this point. I am sorry that, because of indisposition, my noble friend Lord Eccles cannot himself be here to say as much. In view of this, and also of the fact that we are not in this case a Chamber of revision, I do not think it is necessary to pursue this point, and I am happy to concur with the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 23, leave out ("person") and insert ("persons").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Government accept the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Ironside, at Committee stage that, in the interests of drafting consistency with Clause 4(3), the word "persons" should be substituted for "person" in Clause 1(4). I hope this will satisfy the noble Lord's desirable wish for consistency, and I beg to move.
Lord IRONSIDE: My Lords, I would not quarrel with the wording the noble Lord has now introduced. In fact, I am very glad to see that he has used the plural because this indicates to everyone that the Government are thinking, even at this stage, in terms of multiple authors, joint authors and so on. However, I should like to ask him why he feels that the words "if any" after "persons" should be left out, because so far as I can see the Registrar may have a book on the register

863
and the holder of the public lending right may die or transfer it, and it may not be possible for the Registrar to find out for some time who the new owner is. Therefore, it seems a pity that the book should be left off the register just because the owner of the right cannot be located or established.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, the noble Lord is very persistent, and I have reached this position with my advisers. It would not be logically wrong to include the words "if any" on their first appearance, which was in Clause 1(4), but it is entirely unnecessary and therefore better not to do so. Of course, the words "if any" remain in Clause 4(3). I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied with that advice.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 17, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 7 and 11 with this Amendment. They are amendments to Clause 1(7) and Clause 4(4). The noble Lord, Lord Ironside, proposed at the Committee stage that authors or title holders should be allowed at their own wish to have an entry deleted from the register, and I promised to suggest how this should be done. The Amendments I now put forward to Clause 1(7) will, I think, meet the noble Lord's main object of enabling authors or title holders to renounce their claim, for whatever reason, and, if necessary, to take it up again at a later date, should they so wish. The amendment to Clause 4(4) will enable the name of the author or title holder to be deleted either temporarily or for all time. I think that this meets the noble Lord's suggestion which we thought very helpful. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord IRONSIDE: My Lords, I think that the Government's wording is admirable, and it is expressed in a very much better way than I could express it myself. I should just like to ask the noble Lord whether by the words "for all time" he means eternity, or for all time that the lending right exists.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, "for all time" has a perfectly specific meaning, which is for eternity. If we meant less than that we should doubtless have said so.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 19, at end insert ("and
(d) to be renounced (either in whole or in part, and either temporarily or for all time) on notice being given to the Registrar to that effect.")
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.22 p.m.
Lord WILLIS Lord WILLIS moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 2, line 19, at end insert (" and
(d) to be exercisable only by persons who—

(i) are citizens of the United Kingdom; or

(ii) have been ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom for such period as may be prescribed; or

(iii) are citizens of such other country as may be prescribed on the ground that such country affords substantial reciprocity of treatment to authors who are citizens of the United Kingdom.")

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a subject which we discussed at considerable length earlier. It concerns the question whether the limited funds available for public lending right should be made available to overseas authors, and under the Bill as it stands they are, in fact, made available to them. The point that was made very strongly in our debate in Committee was that, for example, the very big and popular American authors, who have many books in our libraries, could cream off a considerable amount of these limited funds, and there is no reciprocal public lending right in America, and is not likely to be for some time. If you add to the American writers a number of other famous international authors, your Lordships will see that it is quite possible that a large proportion of the money could go to overseas authors, while our books could be lent by their libraries without any reciprocal payment.
I made the point very strongly in Committee that this is not xenophobia on my part. I speak as a previous president of the International Writers' Guild, and I know that my fellow members of that

865
Guild would agree absolutely with the point that I have been making. I said that I would go back and see whether I could get an expert Opinion on this subject from a good copyright lawyer, and I have one which was provided for me by the Society of Authors and the Writers' Guild of Great Britain, from one of the most authoritative copyright lawyers in the country. I think it makes it quite clear that the Government are wrong when they say that on public lending right they cannot amend the Bill to exclude overseas authors, because they are bound by certain copyright Conventions.
I do not want to read the whole of this rather complicated legal Opinion to your Lordships, but if you will bear with me for a couple of minutes I should like to read the relevant sections which make a very powerful case. It states:
"The general principle of both Conventions "—
and they are the Berne Convention and the Universal Copyright Convention—
"is that in each contracting State the nationals of another contracting State shall enjoy the same exclusive rights in respect of their works as the nationals of that State."
That, I take it, is the position on which the Government stand; that they are bound by these Conventions and therefore cannot morally and honourably avoid paying overseas authors. The Opinion, however, goes on as follows:
"These are not, however, absolute and unqualified obligations. An important qualification is made in the case of more extensive rights than those granted by the Convention: such rights can be the subject of special agreements made between the contracting States. Thus it is provided by Article 20 of the Berne Convention that The Governments of the Countries of the Union ' "—
that is, the Copyright Union —
" 'reserve the right to enter into special agreements among themselves, in so far as such agreements grant to authors more extensive rights than those granted by the Convention, or contain other provisions ' "—
and so on. That is absolutely crystal clear. We are granting authors more extensive rights. Here in Article 20 of the Berne Convention is the perfect answer to those who say that we must pay overseas authors.
The Opinion then goes on to deal with the question of public lending right and its relationship to copyright:
"The Bill refers to an author's 'public lending right' by which is meant an entitlement to payments out of the central fund. The proposals
866
are plainly intended to confer financial benefits on authors. For the purposes of the Convention it would … be wrong to equate financial benefits conferred on authors by domestic legislation with the 'exclusive rights' of authors for the protection of their works referred to in the Conventions."
In other words, there are two separate things. There is the financial right that we gain from public lending right, and the other rights, the exclusive rights, which are laid down by the Conventions.
The Opinion goes on to say:
"… the right to receive the payment from the central fund is not an 'exclusive right' at all…no author will be entitled to prevent copies of his works from being lent out by public libraries … He will have no right to prevent anyone from lending out copies of his works 'gratis' or for gain. The exclusive rights referred to in the Convention are enforceable."
We cannot enforce public lending right, and so on. I should be very happy, of course, to let the Government have a copy of this most authoritative Opinion, but its conclusion is very simple and is as follows:
"In my opinion, the United Kingdom would not be in breach of its obligations under either the Berne Convention or the Universal Copyright Convention if the Public Lending Right Bill were amended so that the authors eligible to receive payment under the proposed scheme were restricted to (i) citizens of the United Kingdom and (ii) citizens of any other country where a similar scheme has been established".
That is, as I said, a most authoritative Opinion from a very well-known copy-right lawyer, and it is backed up by other opinion that we have been able to get. It seems to me to make the case crystal clear. In Committee, your Lordships had great sympathy with this point, and I think the feeling was that it would clearly be wrong to have these limited funds drained away by authors in countries with which there was no reciprocal agreement. Quite rightly, the Government said that they were bound by certain Conventions and that there was nothing they could do. Here is an Opinion which says that we can do something, and I hope that the Government will therefore listen with a very sympathetic ear to what we regard as a fundamental and important point. My Lords, I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for taking so much trouble and for offering me a copy of his expert Opinion. I have had enough to do with the law in my brief but eventful life to

867
know that it never pays to ask two lawyers the same question. Therefore, I must refuse the noble Lord's offer. Subject to that, this is a difficult situation. I do not dispute the potential facts, although none of them is quite as yet a fact because we do not know the figures. I do not dispute the reality of the worry that the noble Lord describes. With a very limited amount of money available, we do not want to see an enormous amount of it going to authors who are not resident in this country and who are not part of our cultural heritage. Of course, there is a limitation in the intention (which does not appear in the Bill but which has been referred to several times by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, on this point) that the scheme will have a maximum so that, to use the current phrase, the best seller will not scoop the pool. This is a defence.
However, to look seriously at this matter, both of us have consulted further and I am afraid I have to accept the fact and say that the difference between us has not been resolved. Even though the legal position may be arguable—legal positions very often are—nevertheless I believe that we have to oppose my noble friend's Amendment. If we accepted it I think we should run a real risk of appearing to evade the spirit of the Berne and the Universal Copyright Conventions. We should be standing on a technical legal point, whereas the broad impression that we should be giving would be one of ill-will and wrong behaviour. Her Majesty's Government do not believe that even if the noble Lord's legal point could be established over my advice, this would be the right course to take.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord could elucidate his position. I would not stick out my neck on the legal point but on the ethical point it seems to me that the position is reasonably clear. The general Conventions regarding copyright rest essentially upon the assumption of reciprocity. No reciprocity is proposed in this case. Therefore, it seems to me to fall into a different category.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, the details of the Berne and the Universal Copyright Conventions involve reciprocity but they
868
have a wider implication, which has always been understood, where reciprocity does not cone into it. My own view—I have said this before and I think the noble Lord, Lord Digby, and the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, have said so also —is that in this case the right thing to do is to go for reciprocity. I hope that we shall get it in due course, but to legislate for reciprocity over people where we have no power whatever to make them either start a public lending right or give it to us if they do is not something which it is possible to do in a Bill of this kind.
I am influenced by the very firm opinion on the part not of the legal advisers but of the people who, in trade and diplomacy, are concerned with the nation's good name that this would be making a fundamental mistake. In the long run we cannot try to evade our obligations. We believe that there is an obligation. I have said so in public and I cannot now say that there is not. I do not believe that we can try to get out of that obligation in this way. Let us never forget that for a country as influential in this field as we are to do so could tend only to undermine the Conventions from which, on the whole, we gain enormously. As one of the main English speaking and reading nations, these Conventions redound very much to our benefit. On the basis of a disputed legal point I do not believe that my noble friend would really want to risk our good will internationally on such an important subject and I am sorry that I must ask the House to resist the Amendment.
Lord McNAIR: My Lords, may I support the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, in his resistance to this Amendment. It is a new version of the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Willis, brought forward at the Committee stage. Clearly the noble Lord has done a tremendous amount of work upon it since, to which we all pay tribute. On that occasion I am afraid that I upset the noble Lord by saying that it had a xenophobic ring. I will avoid that word very carefully and I apologise for ever having used it. However, the noble Lord's Amendment seeks to exclude certain categories of people from public lending right, so may I substitute the word "exclusiveness". I do not think

869
that the noble Lord can object to that word.
There is only one category of author that I might be willing to exclude and that is the British citizen who has ceased to reside in the United Kingdom in order to pay less tax. Whether that is legally possible I do not know, but I might agree that such a author should not get public lending right out of taxpayers' money to which he has ceased to contribute. Otherwise I suggest that there should be no exclusions. The noble Lord, Lord Willis, has told us that it will be ages before there is any public lending right in the United States. I am sure that the noble Lord knows the American situation much better than I do, so I accept his judgment. In a moment I will explain how I see reciprocity working as between the United States and the United Kingdom, but first there is one point upon which I must touch.
I am sorry that the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, is not here because my point relates to a sentence attributed to him in col. 61 of the Hansard Report of our Committee stage debate. In that column there appears this sentence:
"What the Americans lend out here is pulp fiction".—[Official Report; 27/4/76; col. 61.]
I am sure that was a mistake on the part of the noble Viscount; it must have escaped from him in an unguarded moment and I wish he were here to agree to that. But that that should stand unchallenged as the considered opinion of this House on American literature is too awful to contemplate. I see reciprocity as between the United States and the United Kingdom as a matter of very rough justice. British authors earn their dollars by getting their books published in the United States where people buy books, and they do very well out of it. American authors will get something out of public lending right in this country where, on the whole, instead of buying books we borrow them. It is not precise reciprocity, of course, but it is a kind of rough approximation to it and I still think that we shall be the gainers. The advantage which we enjoy through having English as our native language seems to me to impose upon us an obligation to be generous towards foreign authors. In any case, I suggest that frontiers and all the temporary trappings of nationalism are little more than irrelevant absurdities in the context
870
of literature and art. Therefore, I hope that the Government will continue to resist this Amendment.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, the noble Lord has just observed that the ethical line is to he generous to foreign authors, but judging by what transpired during the Committee stage when there was under consideration the parsimonious, the almost stingy, amount that was to he allocated in the long run, it does not appear to me that foreign authors would suffer financially if-they were excluded, to use the term which the noble Lord himself injected into the debate. In the course of the Committee stage I ventured to intervene, and I apologise for intervening, only because I thought this was—I hope I may be forgiven for saying this— a piffling Bill. Certainly when it was being formulated by the draftsmen— I do not know who advised them; I hope it was not one of the intellectual Ministers in the present Government, if indeed there are any intellectuals in that Government—it seemed to me that there were so many complications in the Bill that whoever offered the advice was not the type of adviser I would have selected.
It may be suggested that I have an interest to declare. It is perfectly true that I have had several books published. What I have gained from them I may be permitted to conceal. On the whole I have done very well out of it, and indeed I do not suppose that at any time I shall go on my knees and beg for some modicum of dividend which may emerge as a result of the allocation of this very parsimonious and, as I would put it, stingy fund. Let us consider a very simple proposition. Let us divest ourselves of all the complications, even all the legal subtleties on either side in the debate. The simple proposition is that the purpose of this Bill at the outset—and I challenge contradiction—was to provide some modicum of dividend for British authors. That was the sole intention and I venture, without any arrogance, to challenge contradiction. It was never thought at the time—at least it was never mentioned at the time—that we had under consideration making some financial provision for foreign authors, even if those foreign authors had a command of English and were now placing it at the disposal of people in this country. That was the

871
intention. I listened to the debate at the Committee stage and on the Second Reading of this Bill and, as I have said, took no part in it except to make one trifling intervention, which probably did not make any difference. But, and I say this with great respect to the Minister, it never seemed to have occurred to him that we intended to dole out these funds, however meagre or however generous, to foreign authors. That was not the intention.
Ever since this matter was first mentioned many years ago, because this is by no means an original concept that has been injected into our debate by my noble friend Lord Willis, books were available in the public libraries and loaned out to Tom, Dick and Harry, much to the financial detriment of the authors—for the most part authors who were mentioned I think, in a book published many years ago, which I think was called Grub Street. For the moment I cannot recall the author's name. I mention it just to show that I have read some books myself. This is the situation with which we are faced.
What are we proposing to do now? Of these meagre funds, £1 million, £400,000 is to be absorbed in administrative expenses and £600,000 is to be allocated, not among the few thousand British authors resident in the United Kingdom, citizens of our own country, our own neighbours and friends, but to the vast array of American authors whose books are to be found in every bookshop in the country and on sale much to the detriment of British authors who are unable to inject into their books the subject which interests some people more than any other; namely, pornography.
What are we doing about this? I would reject the Bill altogether. That is what I said at the Committee stage. It is a piffling Bill: take it back, cut its throat: be done with it. But if we are to consider it, let us be reasonable about it.
I wish to make a further point. In the course of his observations earlier in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, who asked whether a Secretary of State or a Minister would have the right to adjudicate and decide how the money would be allocated, if there was to be any money at all, the reply that came from my noble friend
872
Lord Donaldson was that you must have somebody to decide whether this person or that person should be a recipient. That is what he said. Very well. Leave it at that and say that it must be left to a Minister of State or to some Minister in whatever Government exists in the future, because of course all this is going to happen in the remote future; it will take a long time before the proposals are implemented. It should be left to him to decide who should have a first call on the fund, the British author or the foreign author. I think that question must be answered. It is no use injecting all this complicated stuff about the Berne provisions relating to copyright. It seems to me that has been thrown in at the last minute in order to prevent our doing the simple thing, dealing with a simple proposition, that is, to make some financial provision, however small it may be, for British authors who need it.
Therefore I support my noble friend and if he wants to go into the Division Lobby I shall be there with him.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I suggest that—
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I do not know why I am being interrupted; I have not finished yet. I do not know why my noble friend Lord Strabolgi is being so precipitate; after all, there is no reason why we should not have a little discussion about this. There is not very much business on today. Besides, the House was in a very dull mood and I am livening it up a little.
Anyway, to sum up, I wish to make two points, the first concerning my noble friend Lord Donaldson's suggestion that the adjudication must eventually be left to a Minister. All right, I accept that. But if that is to be so, then the first call on the fund, however meagre or however generous, should be by British authors, and after they have been suitably provided for then we will be generous with the foreign authors. Could anything be more ethical than that? The ethics would satisfy even my noble friend Lord Robbins, who knows more about ethics than anybody else in this Assembly. I will leave it there. If there is to be a Division I am with my noble friend Lord Willis and common sense and the original intention of this Bill. I stand by that.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I apologise to my noble friend Lord Shinwell. I thought he had sat down. What I was going to suggest, and what venture to suggest now to the House, is that this may be a convenient moment to take the Statement at present being made in the other place.

MR. G. J. DAVIS: ROYAL PREROGATIVE
3.50 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, with the leave of the House I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary about the case of Mr. George John Davis. The Statement is as follows:
"At the Central Criminal Court on 18th March 1975, Mr. Davis was convicted of robbery and wounding with intent to resist arrest, and was sentenced to consecutive terms of 17 and 3 years' imprisonment.
"He applied to the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) for leave to appeal against his conviction and sentence. On 11th December 1975 the full court dismissed the application for leave to appeal against conviction, but ordered the sentence to run concurrently instead of consecutively.
"After the trial, Mr. Davis and those who had been charged with him but acquitted made a number of complaints against the police. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis asked the Chief Constable of Hertfordshire to make available a senior officer of his force to investigate these complaints in accordance with Section 49 of the Police Act 1964.
"I have received interim reports from the detective superintendent who has undertaken this task. These reports relate principally to the identification of Mr. Davis by witnesses, and I have re-examined in the light of them the identification evidence on which Mr. Davis was convicted. As a result, I am satisfied that this evidence has been seriously weakened.
"I do not have evidence of Mr. Davis' innocence to justify my recom-
874
mending a free pardon. I have considered whether I should refer the case to the Court of Appeal under Section 17 of the Criminal Appeal Act 1968. But this would be a lengthy process and it is not at present clear that all the relevant material now before me could be considered by the Court.
"My conclusions about the shift in the balance of evidence in the case are such that it would not be right for Mr. Davis to remain in prison any longer. I have therefore decided to recommend the exercise of the Royal Prerogative to remit the remainder of Mr. Davis' sentence. He is being released today.
"Since the investigation into the complaints made against the police by Mr. Davis and others has not yet been completed, it would not be right for me to discuss the complaints generally, or the results of the investigation in this context in any detail. I would, however, say that my decision today in no sense prejudges the result of the investigation and in no way implies that any police officer has behaved improperly."
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, all this is rather unsatisfactory. I am sure the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for repeating the Statement made in another place. This is another identification case, apparently. There were two; namely, Mr. Dougherty and Mr. Virag, I think it was, if that is the way to pronounce it, which formed the basis of the reference to the Devlin Committee which has just reported. In both of those, the two convicted people were able to prove their innocence, I think in the case of Dougherty after reference to the Court of Appeal, who found that the conviction was unsafe and unsatisfactory after a previous appeal had been dismissed.
So far as I can see, this case is rather left in the air. There has been no reference to the Court of Appeal, and apparently there is to be none. In the meantime, Mr. Davis, who was sentenced in the event to 17 years, has been let out without anybody knowing whether or not he is guilty, without his being declared innocent, and without the Court of Appeal declaring that the verdict was unsafe or unsatisfactory. There is

875
pending an investigation into the conduct of certain police officers, which is not yet complete. I do not in the least wish to suggest that what the Home Secretary has done is wrong, but surely the matter cannot be left quite like this, so that we do not know whether a man sentenced to 17 years for a serious offence is either guilty or innocent, or to be treated as a convict with his conviction standing, or as an innocent man with his conviction quashed, or a free pardon given. Surely this is not satisfactory. Cannot the noble Lord the Minister give us a little more comfort in the matter?
My Lords, I must add that every time one of these unfortunate identification cases comes up, another wound is inflicted on the credibility of our system of criminal justice. The Lord Chief Justice has already said that these identification cases are a chink in our armour. It seems that we really must, sooner or later, come round in Parliament to a discussion of these identification cases in the light of the Devlin Report which we now have. I hope the noble Lord the Minister can give me a little comfort in this matter.
Lord AMU LREE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for repeating the Statement just made. I should also like to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, for what he has just said, with which I am in general agreement, although I do not want to go into all the points he raised. All I would say is that this is one more case which makes one doubt the wisdom of identification parades, unless there is very strong corroborative evidence to go with that identification. I hope very much that the Government will make a further inquiry into this matter to see whether we can change what appears to be a very unsatisfactory way of identifying possible criminals.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am most grateful for what has been said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, and by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree. Certainly there are difficult problems concerning this particular case. My right honourable friend could have awaited the result of the police investigation and then
876
considered whether to refer the case to the Court of Appeal; it was within his right so to do. But the consequence of that would have been that this man would then have been kept in prison for many more months. The decision that my right honourable friend has taken is that it is right to recommend the exercise of the Royal Prerogative in this case, because in his view it would not be acceptable to keep this man in prison while these lengthy police investigations continue. After the result of the police investigation, it can then be considered whether it would be appropriate to take this case to the Court of Appeal on the question which would arise over the guilt or innocence of this man. But the decision taken by my right honourable friend seems to me to be the right thing to do in the interests of justice, where my right honourable friend is satisfied that the balance of evidence given at the trial has been affected, and those facts have been drawn to his attention by the investigating police officer.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I am sorry to press the noble Lord the Minister a little further. This is a difficult matter. At this stage I am not trying to reproach either the Home Secretary or the noble Lord the Minister, but supposing, at the later stage which he has indicated, he refers this case to the Court of Appeal. I can understand if the Court of Appeal were to say that the verdict was unsafe and unsatisfactory. That would either quash the conviction or give a free pardon to Mr. Davis. But supposing the Court of Appeal say that the verdict was not unsafe and not unsatisfactory—and they might equally well do the other, for all I know—we then get a situation where a man has been convicted and sent to prison for 17 years; the Court of Appeal says that the verdict is safe, and the Home Secretary has let him out after just over a year. I cannot feel that that is a happy outcome.
I must remind the noble Lord of the occasion for which his right honourable friend is not responsible, but the Government are, that of the Scottish case of Meehan, which is exactly on all fours with some of these cases (another identification case) now pending, in which the Scottish Office presumably will have to come to a similar decision. I cannot feel that what has been decided in this matter is altogether happy.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the point made by the noble and learned Lord is a perfectly valid one. Of course, in the situation that he sets out, it would be a very difficult result to justify, and I accept that. But what the noble and learned Lord does not say—and I make no reproach to him either is, what it is suggested my right honourable friend should do in a case where he has received a report from the police which in his view significantly changes the balance of the evidence at that trial; and, secondly, in the situation where my right honourable friend knows that the police inquiry is bound, by the nature of this case, to go on for many months. I accept totally the spirit in which the noble and learned Lord makes his point, but all I am saying to him is that there is no easy solution to a case of this kind.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I do not think we can take this any further this afternoon. I think it would be unfair for me to try to do so. But I would put it to the noble Lord that prima facie the question of whether a verdict is safe or unsafe is a matter for the Court of Appeal and not for the Home Secretary, unless the matter is clear beyond doubt. I quite understand the humanitarian wish of the Home Secretary, probably shared by the whole House here and by another place, not to keep a man in jail a moment longer than is necessary, pending investigations. But in the end what has happened—and one must underline the fact—is that it is the Home Secretary, who is an executive officer, who has decided that the balance of evidence has shifted as a result of the inquiries, inquiries about which we at the moment know nothing, and therefore we can form no independent judgment of our own. Nor is it referred to the court, nor in fact have we any indication as to whether it ultimately will be, although it may be. One must await now until further facts emerge, but I think we must reserve our judgment on this matter.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I make no complaint at what the noble and learned Lord has said. It would, of course, be only right for me to say that this is in no sense an unprecedented decision. It is certainly not common for custodial penalties to be remitted under the Prerogative, but there
878
have in fact been seven cases since 1971, although I would not for a moment suggest that they were all on all fours with this particular case.
Lord PARGITER: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether it is not the fact that we are not asked to sit in judgment or reserve judgment or anything of the kind. We are merely being asked to listen to a Statement which is being made, and therefore no action is called for, and no reservation on our part is called for at this juncture.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Yes, my Lords.
Lord TAYLOR of MANSFIELD: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend, not on the legal technicalities, but on the question of compensation, whether I am right in assuming that compensation for the time spent in prison will be paid, and, if so, what are the factors that are taken into consideration?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I think I must ask my noble friend to await a decision on a point of that kind, for the reasons I gave in answer to the questions of the noble and learned Lord. My right honourable friend is not saying that Mr. Davis is innocent; there is a continuing police investigation in this case. This is a matter which will have to be considered at the conclusion of that investigation.

PUBLIC LENDING RIGHT BILL [H.L.]
4.4 p.m.
Report stage resumed on Amendment No. 8.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, if we are now returning to the question of public lending right, I should like to ask one question of my noble friend Lord Donaldson. I must, I suppose, at the same time declare an interest as the author of a number of books in British public libraries. In his speech opposing Lord Willis's Amendment, Lord Donaldson mentioned a maximum which would prevent any author resident overseas from going away with all the "scoop", so to speak. Could

879
my noble friend perhaps be a little more precise about that? I must apologise for not having followed the details earlier.
I should like to know just how far the money could be absorbed by residents overseas.
Lord DOUGLAS of BARLOCH: My Lords, I wish to support the Amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Willis. I do so without in the least approving of the Bill, which I think is perfectly nonsensical. But surely what is at issue here is that we are proposing to levy taxes upon the people of this country for the purpose of paying a bonus to authors. Why should we tax the people of this country in order to pay a bonus to foreign authors? Surely, if anything of that kind ought to be done, it should be the responsibility of the country of which they are nationals. I know that we levy taxes upon ourselves in order to aid the development of poor and primitive countries, but that is an exercise in philanthropy and not an exercise of any other kind. Surely this Bill is in a totally different category, and I cannot see for a moment why the British people should be taxed for the benefit of Americans or Germans or Japanese or anybody else.
Lord SNOW: My Lords, could I ask my noble friend whether he could give me one simple piece of information. We are not the only country that has libraries and, curiously enough, we are not the only country that has public lending right. Sweden has the most elaborate library system in the world and also a very well established public lending right. In what way do they act in this matter? That would certainly determine my view in a rather difficult dilemma.
Lord IRONSIDE: My Lords, I do not think I am entirely convinced by what the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, had to say in support of the Government's arguments. I feel some sympathy for the arguments which have been advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Willis. His Amendment would probably not have quite the effect that he thinks it would have, because, so far as I can see, this would lock out foreign authors by name only. If this Amendment was made to the Bill and the Bill became an Act and came into
880
force, it would be very easy for them to assign their rights to a British agent, and they would collect that way. I shall be very interested to know whether the noble Lord has considered this point and I should like to hear his view.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I should like to speak briefly to three points that have arisen in this brief and intermittent debate. The first is a point of taste. I should like to defend my noble friend Lord Eccles from the imputation laid against him by the noble Lord, Lord McNair. In referring to American pulp fiction, I am quite certain the noble Viscount did not intend to refer to anything which the noble Lord, Lord McNair, could possibly imagine was American literature. There is indeed a large volume of American publications sold in this country which do not aspire to such a status and whose authors would not expect them to be so described. I think the noble Lord would concede that it was to these only that my noble friend was referring. They are important, of course, not because of their quality or lack of it but the volume in which they are sold.
That brings me to the second point; that is, the point of fairness. I have great sympathy with what has been said on both sides of the House in support of this Amendment. It does not seem to me that a nation in straitened circumstances should offer to share its provender in this way with others more fortunate than itself. I must remind your Lordships that we are, after all, talking about a Bill which does not throw open the door of the larder but merely makes easier access to the bird table; there are no great fat meals to be had out of this Bill; the crumbs will be almost invisible if they are to be divided among so many eager beaks as is at present proposed. I do not think that it is xenophobic, I do not think it is unfair, I do not think it is hostile, I do not think it would attract much foreign notice if we were to take steps designed to achieve what the noble Lord, Lord Willis, has in mind. If a large and wealthy nation says, "We will publish your books and pay you for publishing them, and we will also incidentally lend them and pay you nothing", I do not think it is unfair if that large and wealthy nation is told by a smaller and less wealthy nation, "We will treat you the same way as you are treating

881
us". I do not think that that can be said to be unfair. Nor do I think it is hostile to the arts. That is the second point.
The third point is the point of law. Here many of your Lordships will share the hesitations which I feel. I once heard a picture attributed by 7 different art critics to 7 original brushes. In one case a number of original brushes. I feel that we are at the edge of a position like that. I did not feel that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, rebutted the quite closely reasoned —if reasoned, as it were, secondhand—arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Willis, with the closeness and quotation of authority for which one might hope at this stage. I was sorry to see the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor leaving the Woolsack before he had an opportunity to give an authoritative and final verdict on the subject.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, in the light of what has been said—and he is quite clear that he is in a very small minority on this matter—would feel that he could perhaps come back at Third Reading with heavier legal ammunition if he wishes to rebut this Amendment. This plainly cannot be a Party issue. On a matter like this, unlike the noble Lord who speaks for a Government, I speak from a Dispatch Box which does not have political authority over nonpolitical Bills, and that is rightly so. My inclination would be that if the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, wishes to try conclusions now, since on this Bill, as I said earlier in this debate, we are not a Chamber of revision, there would be no great disaster if he was defeated, because it could be put right with the closest of legal reasoning in another place without exercising the already doubtless overburdened attention of the noble Lord. I sympathise with him in this. There must be a temptation for him to take that path. If, however, he felt that he was able to come back at Third Reading with either a watertight case against this Amendment, or an improved version of it—I think it may be open to the objections lodged against it by my noble friend Lord Ironside, which makes me wonder whether we should try conclusions at this stage; but if he were to try conclusions it would not be a disaster if the Amendment was put into the Bill and altered in another place—the noble Lord may wish to take
882
that honourable and, perhaps for him, slightly easier way out of the matter.
4.13 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, perhaps I may be allowed to say a few words here, because there are other considerations than those which have already been put forward. First of all, may I say to my noble friend Lord Snow, who asked about PLR in Sweden, that this is one of the several non-statutory schemes—there are others in New Zealand, Australia, and so on—which are working to a certain extent, but they bear absolutely no comparison to a statutory scheme, which is contained in this Bill. Indeed, the only statutory scheme at present in operation is that operated by the German Federal Republic, and I am informed that they offer reciprocity, as indeed the Bill intends that we should as well.
Lord SNOW: But, my Lords, at the moment they have got no one with whom to be reciprocal.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I hope that they will be reciprocal with us. This brings me to the point f wanted to put to the House. I would suggest that, quite apart from legal considerations and questions of reciprocity, the thought and the theory behind this Amendment betray to a certain extent a somewhat chauvinistic attitude. I do not mean that in any offensive way to my noble friend because he and I are old friends, but I believe that Art should be international. I agree very much with the noble Lord, Lord Elton, because, as he also said, this is not a Party matter. I believe that Art should be international, and that foreign authors, whose writings have so enriched our culture and given so much pleasure to so many people, are just as worthy of consideration as authors who are living here.
I believe, and I believe rather passionately, that there are moral considerations why we should not discriminate between authors but treat this matter in a liberal and civilised way, quite apart from the legal arguments. The other view is, of course, that copyright is of great importance to the United Kingdom, and in the long run it cannot be advisable for us to seek to avoid obligations which, if not carried out by a country as influential in

883
this field as the United Kingdom, could only undermine the conventions from which we gain so much. For all these reasons, I submit that the Amendment should not be accepted.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him this question: Supposing this relief to authors who happen to be British citizens were to take the form not of public lending right but an equivalent amount placed at the disposal of the Arts Council, would he regard it as chauvinistic? Would he regard it as contrary to the belief, which I certainly share with him, that Art is international that the candidates regarded as eligible for Arts Council assistance in that case ought to be confined to citizens of this country?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, may I answer this question, which directly concerns me as I am in charge of the Bill. The authors and their organisations are absolutely solid in their view that they are not asking for charity, they are not asking for artistic handouts, but they are asking for a right. Therefore, as the object of the Bill is to satisfy what we believe to be an absolutely justified demand, as I said at Committee stage to one of my noble friends behind me (in fact it was to the chairman of the Arts Council) this would in no way satisfy the authors, and we agree with them that it would not be the right way to deal with the matter.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, would he be good enough to answer my question about the effect of the maximum?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, with the permission of the House, for which I was about to ask while I was answering the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, I will do exactly that. There is no figure on this. There is a stated intention that in the scheme it would be desirable to have a maximum. The figure of £100 has been mentioned, as well as the figure of £500, in order to make certain that best-selling authors of all nationalities do not scoop the pools.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, a maximum on individuals?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, on individuals. I think that answers the noble Baroness. With the permission of the House, may I refer to one or two other points. We always enjoy the interventions in these debates of my noble friend Lord Shinwell. He spoke a little disparagingly, I thought, of intellectuals in the Government. As somebody who very much enjoys reading books, I claim to be an intellectual; but out of his own mouth my noble friend was also convicted because he not only reads books, which he told us he does, but he writes them, and we must accept the fact that it is not necessarily a bad thing to be an intellectual. I am not ashamed of it, and I do not suppose for a moment that my noble friend is.
He said that I had said something, but I think there has arisen complete confusion about it. He said that I said that the Secretary of State would have to decide who was to be the recipient of any money under this Bill. I never said anything of the kind. What I said was that the Secretary of State would have to decide who would have to be consulted, which is quite a different matter. In the end I said that the word "others" was too wide, and that it was sensible that the Secretary of State should be the person who decided the limitation of consultation required. I hope that my noble friend will accept that.
A word of warning to my noble friend Lord Willis. The Bill has many enemies; the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, is one, and the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, is another, and both have said that they would rather not have it at all. I believe that if we present the other place with a simple and clear Bill, with the limitations clearly laid down, We have every chance of getting it through, but every complication we bring in makes it more difficult. In my view, the ethics of the matter are quite simple. We say that when books are borrowed from libraries something should be paid to the authors of those books. It is a very simple conception. It does not involve excluding people who live abroad or write abroad or who write in foreign languages. It is as simple as it could be. If we have it in this very simple form we are much more likely to get an answer which in the end will build up into the sort of thing we are trying to do for our authors, rather than if we start to complicate it.

885
The noble Lord, Lord Elton, said that I might be content to let the House decide and that if the Amendment were carried and the Government did not like it in another place, we could think again. That is perfectly true and it is in fact my attitude. We should send the Bill to another place in the simpliest possible form, but I do not wish to fudge the issue in so far as there are one or two wishes of this House which do not accord with the Government's belief of the best thing to do, and I think that it should be clearly expressed. If my noble friend wishes to divide the House, I would once again say to your Lordships that I believe that this is wrong, that it is in breach, not necessarily of the law—although I think it is, but that is arguable—but in breach of our obligations as understood by foreign countries and in my view it would be a great mistake to do so. But the House must decide.
Lord WILLIS: My Lords, we have had what I suppose has been a very moral afternoon. My noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge will not recall this, but about eight years ago in this House I made a speech and afterwards I saw him in the tea room when he said, "That was a very good speech, Ted, but you moralised a bit". Today the shoe is on the other foot. We have had not one Front Bench speaker but two telling the House something about ethics and morality. It is a very strange morality indeed because it is a morality which says, first of all, "I do not want to look at this legal opinion that you have. I have every sympathy with the point you are making, but please do not show me the legal opinion". Lord Donaldson a moment ago said, in effect, "I believe you are wrong legally but I certainly think you are wrong morally so far as the conventions are concerned". I should have thought that at least in good will the noble Lord would have said, "Here are people who know something about the matter. They have gone to a top copyright lawyer who also knows something about the matter. He has come up with an opinion which is not just a backdoor way of sliding round our obligations but is an absolutely clear and straightforward opinion which shows that we would not be in breach of our obligations under these copyright Conventions". What reply do I get? I am told, "I do
886
not want to see it. Do not complicate my mind". That does not seem to be a very good approach when somebody is trying to prepare a simple, straightforward, clear Bill which is moral.
Let us look at the morality in another sense. It is immoral, says the noble Lord, for us to exclude American, Danish, Australian and other authors, but we are excluding British authors of reference books, British translators; half a dozen other categories are being limited and shut out by the Bill. Nothing immoral about that, apparently, but it is perfectly immoral, we are told, not to include these overseas authors. That seems to be absolutely wrong. The case is crystal clear. I have a great deal of experience of international writers' organisations and I assure noble Lords that nobody in American or Canadian writers' organisations would scream because we excluded them from the Bill. They will not say that we have dodged through the back door and are not fulfilling our obligations under the international copyright Conventions. On the contrary; they will see the good sense of it and understand it.
Let us look at the morality in another sense. The noble Lord, Lord Snow, asked about the public lending right in other countries. There are six countries of which I know which have it; Sweden, Denmark, New Zealand, Holland, Australia and West Germany. The only one with a statutory public lending right is West Germany and they in fact include overseas authors. Fine, and as soon as we have a public lending right Bill here we shall be reciprocal and West Germany will get it. But is it moral for Denmark, Australia, Holland, Sweden and New Zealand, all signatories to these Conventions, to have found a so-called way round it, which is what they have done? If one is talking about ethics, that is hardly ethical. But we have not screamed at them, because they have done what they can do for their own native authors within the boundaries of their facilities and the finance available.
My Lords, I want to press this matter because it seems to me to be one of common sense and I wish to thank noble Lords for the general feeling of support that it has received. I should comment on a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ironside. I am not suggesting that the
Amendment is absolutely perfect, but I think that what he said could not apply if the Amendment were adopted. One could transfer one's rights to an agent, but if one was an American author under my Amendment one would not have any rights. The same would apply to the other countries with which we did not have reciprocal agreements. Thus, I think that the Amendment would do what I want it to do, although I would be happy to discuss the subject in the event
of our having to return to it on Third Reading. It is clear that under Article 20 of the Berne Convention we have a legal and honourable right to make this exclusion and I beg the House to accept it and to accept my Amendment.
4.27 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 8) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 118; Not-Contents, 52.

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Elton, L.

Milford, L.

Allerton, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Monck, V.

Alport, L.

Erskine of Rerrick, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Amory, V.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Monson, L.

Annan, L.

Faithfull, B.

Mottistone, L.

Arbuthnott, V.

Ferrier, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Arwyn, L.

Forester, L.

Newall, L.

Balerno, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Northchurch, B.

Balfour, E.

Gainford, L.

Ogmore, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Porritt, L.

Barnby, L.

Garner, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Birdwood, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Boothby, L.

Goschen, V.

Redesdale, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Granville of Eye, L.

Reigate, L.

Brockway, L.

Gray, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Grenfell, L.

Robbins, L.

Caccia, L.

Gridley, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Chesham, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Sackville, L.

Chorley, L.

Hale, L.

St. Just, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Harcourt, V.

Sempill, Ly.

Clitheroe, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Shinwell, L.

Clwyd, L.

Ironside, L.

Slater, L. [Teller.]

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Jessel, L.

Snow, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Killearn, L.

Stamp, L.

Crawford and Balcarres, E.

Kilmany, L.

Strang, L.

Cromartie, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

Strathclyde, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathspey, L.

Daventry, V.

Long, V.

Sudeley, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Lothian, M.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

de Freyne, L.

Loudoun, C.

Tenby, V.

De La Warr, E.

Lyell, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Denham, L.

Lytton, E.

Vickers, B.

Deramore, L.

Maelor, L.

Vivian, L.

Digby, L.

Mansfield, E.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Margadale, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Marley, L.

Waverley, V.

Dundee, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Willis, L. [Teller.]

Effingham, E.

Merrivale, L.

Wilson of High Wray, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Janner, L.

Arran, E.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.]

Kirkhill, L.

Banks, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

Leatherland, L.

Birk, B.

Gore-Booth, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Blyton, L.

Hankey, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Brock, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

McCarthy, L.

Champion, L.

Henderson, L.

McNair, L.

Cole, L.

Henley, L.

Mais, L.

Collison, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Hoy, L.

Melchett, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Morris of Grasmere, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Oram, L.

Parry, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Tranmire, L.

Platt, L.

Segal, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Popplewell, L.

Shackleton, L.

Winterbottom, L. [Teller.]

Raglan, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Redcliffe-Maud, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Roberthall, L.

Swaythling, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Resolved in the affimative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 3 [The scheme and its administration]:
4.38 p.m.
Lord WILLIS Lord WILLIS moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 31, leave out ("books") and insert ("works")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is just a technical Amendment which follows a major Amendment that was carried at Committee stage; it was omitted at the time. I beg to move.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I recognise that this Amendment makes good an oversight by my noble friend at Committee stage, and completes the substitution of "works" for "books". I do not intend to take the time of this House by resisting this new Amendment or reopening an issue on which your Lordships have so recently indicated your views. To do so might delay Third Reading and the passing of the Bill to another place, which I do not believe to be your Lordships' wish. However, I must admit I am grateful to my noble friend for his oversight, because this Amendment gives me the opportunity to explain that I am examining the precise implications of the word "works" in terms of the Bill, and it may well be that, after I have consulted my colleagues, the Government will wish to return to the question in another place. For the moment, however, I do not wish to oppose the Amendment.
4.40 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE Lord DONALDSON OF KINGS-BRIDGE moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 4, line 8, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
(" (6) The Registrar shall, by means of payments out of the Central Fund, reimburse to local library authorities any expenditure incurred by them in giving effect to the scheme, the amount of that expenditure being ascertained in accordance with such calculations as the scheme may prescribe.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that I made very clear at the Committee stage, as did my noble friend Lord Strabolgi in the Second Reading debate, that the intention of the Government is quite firm, that the proposals in the Bill shall involve no loss to the local library authorities. I was not entirely happy with the wording of the Amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, which would have prescribed exact matching payments year by year. My reason was that, as the Technical Investigation Group suggested, it may well be possible to negotiate more economical methods of reimbursement on a system of unit charging, to the mutual satisfaction of the local authorities and the Government. The Amendment now proposed by the Government, which I hope will be acceptable to your Lordships, allows for that, and I beg to move.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for meeting us in this matter and for making the intention of Her Majesty's Government abundantly clear. Since we will also have an opportunity, in effect, to debate the scheme—the fact that the method of payment shall be specified in the scheme means that we shall be able to keep an eye on the arrangements to be made, and to satisfy ourselves that they are mutually acceptable—I do not think there is any point in delaying the House further on this matter, other than to say that we welcome the Amendment.
Clause 4 [The register]:
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 4, line 36, after ("who") insert ("(if any one)")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical Amendment. I beg to move.
4.43 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 12:
After Clause 4 insert the following new clause:
"Public Lending Right Advisory Committee.

.—(1) There shall be established an Advisory Committee to be called the Public Lending Right Advisory Committee (in this Act referred to as "the Advisory Committee").

(2) Subject to the provisions of subsection (5) of this section, the Advisory Committee shall consist of not less than ten and not more than fifteen members, who shall be appointed by the Secretary of State.

(3) Of the members of the Advisory Committee, the Secretary of State shall appoint one to be chairman and one to be deputy chairman of the Advisory Committee.

(4) In appointing persons to be members of the Advisory Committee, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the need for securing that a majority of members are qualified to represent the views of public librarians and that there are members who are able to represent the views of authors, local authorities, public librarians and publishers.

(5) The Secretary of State may by order increase the maximum number of members of the Advisory Committee to such number as he may think fit.

(6) It shall be the duty of the Advisory Committee to keep under review the operation of any scheme made under this Act and to make recommendations to the Secretary of State as to any action which in the opinion of the Advisory Committee it would be expedient for the Secretary of State to take under the powers conferred on him by this Act.

(7) It shall be the duty of the Registrar to provide the Advisory Committee, if it should so request, with information about the administration of any scheme made under this Act.

(8) The provisions of Schedule (Public Lending Right Advisory Committee) to this Act shall have effect with respect to the Advisory Committee.

(9) The Secretary of State shall consult with the Advisory Committee,—

(a) before drafting the scheme for the purposes of this Act;

(b) annually from the coming into effect of the first such scheme or any subsequent scheme amending or replacing that Scheme; and

(c) before drafting any amended scheme where such drafting is not undertaken as a result of any consultations held under paragraph (b) of this subsection."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 together. I wish to draw the attention of your Lordships to a misprint in subsection (4) of Amendment No. 12. The last word of the penultimate line, "public", and the first word of the last line, "librarians",
892
are tautological: they appear twice and may he deleted. I shall not detain your Lordships for as long possibly as the bulk of this Amendment may have led your Lordships to expect. Those of your Lordships who have been following the progress of the Bill will recall that a pair of Amendments remarkably similar to this were put down by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, at the Committee stage. Prior to our reaching them we had a debate, as a result of which the Government agreed that we should be able to debate a Green Paper specifying the nature of the scheme, thus giving us some say in how the scheme was to be run. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Willis, felt that this would be the opportunity he required to ensure that the technical advice which this Amendment seeks to make available to the Government should be brought into play.
In my view this technical advice should be available not only at the instigation of the first scheme, but also to supervise its running, and for the purpose of advising the Government, should amending or substitute schemes be required later. There is one significant difference between these two pairs of Amendments. The Amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Willis, stated in subsection (4) that there should be a preponderance of authors on the Advisory Committee. The reason that I am taking up this Amendment, and acknowledging its origin, is that I feel the whole Bill is a gesture—possibly a well-deserved, if not very generous gesture—in the direction of authors. It exists to give more money to deserving authors, but it will work only if it has the wholehearted support of librarians who have to run it. I feel that there is a great danger that the librarians up and down the country, and the local authorities in which they serve, will feel that they are being put upon to run a tedious and complicated exercise, with little thanks from those who benefit from it, and with some wear and tear upon themselves. It is absolutely essential to engage their good will and their expertise if the scheme is to work, whatever the scheme is to be.
These Amendments are a sort of ballon de'essai, which is, after all, what the noble Lord, Lord Willis, filled, ready to take off, but left tethered at the Committee stage, and I have simply

893
substituted a different crew in the basket before cutting the tethering rope. T hope that what I am proposing will give the Government an opportunity to make clear how they propose to engage the willing co-operation, rather than the grudging co-operation—and there is a world of difference between the two—of those who will, in the end, have to do the work. This may not be the way to do it; I do not claim that necessarily it is. But this is something which should be looked at. It may be gone into in detail in another place, but I fear that if we do not make a fairly positive gesture in this direction at this stage, in this place, there is a danger that the case of the librarians—who may, I hope misjudgedly, feel themselves to be put upon by this Bill—might go by default. I hope that the noble Lord will see this as a useful opportunity, rather than as yet another occasion for contention. T beg to move.
Lord WILLIS: My Lords, at the Committee stage I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kings-bridge for the very firm assurances about consultations with various authors' and librarians' organisations, and for his very valuable suggestion that he will publish a Green Paper. For that reason I withdrew my Amendment. However, I wish to support this proposal again on this occasion, although there is one point that I shall make in a moment. I should like to support the general principle of the advisory committee because, on consideration, it seems to me that the most valid point made by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, is that one wants continuing consultation. On the Government's own admission, the scheme will take some time to develop. Once the scheme is developed, again on the Government's own admission, it has to be widened and extended as practice dictates, and amended as it begins to operate, so that it overcomes the snags and problems. Therefore, in this continuing process—not just consultation before the scheme is developed, but consultation continuously while the scheme is in operation, especially at the initial stages—there would be particular value to the Government, and a considerable advantage from the Government point of view, in the sense that the sting would be taken out of criticisms which may be levelled at the Registrar, the Government, or the Minister himself. One tends to
894
take criticism out of administration of the Arts by having the Arts Council, and putting the blame, or praise, on that council, and I believe that much the same could apply to the advisory committee.
I therefore wish to come back to this matter and to support the noble Lord, Lord Elton. The only qualification I have is that I do not like the change in subsection (4). I do not like the suggestion that there should be a majority of librarians. I think that there should be a generous representation of librarians, with authors, publishers and so on, but to have a majority would be to set a had precedent for a public committee of this kind. It would therefore be wrong, and would not necessarily produce the right result. With that proviso, speaking for the spirit of the Amendment, I should like my noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge again to give this matter serious consideration.
Lord McNAIR: My Lords, I rise to get myself into the good books of the noble Lord, Lord Willis. For once I am in agreement with him, and I do not like disagreeing with him on this matter, on which he has worked so very hard. When I first read subsection (4) I was astonished, and then I realised that it must be a misprint—" a majority of…librarians." Then, when the noble Lord, Lord Elton, started to introduce the Amendment and said there was a misprint my spirits rose, but it was the wrong misprint. Really, it is extraordinary to suggest that librarians should be in a majority. They must be well represented, yes; hut, for example (if this is not an absurd analogy), if we were legislating to ensure a proper return to the primary producers of fruit and vegetables, would we have an advisory committee with a majority of greengrocers on it? We would not. In all the preliminary studies before this Bill I think it was agreed that on the advisory committee there would be a majority of people representing authors, and I hope we shall not depart from that.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, as a farmer I must agree with the noble Lord, Lord McNair, that a majority of greengrocers on such a committee would not be acceptable to the farming community. I am sorry we have

895
had to bring this question up again. My noble friend Lord Willis behaved generously in response to my reactions to the Committee, and I was very pleased not to be saddled with something which I believed to be both unnecessary and cumbersome. But the noble Lord, Lord Elton, with my noble friend's support, has now raised it again, so we must discuss it.
First of all, I have not promised a Green Paper. I have promised a consultative paper, which, technically, is not exactly the same thing. What the difference is remains to be seen. But I have promised that the proposals for the scheme will be published and available for discussion by the public or anybody else interested in good time before the scheme is put into operation. This, I think, deals with the problems up to the establishment of the scheme. I do not think the noble Lord would have pressed for this advisory body if the whole thing had stopped when the scheme was established. I think we have offered enough advice, and placed enough statutory obligations on the Secretary of State to ask advice, in forming the scheme. The question which remains is whether something statutory is required after the scheme operates.
It is important that when senior Ministers are appointed they should be treated as such, and it seems to me perfectly ridiculous to suggest that the Secretary of State, once a scheme of this kind is in operation, will not watch it most closely; will not, if it seems to be putting burdens on the libraries, consult with the library associations; will not, if it seems to be working badly from the authors' point of view, consult with the authors' associations; and will not do so currently and regularly. The only advantage in having a statutory body would be if that body were doing more than give advice. The Arts Council, which was quoted, actually distributes very large sums of money. The total is given to them and they break it up; so different sides have to be represented and there have to be majority decisions. But if we have a majority of authors, on the one hand, or of librarians, on the other, we are going to get totally one-sided advice; and in my opinion you can get better advice by consulting each body separately.
896
In addition, I think that the setting up of a body of this kind, although it would not be immediately frightfully expensive, would inevitably run into the expenditure of some money. It has to meet somewhere; people have to be drawn from various parts of the country and rail fares are very high. It has to have a secretariat and be looked after. And I believe it would contribute absolutely nothing to the situation if we have a Secretary of State who is doing his job. I do not think Parliament should assume that Secretaries of State will not do their job. I will undertake, in so far as I am still in my present position, that the job is done, and I should have thought that I could perfectly happily undertake that my successors, of either Party, would do the same. I hope that, with an undertaking of this kind, of regular consultation with the parties concerned, the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to press this Amendment. A good deal more could be said, but I do not think this is the moment to say it because I hope I have persuaded the noble Lord already.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, the noble Lord has said a great deal in the defence of the dignity of senior Ministers, with which of course I agree; they should be treated as such. Whether treating them as such includes denying them the services of a statutory advisory body, I am not quite so sure. I may revert to that point in a moment. But may I recall to the noble Lord what he said at col. 89 of the Official Report in the debate at Committee stage on 27th April, in reply to my intervention asking him whether the Consultative Document would be available for debate in both Houses? He replied:
"No, that is not the normal drill, is it? The Consultative Document will be available to anybody who wishes to make comments; and if political Parties wished to make comments, of course they could. It would be in the form of a Green Paper, or"—
and I give the noble Lord this—
"something of that kind".
Perhaps I was wrong to assume that a Green Paper was what was in question. I am not worried about the colour of the paper; I am worried about the opportunity to debate it. Because if we are not going to have an opportunity to debate the Consultative Document, then of course there is no concession and we have been

897
led astray. I see the noble Lord wishes to intervene.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I wonder if I might reply to that straight away. The Consultative Document will be published in plenty of time for the public, and of course the interested parties, to discuss it, to put suggestions and to look at it. It is the right of any political Party, through the usual channels, to discuss documents of this kind in Parliament. I do not think I need say more. If the time is available and the document is there, then political Parties will behave in the normal way.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, that is a big "if"—if Parliamentary time is available. We are always under pressure. Even now, before Whitsun, we are under pressure. We cannot have more than 14 days, during which some of us have to spend a good deal of time elsewhere working on other things than these Bills. I hope I am right in assuming that the noble Lord will use his good offices, should he be in a position so to do and in an office so to do, to ensure that time is available for debate, preferably in both Houses but certainly in this; because it really was on that understanding that I agreed not to press my Amendment, which I think we would have carried, at an earlier stage of this Bill. That is what I regard as the important point in this very long Amendment, and I take it that we now have it on the record that it is the intention of the Government that we should have an opportunity to debate, should we so wish, a Consultative Document embodying the recommendations for the scheme.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I think it is very important to get this right. Obviously, as a very junior Minister, I cannot commit the Government to giving time to anything in two years' time or whatever it may be. What I am saying is that the document will be available, and the normal channels can be used to produce a debate. If the Government are willing to have a debate, it will be in their time; if they are not and the Opposition wish to have one, it will be in their time; or it might be a Private Member's debate. I do not think I can go further than this; nor should I.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, can my noble friend not satisfy the House by saying that he, as a junior Minister, is not in a position to make this concession, if it is a concession? Would it not be advisable, so far as he is concerned, and bearing in mind the position which he holds, to say that he will take this thing back and talk it over with the Minister responsible, and will put forward the recommendation that has come from Lord Elton in view of the statement that he himself has made about having a debate on the document which is issued as a Consultative Document?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I do not think it would be fair to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to saddle him with this undertaking at this stage. I think I have gone as far as I need. The document will be made available in good time before the scheme comes into operation, and political Parties or individuals, if they wish to raise it in Parliament, will be free to do so.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I am sure that if the time is good it will also be opportune and it will be up to us to see that the usual channels are engaged. On the other matter which has dwindled into less importance, I see the Government are opposed to the idea of an advisory committee. I am not sure that they are not even a little intransigeant in their position. As they knew I was not going to press the Amendment, they need not have made their objection so abundantly clear. I hope that your Lordships will share my anxiety that Parliament itself should be open to keeping an eye on the way in which this Bill works although they will not do it with the expertise of the formal bodies which I suggested should be set up. We have touched on one or two important principles; but I should think that we should now conclude the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, Amendment No. 13 was consequential upon No. 12 and I do not move it.

AGRICULTURE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
Brought from the Commons, read la, and to be printed.

LAND DRAINAGE (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
5.3 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Strabolgi.)

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[References are to Bill (66) as first printed for the Commons].
[Nos. 1–2]
Schedule 2, page 18, line 30, leave out second "and";
line 32, at end insert "and of any payment to the council pursuant to paragraph 33 of that Schedule".
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, with the leave of the House I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 en bloc. The purpose of these two small Amendments is to amplify the Amendment to the definition of "relevant expenditure" contained in subparagraph (b) of paragraph 57 of the second Schedule to the Bill. "Relevant expenditure" in this context represents the sum of money which a water authority spends on land drainage and recovers by way of a precept on the local authorities in the area. After the Bill had been published, the National Water Council drew our attention to the fact that "relevant expenditure" should also include an appropriate proportion of the contribution which a water authority is required by Schedule 5 to the Water Act 1973 to make towards the administrative and other costs of the National Water Council. This Amendment therefore adds to paragraph 57 of the second Schedule to this Bill the necessary words to achieve this purpose, thus bringing paragraph 57 into line with the 1973 Act.
For the record, I should explain to the House and apologise for the fact that in the second Amendment as printed for your Lordships, the word "council", meaning the National Water Council, should have been spelled with a capital "C" as it was in the original Commons Amendment and as it is in the 1973 Water Act. I am taking steps to ensure that this will be put right in the final printing of the Bill. I beg
900
to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, as the noble Lord has in effect said, this is a somewhat technical amendment to a thoroughly technical Bill. It really needs no comment from me. One can see by reading the second Schedule that it is a fairly straightforward matter and I think your Lordships would welcome this amendment.

HILL LIVESTOCK AND YOUNG CATTLE (COMPENSATORY ALLOWANCES) (SCOTLAND) REGULATION 1976
5.5 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I beg to move that the Hill Livestock and Young Cattle (Compensatory Allowances) (Scotland) Regulations 1976, a draft of which was laid before the House on 7th April be approved. Your Lordships may recall that when the order revoking the Winter Keep (Scotland) Scheme 1975 was debated on 18th December last I undertook to put proposals before your Lordships' House to provide for assistance to be given for a further period to certain farmers in Scotland who had been eligible to receive aid under that scheme. The Regulations now before you fulfil that undertaking.
Noble Lords will no doubt have observed that, while the draft Regulations now before this House are broadly the same as the Hill Livestock (Compensatory Allowances) Regulations 1975 which replaced the hill cattle and hill sheep subsidy schemes, they differ from them in three important respects. These are, first, they apply only in Scotland and to a restricted category of person; secondly, there, is provision for payment on young cattle between 6 months and 2 years old as well as on adult cattle and sheep; and, thirdly, the rates are lower than in the main Regulations. Your Lordships might find it helpful to have a brief explanation of these and the other main provisions of the Regulations now before you.

901
Let me deal first with the persons who will be eligible for compensatory allowances under these Regulations. There are three conditions which have to be satisfied. The Regulations apply only to persons who occupy eligible land—that is, livestock rearing land—within the boundaries of the less-favoured areas; applications will be accepted only from persons who received acreage grants in 1975 under the Winter Keep (Scotland) Scheme 1975 and who either do not qualify under the United Kingdom Regulations (because, for example, they have no adult stock) or opt to receive payment under the draft Regulations now before your Lordships' House instead of under the United Kingdom Regulations; and, lastly, in compliance with a provision of the EEC Directive, occupiers other than old-age pensioners must sign an undertaking to continue to use eligible land for a period of five years in order to qualify for payment.
As regards eligible stock, the Regulations provide for payment to be made on breeding cows and ewes, the former being defined on page I and the latter being defined on page 2, as female sheep which are more than one year old on the qualifying day. In addition, however, as provided for in the EEC Directive, provision is made for payment on young cattle not less than 6 months old and not more than 24 months old on 1st January in each of the years for which payment is to be made.
Let me turn briefly now to the rates of payment. As I indicated earlier, the purpose of the Regulations is to provide assistance to a particular category of farmer at about the same level as in the past, and the rates specified in paragraphs (2) and (3) of Regulation 3 have been fixed with that in mind. They are: £15 for breeding cows; £9 for young cattle; £2.40 for hill sheep; and, £2 for upland sheep. As in the United Kingdom Regulations, the higher rate for sheep will be payable on recognised hardy breeds which are maintained on the harsher type of livestock rearing land, and the lower rate will be payable on other eligible ewes. In the United Kingdom Regulations, in conformity with a provision in the Directive, payment is restricted to a maximum of 50 units of account per hectare of eligible land. This represents a stocking limit of about one cow per
902
hectare at current rates. In the Regulations now before your Lordships the maximum is set at 30 units of account which, at the rates in these Regulations, will cover stocking at about one cow per hectare.
It will be clear to noble Lords from paragraph (1) of Regulation 3 that payment is to be made for two years only; that is, for 1976 and 1977, for this is a transitional arrangement. The number of persons opting to receive acreage grants instead of headage supplements has declined considerably in recent years and it is now estimated that fewer than 1,000 farmers will claim payment under these regulations, whereas a total of about 22,000 Scottish farmers and crofters will receive hill subsidies. The farmers concerned will be able to review their system of management during this transitional period and consider whether they wish to change their farming practice so as to qualify for payment under the Compensatory Allowances Regulations which apply generally throughout the United Kingdom. I do not think I need take up your Lordships' time in explaining any of the other regulations, which relate to management and other conditions and are in all essential respects identical with the corresponding provisions in the 1975 Regulations.
Finally, noble Lords may wish to know that we estimate that the cost to the Exchequer of payment of compensatory allowances under these regulations will be about £460,000. The EEC Commission have been informed of our proposals and have not raised any objections, and Esc expect to obtain a 25 per cent. contribution from Community funds towards the cost of this scheme. With that explanation, I hope your Lordships will see fit to approve these Regulations.
5.12 p.m.
The EARL of MANSFIELD: My Lords, first may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for his clear exposition of these regulations. Basically speaking, one can say immediately they are broadly acceptable, and one could go further and say that they will be welcomed by that portion of the farming community in Scotland concerned with the rearing of cattle and sheep on hill areas. It is fair to say that the threatened termination of the old winter

903
keep acreage scheme has been a source of anxiety for some little time, and the various interests concerned have been pressing the Government to announce what their intentions were to be in the future.
The old scheme indeed played an important role in helping to stabilise stock rearing operations on the hill areas. I am sure the noble Lord and the Government will agree that it is vital that these areas should have continued support. As I understand it, the number of farmers we are talking about is comparatively small. I am informed that only a proportion of those eligible will indeed take advantage of the proposed regulations—a matter of something like 700 is my information—and the remaining 1,100 who will be eligible will probably find it advantageous to stay with the main hill livestock compensatory allowance scheme. As the noble Lord pointed out, for anybody not concerned with the rearing of young stock the payments are rather more generous so far as the latter keep scheme is concerned.
The only question I have of a slightly technical nature is this: will the noble Lord confirm that farmers who have units of less than three hectares in size will still be able to claim the flat rate £40 for 1976 and 1977 which I think was announced earlier this year? Other than that, the only regret—and I would not have the noble Lord think it is a carping regret—is that the Government are not in a position to give a more extended plan for the future than these regulations which, as the noble Lord pointed out, last for only two years.
So far as the rearing of cattle is concerned, perhaps the general public does not realise how far forward farmers have to plan if they are to have confidence and to put their money into the rearing of stock. There has been a considerable lack of certainty as we have gone over from the old system of deficiency payments to the new payments which are likely to have the blessing of the European Community.
The proof of the uncertainty may be gauged—if I sink to a personal level for one moment—in my own part of East Central Scotland. The proportion of store cattle coming forward to the markets in the past three months, as compared
904
with two years ago, has fallen by about a third. I hasten to add that we are not particularly near a hill in our part of the world. It is a fact that where there is an absence of confidence, or where farmers are uncertain how the future lies, they do not take a risk and produce the creatures which will form the basis of our beef for some years ahead. I hope, therefore, that the Government will give continued thought to the proposals—as I am sure they will—and will soon be in a position to go some way to satisfy the farming interests that there will be a continued support scheme beyond 1977. Save for those words by way of a caveat, my Lords, we welcome these regulations.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, the noble Earl has kindly and generously welcomed the main provisions of the regulations for which I thank him. I was specifically asked about the position of farmers with less than three hectares of eligible land. I am able to tell him that the position is this: the EEC Directive on Less-Favoured Areas precludes the Government from paying compensatory allowances to farmers with units of less than three hectares. Farmers who do not satisfy these requirements and previously received hill livestock subsidies, will be eligible to apply for special flat rate payments of £40 in 1976 and 1977, as announced on 13th February last by my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
As to the noble Earl's more general question posed to me—namely, what was the Government's intention in the years which would succeed 1978?—I can draw his attention to the purpose of the regulations now before your Lordships' House which is to provide compensation for a relatively small and diminishing number of farmers; to give them time in fact to adapt their system of husbandry, should they so desire, so as to qualify for assistance under the 1975 regulations which implement the EEC regulations in less favoured areas over the United Kingdom as a whole.
I do not think that it would be right to provide for aid on a continuing basis which is designed specifically for, and limited in application to, a special group of farmers. If there is evidence at the end of the two-year period that the

905
termination of the scheme would cause serious hardship to a substantial portion of the farmers concerned, we shall be prepared to review the matter. It would be misleading and harmful to give the impression that this is other than a transitional measure ending in 1977.

ASBESTOS: USE CONTROL
5.20 p.m.
Lord HALE Lord HALE rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will state their immediate proposals for controlling the use of asbestos and in particular reducing the danger of asbestosis or mesothelioma to workers in the asbestos-using industries, their relatives and their contacts. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the British Factory Inspectorate have a longstanding history of high repute. Your Lordships will not be surprised, if I tell you that I find they possibly had their first origins with the work of the Member for Oldham, Mr. John Fielden, in 1833. Their responsibilities are very great; their expertise has to be very great and varied. They have always been understaffed and have complained about being understaffed. Often one man is responsible for surveying 100 or more factories in a limited period. They are always liable to be called upon in emergencies to give expert advice or occasionally, as in the case of Flixborough, to face almost insoluble problems of investigation. More recently, of course, they have acquired even more expertise in the Chemical Division; and with the almost daily introduction of new materials new perils are also introduced. In their annual report will be found listed things we had not even heard of a few years ago, such as Vinyl chloride, which seems to be capable of producing a vast variety of grave afflictions.
Only a few weeks ago I was satisfied that mesothelioma could only originate in asbestos, and the reason is that mesothelioma differs from the lung disease of asbestosis in that the effective agent has to pierce the lung. The ultimate cancers are invariably fatal and generally on the pleura or the perineum although they may occur elsewhere. It is reasonable to think that only asbestos, with its minute, pointed fibres, could pierce the lung in that way. In the last week or two we have had
906
evidence that fibreglass, which is now often used in minute portions and often ground up into minute particles, may be capable of producing a corresponding disease, with symptoms that cannot, of course, be investigated.
I had intended to apologise for the fact that I arrive in this House almost as a complete stranger, because for quite a number of days I have been sitting upon a Private Bills Committee from what seems to be early in the morning. But it may comfort your Lordships to know that most of the heavy documents I brought to use in my speech have been lost somewhere between the River Nene and the River Ouse, and I am having to speak impromptu, in spite of the generous assistance of the Daily Mirror this morning, who reported what I was going to say. I confess I am grateful, because I have not been mentioned in the Press for about four years and, in its time, the Daily Mirror has got me a lot of votes. Incidentally, I rather agree with them about curves. I therefore speak under a little difficulty, but why should I worry about that when I am to have the privilege of being followed immediately by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale? The noble Lord comes from an old legal family and has many and varied talents. I understand he is making his maiden speech from the Front Bench. The noble Lord is respected and liked by all of us, and we shall all listen to him with great pleasure.
The debate will be concluded by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques. The Government, with their nefarious record, are damned lucky to have a chap like the noble Lord to be able to defend some of the things I am going to talk about, because everybody knows there is a problem here. The noble Lord has helped me, and he has introduced me to the good side of the Department of Health and Social Security and to the employment advisory service under Dr. Suzette Gauvaine and Dr. Greenberg, where investigation is quite elaborate, of an admirable kind and computerised, too. So far as I know, the computer is actually producing fairly accurate figures. But somewhere in this organisation is something quite different, something which indulges in falsity and does not care about the answers given in the House of Lords—something which buries valuable information in some "Fort Knox" at the Elephant and Castle and

907
uses in relation to its information for this House something which our Gallic friends call "Je m'en foutisme"—a disregard for fact, or a refusal to give information in relation to something which is of vital importance.
One of the difficulties about factory inspectors—and, on and off, I have been dealing with mines inspectors and factory inspectors for about 50 years—is that they take the view, on reasonable grounds, that if they are to get the best co-operation out of employers, they should give warning of their approach. There is no question that they constantly do give warning, and, so far as it can be cleaned up, the factory is cleaned up the day before they arrive. I do not want to refer even to one of my own many personal delinquencies, but I can recall the day we got a note to say that the general would inspect gunsites 1 and 3. The major, who was a grand fellow, took me out and we spent the day previous to the intended visit stripping all the amenities—there were not many—from gunsites 2, 4, 5 and 6. We laid down paving stones, with the active co-operation of our men; and when it was all finished the major said to me: "Will that look all right?" I then ventured for the first time on sarcasm to one for whom I had a great regard, and said: "Perhaps we might put a Christmas tree on either side of the door". I am happy to say that when the general arrived the next day, he particularly admired the Christmas trees!
That is all very well, but when one is talking about poison, it becomes a different matter. The House has received, and I believe more people than ever have digested, two important documents in the last few weeks. One is the report of Sir Alan Marre, now retired from being the Parliamentary Commissioner, published in 45 typewritten pages and now reproduced in print as part of the annual report on the Acre Mill at Hebden Bridge. I thought it might be invidious of me to comment upon the story that he so vividly and carefully and in measured words was called upon to relate; we are all grateful to him for this investigation and for this gifted report. But it is necessary for me to emphasise what he himself said briefly, that the employers were outside his terms of reference; that he was investigating
908
and reporting only on the Factory Inspectorate, and that therefore the conduct of the employers was to be considered only as part of the res gestae of the main investigation.
I thought that perhaps, particularly as when I asked Her Majesty's present Government whether there were records of successful cases being brought for tort in relation to industrial lung diseases T was told that they could not recall any, I might deal with a case that I subsequently discovered. I say frankly that I did not think there were any when I put the Question. This is not the Cape Asbestos Company; this is the Central Asbestos Company. For some reason, they have both changed their names since and "asbestos" does not appear in the titles.
These were not very bad employers. They had a couple of little factories at Bermondsey, which were wholly unsuitable for their purpose. But in their later years they did something which very few employers did. They submitted workers to an X-ray examination, particularly of the lungs, every two years. Whenever they got an adverse report, they gave a copy to the workman, but they never observed the regulations. Even the cleaning up the day before the visit was perfunctory, although it took place—heavy dust was removed from the rafters and a few bags were shifted around. Even then, of course, asbestos had to be kept in impermeable sacks, but they did not have any most of the time. The Factory Inspectorate wrote to them once every six months, over a good many years—I think from about 1953 to 1961—calling attention to the deplorable state of the factory and saying that something must be done and steps must he taken at once. That was the lot. There were calls, talks and advice, but by 1964 the firm were saying frankly, "We just cannot obey the regulations in these premises" and it was probably perfectly true. In 1968 they closed down.
I shall confine myself for the moment to Bob Smith, because I see that that wretched clock is gaining on me again. Bob Smith was a workman in that factory. He worked there for about six years, during the period I am covering. In about 1961, a new factory inspector, Miss Crosthwaite, came to take over and she

909
was shocked and disgusted at what she found. She said, "Drastic action must be taken". On one occasion, she took a dust count and found that the dust in that factory was from 170 to 680 times the maximum permitted dust per cubic centimetre. It is almost unbelievable and difficult to visualise. Moreover, the ventilation was defective.
This otherwise decent little factory had a very popular manager, Mr. French, who had risen from the ranks and he took a rather daredevil view of the risks, but I am perfectly certain that it was because he was that type of decent, rather reckless man. He once said to the factory inspector "It is not really as serious as all that. I have got it myself and it is not putting me out. I go on working." But in 1966, although he wore a mask, Mr. Smith was finding acres of black when he blew his nose. He was getting worried and noticed that a friend of his was ill almost to the point of death. When his friend died, he asked for another examination and was afterwards told that he had asbestosis. There followed what was a more or less routine process—a fortnight on short time, an application to the Pneumoconiosis Board, an assessment of a miserable 20 per cent. pension or something like that and an expectation of life, estimated a year or two later, of six years—and he was then 44. He then did the one thing that was worth doing. He went to see his Member of Parliament who was one of the ablest and most respected Members of the House, and he is still there. He advised him imperatively to see a firm of solicitors and, furthermore, he wrote to the then Minister of Labour calling attention to the state of the factory. Still nothing had been done.
I rely on the Sunday Times for this report—I think it an excellent paper, by far the best of the 120 that the noble Lord, Lord Thomson, records himself as buying in the few months before he published his biography, though I confess that I have not read the Council Bluffs Nonpareil or the Moose-Jaw Times-Herald—and some years later they published a very full account of the case. One can hardly believe what happened. Miss Crosthwaite had gone. I rather thought that, like Miss Preen in The Man who came to Dinner, having devoted herself to nursing, she had now gone into armaments on a big scale and was going to blow up humanity.
But now that Miss Crosthwaite has moved to the Prison Service, she has some quite frank things to say about the Factory Inspectorate. In 1964 they had—I must be fair about this, even if the clock menaces—brought a prosecution against the firm on three charges and the magistrates had fined them £75 on one charge, £75 on the second and £20 on the third; and to mark their sense of the gravity of the case the magistrates ordered them to pay in addition costs amounting to 10 shillings.
Bob Smith's friend was dead, but there were six others in much the same position. Bob Smith was fortunate enough to go to one of the most experienced firms of solicitors in such matters and an action for damages was brought. This was a case that the Inspectorate, or the Ministry, had never heard of. The case lasted for 12 days and £86,000 was collectively awarded. Of course, it should be said that the case of The Central Asbestos Company is now being conducted by the insurance company. They are not to blame for what followed.
There was an appeal to the Court of Appeal and the hearing was reported. I have a photostat copy of Lord Denning's judgment but I have not the time to refer to it. Finally, the company took the case to the House of Lords on the question of the Statute of Limitations. Their Lordships heard the matter for five days and reversed the judgment—fortunately not in the case of Mr. Smith but in that of Mr. Dodd—Sby the narrowest possible margin: two one way, two the other and one half on one side and one half on the other. That decision, therefore, will not bind any future court, because the judge decided on special circumstances and that judgment was upheld. I should mention that Bob Smith was just able to visit the hospital and see the manager die.
I hope that your Lordships will forgive me. I plead for the permission of the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington. I have not had the privilege of speaking to her about this debate because I was a prisoner first in the Moses Room and then in a Committee room. However, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was good enough to provide me with this document. In 1968 the Standing Medical Advisory Committee reported on the control of the cancer hazard to the general public due to asbestos. Mrs. Tait, the Churchill Scholar in Asbestosis whose pamphlet

911
was published a few days ago—perhaps it had a sensational cover but it contained a mass of detailed information giving references to every statement and quoting the practice in almost every country—applied for a copy of this document about eight years ago and was told that it was private. It brought to the public a useful, constructive report suggesting the measures which should be taken in factories to prevent and reduce cancer, but from time to time they have said, "This is private, or, "Officers of the Inspectorate very properly are writing articles". In support, I have material from the Office of Labour in Geneva which gives all this kind of information.
Your Lordships will have observed in the last week or two that some remarkable events have happened. Not only have I been mentioned but half of England has been mentioned in the Press as consisting of neglected cancer heaps, despite the warning in this document of the steps which should be taken. A few days ago on 26th April Mr. Henderson asked a question about the document in another place and was told that in view of the increased public interest they had now decided to release it and that that day it had been placed in the Library of the House of Commons. That was eight years too late and there was no reason at all for concealing the document.
I will conclude, my Lords, but I must do so with something that I promised. I said that I hardly believed it and I blamed it on the Sunday Times in case of inaccuracy. I referred to the letter that Mr. George Strauss wrote to the Minister of Labour. Another new, gifted and brilliant factory inspector was doing his work and demanding, again from his senior officers, that drastic action should be taken. Mr. Strauss wrote shortly before Christmas 1966. The new inspector, Mr. Fallaize, visited the factory two or three weeks later in the following January. He made an inspection and reported that half-filled sacks were lying about, that there was dust all over the floor, that there were no impermeable sacks, that there was an ineffective ventilator and that dust was lying by the extractor shed. That report went to its appropriate place and the Minister wrote to Mr. Strauss to say that he was glad to inform him that the district inspector's report on a very
912
recent visit had shown a great improvement in conditions. He hoped that that would convince Mr. Strauss that the Inspectorate were carrying out their duties and said that the district inspector had reported that there was no need for action.
If this is true—and I want to know whether it is true, although I do not ask my noble friend to reply tonight—it is the most outrageous document that I have heard of in all these years of Parliamentary history. The people working at and directing the Central Asbestos Company were no doubt doing their best. On the other hand, it is the man higher up, whom we never hear of at all, who is really responsible, but from 1953 until they closed in January 1968 they were pouring poison all over Bermondsey. Deaths do not come quickly as with Jack the Ripper, but certainly they murdered a lot more people than Jack the Ripper and people are still suffering from this disease. If anybody is concerned about this disease they should see it. I say that the record of somebody inside the Ministry of Health is so disgraceful that it is impossible to overlook it and to overlook the neglect of safety precautions all over the country which could have been taken, had a little more activity been shown. I beg to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
5.50 p.m.
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hale, who has done so much in bringing to our attention the dangers of asbestosis, is really quite an honour. I also feel rather nervous at following him after the very kind build-up that he gave me. In fact it is an occasion when one is rather nervous, to follow such a distinguished speaker and to be followed later in the debate by the noble Lord, Lord Platt, who is probably one of the greatest experts in this subject. However, I hope I shall not quote too many facts that can be disproved.
This is obviously a subject which is extremely emotive and anybody who is suffering or has suffered from these awful diseases must have all our sympathy. But it is not just a question of our sympathy; we obviously have to do all we can from now on. I think a lot has been done quite recently since the full implications of the dangers of asbestos and its

913
result in asbestos-related diseases has become known. We are all actively concerned with asbestos. Between a quarter and a half of all those people in this country over 50 years of age have asbestos in their lungs. The point is that it is not so much having asbestos in one's lungs as, I believe, one's susceptibility to the disease. There is a mass of material available: in fact there is so much material that, as the noble Lord, Lord Hale, has said, one could go on for a considerable time quoting cases, but it would appear that the level of asbestos is the vital factor.
There has been a lot of emotive talk about the dangers of asbestos. It varies so much and is such a complicated and complex subject that it is very dangerous to generalise. At some time in our lives we have all been exposed to asbestos. I have handled asbestos and I have been round asbestos factories; therefore, doubtless I have asbestos in my lungs, but I think the work that has been done by Dr. Newhouse in the TUC Centenary Institute conclusively shows that it is the dosage which really counts. Since 1969 regulations have come into force. Perhaps there have been occasions when the Inspectorate has fallen down or something has gone wrong, but the levels have come right down and I think we can be proud of the 1969 regulations, which have done a lot. I am not saying this is the end of the road, by any manner of means. It would be quite wrong to say that, but we have led the world with these standards. A number of other countries are now quoted as having lower standards, but I must point out that these are standards which are being talked about; they are not necessarily being applied and therefore our two-fibre per millilitre level is an effective level as opposed to a lower, ineffective level, or unpoliced levels. Consequently the reduction in asbestos has reduced the risk very considerably. The banning in 1969 of crocidolite has had a tremendous effect especially on mesothelioma. The only problem here is that there will be a lot more cases coming up because of the long period it takes to manifest itself—15 years or so, or up to 50 years.
One thing is certain from all the research that has been done: the more we know, the more we realise that research has to be carried out in order to find some
914
vital answers. How big is this problem? As I have said, each individual case is a tragedy in its own right and I am not going away from that point; but I should like to bring it a little into perspective in terms of the total number of deaths in this country. I will quote rounded figures because it is obviously going year by year. There are in this country about 583,000 deaths—obviously a high proportion of these are due to old age, but of those deaths 38,000, or about that figure, are lung cancer deaths. Mesothelioma actually accounts only for under 200 deaths. So it is a relatively rare disease, but I should like to come back to that point in a moment. Asbestos accounts for 140 deaths. If we put these two figures against traffic accidents, which are tragedies in their own right, there are 7,000 of those. The point is that the number of deaths from mesothelioma is small within the total universe of deaths, but within the working population affected by asbestos, which I believe is about 15,000, it is obviously quite a high percentage and we must do something about it.
Lord TAYLOR of MANSFIELD: My Lords, will the noble Lord forgive me for intervening for one moment? He has quoted the number of deaths from this disease and I am wondering whether he can tell me and the House whether those statistics were arrived at by post mortem examinations or just on the evidence of external examination at death?
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, I stand to be corrected on this point and I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, will correct me if I am wrong. But, so far as I know, these are post-mortem cases because they go on to the register and are recorded. The point at issue is one that I was coming to and I think I see the point which the noble Lord is alluding to. It is, I believe, the 38,000 lung cancer deaths. This is an area in which we do not know how many deaths were caused by asbestos. Certainly not all, but a proportion must have been so caused and I want to come to the subject of lung cancer and its relation to smoking in a moment.
As I have said, the 1969 standards have shown a considerable improvement and provided they are absolutely adhered

915
to they were designed to reduce the risk and to leave a safety margin. New research is to be undertaken and the Committee that has been set up under the chairmanship of the Health and Safety Council we obviously welcome most sincerely. The standards of two fibres per millilitre at the moment are workable. Obviously it would be better if we could reduce these levels, but there are certain problems here.
Just covering the subject of other countries, we import about 150,000 tons of asbestos a year, which costs us about £18 million, but the largest producers are Russia. Out of the 4,500,000 tons produced, they produce about 2 million tons and I am sorry to say that they are producing a terrible problem at the moment in a number of underdeveloped countries because this asbestos is being shipped in jute bags and the level of dust is quite enormous. So unfortunately it is a worldwide problem and it is being perpetuated in a drastic way in other countries. Therefore I think it is also our responsibility to try to improve that situation where and how we can. That is easier said than done, of course.
It is easy enough to talk about these research findings in your Lordships' air-conditioned Chamber and to look upon each individual statistic as just so many points. But as I have said, they are individuals and they have suffered. It is, unfortunately, easy when looking at the problem, to look at it a little too emotionally on occasions, and it is easy to misinterpret this information, which is highly complex. As a layman, I feel I am not in a position to assess the position, and it will be up to the Committee, which I gather is holding its first hearings in June, to assess the information very fully. I hope the Committee will report very soon. We need some definitive answers to allay the fears, or to do something if those fears are totally justified, of not only the people concerned in asbestos factories, but the general public as a whole.
My Lords, from the research that I have seen—and I have read quite a considerable amount of this material—the danger for the ordinary public and in the home is relatively slight. Obviously, there are occasions where people who live near the old factories, or near a tip which has not
916
been properly covered, can be exposed to these risks. But it is a question of dosage, and overall the general public is not exposed to much of a risk. There has been much talk recently about the Underground; for instance of Highgate Station having a particularly high level. In that case, London Transport have carried out tests, again with the TUC Centenary Institute, and the levels were found to be one-thousandth of the acceptable level. In fact most of the dust came from the contact between the wheels and the rails. There was a considerable amount of pollution, admittedly, but very little of it was asbestos.
I think the public ought to be reassured on these points because I think that needlessly they may take action which is unnecessary and which causes alarm. I am not, by any manner of means, saying the danger does not exist, but, especially when you are talking about locked-in fibres, in most cases exposure to the public is quite safe. It is a totally different matter when you come to boards like Asbestolux boards which the do-it-yourself enthusiast can work with. Here, what the noble Lord, Lord Hale, and others have been bringing to the attention of everyone is very valuable, because in my opinion the do-it-yourself enthusiast should not use asbestos. It is all right if done in the open, but it is very tempting to use a power drill or a power saw, and then you start exposing yourself to quite considerable risks. This is an area, therefore, where the actual use of asbestos must be discouraged wherever possible; but there are so many applications of asbestos and it is such a remarkable material that we cannot talk about banning it at this stage. We must make it as safe as possible. It is really a question of equations, because we must have asbestos in building, for the fire regulations. If you do not use it, you reduce very considerably the strength of the building. The use of asbestos gives 20-minutes fire protection, so if you do away with it you may have many more deaths from fire. Therefore it is an equation in which you set one side against the other.
Looking at the main related asbestos diseases, I have mentioned mesothelioma, and would like to say that of those deaths, the current notification rate is 234. It seems that about 70 per cent. of cases of mesothelioma are directly related to

917
asbestos. Perhaps the figure is higher. But one point we should remember is that not all cases are related to asbestos. Research may show that there are other dangerous factors about at the moment. I know the noble Lord, Lord Hale, spoke about this, and I know he did not say that it was all related to asbestos.
Lord HALE: My Lords, I had not intended to interrupt the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, but I would put one point. The people who are now found to have a direct association with asbestos are precisely those the noble Lord has been dismissing as taking risks. They are the people who have had different sorts of contacts with asbestos, who have breathed it in the air, who have worked it in the home, and who have seen father on the roof breaking it up, and so on; so the two figures given by the noble Lord really contradict one another.
Lord REDESDALE: Yes, my Lords, I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Hale, is saying on this point. I was merely saying on mesothelioma that there are other cases and we have to watch out for this, especially concerning glass fibre which is one of the substitutes we have been talking about. In the manufacture of PVC there are many carcinogens, and perhaps we can find out more as we go along on this subject.
I think that I have probably spoken too long already, but there are one or two further points I should like to raise: first, mesothelioma is not connected with smoking, but the one related disease that it is lung cancer. We do not know what proportion was caused by asbestos, but one terrifying fact emerges, namely, that the non-smoker in an asbestos factory is eight times more likely to get lung cancer. But, and this is a frightening point, if he smokes, he is 90 times more likely to get lung cancer than a non-smoker outside. Much has been said on the subject of trying to prevent smoking, but, frankly, I should like to see a ban on smoking in asbestos factories; not that I can prove in any way that it is the actual inhalation of asbestos at the time and smoking at the time that cause the damage, but more to make the point of this vastly increased danger of smoking.
My Lords, I have already mentioned the satisfactory levels, and the fact that
918
the industry has considered in the past that the two-fibre level was satisfactory. We must work on this, and if possible reduce the level. It is a cost equation. It is not just the cost of producing asbestos in conditions which technologically are possible, because you can do anything you want if you are prepared to pay for it, but it is the cost benefit of producing asbestos. We will probably have to live with some risk, and it is our duty to reduce that risk to as low a level as possible. At the moment, if this is the case, money will be required to work on substitutes, and money will have to be spent now, and probably public funds. The industry has spent quite a lot of money on producing substitutes, and has succeeded in producing quite a number. However, there are some areas where asbestos is irreplaceable. I gather that at present the industry is spending about £80,000 on research, which is a quite considerable sum of money. I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, could tell us the total figure, and whether this figure is going to be increased.
One of the areas which was obviously worrying us all was the question of spraying. Could the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, confirm as a fact that there is only one company still spraying; it is not spraying chrysotile but chrystolite. It is going to stop spraying, fairly soon I believe. It is dangerous, and must be stopped. In the future we shall need to have sprays for the undersides of buildings where fire protection is needed, and the protection of mineral fibres which can be put on is possibly not so effective; they have to be heavier, which creates a problem in ships.
One of the other things I am glad to see happening is colour coding, which is vitally important, not only to people working in the industry, but for those putting up the material. Laggers will be particularly glad of this, but it is most important to the handyman. Warnings are going out this autumn. This is vitally important. One area where there has been no proof of a connection, although there has been a great deal of talk about it, is in ingested fibres. We obviously take in quite a number of fibres a year. I believe a pint of beer has a figure of 5,000 fibres in it. This is a terrifying figure, but when you consider it in relation to the size of these microscopic fibres

919
that means that all the beer consumed in this country in a year would produce one thimbleful of fibre, so the size of the fibre is minute. All the research I have seen so far indicates that there is no danger from ingested fibres. I should be grateful if the noble Lord could cover this point in his reply.
Finally, and perhaps rather appropriately, I should come to demolition and stripping. This obviously causes a considerable amount of dust. Provided the code is adhered to the danger is limited. But stripping is a different matter because outside workers come in and take off material and put it back. I believe that anybody concerned with either demolition or stripping ought to be registered. Therefore, the contractors ought to be licensed. I believe that some work has been done, and this is being looked at at the moment.
There is one point which I feel should be looked at very carefully. It is that the onus should be put on anybody who wishes to demolish a building in which there is asbestos to inform the local authority that he is going to demolish the building which has asbestos in it. Then it would be up to the local authorities to ensure that a licensed contractor is used, observing the code, and that the risks are therefore minimal. Quite how this would work I do not know; it would have to be done in conjunction with the Factories Inspectorate. But I feel that a system is most important, because some building is going up with a vast amount of asbestos in it. Probably the people using it most of all are the Post Office. When these buildings have to come down we are going to have considerable problems. So the importance of licensing contractors is, I think, something that we ought to look into now, and I hope the noble Lord will be kind enough to mention this point in his reply.
6.12 p.m.
Baroness ROBSON of KIDDINGTON: My Lords, may I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Hale, for once again raising this subject, which is increasingly becoming of concern to all members of the public, not only to the people who work in asbestos industries. We are grateful to the noble Lord for giving us the opportunity yet again to discuss this question. I am very sorry that my noble friend Lord
920
Avebury is not able to be here today. He is a great expert on this subject. Unfortunately, he unavoidably has to attend another committee meeting. I am no substitute for Lord Avebury, and I only want to speak about one or two points, particularly in relation to the general public and what has become a great fear among the general public about asbestos. For the first time, recently people in general have begun to wonder what they themselves can do about it.
It seems odd that this circular from the Standing Medical Advisory Committee, to which the noble Lord, Lord Hale, referred, should not have been published since 1968; that is, for 8 years. There are in it various recommendations, some of which, I am sure, could easily have been implemented as from 1968 onwards. I should like to ask the Government whether they have implemented, for instance, the second recommendation about marking materials for domestic building and workshop use which contain asbestos, or what is the reason why it has not been done in those 8 years. I should also like to ask whether it is not a bit odd to issue a document which, as its seventh recommendation, says:
"The use of different types of asbestos in this country, the extent to which the public is exposed to asbestos dust, and the hazard associated with this exposure, should be reviewed in five years' time from the introduction of the Asbestos Regulations 1969, that is in May 1975."
Well, this is May 1976, and this document was published, I believe, on 28th April this year.
One could ask oneself more than one question about a document like this. First of all, what can be the reaction of the medical members who have given of their time to try to help the nation create a proper policy on asbestos and find that their efforts are put on the side for eight years? It is not an unusual occurrence for papers of this kind within our nation, and it is increasingly discouraging people from taking part. Today I had a telephone call from Dr. Hamlin, who is a member of the all-Party Committee for Freedom of Information, under the chairmanship of Mr. Arthur Lewis, a Member of Parliament. He feels that the publication of

921
this document in particular provides a typical example of withholding information which the people of this country have a right to have published. He claims—and I have not been able to verify it—that it would hardly be possible in Sweden, which is a country, as your Lordships know, where the utmost communication between Government and people is looked for; and to a certain extent the same thing applies in the United States of America. It may be that we could learn a lesson about publication of these papers from this particular one.
As the paper states, the regulations at present in force on asbestos need to be reviewed urgently. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, has referred to the present standard, of two fibres per millilitre of air, as being, he thought, more or less satisfactory—although I may have misunderstood him—or as low a standard as we could possibly enforce at the moment. But it was, after all, introduced not to abolish the risk of asbestosis; it was introduced with the certain knowledge that it would only reduce to 1 per cent. the incidence of asbestosis in the industry. But since then all the medical research, I would claim, in the United States, in Canada and in the Medical Research Council at Penarth has indicated that this standard is not low enough to prevent even asbestosis, let alone other chest diseases, and that it is not low enough to keep the incidence to 1 per cent. So we are faced with the problem of answering two other questions relating to this.
We have already had reference, in the statistics which the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, gave, to the number of deaths from lung cancer, mesothelioma and asbestosis. We see how often the actual cause of death could also have been given as heart failure, because of excessive strain on the heart due to cancer of the lung or other lung diseases which, because of the heart failure, were never diagnosed. We do not know to what extent that has influenced the statistics on the number of deaths.
I am also very disturbed, as an ordinary person, about what I understand the medical profession now generally agree about; namely, that the dosage can be very much more minimal than we expected it to have to be in the past, and that the results of that inhalation, or absorption,
922
of asbestos fibre may not show themselves for perhaps as long as 50 years, but certainly for quite a great number of years. This is very worrying to the average person who reads these facts in the Press. Therefore, all of us welcome the setting up of the Simpson Committee to look into all these matters. It was announced in this House on 30th March. So far as I am aware the members of the Committee have not yet been announced. I have just been told by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that it hopes to meet in June for the first time. I am not aware that the members have been announced yet, but am happy to hear that its first meeting is not too far distant.
When it starts deliberations there are some things that I believe we should ask the Simpson Committee to look into, if it has not already been asked to do so. One of the most important is that it should be empowered to look into the materials used in substitution for asbestos. The noble Lord, Lord Hale, mentioned fibreglass, which is one material that is frequently used in substitution, and there are others. It may be that if the materials are expected to have the same qualities as asbestos they also have the same dangers, and I think that the Simpson Committee is the perfect vehicle for looking into these matters and protecting the nation in that way.
I would also hope that the Simpson Committee would publish its evidence as it goes along, and that we shall not have to wait until the complete report is ready, because then we shall have the same problem, for a different reason, that we have had with this recent publication. It is most important that the information should be permeated to the nation as soon as it is available.
There is one other point that I should like to ask the Government to have a look at and consider, and perhaps reassure me about. Have the Government a policy for compensation for workers who are employed in premises not covered by the Factories Acts? This is something I do not know. Their only remedy would be to prove negligence on behalf of their employer, and this is a costly legal exercise. I should like to know, for instance, what remedy a man who is working a shovel on top of a waste dump has should he acquire a disease due to working with asbestos waste. There was

923
a reference to this in the Press about a week or ten days ago, when it was found that a lot of this asbestos waste had not been properly bagged and that there was not enough topsoil available to cover the waste properly. Therefore, it was a danger not only to the man who was using the bulldozer on the waste dump but also to people living in the neighbourhood.
Lastly, the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, talked about cost effectiveness, and that there is so much you can do and so much you cannot do. We spend an enormous amount of money on cancer research and trying to find a cure for cancer. Should not we spend it on prevention and protecting people against substances such as asbestos?
6.25 p.m.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, like others I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hale, for bringing up this extremely important subject. I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, who made only one crashing mistake because he said that I was a great expert on this subject, and I want to tell your Lordships right from the beginning that I am not. From what we have heard today I think that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, is probably a much greater expert on the subject of asbestosis than I am.
I was at one time very involved in the question of silicosis and the Sheffield grinders who, in those days, used sandstone wheels for grinding knives and swords and other sharp instruments. They used to get silicosis, which led to a general fibrosis, a thickening, hardening of the lung, and in those days this used to lead on to tuberculosis. Thinking of those days (which has no direct application to what we are talking about today), I remember in relation to possible substitutes for sandstone that it was always said in the Sheffield grinding trades that you could not get the same results by grinding on carborundum and similar substances. That was the general belief until the law made silicosis a compensatable disease, and then the general belief that you had to do it on a sandstone wheel suddenly died out. I think that that kind of action can sometimes achieve more than other kinds of prevention.
924
Not being an expert on asbestosis I shall try to keep my remarks as short as possible, and I hope that any medical information I may give will be accurate. It is of course true, as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said, that asbestosis, and certainly mesothelioma, are really very rare diseases. But he was also so right in saying, "Yes, but we must not compare these with the general death rate of the population over a whole year, or something like that. What is the death rate in people who really are exposed to asbestosis either in their work or in their leisure pursuits?" and that is a very different matter.
The subject takes further importance in that some of the results of asbestos lead inevitably to death and are, therefore, extremely serious for the individual, even if their seriousness for the population as a whole may be quite limited. Really asbestosis, to use that as a sort of all-embracing term, takes three forms: one is rather like the silicosis, or pneumoconiosis, which you get in grinders, mineworkers, and others, causing this gradual fibrosis of the lung. The second form is that that leads on to cancer of the lung which, as I think has been said, can be almost indistinguishable from cancer of the lung caused by any other substance. This brings me to the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, who sat down with the remark, "We know the cause of cancer: why don't we prevent it instead of looking for cures?". That leads me directly to cigarette smoking. We know the cause of most cancers of the lung, and nothing is being done about it. That is by the way.
It is very difficult to distinguish these forms and it may be impossible until the post-mortem, which is rather late in the course of the disease. It is true, therefore, that 20 or even 10 years ago, when asbestosis was hardly talked about, there were many cases of death from cancer of the lung, but it was never really considered. Nevertheless, I do not think that, by and large, asbestosis is a common cause of cancer of the lung in the general population and I think that Lord Redesdale would agree with me, from the figures he gave, that when one has a combination of asbestos and cigarette smoking one gets 90 times the cancer rate.
The third one is mesothelioma, a malignant tumour, a cancer of the pleura

925
—that is the covering of the lung—and occasionally a similar covering in the abdominal organs, the peritoneum, but that is very rare indeed. I think the general belief among experts is that asbestos, like silicate dust, causes its effects largely by its physical rather than its chemical qualities. It remains there in the lung, insoluble; it remains for the rest of the person's life and it can do things to body cells—irritating them, penetrating them and so on—which, in rare instances, can lead to the development of cancer. That, I think, is the present state of affairs and it is therefore largely a random process. Thus, we would expect that some cases develop within a year or two of exposure to asbestos whereas others may take very many years, just as with cigarette smokers some die at the age of 40 or even 35 while others carry on into old age without getting cancer. These, like so many of the processes in biology, are really random effects.

The question of substitutes must be considered very seriously. Last night I spoke with a considerable expert on the subject and I understand that this is now being seriously considered in regard to fibreglass. It is probably the size of the fibre in the fibreglass which apparently makes it, as things are at present, much less liable to cause cancer of the lung and other lung diseases than is asbestos. However, if the fibreglass people—those who use fibreglass for all sorts of useful purposes—were to reduce the size of the fibres, the whole situation might be changed. This is very much in the minds of the experts on this subject.
So much has already been said by others—and they have said it very well indeed—that I have little to add. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hale, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, for bringing to our attention the hold-up of the report from the Standing Medical Advisory Committee—of which I was once a member—of the Department of Health and Social Security. This is an extraordinarily important document but apparently it has been held up for eight years. It is probably too much to hope that we will get an explanation for that, but we can hope that the lesson sinks in and that we will not have to put up with such delays in future. This is a very complicated subject and, as we know from those who have spoken and from
926
others, to find a cure is not likely to he possible, at any rate in our time. To find preventive measures, however, is possible. We know most of them or what they should be. The thing is to make quite certain that they are enforced, and that is a matter for legislators, factory inspectors, engineers and others, just as much as it is a matter for the medical profession.
6.35 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I wish, first, to thank the noble Lord, Lord Hale, for introducing this subject again; he and I debated it not long ago and it is not easy, therefore, to find new points to make. I wish also to congratulate my noble friend Lord Redesdale on his maiden speech, so to speak, at the Dispatch Box, and I would comfort him by saying that although he was interrupted, when I made my maiden speech in the other place I, too, was interrupted, and I have always thought it an honour to he interrupted in one's maiden speech. I wish also to congratulate the Parliamentary Commissioner, Sir Alan Marre. This is an excellent report. He has gone into very great detail and as he is now retiring I hope that our gratitude will be received by him, not only for this report but for the work lie has done over many years. I am delighted that Mrs. Nancy Tait used her Churchill Fellowship in connection with this excellent report. It is a very unemotional report and I assure noble Lords that if they had seen Mrs. Tait the other day, as I had the honour to do, at the Press conference in this House, and had seen how well she handled the Press, they would agree that it has been very courageous for the widow of one of the victims of this unfortunate disease. We are thankful to her and I hope that she will be remembered in the years to come.
I want to consider the future because most noble Lords have gone into the details of the matter. I should like to know, however, why the 1971 report as well as the other report has not been published. We really do not know, despite the figures we have heard today, how many are suffering and how many are considered to be at risk. In the previous debate on this subject I asked a question and I received what I thought was a most contradictory' answer from the Minister. He told me:
"It has not been used since 1954".

927
That is a dump, to which I had referred, near a school.
"The Health and Safety Executive has no statutory obligations in respect of this tip. Nevertheless, it has provided the local authority with advice and guidance after its inspectors visited the site…".
The answer went on:
"The local authority has fenced off the footpath and covered it with non-hazardous material".
What was the point, as it had been going on since 1954, of taking that action if it was not dangerous? Surely it must have been dangerous or at some risk to people all those years, otherwise it has been a waste of money to fence it off and cover it over.
It says in the Standing Medical Advisory Committee's document:
"The tipping of asbestos waste should be permitted only under strict control. Therefore, we note and welcome the Asbestos Research Council's Code of Practice for the Handling and Disposal of Asbestos Waste Material and would recommend that local authorities should adhere to the guidance issued by the Department of the Environment in Circular 80/69…".
Does that mean that local authorities have not been taking any notice, or did they receive that circular? Perhaps the noble Lord would let me know what action has been taken by other local authorities if they have received that circular. Like other noble Lords, I hope that the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission, who, I gather, has already sent out invitations to Members to serve on the committee announced the other day, will be able to publish the names soon and perhaps it will be possible to announce them in this House. I am very interested to note, too, that asbestos has been included in the environmental research projects in the air and water in the EEC programme for 1976 to 1980. As this has been done, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will be able to give some information on the subject. Unless the Committee is set up fairly quickly, we may be rather behindhand; so I hope that the matter will be treated as urgent.
It has been remarked by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that one of the difficulties about asbestos is that it is useful and cheap and it is of course fireproof. Therefore, coming out of today's debate, there must be some consideration for the
928
general public. Either we must remove the doubts about asbestos being as dangerous as has been stated recently or experiments should be urgently undertaken to find a substitute material or to cut down the amount of asbestos in the sheeting. I gather that that is something which can be done. Also, the licensing system must be improved as regards the disposal of the waste. I believe that this should have been done under the Control of Pollution Act for the protection of water and public health. A joint Food and Agriculture Organisation and World Health Organisation expert committee on food additives has stated that much more research is needed in regard to food, and I hope that the United Kingdom Food Additives and Contaminants Committee will investigate the problem soon or, if they are doing so now, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, will tell us.
I should like to suggest that, as is done with Rawlplastic and Screwfix asbestos, which, I gather, both have warning labels, labels giving instructions with regard to the care to be taken in the use of products should be placed on a wide range of other products. Examples are hairdryers, vinyl asbestos floor tiles, linoleum and roof slates. None of this is done at present, and I gather that these products should be marked because they are in daily use and can be dangerous. I also feel that leaflets could be given to workers explaining how the use of asbestos should be undertaken and making it clear that, if they keep it damp and use hand tools instead of power tools, they will create much less dust, as the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said. It should also be emphasised that the waste should always be collected and that the overalls of workers should be made of manmade fibre and should be washed at the work premises and not taken home to the wives to wash, so avoiding an added possibility of the women coming into contact with the asbestos dust.
In regard to masks, I believe that it is essential that a mask with a filter should be worn. I understand that gauze masks are not sufficiently safe. Over the years, I have had the opportunity of going round the Royal Naval Dockyards, where an excellent doctor, Captain Harris, made a special study of the disease and its prevention, As a result, for some time now men working with asbestos have

929
worked in air-conditioned chambers such as this Chamber—probably even better—and have had protective clothing. This has made a tremendous difference and one seldom comes across cases, though one will of course have to wait to see whether cases will develop, as the disease takes between 10 and 50 years to show itself. However, the regulations are being well carried out.
The Asbestos Industry Regulations were introduced as far back as 1931 and again in 1969 for the safety and welfare of employed persons. I should like to know why more action has not been taken. I gather from what has been said already that spraying has practically stopped but it has been banned in New York, Boston, Philadelphia and Chicago since 1972. The United Kingdom Joint Advisory Committee on Safety and Health in the Construction Industry recommended that, in the case of new construction work, employers should seriously consider using less toxic substitute materials in place of asbestos, whereas the Asbestos Information Committee of the United Kingdom, which is advised by the Research Council, still published a leaflet called, Asbestos—Public not at Risk. From this and from what we have heard today, it is clear that there are many contrary opinions.
There is also the question of the people who break up asbestos. Scrap merchants should really be warned. I gather that the document sent round to local authorities says that asbestos should not be used for insulation purposes where it will have to be broken down to permit regular inspection. I regret to say that that still goes on with many pipes which have been lagged. I hope that it will be ensured when such pipes are renewed in the future that lagging is not done with asbestos.
The noble Lord, Lord Platt, mentioned fibreglass. I have seen drawings done following X-rays which show people with these little glass needles in the lungs. I hope that the noble Lord may say when he replies that investigations are being made into fibreglass because we do not want to dispose of one danger and start another. We are all very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hale, for having raised this matter again and I hope that, when the Minister replies, if he cannot answer all the questions tonight, he will write to us so that we can have the satisfaction of knowing that the matter has been looked into.
6.48 p.m.
Lord TAYLOR of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I hope that I may crave the indulgence of your Lordships, my name not being on the printed list. I have been wrestling with the problems of dust—not asbestos dust, but coal and stone dust—for many years. One of the reasons why I rise is to congratulate my noble friend Lord Hale for having once again raised this problem of dust in the world of asbestos manufacture. I have known my noble friend for many years, in and out of season, and from two angles. He has constantly sought to focus the attention of the people who matter and to bring the laws to the notice of those who are the victims of this kind of dust. What can be done? That has for many years been the theme song of my noble friend in the field of prevention. I have said previously in your Lordships' House and I would say it in any sphere, but particularly in this: a fence at the top of a cliff is much better than an ambulance at the bottom.
The other point which my noble friend has always had in mind is that those who succumb as victims to this terrible disease, while no compensation would be adequate, need to have something done for them. What can be done to make them feel that what they have contracted and what they are suffering can be endured more easily? What can be done to help them endure the terrible hardship of this disease? I join with all your Lordships in congratulating my noble friend for once again bringing to the notice of your Lordships' House and of the outside world—in particular the employers and the general public—the fact that some people suffer in the process of the manufacture of asbestos. I listened with interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, and was rather amazed to hear her say that in those factories which do not come under the Factory Inspectorate—I hope that there is none—the only recourse which those who contract the disease have is for damages on the basis of negligence at Common Law.
I am not sure whether that is absolutely correct. I recall when we in the mining industry were discussing the question of silicosis, as it then was. Remember, my Lords, that the word "pneumoconiosis" is quite a modern one; it was not coined until 1943. I recall that under the then Workmen's Compensation Acts,

931
and since under the Industrial Injuries Act, benefit can be claimed by any person who in the course of his employment has contracted a lung disease as a result of any kind of dust, whether it be silica dust or any other kind of dust. At one time the prescription was restricted to silica. I thought it advisable to put that matter on the record—
Lord HALE: My Lords, I am so grateful for what my noble friend has said. It was out of and in the course of employment that about 10,000 conflicting decisions on the meaning of the section, and the whole question of silicosis or anthrocosis were made by a medical referee. If he decided that a man had got it, he could be called up again three months later and be given a certificate that he had recovered.
Lord TAYLOR of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I do not want to get into a legal argument with my noble friend, but the onus of proof was altered under the Industrial Injuries Act. At one time the onus of proof as to whether Mr. X was suffering from this or that disease was on the person himself. But now it rests upon the Department of Health and Social Security.
But setting that point apart, I wish to say in the main what I took to be the thread running through the whole speech of my noble friend. This is how I interpreted his speech. He posed the questions: Is there a sense of urgency in the matter? is enough being done in terms of prevention to reduce the incidence of this disease among those employed in the manufacture of asbestos? That is what I thought was being asked as I listened to the speech of my noble friend. In my humble judgment there is a wonderful lesson to be learnt from what has taken place in the coal mining industry regarding the incidence of pneumoconiosis. I pay tribute both to the National Coal Board and the National Union of Mineworkers. They have worked with wonderful spirit and co-operation at pit level, area level, and national level. In regard to minimising dust in the pits, they have done, and are still doing, a wonderful job.
I wish to refer here to notes sent out by the National Coal Board. If I interpret the speech of my noble friend correctly, there is not the sense of urgency that there
932
might be in this matter; I do not put it any higher than that. But the objective of the National Coal Board is to eliminate pneumoconiosis from the mining industry. As long as there are new cases, combating the disease will be a priority task; the notes from the National Coal Board go on to indicate what has been done in the way of prevention. Because of the ravages of asbestosis, and the hardship and sorrow that it must bring domestically I hope that prevention will be priority number one in the manufacture of asbestos.
Before I conclude I wish to apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale—I did not realise that he was making his maiden speech from the Opposition Dispatch Box—but what I asked was not a hostile question. I thought that he had given some remarkable figures concerning this matter, and I was so interested that I wanted to see whether he could satisfy me on how the diagnosis of these cases is arrived at; whether it was by post-mortem or otherwise.
6.56 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, first I should like to compliment my noble friend Lord Hale on his tenacity and his initiative in raising this question once again, and I assure him that his feelings and his views on these matters have respect in all parts of the House. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, on his maiden speech from the Opposition Dispatch Box. His speech was informed and it was moderate, and we hope that we shall hear the noble Lord speak from that position on many occasions in the future.
The use of asbestos is controlled by the Asbestos Regulations, 1969, and the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974. The Asbestos Regulations apply to premises and activities subject to the Factories Act 1961, where asbestos is used and processes are carried out which can give rise to asbestos dust in such concentrations as is liable to cause danger to health. In cases where these regulations do not apply, similar standards are enforced under the general powers of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.
I should also explain that these regulations, and the legislation, apply to building sites and demolition sites. At this point I should also assure the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that his suggestion

933
of registration of those involved in demolition work involving asbestos will receive consideration in conjunction with a similar recommendation made in the other place. In the meantime, I should point out that in the case of blue asbestos, before it can he disturbed or removed, it is necessary to give 28 days' notice to the factory inspector.
The Health and Safety Executive, which enforces these regulations, interpret these concentrations by reference to hygiene standards which are based on the British Occupational Hygiene Society hygiene standard of two fibres per millilitre for chrysotile asbestos, which was established in 1968. For blue asbestos, which was thought to be much more dangerous, the standard was set at 1/10th of that for chrysotile and amosite asbestos. This was a far more stringent standard than any other then in use throughout the world.
The Asbestos Regulations are designed primarily to reduce or eliminate exposure to asbestos dust by the provision of exhaust ventilation, by design of new buildings in such a manner as to eliminate places on which dust can settle, and by special requirements to keep the buildings and plant clean. Loose asbestos and asbestos waste must not be kept and moved, except in closed receptacles. Special requirements exist for the notification of operations involving blue asbestos.
When it is not practicable to control asbestos dust by exhaust ventilation, personal protective equipment must be provided, including approved masks. In such cases, the regulations require employers to provide protective clothing for all workpeople exposed to asbestos dust; to provide suitable accommodation for its storage when not in use; and to ensure that such clothing is either cleaned at the factory or packed in suitably-marked containers before despatch from the factory for cleaning. The Health and Safety at Work Act imposes on employees the obligation to co-operate with their employers in carrying out these requirements, so that there should now be no question of workers taking home overalls or other clothing contaminated with asbestos dust.
Inspectors of the Health and Safety Executive are instructed to visit at least
934
once a year all factories to which these regulations apply, and more often if necessary, and to enforce the regulations strictly. Between May 1970, when the regulations came into force, and the 31st December 1975, there were 120 successful prosecutions against 50 firms under the Asbestos Regulations. Between January 1975, when the Health and Safety at Work Act came into force, and the 25th March this year 70 prohibition notices and 31 improvement notices, containing 127 requirements relating to asbestos, were issued.
How effective has the current hygiene standard been in the prevention of asbestosis? Unfortunately, since asbestosis takes time to develop it will be some years yet before this question can be answered with any degree of certainty. Stringent enforcement of the hygiene standards has undoubtedly resulted in considerable improvement, and in 1970 the Employment Medical Advisory Service set up a continuing survey to monitor the health of asbestos workers in order to produce the necessary information to validate the standard. In conjunction with the Employment Medical Advisory Service, the occupational medicine and hygiene laboratories of the Health and Safety Executive are measuring asbestos dust concentrations to which workers are exposed. But because of the time it takes for these diseases to develop no immediate conclusions can be anticipated. So far this on-going survey of asbestos workers has covered 12,000 workers and represents the majority of workers covered by the Asbestos Regulations.
Although asbestosis is the most well-known disease associated with asbestos, exposure to asbestos can also give rise to lung cancer and mesothelioma. These conditions may occur independently. The most important cancer afflicting asbestos workers is cancer of the lung, and it has been confirmed that asbestos workers who smoke cigarettes run a vastly increased risk of developing lung cancer compared with other smokers and non-smokers. Mesothelioma is a rare tumour of the lining of the chest and abdomen. It does not respond to any treatment at present available. It can present difficulties in diagnosis, even to experts in this field. Like other cancers, it is not yet possible to establish a dose response relationship; nor, indeed. to be certain that asbestos is

935
the only causative factor. It came into prominence in the early 1960s, when reported among workers in South African blue asbestos mines. Subsequently, there were a number of reports from various countries, including the United Kingdom, of cases of mesothelioma in people who had worked with asbestos or lived near asbestos works, or even lived in the same household as asbestos workers. There are indications that mesothelioma has been associated with all forms of asbestos except anthophyllite. Cases have also arisen in persons where no exposure to asbestos has been identified.
The proportion of people with mesothelioma who have had a history of exposure to asbestos varies. An analysis by Greenburg and Lloyd Davies for 1967–68 showed that 68 per cent. of cases had a definite history of occupational exposure to asbestos, but nearly 16 per cent. did not have any history of exposure to asbestos, even after the most detailed inquiries. This would seem to suggest the possibility of other causative factors. There is usually a long latent period between the history of exposure to asbestos and the contraction of mesothelioma. In Greenburg's survey, 85 per cent. had a history of last exposure 25 years previously. Reduction in the incidence of mesothelioma as a result of improvement in the working environment would not become evident for many years.
A mesothelioma register for Great Britain has been maintained by the Employment Medical Advisory Service since 1967. Notifications are currently running at approximately 230 cases per year.
Claims for disablement benefit for pneumoconiosis, including asbestosis, and for diffuse mesothelioma under the Social Security Act are dealt with by pneumoconiosis medical panels composed of doctors who specialise in this work. They have the duty of diagnosing the disease and assessing the degree of disablement. They also undertake the medical surveillance of certain workers in dusty industries, including the asbestos industry. The pneumoconiosis medical board normally makes an assessment for a limited period so that the claimant is examined regularly; and, if necessary, the assessment can be increased if the dis-
936
ability caused by the disease becomes worse.
On the question of compensation, as I think is generally known to the House, it is a matter for the employer. At present, any employee suffering from industrial disease or injury may recover damages against his employer if he can show to the satisfaction of the courts that the employer was negligent or in breach of a statutory duty. However, the House will be pleased to he informed that the Royal Commission on Civil Liability and Compensation for Personal Injury is expected to complete its work by the end of this year. It is at that point of time that Government policy in relation to compensation will be reconsidered.
I should like now to refer to the reports which in some quarters have been called secret reports. The reports, to which various noble Lords have referred, were both prepared by the standing subcommittee on cancer of the Standing Medical Advisory Committee. The Standing Medical Advisory Committee is a statutory advisory body to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, and not the Secretary of State for Employment. The Committee considers with the help of its subcommittees a wide range of health matters and offers appropriate advice. Action resulting from this advice takes a number of forms, depending on what is considered to be most useful and desirable in the particular circumstances.
The reports were intended as a review of the current situation at the time for the guidance of Government departments responsible for the manufacture, safety and use of asbestos products. The 1969 regulations were, at the time of the first report, being drafted; and this report was considered in conjunction with the drafting. Both the 1968 and the 1971 reports, each of which, I might say, were contained on one sheet of foolscap, were circulated to interested Government Departments at the time of their production and there has certainly never been any intention that they should be regarded as secret. In view of the recent interest shown in them, copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and made available to anyone requesting them.
Lord HALE: My Lords, might I make a single comment on that? When my noble

937
friend is talking about the absence of secrecy, does he know that when these seven dying men sued for damages the inspectorate claimed Crown privilege for the very report on the operations of the company which was certainly due to the men as much as to the employers?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, my noble friend and the House will be aware that I cannot answer for something said by an inspector as a witness in any particular case.
Lord HALE: My Lords, it was an application to the court by counsel for Crown privilege.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I can only repeat that I was not aware of what my noble friend has said and therefore I cannot answer him; but I will take note of what he has said and if I can get any information about it I will certainly do so.
The reports deal with the control of the cancer hazard in the general population due to asbestos and not to occupational exposure. Recommendations in the reports have largely been overtaken by events—in particular, the Asbestos Regulations of 1969 and the voluntary labelling scheme for marking asbestos products. Following that, we have the event that no raw blue asbestos has been imported into the United Kingdom for many years. While on this point, I should like to say in regard to spraying that it is our information that there is now no spraying in new buildings. There may be a slight amount of spraying by way of repair to old lagging; and in that case it is subject to very strict regulations.
I should like to refer now to the further action the Government are taking. We are collaborating in the EEC. The EEC has commissioned what is known as the Zielhuis Report. That report has been submitted to the experts of the various Member-countries and they have been invited not merely to give their opinion on the report but to relate their experience from research and experience in the field on the medical problems concerned. I should expect that in due course there will be recommendations by the EEC to the Member States.
The Committee which was announced by my noble friend Lord Oram in the House earlier this year has been referred
938
to in the debate, and I think that all need do is to underline its terms of reference. They are to enable it to cover all risks from asbestos including its release into the working and general environment—and I stress the word "general"—and it has either to satisfy itself that the safeguards introduced in 1970 for persons employed at work and other subsequent legislation are adequate, or, alternatively, to make recommendations on how improvements should be made. The report of the committee will be published and its recommendations considered by the Health and Safety Commission and the Ministers responsible for the matters under review. In the interim period the regulations will be strictly enforced. Furthermore, it seems sensible wherever possible to replace asbestos by safe or less hazardous substitutes.
Whether such substitutes are safe we do not know, but I can assure the House that some research work is going on. For example, recent observations that mineral fibres, including glassfibres, produce cancer when experimentally injected into the chests of rats have stimulated further concern; although it was an artificial situation. Some forms of glassfibres have very fine fibres and the effect of these on the lungs is unproven. Fibre size rather than chemical composition is thought to be the cause of injuries to the lung. This, I think, was emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Platt.
While this research is continuing it is Government policy and the policy of their agencies to recommend the use of substitutes wherever practicable. While we do this, I would suggest that we should not embark upon scaremongering. I think that in recent times there has probably been a little of that and it could give rise to unnecessary concern. There is no convincing evidence that the normal use of a few square inches of asbestos on, say, an ironing board on which to stand the iron is hazardous to health. I think that that should be said.
Nevertheless, consultations with the Asbestos Research Council and the Asbestos Information Committee are in progress on the introduction of a voluntary labelling schemes for products containing asbestos. Household goods and do-it-yourself goods which contain asbestos

939
will be covered by this scheme. Leaflets which set out ways and means to avoid exposure to asbestos dust in the use of do-it-yourself materials will be made available by the Asbestos Information Committee for distribution to retailers. Products labelled in conformity with the scheme should begin to be seen in the shops in October. The scheme cannot operate sooner because there is a long waiting list for labelling machines. The Asbestos Information Committee also supplies leaflets warning of the hazards of asbestos at work.
We still do not know all we need to know about the health risks from asbestos and it is for this reason that a considerable amount of research is currently in progress. This includes research into dust diseases including the carcinogenic effects of asbestos by the Medical Research Council's pneumoconiosis unit at Penarth. In addition, at Penarth the Health and Safety Executive is also funding a new approach on the identification and quantification of fibres, including asbestos fibres, likely to produce carcinogenic effects in man. Research into the immunological aspects of pneumoconiosis, including asbestosis, is being carried out at the Cardiothoracic Institute at Brompton hospital.
I should like now to conclude by saying a little about asbestos waste. The disposal of asbestos waste is subject to the provisions of the Deposit of Poisonous Wastes Act 1972. Under this Act, persons wishing to remove waste from any premises and deposit it elsewhere must give written notice to the local authority and water authority for the areas in which the waste is situated and in which it is intended to deposit it. The disposal of asbestos waste will shortly be covered by the disposal licensing system introduced under Part 1 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974. Under the licensing system local authorities have powers to lay down conditions for the disposal of most types of wastes for the purpose, among other things, of safeguarding public health. Local authorities also have powers under the Public Health Act 1936 to require the removal of noxious material or the abatement of a statutory nuisance, which includes a deposit prejudicial to health.
940
The Act also empowers local authorities to deal with the abandoned waste sites for which there is no equivalent provision in the Control of Pollution Act 1974. When people work on these sites, the Health and Safety at Work Act also applies. Inspectors of the Health and Safety Executive are currently undertaking special visits to land-fill sites where asbestos waste is deposited, to determine the exposure to asbestos dust and to ensure that adequate precautions are taken.
My Lords, I would conclude by assuring the House that the Government and the Health and Safety Commission share the concern which has been expressed, both in the House and elsewhere, about health risks from asbestos. The Government's present policy is directed to a reduction of these risks to the lowest possible level. I believe that I have dealt with most of the points which have been raised. In so far as I have not, I will see that noble Lords receive a communication from me.

COITY WALLIA COMMONS BILL [H.L.]
Report by the Chairman of Committees under Standing Order 92 that he is of opinion that the Bill should be proceeded with as an opposed Bill: Ordered, That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee; the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
BUCKS LAND AND BUILDING COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
Presented, and read 1a.
WRITTEN ANSWERS

  SEX DISCRIMINATION ACT: EMPLOYMENT OF MARRIED COUPLES
  Baroness FISHER of REDNAL Baroness FISHER of REDNAL asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether it is contrary to the Sex Discrimination Act for commercial or industrial companies not to employ married couples within the same company.
  Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: It is for an industrial tribunal to rule in individual cases whether the action taken by a company in conformity with a policy of not employing married couples constitutes unlawful discrimination either on grounds of sex or of marital status.

  ELECTORAL REFORM: HOSPITAL PATIENTS' RIGHTS
  Baroness FISHER of REDNAL Baroness FISHER of REDNAL asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether they are aware of the concern which exists over the delay in implementing the recommendation of the 1972 Speaker's Conference on Electoral Reform that patients at all hospitals should have an equal right to inclusion in the electoral register.
  Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: In accordance with a subsequent recommendation of the Conference, an Interdepartmental Working Party was set up to consider the arrangements needed for implementation of the main recommendation. The deliberations of this Working Party have shown that the recommendation of the Speaker's Conference raises a number of complex issues and the Government are now considering how these might best be dealt with.

  LOCAL ELECTIONS: PEERS AND POSTAL VOTES
  The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK asked Her Majesty's Government:
  Whether Members of the House are entitled to postal votes at local elections if engaged in the business of the House on the day of the poll.
  Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: At any local election where postal voting is allowed, a postal vote may be granted to anyone unable or likely to be unable to go to the polling station by reason of the general nature of his occupation, service or employment. The interpretation of these provisions in a particular case is a matter for the registration officer concerned.

  BILL OF RIGHTS: DEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE REPORT
  Lord WADE Lord WADE asked Her Majesty's Government:
  When it is expected that the report of the Departmental Committee on the Bill of Rights, mentioned by Lord Harris of Greenwich in his speech in the Second Reading debate of the Bill of Rights Bill on 25th March 1976, will be published.
  Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Within the next few weeks.
  House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past seven o'clock.