Lords Sitting of 25 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 Bradford.
The Lord Ampthill—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

TRADE DESCRIPTIONS ACT 1968: REPORT
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have yet received the report on the working of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 from the Director General of Fair Trading; and if not when they expect to do so.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I understand that the Director General intends to report to the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection before his appointment ends next month.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, as Mr. Methven is taking up his duties at the CBI on 14th June, have' the Government any more exact information to give regarding the date? May I ask my noble friend the Minister whether he is aware that a year ago, on 24th June, the House was told that there would be a Consultative Document and that interested parties could then make representations? Is he further aware that the problem of airline overbooking will probably be raised in the report under consideration of Section 14(1)? Finally, can he say whether there will be a Consultative Document and whether there would be any point in making representations?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I have no further information about the contents of the report which my noble friend Lady Burton of Coventry has not received.
118
But the Review Committee issued a Consultative Document to many organisations outlining its general thinking; no doubt in formulating its final report it has used the replies to that Consultative Document. As to the question of airline overbooking, I would be surprised if the report of the Review Committee does not bring forward some general points which affect this. But it would be wrong for me to speculate as to whether the Committee will go into detail on that subject and whether any of the recommendations of the Committee will reflect that practice.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, believing that my noble friend the Minister obviously wishes to be helpful, may I ask him whether he recalls that at col. 1402 of Hansard on 11th March last, the Minister said:
"I can confirm that the Government do not propose any action before the report has been considered."?
Would he feel able to say whether that still holds good?
Lord ORAM: Yes, my Lords.

ROYAL COMMISSION ON NHS: MEMBERSHIP
2.40 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: 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 on what basis the members of the Royal Commission on the National Health Service were chosen.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, in recommending appointment to the Commission, the Government proposed a membership which could look at the health service from a basis of broad knowledge and experience, and which at the same time would be reasonable in size.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord the Minister for that reply, may I ask him two supplementary questions? Does he not think that there were two alternatives before the Government: either to choose a Royal Commission on which there were

119
no representatives at all of the health services, in order that it could be said that outsiders were looking into the matter, or, alternatively, to choose a Royal Commission which included representatives of the health services, and all sections of the services? Secondly, would the noble Lord not agree, therefore, that it is unfortunate at a time when there has been a great deal of concern about the working of the health services that within the Royal Commission there are no representatives either of doctors in hospitals or of the hospital administration services?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I see the point of view of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, but as 1 tried to point out, what the Government wanted to do was to get as broadly based a Commission as possible. It would not have been possible, in a committee of 16, to have brought in all the representatives of the various aspects one finds in the National Health Service. Bearing that in mind, the obvious course was to get a Commission where a number of them who are engaged in some of the vital aspects of health in this country are represented. I would also point out that people who feel that they have a contribution to make can apply to the Commission to give evidence, or can send in written evidence.
Lord REIGATE: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that the largest sum spent in the Health Service is spent in the hospital? Reinforcing the point made by my noble friend Lady Young, it is particularly unfortunate that there is no one on the Commission who appears to have practical experience in actually running a hospital or group of hospitals.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, as I say, it is a choice between a number of things. The Government feel that, having regard to what the Commission is about, they have chosen people from a very broad field who will bring to it a wealth of experience and a fund of knowledge.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, in the course of his first reply, did my noble friend the Minister say with regard to this Commission that the policy of the Government was to see that there would be a reasonable number of people to augment it? Is one
120
to take it from the reply that the medical service is not represented at all on the Commission? Is it not correct to state that ever since the Health Service was set up, whether at regional or local level, the medical side has always been represented on the regional committees and on the management committees of hospitals in this country?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, among the members there is a professor of psychiatry and there are two general practitioners. Professor Bachelor is a practising hospital psychiatrist, and psychiatry is one of the largest hospital specialities. Professor Bachelor is a doctor of particularly wide experience, having been a member of both the Briggs Committee on Nursing and the Lane Committee on the working of the Abortion Act. Another member, Professor Bramley. is a professor of dental surgery at Sheffield University, is a practising hospital specialist in oral surgery and was previously a consultant oral surgeon in the South-West of England.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, would the noble Lord accept that I am in no sense criticising the members chosen for the Royal Commission? What I am asking is whether, at a time when there has clearly been intense disastisfaction among the medical profession with the working of the National Health Service, he really believes that by excluding two important groups of people from the membership of the Commission he will encourage people working in the National Health Service to have complete confidence in its findings?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I see the dilemma which the noble Baroness has put, and I would hope that the composition of the Commission would not be off-putting so far as people working in the Health Service are concerned. As I said earlier, I should have thought they could make a very valuable contribution by seeking to give evidence—and there need be no limit on that—and /or by submitting written evidence of their own observations and feelings and thoughts in this matter. They could make a tremendous contribution by doing that.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, as there are many urgent and weighty matters awaiting

121
the recommendations of this Royal Commission, can my noble friend say when it held its first meeting and when it is anticipated it will hold its last?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I cannot answer my noble friend in respect of either of those questions.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, has it not held its first meeting as yet?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, my impression is that it has held its first meeting, but I cannot give your Lordships the date.

ELIZABETH GARRETT ANDERSON HOSPITAL
Lord PLATT: 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 can state what steps are being taken to cope with the rapid increase in the waiting list for operations at the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital which has occurred since the main operating theatre had to be closed in March this year.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, gynaecological and surgical facilities currently provided for use by the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital's own consultants and staff at the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital will be increased from 1st June, when these facilities are to be provided from the Whittington Hospital.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his attempts to find solutions to this very difficult problem, do Her Majesty's Government agree that, however acceptable the attempts may be, they are really quite inadequate for the situation, and that the gynaecological waiting list has gone up from 98 to 260 in the last two and a half months, which for four surgeons is becoming an absolutely impossible situation?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government do not consider
122
the arrangements it has been possible to I make are by any means ideal. We recognise that the Whittington Hospital facilities will be initially for six theatre sessions and 25 beds, which is to be set against the ten theatre sessions previously available at the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital. So in that sense they cannot be considered adequate. We hope that within the next three or four months, when we hope facilities will improve and when the plan to resite the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital has been decided upon, the situation will he, if not back to normal, perhaps even an improvement.
Viscount MONCK: My Lords, as we are on medical questions, is the noble Lord aware that that famous doctor, now Lord Maybray-King, is today celebrating his 75th birthday, and would the noble Lord agree we offer him our sincere congratulations?

STRANGERS' DRESS
2.49 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask the Chairman of Committees what decision has been reached on the proposal that men who are not wearing ties should be admitted to the seats for strangers below the Bar.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (The Earl of Listowel): My Lords, the Administration Committee have considered this matter, as I promised in answer to a Question from the noble Lord on 12th April. The Committee decided to recommend no change in the present practice.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend this question: while this matter may seem to be trivial, is it not of great symbolic significance? Is he aware that guests of Peers otherwise entitled to take these seats are not allowed to do so although they are well dressed, even smartly dressed, because, in accordance with the present-day accepted custom, they are without ties? Does

123
not this suggest that we are applying a rule which is absolutely obsolete in present habits?
Earl ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House a question on a point of order? This Committee which considered this matter is a sub-committee of the Offices Committee. Surely this Committee should report to the Offices Committee before anything is said on the Floor of this House?
Lord MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, is the noble Earl the Lord Chairman aware that those of us who visit foreign Parliaments comply willingly with the customs of foreign Parliaments, and see no reason why visitors to our Parliament should not comply with the customs of the British Parliament?
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd): My Lords, I shall look into the point that the noble Earl has put to me. As the noble Earl is well aware, as to what Question is put down is entirely in the hand of your Lordships' House. My noble friend had raised this matter, and quite legitimately has sought to pursue it. I shall look into the procedure, but unless one wishes to put certain restraints on what goes down on the Order Paper, which I should not have thought to be a possibility, I personally would prefer to leave matters as they now are.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, with respect, I think that the noble Lord the Leader of the House does not quite understand what my noble friend is saying. This Committee is a sub-committee of the Offices Committee, and therefore I think that the Answer should properly have been that this matter is still under discussion, because after all the Offices Committee could reject the proposals made by this Committee.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I shall look at this matter. The Question was put down, the Chairman of Committees replied to it, and I must admit that I had not had any sight of the Answer he gave. I think that this is a matter that the House might leave to myself and the Chairman of Committees.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, as distinguished visitors from abroad may inadvertently transgress the rules of this House, could not a supply of suitable ties be made available through the attendants, in case of emergency?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, might I suggest to my noble friend and other noble Lords who may be interested in this matter, that their representations are made to the appropriate Committee.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the Leader of the House this question: is it not a matter for the Committee of Procedure whether it has to report to another Committee? Is there any reason to criticise me for having put down this Question when I was informed that this was the correct procedure to follow?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, my advice to the House is that a sub-committee reports to the main Committee. I am not aware of any exceptions to that rule.
Lord HARVINGTON: My Lords, I hope that if any recommendation is made by the Committee it will not include any recommendation as to colour, whether worn or not.
The Lord BISHOP of SOUTHWARK: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, may be encouraged by the fact that some of us are already admitted into this House without wearing ties?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am also conscious of the passage of time.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Leader of the House about the women Have they considered the kind of dress that will be allowed in order to have a seat in the Visitors' Gallery? Supposing a woman came with a plunging neckline, would she have a seat in the Tower, or at least one of the towers?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, any question concerning plunging necklines I think had better be dealt with in Committee.

DEVOLUTION IN SCOTLAND AND WALES
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 the Leader of the House will repeat a Statement being made in another place on devolution.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (VOCATIONAL TRAINING) BILL [H.L.]
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to require medical practitioners seeking to provide general medical services under the National Health Service Act 1946 or the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1947 to be suitably experienced, and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read la.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

BUCKS LAND AND BUILDING COMPANY BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.

LAND DRAINAGE BILL [H.L.]
2.56 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is another consolidation measure. The principal enactments consolidated by the Bill are the Land Drainage Acts of 1930 and 1961, Part IV of the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1968, Part V of the Agriculture Act 1970, a number of short Acts concerned with drainage rates and certain provisions of the Water Act 1973. It will also consolidate the Land Drainage (Amendment) Bill which is now awaiting Royal Assent. Other enactments consolidated are set out in Schedule 8 to the Bill. Copies of the notes on clauses and Table of Destinations for the Bill have been placed in the Library in case any of your
126
Lordships may wish to peruse this fascinating material. If your Lordships approve, the Bill will be referred to the Joint Committee in the usual way. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—[The Lord Chancellor.]
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

ENERGY BILL [H.L.]
2.58 p.m.
Read 3a, with the Amendments.
Clause 3 [Implementation of reserve powers]:
Lord SHEPHERD Lord SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 3, line 2, after (" Agreement ") insert (" to take emergency measures in connection with the reduction, or threatened reduction, of fuel supplies ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, during Report stage the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, in moving an Amendment to Clause 3(1), expressed concern about the present drafting of Clause 3(1)(a). I undertook to look into the matter and the present Amendment is the result of the Government's reconsideration. The noble Lord was concerned that the circumstances in which an Order in Council could be made under paragraph (a) should be clearly linked to the implementation of obligations relating to an energy emergency. As I explained at Report stage the Government consider it essential to retain a certain degree of flexibility. However, I believe that this Amendment would meet the Opposition's main point by making it clear on the face of the Bill that Clause 3(1)(a) is concerned only with the fulfilment of those international obligations which might arise in the event of an energy emergency. That has always been the Government's intention, as was explained at Second Reading by my noble friend Lord Lovell-Davis, and I hope that by writing it into the Bill we shall allay any concern about the scope of the circumstances in which these powers would be invoked. I beg to move.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said, this Amendment very largely meets an Amendment which I argued at the Report stage. He has, as foreshadowed, put it down. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the noble Lord for having arranged a two week interval rather than the original one week between Report stage and Third Reading because, looking at the Marshalled List before us, it has enabled the Government to bring forward Amendments in your Lordships' House to meet points which we have raised at earlier stages in the Bill.
We are particularly grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House because he has clearly made good use of that time and must have been active in getting improvements to the Bill on the lines we had been suggesting. Although the Government have not met all the points, as will become apparent during our debates today, I must start by thanking the noble Lord for the great trouble he has obviously taken in getting the Government Amendments on the Marshalled List today.
This is not a matter for one or two industries but for the whole of British industry; the Bill affects the nationalised industries and the whole area of manufacturing and service industries which are dependent on the products of the petrochemical industry. It therefore also affects everybody who works in British industry. We feel that the improvements to the Bill have been well worth while and I thank the noble Lord and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for the correspondence which has been passing between us since the Report stage.
On this Amendment, I pointed out on Report that there was no provision in the Bill when an international emergency had ended. Under the arrangements of the International Energy Agency, the IEA, an emergency does not have to he declared, nor does its termination have to be declared; a state of emergency arises automatically when supplies drop below a certain level for any member country or group of members and it was that position which we felt should get rectified. I also mentioned that although the EEC had not so far made similar arrangements, it was expected that before long there
128
would be a situation where an emergency automatically was registered where the EEC was concerned, too. Lord Shepherd asked for time to bring forward an Amendment. We welcome the Government's move in this direction but we do not believe that their wording is quite as good as the wording we had on Report, because as the clause will read with the Amendment it still will not set a time limit. However, it will tie the exercise of emergency powers loosely to the need to comply with international obligations and to take action in the United Kingdom in times of existing or threatened shortage, and this appears to imply that the powers should cease when the shortage of supplies ceases, so I commend the Amendment to the House.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.3 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD Lord SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 10, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
" (2) Subject to subsection (2A) below, neither the power of the Secretary of State to make orders under section I above nor his power to give directions under section 2 is exercisable unless an Order in Council under this section is for the time being in force.
(2A) The power under section I to make orders regulating or prohibiting the use of any substance mentioned in subsection (1) of that section, or of electricity, is exercisable at any time, but only where it appears to the Secretary of State to be desirable for the purpose of conserving energy.
Before making any such order the Secretary of State shall consult with organisations in the United Kingdom appearing to him to represent those who will be affected by the order and such other organisations as he thinks appropriate."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this Amendment I think it would be convenient to the House if I spoke at the same time to Amendment No. 4 which stands in the names of noble Lords opposite. On Report there was a good deal of unanimity among us: first, that the Bill should contain provisions relating to energy conservation; secondly, that there should be a form of permanent power to make orders to control the use of energy; and, thirdly, that we should write into the Bill our declared intention to use the powers only for conservation purposes, and to consult widely before making an order. In moving an Amendment in rather briefer terms than those of

129
the Opposition Amendment, No. 4, I would emphasise that I am in no way retracting the commitments to your Lordships on Report. This Amendment clearly incorporates the commitment to full consultation.
Noble Lords will see that while Amendment No. 2 would create a requirement for consultation with those who will be affected by an order, it avoids naming the energy industries, consumers, or particular advisory bodies. First, I believe that there is no point in consulting representative bodies unless the people they represent are affected. Secondly, we must recognise that in the course of time a need may occur to modify titles or terms of reference of such bodies. But having set up advisory bodies like ACORD and ACEC, naturally the Government will listen to their advice. I hope that it is not necessary for me to repeat all that I said on Report, either in welcoming in principle the spirit of a number of the provisions of the then Amendment No. 10, most of which we see before us today, or in pointing out our objections, both minor and more serious, to the provisions in that Opposition Amendment. All that I said then still stands.
One provision in Amendment No. 4 is, of course, new. That is the provision which would exempt from control, under the conservation provisions of the Bill, such natural gas as is already subject to a requirement for consent under Clause 8. I take it that the provision seeks to avoid overlapping controls on the use of gas. To that extent it deserves study. But it seems to the Government that we ought to recognise that there may come a time, perhaps years after a consent has been given, when it becomes plain that there is a need for conservation of gas to a greater extent than was allowed for when that consent was granted. It may he apparent to all, with hindsight, that the consent took insufficient account of the need for conservation. In those circumstances, I think the Government should have the power, subject to full consultation, to make an order about the conservation of gas and that the use covered by the consent should not he exempted from the order.
Amendment No. 4 again puts forward the idea that the energy conservation power should be taken out of Clause 3 and be quite separate, with its own
130
controls. I share the desire that the Bill should be clear. May I explain the principle of the present drafting. Clauses 1 and 2 define the powers and Clause 3 sets out the limitations on the use of those powers. So, from a structural point of view, Clause 3, and only Clause 3, is the right place to set out which powers can and cannot be used for energy conservation and the limitations which should apply to any such use. The limitations which we write into the Bill on the way in which the conservation powers are to be used will be just as effective if they are exercised through Clause 3 as any other clause or any other part of the Bill. I hope I have said enough to persuade noble Lords opposite that we have not only gone as far as we could to meet the general spirit of their earlier Amendment, but that they will feel disposed to support the Government in their Amendment and will not press their own.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, it is in many ways a pity that we have to argue about the subject of energy saving, but of course it is one of the main declared purposes of the Bill; indeed, it was forewarned in the Queen's Speech that this is what the Bill would be introduced for. Let me say right away that 1 entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that the Government have honoured the commitments which they gave on Report and that they have gone a very long way, in introducing their Amendment, to meet a great many of the points which we made at that time. It was only after very careful thought and with a good deal of reluctance that, having read the Government Amendment, we decided to table a slightly modified version of the very long Amendment which we tabled on Report. They have written conservation into the face of the Bill, as the noble Lord rightly said, and this is the necessary justification for exercising the very far-reaching powers which the Bill is giving to them, and they are now undertaking to consult with " such other organisations as he ", the Minister, " thinks appropriate This is a slightly grudging provision which I think we have had to prise out of the Government.
In subsection (3) of our Amendment we have attempted to be rather more specific about whom we feel should be consulted.

131
The degree of consultation—or the lack of prior consultation—has been one of the issues between us; and this was before the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, intervened in the handling of the Bill. But I hope that he will not think me provocative if I say that the actual process of consultation leading up to the Bill has not been wholly reassuring. It has not been a terribly reassuring precedent, and the evidence of this is the number of Amendments which the Government have felt they had to introduce during the passage of the Bill through this House. So I hope that we shall not be accused of being unreasonable if a degree of suspicion persists about this matter. We also recognise that Amendments Nos. 2 and 4 are alternatives; there is no getting away from that fact. I shall he sorry if, at the end of the day, we are in the position of having to suggest that the House should reject an Amendment which, taken by itself, represents a considerable advance over anything which has happened heretofore.
I now wish to deal rather more specifically with some of the points between us here. First, the noble Lord dealt (with greater clarity than has ever emerged so far) with the position in the Bill of the conservation powers. This is not at all an easy matter—it is not at all an easy Bill. What we have sought to do—and here we clearly do not agree with the noble Lord—is to disentangle the permanent conservation powers from what to me are the rather complicated convolutions of double and treble negatives which run through the first three clauses of the Bill. So the principle involved there, so far as we are concerned, is one of clarity and intelligibility.
We are saying that if a person is concerned about what are the Government conservation powers, he will be able to take the Bill, turn to the clause dealing with conservation, and there find the powers which the Government have taken to themselves to exercise in pursuing their conservation policy, whatever that may he. I do not believe that, Faith the best will in the world, it can be said to be at all easy for an ordinary person to unravel from the Bill as it stands just what these permanent powers are. As we have said several times, we are seeking here to distinguish the powers which are needed in international emergencies and domestic
132
crises from those powers which the Government need to have on a continuing basis for the purpose of exercising energy saving.
The Government proposal is that one of the powers to deal with emergencies should be permanently exercisable; this is the power to control by order the use of energy for conservation purposes. I continue to believe that this is inherently rather a confusing way of setting about doing the job. The second point which we have attempted to drag in here, again pursuing the same philosophy, is to set out quite clearly the criteria which the Government might be expected to follow in exercising their conservation powers. Our Amendment sets out clearly that the power is
" the conservation of energy when to the overall economic advantage of the United Kingdom."
This is obvious enough, and it also means that these powers have to be used constructively in the national economic interest, and that the orders to be implemented have to be fully evaluated before they are moved.
In our amended version of the Amendment we have said that the Secretary of State no longer has to lay before Parliament details of his calculations of these economic benefits. He has only to disclose the reduction in the consumption of energy which the order is designed to achieve. He also has to enumerate the advice he has received during his consultations. We think that this would make the administration procedure rather simpler than under our original Amendment.
In referring to our Amendment I must deal with one point under subsection (5) in relation to which there was a certain degree of confusion at Report stage. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd slightly misunderstood what it was we were seeking to do here. I think I ought to quote what he said as reported at column 757 of the Official Report:
"I am bound to say that I find ill-conceived the proposal that orders should be confined to persons or undertakings generally."
He then went on to make various points about the lighting orders, and he ended up—and here I think that we were back agreeing with each other again—by saying that when all have got to be " clobbered ", when you are dealing with a narrow field,

133
then all should be " clobbered ". He is saying what we are trying to do in this part of our Amendment. We are merely trying to say that an individual undertaking or person must not be singled out. but that if an order is being issued it must cover all the people in that general area. Did the noble Lord want to come back on that point?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, what the noble Lord has said teaches me the lesson that I ought to read my own speeches in Hansard. What the noble Lord quoted was certainly not my intention. What I was seeking to say on that occasion was that you did not " clobber " everybody merely to be able to deal with a specific problem in the field of conservation.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I can see what the noble Lord said, and I must say that there is no more unrewarding activity that I know than reading one's own speeches, so I totally forgive him if he has not gone through that speech. I agree with the noble Lord that we would not want to introduce a regulation which meant that you had to " clobber " everybody in order to " clobber " a specific area or group of people. But equally if one goes the other way about it, one does not want to single out a particular person or a particular company and have the power to " clobber " them. I am not suggesting that there is anything improper about this, but this is not something which one would want the Government to have the power to do. This is what that particular subsection of our Amendment is about. I have a feeling that we agree about that, even if we disagree about one or two other matters.
The other, perhaps the most difficult, issue in our Amendment is the question of introducing an element of Parliamentary control. We have now suggested that the Negative Parliamentary procedure would be sufficient for considering the introduction of orders under this clause. But what we have then gone on to say is that if the orders are to be continued, then that should be subject to the Affirmative procedure. The point there is a general administrative one and, I admit,
134
also one of Parliament against Government. Obviously, this is a point which an Opposition find easier to agree to than do a Government. But what we are saying here is that if a series of orders is introduced, and if these orders are of a very wide-ranging nature which can have a great effect on a large part of the industry of the country, is it not quite a good idea, annually, to dust off the orders, have a look at them, see whether they are still necessary and justify their continuance?
My Lords, if one can be specific about the kind of situation we are in at the present time, I wonder whether we want to continue the specific ban on the use of electricity for advertisements: and I wonder whether we really think that the speed limits are any longer justifiable on the ground of energy-saving. There are many other reasons why one may want them, and this is precisely the kind of danger one wants to guard against. More debatable, perhaps, is the fact that there are still in force—though I have not ever heard of anybody actually enforcing them—regulations about the temperature at which you are supposed to keep your house. It seems to us that if you are going to have wide-ranging regulations of this kind there is quite a good case for saying that these things should be reexamined by Parliament on an annual basis, and that the Government should have to find time for Parliament to give consideration to such regulations as these.
Those are the basic principles underlying the reason why we would seek to reject Amendment No. 2 and hope that the House would agree to Amendment No. 4, although we recognise that Amendment No. 2 is a great step forward from anything we have seen from the Government up until now.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am going to leave it to your Lordships' House to decide whether the noble Lord is being reasonable or unreasonable. I thought he was less than fair to my noble friend Lord Kirkhill and my noble friend Lord Lovell-Davis. They have always been available to the noble Lord for consultations in this matter, and I am well aware of the continuing discussion, consultation, that goes on between the Department of Energy and industry, whether it is oil or gas. Therefore, to

135
suggest that consultation in regard to this Bill has been in any way limited does not, I think, bear any relationship to the facts.
The noble Lord himself admitted—did he not?—that I had gone a great way towards the spirit of consultation before an order is made, so let us look at the Amendment to which the noble Lord has spoken. Let us take subsection (2), which says:
"The purpose mentioned in subsection (1) of this section is the conservation of energy when to the overall economic advantage of the United Kingdom."
Is it conceivable that the Government or Parliament would accept an order when it was contrary to the economic advantage of the United Kingdom? I therefore suggest that we do not need to insist upon the Amendment to get that provision on the Statute Book.
Then, take subsection (4), which says:
"£shall also include a statement of the advice received£from each of the persons or bodies consulted£"
We are asking the Government to enter into consultations with private and public industry. Surely the experience of the noble Lord—certainly the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy—is that when one enters into consultations of this sort, particularly in sensitive areas of commercial practice, scientific knowledge and technological advance, one does so on the basis of confidentiality. Is it possible that Shell or ICI will disclose the amount of information that they now disclose to the Government when there is a provision that that information has to be disclosed to their competitors? Because if this Amendment is passed, it will be required that the Government shall include a statement of the advice received. I really cannot imagine that your Lordships' House would agree to that. I think it is fair to say that a Minister should give an indication of the reduction in consumption of energy that may arise from an order, but in this field the figures are hound to be speculative. When you put a provision of this sort into a Statute there is certainly a need for precision and accuracy, and I have to say to the noble Lord that I doubt very much whether any Secretary of State in this particular field could in any way he precise. He could give an indication, but he could not he precise as
136
to what would be required if such a measure was put on to the Statute Book.
My Lords, in regard to subsection (5), 1 stand by what I said, or at least what I thought I said, at Report stage, and that is that when one makes an order for conservation one should seek to direct it where it will have the most effect from the point of view of conservation but one should not "clobber" everybody. I think that was the phrase I used. But this is what subsection (5), as I see it, would mean. In any case, subsection (5) is defective because for proper drafting you would need to include the word " classes ". You can apply a section only to classes of persons, classes of premises or classes of undertakings. But that is a minor matter.
My Lords, we come now to the Affirmative Resolution procedure. I have never hidden my belief that Parliament should be very careful in its relationship with the Government and the Executive, whatever Party it may be, and should he able to exercise control, to interrogate Ministers and to put pressure upon them. I do not know how many orders may he made under this particular provision over a long period of time, but what the noble Lord is saying is that you can bring an order into being by the Negative Resolution procedure, but when you want to continue it you must have the Affirmative Resolution procedure. He is saying that you must have a debate in the House of Commons on every order that is made after it has been in existence for 12 months. I know that in this House we have a fair amount of time for this sort of examination, but one of the great problems of another place is shortage of time. I suspect that another place would much prefer to he able to decide what it wished to examine. It would not wish to be required to consider whether these orders should continue. They might want to discuss something of far greater importance.
It is true that if you do not have the Affirmative Resolution procedure then you have to adopt other ways in which such matters can be raised, but the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, knows that Question Time is perhaps the most effective way of raising these matters. If there is sufficient pressure, particularly from the Opposition of the day, then

137
Governments can always find time; and if Governments do not find time then the Opposition itself has time in which these matters can be raised. So I would say to the noble Lord that if this provision is put in here merely to provide an opportunity for the matter to be considered, this Amendment is not necessary because it lies within the power of the House of Commons and of your Lordships' House for these matters to be debated. to be considered, and for Ministers to be quizzed and pressed upon them. But I think that is quite a different thing from saying to another place, with all its shortage of time, " You must consider these matters willy-nilly ".
I understand what the noble Lord is trying to do. I have gone nearly all the way with him in the spirit and the intention of his Amendment. All I have done is to deal with the problems that arise on it, not only in terms of the Bill and of what we are seeking but particularly concerning Parliament and the use of Parliamentary time. I hope that the noble Lord, on fresh consideration of what we have done in Amendment No. 2, will consider that we have met him in spirit. We have put our intention quite clearly into the Bill; and. wherever this particular matter may be put, the law is the law. We suggest, based on Parliamentary practice and the construction of Acts of Parliaments, that where you have powers you put powers into the clauses, and where you put limitations on those powers, you put them into a separate clause. That is what we have done in Clause 3. I assure noble Lords that the mere fact that this is included in Clause 3, as I am suggesting, does not in any way inhibit or reduce the power of that Amendment. I. hope that the House will agree to Amendment No. 2.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friends whether they have any precedent for the substance of subsection (4)? I cannot recollect any such precedent in legislation.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I am in difficulty because I am not supposed to speak again; but, with the leave of the House, perhaps I may be regarded as moving Amendment No. 4 rather than answering Amendment No. 2. I am bound to tell
138
my noble friend that I cannot cite a precedent because I do not know of one. 1 am not saying there is not such a precedent. To the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, I have to give an accolade for his advocacy—
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I appreciate the difficulty of the noble Lord, but I have been calling attention to the procedure on Report and Third Reading stages and in this I suggest that we stand by the rules of the House: that is, that we speak only once except when moving an Amendment or, in a particular case where a Minister can help by intervening he should do so by speaking a second time. On this occasion I suggest that we keep to the rules.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, could I then deal with that point and say that we agree with that, but it means that there Will be occasions when we will not want to agree to one Amendment being discussed with another. Had we not agreed to our Amendment being discussed with this one—which makes sense—my noble friend would have been able to move and to speak at the end. We must try to find the best balance between these two courses.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, when the Bill was being discussed at the Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, and, I think, the noble Lord. Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, both raised the point about the conservation side of the Bill being kept. separate from the other part of the Bill. I agreed with them: but I think that this Amendment (No. 2) has gone a long way to meet the whole point raised. I think that we are now in the position when it is fairly clear that the Government are setting down the conditions under which conservation should be carried out.
The noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, has suggested that there ought to be a good deal more in the way of restriction on what. the Government may do; but, surely, the whole purpose of conservation of energy is to make certain that energy is conserved. If one is going to put the biggest number of impediments in the way of conserving energy then we are going to find that every advantage will

139
be taken of making ineffective the proposals for conserving energy. Surely, it should be clear that the conservation of energy can be carried out in a way which has been proposed by the Government in the Bill and in this Amendment without infringing the rights of individuals. If we come to what various companies may wish, I think that is rather a different matter. I think that they might be prepared to use any procedure in order to block things; but I do not believe that they would really, under normal conditions, proceed to block things when we are dealing with the problem of conservation, unless the opportunity is almost wilfully put in their hands.
I would hope that we would not use this procedure of allowing every single order to lapse at the end of twelve months unless it was passed positively by both Houses of Parliament. In my opinion, this is totally unnecessary and would not really help the principle of conservation with which we must all be very highly concerned because, without that, we shall find ourselves desperately short of energy.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, perhaps I may now address myself to the Amendment, my noble friend Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal having spoken earlier. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, raised the question of the Affirmative Resolution procedure and the Negative Resolution procedure and referred to me and to my knowledge of the other place. I would say this. The other place is often pressed for time; but, also, Members of the other place are very often jealous of their right to have the opportunity of discussing certain subjects, and they pressed for the Affir-

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Clwyd, L.

Hankey, L.

Arwyn, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Hanworth, V.

Avebury, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Henderson, L.

Aylestonc, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Henley, L.

Balogh, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Banks, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Hoy, L.

Bradwell, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Briginshaw, L.

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

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Brimelow, L.

Energlyn, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Brockway, L.

Fisher of Camden, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Fletcher, L.

Lcatherland, L.

Burntwood, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Lee of Asheridge, B.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Champion, L.

Grey, E.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Chorley, L.

Hale, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

140
mative Resolution procedure in order that matters will come back to them in a certain way. I would suggest that this could be left as it is in our Amendment. The Bill is going to another place and it could be left for them there to address their minds to this point as well.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether lie will be prepared to withdraw subsection (4) from this Amendment, because I think it is a most undesirable Amendment, and one which would lead to a breach of business confidentiality. The Minister is asked to consult with " persons who appear to him to be representative of the energy industries." The type of advice (which they know is going to be published) that they will give to the Minister is not necessarily the type of advice that they will give to him when they know it is not to be published. I should prefer the latter as good advice rather than the former.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords—
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am sorry, we are at Third Reading. I did ask leave of the House to address myself to Amendment No. 4. The question is whether your Lordships accept Amendment No. 2. If you reject my advice, then it is open for the House then to consider Amendment No. 4. I feel I must safeguard the House in terms of procedure; although I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, is trying to help in this matter.
On Question. whether the said Amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 83; Non-Contents, 79.

Loudoun, C.

Redcliffe-Maud, L.

Stamp, L.

Lovell-Davies, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Rochester, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Rusholme, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller]

Norwich, Bp.

Sainsbury, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Ogmore, L.

Samuel, V.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Pargiter, L.

Segal, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Peddic, L.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Wells-Pestell, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Shinwell, L.

Williamson, L.

Platt, L.

Slater, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Popplewell, L.

Soper, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Porritt, L.

Southwark, Bp.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aldenham, L

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Norfolk, D.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Goschen, V.

Northchurch, B.

Allan of Kilmahew, L.

Greenway, L.

Northesk, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Gridley, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Balerno, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Barnby, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Belstead, L.

Harvington, L.

Redesdale, L.

Berkeley, B.

Hatherton, L.

Reigate, L.

Birdwood, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Romney, E.

Brookes, L.

llchester, E.

Ruthen of Freeland, Ly.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Inglewood, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Carrington, L.

Ironside, L.

St. Helens, L.

Coleraine, L.

Kinnaird, L.

St. Just, L.

Cot tesloe, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Sandford, L.

Daventry, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Sandys, L.

de Clifford, L.

Long, V.

Selkirk, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sharpies, B.

Dormer, L.

Lyell, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Dundee, E.

Mansfield, E.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Marley, L.

Strathspey, L.

Eccles, V.

Merrivale, L.

Teviot, L.

Effingham, E.

Milverton, L.

Vivian, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Monck, V.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Elton, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Willingdon, M.

Exeter, M.

Munster, E.

Young, B.

Ferrers, E.

Newall, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

DEVOLUTION IN SCOTLAND AND WALES
3.46 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, with the permission of the House I shall now repeat a Statement that is being made in another place by the Lord President of the Council. The Statement is as follows:
" I wish to tell the House of decisions the Government have taken to carry forward our policy on devolution in Scotland and Wales.
" We are determined to introduce legislation affecting both Scotland and Wales at the beginning of the next Session, and to ask Parliament to pass it in that Session. The announcement I made to the House on 14th April
142
about starting to incur commitments on accommodation for the two Assemblies was a sign of our resolve.
" As my predecessor promised, we have considered the possibility of having separate Bills for Scotland and Wales. We have decided to keep to a single combined Bill, Separate Bills would demand too much Parliamentary time for both to pass in a single Session.
" We have decided against holding a referendum on our devolution proposals. There have been wide opportunities, before and since the last General Election for public discussion of them.
" We have decided not to publish a draft Bill in the present Session, since this would divert effort from the preparation of the Bill for next Session.
" I turn now to the substance of our devolution proposals; I should like to inform the House of certain decisions we have reached, in the light of comments

143
on our White Paper, about the Development Agencies and the constitutional roles of the Secretaries of State.
" We have decided that responsibility for all operations of the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies, and for all appointments to them should be transferred to the devolved Administrations. This includes responsibility for financing the Agencies from the resources controlled by the devolved Administrations. To ensure that there can be no unfair competition with other parts of the United Kingdom. the industrial investment operations of the Agencies will he subject to guidelines laid down by the Government from time to time. With this qualification, they will be wholly the responsibility of the devolved Administrations. They will also retain their existing powers to act under the direction of the Secretary of State in selective industrial assistance cases under Section 7 of the Industry Act 1972.
"I turn next to the constitutional roles of the Secretaries of State, particularly in Scotland. In the light of the views expressed in Parliament and elsewhere, we have made the following decisions. First, while our consideration of the detailed arrangements for examination of the vires of Scottish Assembly primary legislation is not complete, we have decided that, if there is doubt at the pre-assent stage about the vires of an Assembly Bill, the issue will be resolved on a reference to a judicial body, most probably the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It follows that the Government Will not have the power to reject Assembly Bills on vires grounds.
" Secondly, while the formal act of appointment of the Scottish Executive will rest with the Secretary of State he will, in respect of the appointment of the Chief Executive, act on the advice of the Assembly and, in respect of other Executive Members, on the advice of the Chief Executive. Assistants to the Executive will be appointed by the Chief Executive.
" Thirdly. the Secretary of State will have no role in fixing the maximum size of the Scottish Executive or the pay of its Members. These matters will
144
be left to the Assembly, as will comparable ones in Wales.
" We have not completed our detailed consideration of United Kingdom reserve powers other than Parliament's inherent power to legislate. We shall however make a major change in this field. Any general reserve powers, whatever their precise form and mechanisms, will be limited to situations where their use is necessary to prevent unacceptable repercussions on matters for which the United Kingdom Government will remain responsible. We have never envisaged using such powers simply because we might politically dislike what was being done, and the change we are making puts this beyond doubt. I reaffirm also that whatever the form of any general powers they will, as the White Paper made clear, be subject to the direct and specific control of Parliament, and not available simply at the hand of the Government.
" The Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales will remain, in accordance with the Government's commitments, members of the Cabinet, and will play their full part in the development of United Kingdom policies.
" Decisions on a number of further issues remain to be reached. I shall make a further report to the House before the summer recess.
" The Government have listened carefully to the national debate on devolution, and we have improved our schemes in the light of it. We now move forward, as we promised, from the phase of discussion to the phase of' legislation and fulfilment. This is what Scotland and Wales had a right to expect. The good faith of the United Kingdom Parliament can strengthen and enhance the Union."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
3.53 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for repeating the Statement made in another place. Clearly, the Government have made some changes as a result of the criticism of their proposals in the White Paper, and we welcome most of them so far as they go. But there is one

145
essential change which has not yet been made because the noble Lord said there was still to be a single Bill. On this Bench we believe that Scotland and Wales should be dealt with in separate Bills because the situations arc entirely different. The reason given, that there is not enough Parliamentary time for two Bills, is just the kind of situation or pretext which causes dissatisfaction, certainly North of the Border, with the present Parliamentary situation.
When the noble Lord said that there would he no draft Bill in this Session, does that mean that there will be a draft Bill. as was foreshadowed, in the coming session before the actual Bill appears? That would provide a further stage for consultations. Then the noble Lord indicated that no change had been made on the question of two Executives. We pointed out in the devolution debate that creating two Executives, the Secretary of State and his Executive and a new Executive in the Scottish or Welsh Assembly, was creating an arena for conflict, so that is not a basic change which we still believe should be made.
Regarding the points where changes have occurred, the Development Agencies are now to come under one Executive; that is accepted in principle, though the detail needs to be examined from what the noble Lord said. On vires and reserve powers, the Government have moved in the direction which many noble Lords advocated in our debate on devolution, including myself, On vires we stated we thought this should be determined judicially and not by Government decision, so the Government are meeting that point. When the noble Lord states that the Government have decided that there should he no referendum, does he accept that most people have felt that if there were to be a referendum the question should be not on certain devolution proposals, but on whether there should be a breakup of the United Kingdom into two or more countries.
Is the noble Lord aware that recent opinion polls in Scotland, for example, confirm that at present about 80 per cent. of the population there are opposed to independence and the attendant breakup of Britain? At least a referendum now or in the near future would register that. Es the noble Lord also aware that the
146
Scottish National Party are opposed to devolution, save only as a stepping stone to breaking up Britain, and that the greatest care will be necessary therefore to work out a system of devolution which will be stable. Is he also aware that the present degree of support for the Scottish National Party is not for their objective but because of discontent with the present arrangements? I and many others recognise that reform is necessary. though it should be handled with the greatest of care.
3.56 p.m.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, I also should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for repeating the Statement made in another place. While the changes in the White Paper proposals which the Statement outlines do not transform it into the federal system of Assemblies for Scotland and Wales and for the regions of England which we on these Benches have been advocating for so long, they remove some of the most severely criticised proposals in the White Paper and, to that extent, we welcome these changes and hope for more in due course. In particular, we welcome the transfer of the control of the Development Agencies to the Assemblies. We approve the pre-assent judicial review arrangements which are outlined. We are glad that the central Government are not to have power to question Assembly legislation on the grounds of vires. We welcome the assertion of intention in the Statement regarding the objection on policy grounds, but it seems to be merely an assertion of intention, and I am wondering whether it is to be incorporated into the Bill in some way.
I share the regret of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that there are not to be two separate Bills, one for Wales and one for Scotland. There are to be further decisions, the Statement tells us, and I hope that one of those might be to introduce a form of proportional representation for the election of the Assemblies. I should like to ask the noble Lord what is the position about the White Paper which has been promised on the English regions?
Arising out of that, we have been discussing at various times in recent months in this House a wide variety of

147
Constitutional issues, not merely devolution but a Bill of Rights, elections to the European Parliament, local government and other matters. Would the noble Lord agree it is important to see them as a whole and not piecemeal? Does he think that there is a case for an overall Government Statement on the whole question of the Constitution into which these various pieces could he fitted?
3.59 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am grateful for the way that both noble Lords have approached this Statement. It seems to me that they have given a broad support to the proposals. Regarding a referendum, may I say to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that it refers to the question of devolution. Whatever may be the merits of a referendum, clearly devolution is not something which is susceptible to a reply, " Yes " or " No ". It is far too complicated and involved.
I agree with the noble Lord as to the present sentiment in Scotland about independence and the maintenance of the United Kingdom. I think it is generally recognised in Scotland that the matter is not only one for the Scots but that the English and Welsh also have a say here. I think there is a general recognition that what is devolved should be devolved on a stable basis. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, criticised the fact of having only one Bill and with lack of time being given as the reason. My Lords, these are complicated matters which need to be examined by both Houses with the greatest care. I think it would be accepted that if devolution is granted to Scotland it would need to be given to Wales at the same time. Therefore the problem of handling two Bills of this nature would be immense and would greatly reduce the amount of time the two Houses would have for the proper consideration of the proposals. Therefore, I believe that the Government are right in their decision.
As to whether there will be a draft Bill, the answer is, " No ". We intend to introduce the Bill as soon as possible after the opening of the next Session so that consideration of the clauses can start immediately. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, asked me whether the guidelines would be put in the Bill. Again the answer is,
148
" No "; hut provision will be made in the Bill for guidelines to be brought into effect and given legal hacking by means of a Statutory Instrument. I hope—though I cannot be too specific now—that the draft of those guidelines will be available for Parliament to consider and debate some time before the Statutory Instrument is placed before the House.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, also asked about the English regions and the commitment contained in the White Paper. That commitment still remains in force, but anyone who has been involved in the reform— others may prefer the word " change "—in local government in recent years will recognise the very great difficulties involved in producing a Paper which will receive not only support but general understanding within England. I hope that that Paper might be available before the Summer Recess, but quite clearly such a Paper will be absolutely vital before the Bill is introduced in another place during the next Session.
I think that deals with all the points that were raised, except the normal one which comes from our Liberal friends in regard to proportional representation. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, asked whether the Government would consider making a Statement, bringing forward the various constitutional changes that are envisaged with regard to the European Parliament, devolution and so on. I should like to consider this matter, and perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to write to him.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, listening to his Statement, I have arrived at a conclusion that devolution can result in only one thing. Devolution means separatism, and we shall have separatism once devolution is introduced, even more in Scotland than in Wales. I am all in favour of a referendum to be taken, because I can see that what is going to happen so far as Wales and Scotland are concerned is that a great deal of power will be vested in the hands of the Secretaries of State of those nations whereas, for example, the Yorkshire and Durham regions, taken together in population, exceed the population of Scotland and Wales at this moment. Therefore, further consideration should be given to this matter. This is my personal reaction, and I really think it

149
will lead to one thing only; that is, separatism, so far as the United Kingdom is concerned.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, my noble friend clearly is entitled to his view, and I know it is shared by many. But those who have examined this matter take the view that whatever risks there may he, the risks of not recognising the very great pressures that exist in Scotland and Wales and the consequent risks of a break-up of the unitary State are infinitely greater. I would not give my support to the devolution proposals unless I had complete and utter confidence in the stability of Scotland and Wales and in the sense of self-interest, if I may use that phrase, of those people regarding the need to maintain the unitary State.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the House has told us, as indeed did the Statement, that there is no Parliamentary time for two Bills. I hope the noble Lord is aware that West of Offa's Dyke this will be read to mean that whereas there is time for a Bill concerning the devolution of Scotland, there is no time for a similar Bill concerning the devolution of Wales, and that this will he taken the more seriously since the problems of the two countries are scarcely related at all, particularly with regard to the very large area they cover.
The noble Lord the Leader of the House has said that the Government have listened closely to the national debate on this matter. I think that if they listened more closely they would hear that opinion has moved away from the position of the Government in Wales and that the majority of people do not wish to have a form of devolution, and certainly not one analogous to that in Scotland. It was already apparent at the time of our debate on this subject in this House that four of the noble Lords who spoke from the Benches opposite were all hostile to the proposition of devolution. However, not one of them received-an answer in reply to the many points they raised; nor did f myself. I hope the noble Lord is aware that there is a resentment against the setting aside of the Welsh interest as though it were being made to appear subordinate to that of Scotland, and I hope that this will he put right.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, with a Prime Minister who represents a Welsh constituency, I am surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Elton, should suggest that a Government led by the present Prime Minister would place 'Wales in a detrimental position in relation to Scotland. When we have the Bill, it will be seen that not only is it a complicated measure but that both countries have their proper share in it. We wish to see one Bill and one Act, with both countries going to their devolved responsibilities together.
4.8 p.m.
Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, I should like to support what my noble friend Lord Banks has said in respect of the United Kingdom and I should also like to put one or two points which are particularly related to Scotland. First, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Elton, in that I fail to see why one Bill embracing both countries should take up less time than two Bills separately; because there is no question at all that the feeling in Wales is entirely different from that in Scotland and, further, there is no question of a clear geographical boundary. The general economic circumstances of the two countries are also entirely different. I should have thought this would have been recognised and that it would take up quite as much time to have a composite Bill as it would to have two separate Bills.
Secondly, I should like to congratulate the Government on, somewhat belatedly, bowing to popular democratic expression of feeling throughout the United Kingdom and of being enormously sensible in the advances they have made. I particularly welcome the independence of the Scottish Development Agency, but I should like to ask what the Government mean by the phrase " from their own resources ". Are the Government accepting the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Home, that a proportion of the oil revenues be set aside- which suggestion was hacked by my humble self—or have they other resources? Or are they expecting the Scots to finance the SDA out of the £2,000 million which, as the noble Lord knows, it is enormously difficult to shift in one year?
Thirdly, I should like to welcome the abandonment of the vice-regal powers of the Secretary of State and ask whether,

151
along with this, the Government will consider abandoning the petty use of the term " executive and assistant ". With respect, why the devil should we not call it a Parliament, and call them Ministers as is their right? Thirdly, I should like to raise what to me and a whole lot of other people is a very important point, and very important to the economy of Scotland, about the control of agriculture. Agriculture and farming are a very much larger part of the economy of Scotland than they are of England. It is something which was controlled by the Ulster Parliament very successfully, and I have never understood the abandonment of it in the projected legislation.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord. Lord Mackie, recognises that this Government bow to democratic opinion. We said at the very outset, when we produced our White Paper which had green edges. that we wished to hear comment. We have had comment, we have listened to it and we have sought to respond to it. With regard to the question of time, and whether it is one Bill or two, the noble Lord is entitled to his own view. I have mine, and it is backed up by those who have long experience in arranging the business in another place. In regard to own resources and the Scottish Development Agency, it will be open to the Assembly on how to allocate the block grant. It will also still retain the right to make surcharges on the rates. The Assembly will have responsibility and it will be for that body to decide how to use the resources available to it, and what should be the priorities. In regard to the name " executive ", and the body that will have administrative responsibility for the Assembly, I also share the view of the noble Lord that the name is not exactly inspiring. We are not wedded to it, and if Parliament can find a better word, it will be for it to insert it into the Bill. Finally, agriculture will remain with the Secretary of State.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned the question of local government. Unfortunately, the reform of local government came a couple of years before the suggestions about the Assembly, with the result that if we in Scotland have the
152
Assembly we shall have five, or possibly six, tiers of government, from the community councils up to the regional government. I hope that when the Government are discussing all the details. which I gather from the noble Lord have not yet been finally decided, they will seriously think of the extraordinary complication of a regional government, a district government, a community government and 71 Members of Parliament plus the European Parliament. We could well do without one tier of local government which, in my opinion, should he the region, and go back to the county and the district, plus the Assembly. I hope that this suggestion will be considered, because otherwise we shall be the most heavily governed 5½million people in the world, and I cannot believe that we shall all agree.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, if the noble Baroness had exercised her present caution when some of the local authority legislation was being passed by the Government which she supported, she might not be in her present difficulties. The Statement that is before the House does not cover that, but clearly this is a matter which we shall need to consider when legislation comes before the House.
The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie): My Lords, in view of the wide range of domestic responsibilities proposed to be given to the Scottish Assembly, can the noble Lord the Leader of the House say what will be the position of the 71 Members of another place? Will they have no say at all in domestic matters, as of course happened in the Northern Ireland Parliament?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, the Members of another place will be elected by the democratic Parliamentary procedure for the United Kingdom as a whole. They will have no control over, or be able to interfere in, those matters which are devolved to the Scottish or Welsh Assemblies. But there are a number of matters which are being retained to the Secretary of State, which really means the Westminster Parliament, and they will clearly have a direct interest in and responsibility for them. My Lords, we have been discussing this subject for 29 minutes, and

153
I wonder whether the House feels that we should now return to the Energy Bill.
Lord HANKEY: My Lords, can there be one question from the Cross-Benches? When we set up the Government of Northern Ireland, no one foresaw that Stormont might take action which would impinge on the rights and privileges of a major minority of the Province, and would pursue policies which were really objectionable to the people of the United Kingdom as a whole. Will the Government he including some kind of entrenched provisions, which will prevent this from happening in the Assemblies which are now projected?
Lord SHEPHERD: No. my Lords. What one is doing is devolving responsibility to these two Assemblies, but at the end of the day the sovereignty and the responsibility for the protection and guaranteeing of human rights will remain in Westminster. I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, expressed interest in this matter when the noble Lord, Lord Wade, introduced a Bill, and the Government gave an undertaking that they would produce a paper on the question of human rights. When the paper is issued—and I hope that it will not be too long delayed—this is perhaps a matter which we can debate and consider whether or not action can be taken. I come back to what I said earlier. We have now been discussing this subject for 31 minutes, and I suggest that we move to the next business.

ENERGY BILL [H.L.]
4.18 p.m.
Consideration of Amendments on Third Reading continued.
Clause 5 [Temporary relief from restrictive practices law]:
Lord SHEPHERD Lord SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 5, line 10, leave out (" such an agreement ") and insert (" an agreement exempt by virtue of this section ").
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I hope that I can give the noble Lord a little time, because he has been
154
addressing his mind to the whole subject of devolution. But I presume that this is simply a drafting Amendment, and that that is why the Government have put it down.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, that is quite right. I was trying not only to collect my thoughts but to find my place in the folder. It is a drafting Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8 [Supply and use of off-shore natural gas]:
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 7, line 41, at end insert—
(" (1A) The Secretary of State shall give his consent for the supply of offshore natural gas under subsection (2) below and to the use of offshore natural gas under subsection (3)(a) below when such supply or use is for industrial purposes which are not industrial fuel purposes.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 5 which stands in my name and in the names of my noble friends Lord Strathcona and Lord Long. I think it would be convenient if the consequential Amendment No. 6 were discussed at the same time. This is one of the most important and crucial points in the Bill, which we have raised at each stage. It concerns mandatory consent being granted for the use of off-shore gas when it is not to be used as a fuel but is to be a feedstock for industry. This is the position under present legislation. There is an important difference between using oil-shore gas as a fuel and using it for chemical purposes, and this is recognised. If it has to be used as a fuel then, under the Continental Shelf Act, the Gas Corporation have first to be offered it. If it is not to be used as a fuel but is to be used for industrial purposes—as feedstock for the petrochemical industry in the first place and then as non-fuel materials for manufacturing industry—there is an obligation upon the Government to give their consent.
Our chemical industry in Britain and the many other industries which they supply can be certain now that they will not be deprived of the essential raw material upon which they are relying for their programmes. We seek to continue that situation with this Amendment. With

155
the considerable increase in gas from our Continental Shelf. investment plans can be made for the great benefit of our balance of payments in Britain and also for the benefit of British industry generally—including, I should point out, the agricultural industry because of fertilisers and food production. However, this can be done provided only that the gas which those programmes are relying upon, or the gas which is being extracted from the North Sea by the companies themselves in consortia, will not be subject to diversion. Unless there is the existing security of supply of natural gas, there is likely to be much less planning and investment in this sector than there should be.
At Report stage the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said that this was a complicated subject and he asked for time. until Third Reading, to consider the matter. The Report stage was two weeks ago. Despite the importance, which I emphasised, that we attach to this matter, we tried to give the Government every reasonable opportunity to reconsider the position, and in the light of what the noble Lord said then we did not therefore press our Amendment to a Division. However, I reserved the position to table the Amendment again in order to find out what was the position at Third Reading.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, also spoke about a system of general consents and said that this was what he was looking into. I will say straight away that we cannot see how such a system can satisfactorily meet the situation which I have described, nor is a system of general consents the equivalent of continuing the existing procedure. For example, consents of that kind could have objectionable or discouraging conditions attached to them by the Minister. We shall listen to what is said by the Minister who deals with this point today and we hope that, after looking into the complicated system, the Minister will agree with us. We hope also that that is the reason why there is no Government Amendment on the Marshalled List and that we can retain the satisfactory situation which now exists for British industry. I beg to move.
4.22 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said
156
that this is an important Amendment. Therefore I hope he will forgive me if I speak at some length in seeking to ease his fears in this respect. I said at Report stage that I would seek to give an indication of the Government's intentions about the supply and use of gas for petrochemical purposes. On earlier occasions we have accepted the need to build greater assurances into general consents. If we do not find a way of doing that, the oil and petrochemical companies will, of course, apply for specific consents in preference to relying upon general consents. In that case, the Government would, through specific consents, honour the assurances I am about to give on general consents. I could give your Lordships a long list of petrochemical uses of gas to which the Government will give general consents. However, to avoid wearying the House, I should prefer to concentrate on the exceptions.
The main exception is the supply or use of methane for the manufacture of methanol. This is the point which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, developed during the Report stage. Methanol can be used as a fuel as well as a raw material. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, on Report argued that the production from methane of methanol for use as a fuel would not he economically feasible. In making that assertion he was, I believe, relying on the calculations of a prominent petrochemical company. The Department of Energy has itself co-operated with that company in a published study of the economics of methanol production.
The argument that the production of methanol for use as a fuel is not viable rests on vital assumptions about the cost of methane and the value of methanol. Now the additional costs of producing the methane in association with oil can in certain circumstances approach zero; it can in effect be merely an unavoidable by-product of crude oil production. At costs approaching zero for methane, methanol becomes competitive in value with light fuel oil. But the main fuel use of methanol would be a substitute for gasoline, as a component of motor spirit. The value of gasoline is well above that of light fuel oil. It is therefore possible to produce methanol from methane and sell it profitably as a fuel. This is not pure theory because we know that some

157
companies have been considering the production of methanol from associated gas, though so far no formal applications have been made for the Secretary of State's consent. Suffice it to say that there are sufficient grounds for believing that the use of methanol as fuel is a practical possibility and therefore should be under control. Because the heat value of methanol is only about 60 per cent. of that of the methane from which it is made, I hope noble Lords will agree that in the interest of conservation the Government must keep control of the use and supply of methane for purposes of manufacturing methanol. Of course, they would not use these controls as a means of denying British industry its need for methanol as a non-fuel raw material.
Similar alcohols can be made from other gas, for instance ethanol from ethane. We have not examined the economics of producing these alcohols for use as fuel in the same depth as we have examined the economics of methanol. However, it seems sensible for now to exempt these other alcohols from the general assurance I have given until we have made this examination. Of course, the Government may then conclude that there is no prospect that they could be profitably manufactured for use as fuel: in that case, it would be appropriate to consent generally to the use of natural gas for their manufacture.
The Government are aware that some oilfields in the Northern Basin of the North Sea contain large amounts of associated gas. As noble Lords will be aware, Shell/Esso have applied for consent under the Petroleum and Submarine Pipelines Act for the largest diameter pipeline yet envisaged for the North Sea to bring this gas ashore from the Brent oilfield. They have also applied for planning permission for a gas fractionation plant at Peterhead. Only ten days ago, the Williams-Merz Report was published. It was commissioned by the Government and envisages the collection of very large amounts of gas from known petroleum deposits in the North Sea. The immediate need is to find those outlets for this gas, and particularly for ethane, which will bring most profit to the nation.
I cannot do better here than to quote the words used in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of
158
State for Energy when he welcomed the Willaims-Merz Report. He said:
" Gas which would he landed by a gathering pipeline system is of such a composition and quantity that when added to that already expected it indicates the need and opportunity for major petrochemical developments if it is to be put to its most valuable use.
It is Government policy to see that the best use is made of the potential for substantial petrochemicals investment in Britain afforded by North Sea feedstocks."
For these reasons I have been asked to assure noble Lords, and through them the industries which will be following this debate with interest, that it will be the Government's intention to give general consents for the supply and use of gas for at least the next 10 years for all petrochemical purposes subject only to the exception I have already mentioned of methanol and, possibly, similar alcohols.
Finally, one technical drafting matter. On Report stage, I undertook that certain upstream uses of gas would be exempted from British Gas's first offer. Amendment No. 11 is designed to achieve this among other things. However, if the Amendments we are currently debating were passed, the latter Amendment would not only exempt these uses from the first offer but would also oblige the Secretary of State to give his consent to them. That would go well beyond my undertaking. Accordingly if this Amendment is passed, I shall not be able to move Amendment No. I I standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Kirkhill.
My Lords, I felt that I should make my position clear to noble Lords opposite and to the House. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, will feel that the views that I have expressed and the very firm assurances that I have given this afternoon will satisfy him in this respect, that the petro-chemical industry has nothing whatsoever to fear in regard to this Bill and that it is not necessary to press Amendment No. 5.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, the points which have been raised in regard to the use of North Sea gas are quite fundamental to our fuel policy. The matter which was discussed at length by the noble Lord the Leader of the House, the question of conversion of methane into methanol, is in particular of very great significance. He has mentioned that work has been going on

159
jointly between an oil company and the Ministry—I think I am right in saying that it has been done at Queen Mary College—in which they have been investigating the economics of converting methane into methanol.
What is quite clear from the present investigations and the present research is that this is an economic process, provided the methane is far enough away from the place where it is to be used; because if you have methane produced, for example, in Nigeria then it has to be shipped over to this country or to any markets in Europe in special refrigerated ships, and this is an expensive way of transporting methane. If, on the other hand, it is converted into methanol at the point where it is extracted, it then becomes a relatively cheap way of transporting it. So it is important to distinguish clearly between the conversion of methane for petrochemical purposes—that is, for work inside a chemical industry for conversion into methanol—and the conversion into methanol as a fuel. The two are quite distinct and I think the Government are quite right to emphasise that whatever they allow to be done in the general petrochemical field they must keep control over the production of methanol as a fuel. This applies to any use that is made of natural gas, because in effect if we are converting it into a fuel we are by-passing the proper use of this natural gas, we are using it in a less efficient way, because the heat value of methanol is less than that of methane and therefore we have done something which is essentially undesirable from an energetic point of view. We have degraded the material in order to convert it into methanol. But if it is converted into methanol for the petrochemical industry it is quite a different thing.
I welcome the assurance which the Government have given once more that it is their intention to allow the use of North Sea gases for genuine petrochemical purposes. This is substantially the statement which was made by the noble Lord. Lord Lovell-Davis, during the Committee stage of the Bill, and we have it now in a clearer form which I think is to be very much welcomed. In my view it would be dangerous to give a blanket approval for all conversion of North Sea gas into any other chemical which might then be used as a fuel.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for having given a fairly full statement after telling us at the Report stage that he was going to have this examined. As he knows, we have raised this at all the stages of the Bill and we have postponed putting this Amendment to the test and postponed a decision on it in order to give the Government further opportunities to look into it. Of course we are grateful for what he said about the assurances, and the 10 years' assurance, with certain exceptions, particularly methanol. He said that it was necessary for the Government to " keep control ". Those were his words. But, of course, this is not a question of keeping control: it is introducing a new control, because at present the situation is that there is not a control for non-fuel purposes because the consent is mandatory.
What we are seeking is that that situation should be continued, and we have sought to make this clear in the Bill. The noble Lord has been telling us just now that the Government hope that by their assurances made in this House, and no doubt elsewhere, they will make it unnecessary for this to be written into the Bill. But we have also indicated that this is a crucial point in the Bill, and particularly in this part of the Bill, and we feel that this wording should be inserted to give the assurance to the industries concerned and to that very large range of British industry which is dependent upon the products of those industries. Therefore, despite the assurances which the noble Lord has given, we feel that we must press this Amendment. The noble Lord will not be surprised because he knows the emphasis we have placed on this and on having something in the Bill rather than simply assurances about general consents, given without anything in the Bill.
I would add that I completely understand his point about Amendment No. 11 and that if this Amendment is now made to the Bill the Government would not feel that they could go further by moving Amendment No. 11. I understood that and I am glad to have his confirmation, but I must ask all noble Lords in every part of the House to support this Amendment, which is one to which the industries concerned attach the greatest weight.
4.40 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?

CONTENTS

Aldenham, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Goschen, V.

Alport, L.

Gridley, L.

Munster, E.

Ashbourne, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Newall, L.

Balerno, L.

Norfolk, D.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Hankey, L.

Northchurch, B.

Barnby, L.

Hanworth, V.

Northesk, E.

Belstead, L.

Harvington, L.

Rankcillour, L.

Berkeley, B.

Hatherton, L.

Redesdale, L.

Braye, L.

Hawke, L.

Reigate, L.

Brookes, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Romney, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Carrington, L.

Ilchester, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Coleraine, L.

Inglewood, L.

St. Helens, L.

Crawford and Balcarres, E.

Kinloss, Ly.

St. Just, L

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Sandford, L.

Daventry, V.

Kinnoull, E.

Sandys, L.

de Clifford, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Sempill, Ly.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Lloyd, L.

Sharpies, B.

Dormer, L.

Long, V.

Somers, L.

Dundee, E.

Loudoun, C.

Stamp, L.

Dundonald, E.

Lucas of Chilvairth, L.

Strafficona and Mount Royal, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Lye L.

Strathspey, L.

Eccles, V.

Mancroft, L.

Terrington, L.

Effingham, E.

Marley, L.

Tranmire, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Melville, V.

Vickers, B.

Elton, L.

Merrivale, L.

Vivian, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Monck, V.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Exeter, M.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Ward of North Tyneside. B.

Ferrers, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Gordon, Walker, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Amherst, E.

Hale, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Ampthill, L.

Henderson, L.

Rochdale, V.

Arwyn, L.

Henley, L.

Rusholme, L.

Avebury, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Aylestone, L.

Hoy, L.

Samuel, V.

Banks, L.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Segal, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Shepherd, L. [L. Privy Seal)

Blyton, L.

Lealherland, L.

Shinwell, L.

Boothby, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Simon, V.

Bradwell, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Slater, L.

Brimelow, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Snow, L.

Brockway, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Champion, L.

Maelor, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Chorley, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Ogmore, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Oram, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

White, B.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Pannell, L.

Wigoder, L.

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

Peddie, L.

Wilson of High Wray, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Platt. L.

Winterbottom, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Popplewell, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Gladwyn, L.

Porritt, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.48 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 86; Not-Contents, 75.
Amendment No. 6:
Page 8, line (" subsections (1, leave out (" this ") and insert 1) and (I A) above ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is consequential on the
Amendment which has just been made. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SHEPHERD Lord SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 8, leave out line 5 and insert—
(" (b) supply of gas derived from offshore crude otherwise than as a by-product of crude stabilisation; or ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 7, and with the permission of the House I will speak to Amendments Nos. 8, 10, 13, 16, 17, 18, 21, 27, 28 and 30. If noble Lords opposite were to move Amendment No. 9, I would advise the House to accept it. However, we shall need to look at its drafting. But I would not wish to mislead the House into thinking that acceptance of this Amendment in any way means that the Government will not seek to rectify what I think was a wrong decision in the previous Division.
Before dealing individually with the Amendments to Clause 8 which I have tabled, it would assist the House if I were to explain their interconnection one with another and with the various assurances I gave on Report about the intentions of the Government. The first such assurance was related to the incidental use of gas to fuel processes essential to effect the supply of that gas to an affiliated company; that relates to Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 on Report stage. Sub-paragraph (v) of Amendment No. 8 is designed to exempt such incidental use from the control of the Secretary of State.
Secondly, when discussing the Report Amendments Nos. 20, 28 and 29, I promised that the Government would propose Amendments to exempt from the British Gas first offer use of gas in oil and gas terminals and related installations. Paragraphs (c) (d) and (e) of Amendment No. 11 were designed to achieve this by, describing the processes for which gas is used there and exempting them from the first offer.
Thirdly, I undertook to propose a method whereby consent could be given to the supply for fuel purposes of gas surplus to British Gas's specifications without that surplus having again to be offered to British Gas. This would be achieved by
164
my Amendment No. 10 which recognises that, in view of the possibility of sellers' option contracts, only British Gas can validly state that a portion of the gas will not fit in with its requirements. and that, therefore, it does not want a further opportunity to purchase it.
Fourthly, I assured noble Lords that it was the Government's intention to subject all gas derived from stablised crude to the Gas Act, so that we could have a single regime for gas derived from imported crude and that derived from offshore crude. Several of the Government Amendments are designed in part or in whole to achieve this. Amendment No. 17 is the linch-pin since it proposes a definition of " stabilisation ". Amendment No. 18 then subjects to the Gas Act all gas obtained from crude except that gas obtained in the process of stabilisation. Noble Lords will notice that the definition of" stabilization is such that the only gas obtained from crude otherwise than in the process of stabilisation must he gas derived from stabilised crude.
Amendment No. 7 excludes the supply of this gas from the requirement for the Secretary of State's consent. Paragraph (iii) of Amendment 8 similarly excludes the use of this gas. Since we would now have excluded from control under Clause 8 the use of this gas. and since the Amendment made on Report to Clause 8(3)(h) effectively excludes from control any likely liquefaction of such gas, there is no longer any need for subsection (5) which Amendment 13 proposes to delete. There is also of course no longer any need for Clause 10, which Amendment No. 21 proposes to delete. As a consequence of deleting Clause 10, the term industrial fuel purposes " would now appear in only one clause of the Bill. It is. therefore, appropriate to insert its definition in that clause, rather than leave it to an interpretation clause at the end of the Bill. This would have been achieved by the bulk of Amendment No. 11 and by Amendment No. 29. Finally, all this requires one paving Amendment. No. 16, and three consequential Amendments, Nos. 27, 28 and 30, which recognise that the Bill would now be one clause shorter.
I am sorry to have introduced these Amendments at such length and with such complexity. I very much hope, however, that by clarifying these interrelationships

165
now I have avoided the need for longer explanations on each individual Amend-merit. Perhaps I could summarise what we have sought to do. I referred to it on Report as seeking a package between the Government and industry. I would summarise it in four points, and they are covered by the Amendments I have made. Where part of a stream of gas is needed to fuel incidental processes which are essential to render that stream as gas fit for supply to an associated company, consent would not he required for its use for those incidental purposes. A route would he found so that gas which British Gas had already refused because it did not fit their specifications did not again have to be offered to British Gas at a reasonable price. Gas supplied for use in terminal and similar installations handling North Sea oil and gas would not have first to he offered to British Gas. Supplies of gas from stabilised offshore crude that is, the gas which comes from offshore crude oil during the normal refining processes—should be subject to the regime of the Gas Act, in the same way as gas derived from imported crude. I believe that these Amendments fulfil entirely the understanding we have reached, after long consultations, with the industry, and I hope that the house will find them satisfactory. I beg to move.
Lord STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, this is highly technical stuff, and I am thankful that I do not have to oppose these Amendments. I congratulate the noble Lord's handling, both behind the scenes and on the Floor of the House, of this very difficult and complicated matter. He rightly said that Amendment No. 17, which defines stabilised crude, I believe, is the key that unlocked the door to what I suppose we might call the primrose path, unless I am thought to he introducing a Party interest into the matter in saying that. At any rate, a letter which the noble Lord was good enough to write to us, explaining what he intended to do, enabled us on this side to accept Amendment No. 13, I believe it was, at the Report stage, which amended a previous Amendment which had been put in on Committee stage. The result has been this flow of Amendments. I think the situation has now been satisfactorily resolved to the great delight of everybody on all sides.
166
I am grateful to the noble Lord, and support his Amendments.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SHEPHERD Lord SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 8, leave out lines 16 to 19 and insert—
("(iii) use of a supply of gas derived from offshore crude otherwise than as a by-product of crude stabilisation;
(iv) use of a supply provided otherwise than through pipes; or
(v) use by one company to provide heat or energy in connection with the purification. fractionation or movement thy pipeline or otherwise) of offshore natural gas where this is with a view to supplying that gas to another company associated in the same group: ")
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.57 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL OF CROY Lord CAMPBELL OF CROY moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 8. line 29, after (" purposes ") insert (" which purposes tinder this subsection exclude the use of heat or energy

(i) for a process of crude stabilisation.

(ii) for a process of purification or fractionation of offshore natural gas,

(iii) in connection with the movement of offshore crude or offshore natural gas by pipeline or otherwise;").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, mentioned this Amendment, and I now beg to move it. When it was discussed at Report stage, I pointed out the anomaly that would arise at receiving terminals if an Amendment on these lines were not made, and the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, gave a very firm assurance that the Government themselves would produce Amendments at a later stage to exempt these terminals and associated upstream facilities from the British Gas Corporation's first offer. An Amendment on those lines is to he found at No. 11 in the Government's name, hut, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, indicated, because of Amendment No. 5 having been accepted Amendment No. 11 is not appropriate. I am glad that he recognises that Amendment No. 9 does carry out what he accepted earlier was necessary, though he also said that the Government might want to have a look at the wording with a view to possible small changes in another place. In the light of the Government's virtual acceptance of this

167
Amendment in advance, I confidently now commend it to the House.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SHEPHERD Lord SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 8, line 35, at end insert (" or have made known, in writing, that they do not require such an opportunity.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I should like to record that this Amendment meets a point I made at Report, and it obviates a requirement to offer gas which is a by-product and which is most unlikely to be required by the Gas Corporation. As the Government did not actually say anything in moving the Amendment, its aim is no doubt to meet the point we raised that we ought to remove time wasting and repetitious procedures in that situation.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I make it clear that when I move these Amendments without speaking to them they are all Amendments to which I spoke when I moved Amendment No. 7. The noble Lord is quite correct, but I did mention this in the course of my rather long and involved explanation of an earlier Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Viscount Goschen): My Lords, I shall not call Amendment No. 12, as this Amendment duplicates part of what was Amendment No. 11
Lord SHEPHERD Lord SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 8, line 36, leave out subsection (5).
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.2 p.m.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 8, line 42, leave out from (" application; ") to (" be ") in line 43 and insert (" (b) subject to paragraph (c) below, may ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 really go together and, with leave, I shall speak to
168
them both. These are a retabling of Amendments Nos. 23. 24 and 25, which we dealt with at Report stage. At that time the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, expressed no objection in principle to the purport of the Amendments but he was concerned that possibly this would leave loopholes which would be liable to misuse. He cited at that time the possibility that a company might seek to safeguard an investment in liquefied natural gas tankers by saying that they had been acquired for United Kingdom gas transport when in fact they had been acquired for the transport of Algerian gas. The need for some kind of reassurance on the point was recognised, so we have retabled the Amendment in a slightly modified version in order to recognise the need for a safeguard, which is that a mandatory consent was envisaged at the time when the investment was made, and that this, without conditions, would be required by the Secretary of State " having to be satisfied ", and expressions of this kind which are in the Bill at the present time.
The Government seem to be saying that they would have difficulty distinguishing between genuine and not so genuine cases. It is rather hard to accept that this situation could arise. Of course the industry. for its part, accepts that it might be quite difficult to convince the Secretary of State of any Government, but it also recognises that any Government would require this kind of condition in this sort of provision. In other words, what we are saying here is that the onus of proof must rest with the industry and the final say remains with the Secretary of State.
The words " the supply or use is for or in connection with a contract " et cetera were in the Report stage version, and, recognising that these words were open to misinterpretation if one applied one's mind to doing this kind of thing, we have introduced a new form of words saying that it is substantially dependent upon such supply and use. We hope that this may dispose the Government to find this a more acceptable form of words, because at the end of the day what we are seeking to do is to protect contracts which have already been made—and this is what we have said before—undertakings entered into, and investments made before this Bill was enacted. Again one has to say that I hope that the noble Lord will not ask us simply to accept assurances,

169
because we all know the misgivings that people inevitably have about assurances, however much good faith they are made in. We hope that we may persuade the Government that this is a reasonable provision for the industry to seek in protecting the large investments which they have already made. I beg to move.
5.8 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, while in no way being personal to the noble Lord, may I say that if ever we should have the misfortune of having the noble Lord sit on these Benches as a Minister and I was sitting on the other side and he then expressed assurances, I would remind him of what he has said and throw it straight in his teeth, because at the end of the day there are certain things you can put in legislation and certain things that you have to give assurances about. If Ministers' assurances are to be questioned in any way, then much of the way in which Parliament proceeds would, I think, become quite impossible.
This Amendment is not acceptable because I will have to tell your Lordships that it seems to me that its only purpose is to hallow contracts or investments undertaken in complete disregard of the existing law. Let us first take gas produced from offshore crude in the normal course of refinery processes. Today a supply of that gas requires the Secretary of State's consent under the Continental Shelf Act; the consent would have to be given only if the supply were for non-fuel purposes. Under the Bill as now amended, British Gas would similarly be obliged to consent to the supply for non-fuel purposes. No applications have been received for consents to supply for fuel purposes; since under present law such consents are at the Secretary of State's discretion, if anyone has made an investment with such a supply in mind, he has acted most imprudently; if he is actually making such a supply, he is acting illegally. Under the Bill, use of such refinery gas within the refinery or by affiliated companies will be entirely decontrolled; under present law it is subject to the Secretary of State's discretionary consent if the refinery is owned by the licensee.
Now let us take the supply of proper offshore natural gas. That requires the Secretary of State's consent under the
170
Continental Shelf Act just as it would under the Energy Bill. It is true that the Secretary of State is obliged to give his consent if he is satisfied the supply is for non-fuel industrial purposes. But since the Secretary of State has to be satisfied, in common prudence anyone proposing such a supply would have first approached the Secretary of State to ensure that he did indeed consider the purposes to he non-fuel purposes. The Secretary of State has neither received applications for consents to supplies for non-fuel purposes, nor has he given advice that a proposed supply would indeed be regarded as one for non-fuel purposes. In any case, the assurances I gave earlier today on general consents should allay the worries of even the imprudent.
The Secretary of State has given his consent on one or two occasions to the use of natural gas by the licensee. The validity of these consents would be maintained under the Energy Bill. The only change regarding use is that use by non-licensees will be controlled under the Energy Bill while it is not under the Continental Shelf Act. A non-licensee could use gas without the involvement of a consent for supply only if he had purchased the gas before it reached Britain. That would be such a departure from normal practice that one would suspect it of being a deliberate manoeuvre to take advantage of an accidental gap in the coverage of the Continental Shelf Act. However that might be, it would be very unlikely that it would have escaped the Department's notice.
As I said at the start, I think the only effect of the proposed Amendment would be to hallow arrangements which are, under present law, at best imprudent and at worst illegal. The oil industry has been asked informally to let the Department know of any genuine cases of investments or contracts committed before the publication of this Bill and which the Bill would put at risk. So far we have not received notice of any such cases. I repeat that invitation through your Lordships' House: then, if any cases of genuine hardship, not occasioned by imprudence. are notified to us, the Government will be able to consider what assurance might be given to cover them. I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Lord will feel it right to withdraw the Amendment.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, on the general point, there is an old adage which says that the road to hell is paved with good intentions and I think the noble Lord would be naive indeed if he did not know as well as I did that the Parliamentary path is paved with broken undertakings. It is not cynical to say that many a Governmerit—I dare say that that is equally true of Conservative Governments—have reneged on undertakings given in either House of Parliament. Thus, while I repeat that one accepts the good intentions, one has to recognise that in practice they are not always honoured: it is a sad fact of life with which we have to live. The noble Lord has given a complicated and very full answer to the points we raised which, I confess, I found difficult to hoist aboard simply listening across the Floor of the House, and I look forward to reading his remarks later.
I must, however, point out to the noble Lord that throughout these debates the Government have raised a series of hypothetical situations which might arise and have said they must guard against them. One of the underlying purposes of the Amendment is to allay worries expressed by the industry of precisely that kind. The noble Lord has again, most effectively, said that no specific instances have been cited by the industry: but surely he will agree—on many occasions he has said this—that the Government are taking new powers. When they are doing that, it is inevitable that some of them will have an element of retrospectivity, retroactivity, within them. We all accept that this is hound to happen. I cannot see that the noble Lord can argue that it is impossible, when the Government are taking new powers, that some of the effects could not be damaging to some of the contracts which have been entered into, and that is all that we are seeking to do in the Amendment. I do not think, particularly after the noble Lord's very full answer, that it would be in the least proper for us to press the Amendment further. We will merely content ourselves with calling the attention of our colleagues in another place to what has been said here, which will no doubt be very useful to them in resolving this matter in another place, if need be. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.15 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD Lord SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 9, leave out line 13.
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
Lord SHEPHERD Lord SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 9, line 15, at end insert—
(" and
(d) " crude stabilisation " means the treating of offshore crude to enable it to be safely stored or transported; ").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SHEPHERD Lord SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 9. line 19, at end insert—
(" ( ) In section 29 of the Gas Act 1972 (restrictions on supply of gas otherwise than by the British Gas Corporation, etc.), at the end of subsection (11) there shall be added the following words—
" except gas derived from offshore crude otherwise than as a by-product of crude stabilisation.
In this subsection—

(a) " offshore crude " means crude liquid petroleum got in pursuance of a licence under the Petroleum (Production) Act 1934 as applied by section 1(3) of the Continental Shelf Act 1964; and

(b) " crude stabilisation " means the treating of offshore crude to enable it to be safely stored or transported." ").

On Question. Amendment agreed to.
Clause 9 [Disposal of gas by flaring]:
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 9, line 20, leave out (" subsection ") and insert (" subsections (2A) and ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now return to the vexed question of flaring and this Amendment and its associated ones are basically similar to Amendments Nos. 31 and 34 which we moved on Report, but they have been redrafted to take account of Amendments Nos. 30 and 35 which were moved by the Government on Report and particularly the drafting of Clause 9(3), which was Government Amendment No. 35. We would not want anybody to think that my noble friends and I wish to encourage flaring or oppose the discouragement of it: it is objectionable as being a wasteful and distasteful practice. However, there

173
is no disagreement that plants using natural gas as a feedstock cannot be started up, shut down or operated safely without occasional flaring and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, was good enough to agree with this point on Report. However, the Government's proposal for allowing essential flaring to continue to be lawful is to make general orders which will conic into operation at the same time as the Bill is enacted.
One reason why, I understand. the industry objects to this approach is that such general orders could be made subject to conditions which might in some cases require additional expenditure to he made. Of course. we are here dealing with what are, in industrial terms, quite small amounts of gas, and Lord Kirkhill suggested that comparatively modest capital investments could reduce the need for flaring. That is all very well so far as it goes, but surely we must accept that no operator of a plant will want to waste the material which he hopes to sell if economically he can avoid wasting it—that is the nature of the economic system—and the operator's competitiveness in what is, after all, a reasonably cut-throat market depends on the efficient use of his feedstock. The chemical industry has to compete on the international market and if an operator is wasteful in his operations he will find himself in an uncompetitive situation. It can be argued therefore that it is unlikely that the industry will want to flare gas unless flaring is found for some reason to be really necessary.
The Government went some way to recognising this in their own Amendment when they agreed that gas supplied by the British Gas Corporation would not require consent for flaring. The Government may argue that, having given an inch, they are being asked for an ell—they are both pre-metrication measurements, but I suppose the saying will do but it is also surely true to say that gas supplied other than by the Corporation is likely to be at least as expensive, and possibly more so, and that there would therefore be even less reason for the industry to want to waste it.
The industry is concerned that flaring in plants which use natural gas as a feedstock should be automatic and not covered by general consents. It is concerned that is already has every economic
174
incentive not to waste the gas and that any conditions which may be attached to general consents are liable to result in interference in its operations and questioning of decisions to flare. Also, there is always a danger of an increase in cost which would ultimately reduce the international competitive nature of the industry. We do not believe that that could possibly he in the national interest. I hope, therefore, that the Amendment will commend itself to the Government. I beg to move.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, the Government accept the principle that industry needs considerable freedom in flaring in the course of operating or maintaining plant and especially for safety reasons, but they consider that there could be other circumstances when flaring is necessary and, furthermore, that there must be some basic restraint against unrestricted flaring which could lead to an appreciable wastage contrary to the national interest. To meet this view, the Government introduced an Amendment at Report. That was our Amendment No. 35.
The intention behind these Amendments has already had a good deal of discussion in this House, both at Committee and Report stages. As my noble friend Lord Kirkhill said earlier, the Government have sympathy with these Amendments which, on the face of it, are common sense, designed as they are to afford freedom of action over the flaring of gas when a plant is started up or shut down and when there are safety reasons. But, these Amendments would grant complete freedom of action and therefore, in my view and that of the Government, go too far. The Government went a long way to meet the Opposition at Report stage, exempting from the Seretary of State's consent the flaring of all gas if supplied by the British Gas Corporation. We were content that the price paid for this gas would militate against waste. That left the relatively few cases of essential flaring of gas not supplied by British Gas —so few that they can be covered by general or specific consent without unduly burdening the bureaucratic services of industry for the Government. I really cannot see that this is other than a reasonable and sensible arrangement and I hope that the noble Lord will feel

175
that this matter has been exhaustively considered and that we have gone, as we did on Report, a long way to meeting the fears of industry. I also hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, the noble Lord disappoints me, but I cannot honestly claim that I am altogether surprised. I am sorry that the noble Lord and the Government do not accept the economic argument, which seems to me to be very effective. I do not feel that I can do

CONTENTS

Aldenham, L.

Emmet of Amberley. B.

Newall, L.

Alexander of Tunis. E.

Exeter, M.

Northchurch, B.

Alport, L.

Ferrers, E.

Northesk, E.

Amory, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Auckland. L.

Gainford, L.

Porritt, L.

Balerno, L.

Goschen, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Balfour of lnchrye, L.

Gridley, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Belstead, I,.

Hanworth, V.

Redesdale. L.

Berkeley, B.

Hatherton, L.

Redmayne, L.

Boothby, L.

Hawke, L.

Romney, E.

Braye, L.

Hereford, V.

Ruthven of Freeland. Ly.

Brookes, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Sackville, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hylton-Foster. B.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Ilchester, E.

St. Helens. L.

Carrington, L.

Inglewood, L.

St. Just, L.

Cawley, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Sandford, L.

Chelwood, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Sandys, L.

Chesham, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Seebohm, L.

Coleraine, L.

Lloyd, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Crawford and Balcarres, E.

Long, V.

Sharpies, B.

Crawshaw, L.

Loudoun, C.

Strathclyde, L.

Cullen of Ashboumc. L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L

Davcntry, V.

Lyell, L.

Strathspey, L.

de Clifford, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Tranmire, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.)

Mancroft, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Dormer, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Vickers, B.

Dundee, E.

Merrivale, L.

Vivian, L.

Dundonald, E.

Monck, V,

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Eccles, V.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Elliot of Harwood. B.

Mottistone, L.

Young, B.

Elton, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Ampthill, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Amulree, L.

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

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Arwyn, L.

Energlyn, L.

Longford, E.

Aylestone, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Banks, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Maelor, L.

Blyton, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Bradwell, L.

Henderson, L.

Melchett, L.

Brimelow, L.

Henley, L.

Oram, L. [Teller.]

Buckinghamshire, E.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Hoy, L.

Peddie, L.

Byers, L.

Hughes, L.

Peterborough, Bp.

Chorley, L.

Jacques, L. [Teller.]

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Popplewell, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Leatherland, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

176
better than quote back at the noble Lord by saying that we cannot see that it is other than a reasonable and sensible arrangement which we are proposing. I feel that this ought to be in the Bill. Perhaps it I will commend itself as reasonable and sensible when the Bill goes to another place. I therefore feel that we should press the Amendment to a Division.
5.26 p.m.
On Question, whether the said Amendment (No. 19) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 92; Not Contents. 70.

Rochester, L.

Snow, L.

Wells-Pestcll. L.

Rusholme, L.

Snowdon, E.

White. B.

Samuel, V.

Stewart of Alvcchurch, B.

Wigoder, L.

Segal, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Wilson of High Wray. L.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Shinweli, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Wootton of Abinger. B.

Simon, V.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Wynne-Jones. L.

Slater, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.35 p.m.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 9, line 27, at end insert—
(" (2A) Disposal of gas by flaring does not require consent under this section when it is in connection with the start-up or shut-down of industrial plant or when it is conducted as a measure to ensure the safety of operation of such plant.").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10 [Refinery gas]:
Lord SHEPHERD Lord SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 21:
Leave out Clause 10.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12 [Fuelling of new and converted power stations.]:
Lord SHEPHERD Lord SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 10, line 33, after (" shall ") insert (", unless his case is one excepted by order of the Secretary of State under subsection (4).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 22 and at the same time speak to Amendment No. 23. Both Amendments are drafting Amendments and make no change in the substance of the clause.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SHEPHERD Lord SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 10, line 33, leave out (" the Secretary of State ") and insert (" him ").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Passenger car fuel consumption]:
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 12, leave out lines 20 to 22 and insert (" which he deals in or offers for sale and a notice that specified information relating to cars NA hid) he does not deal in or offers for sale is available on request.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of this Amendment is to meet the Government requirements as were set down originally in the Bill and the objections which I made to these proposals at the Second Reading and through subsequent stages. The Government amended the whole of' subsection (3) during the Report stage, hut paragraph (c) remains basically as it was first drafted. There are two major points of difference between the Government and myself. First. there is the impracticability of posting up so as to be clearly legible specified information on the very large number of motor cars that will eventually be tested and the results of which will have to he shown. The second difference concerns whether it is right that retailers of a particular product shall have to display the specified information (that is. the fuel consumption) of products which they do not sell and which may he in direct competition with them.
In most respects we consider that Clause 13 is something of a hotch-potch because at the outset the noble Lord. Lord Lovell-Davis, said that the clause dealt only with testing of motor cars. Later he said that the clause would help consumers to make a choice, and later the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, said that the purpose of the clause was energy conservation and that it would also help the balance of payments. So we now have a clause that deals not only with testing of motor cars, with which purpose the motor industry are quite a greed. but we are involved also in energy conservation, consumer choice, and the balance of payments. If all these points are to be embraced in one large notice which shall clearly display the information, then we will have a very large notice—a point which I have made previously.
At Second Reading I suggested that information relating to 500 motor cars

179
and their results might have to be displayed. At that time there was no response at all from the Government; perhaps the Government did not then know. At the Committee stage, when we discussed this matter again, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, said that he thought there would be a hundred variants. He was challenged on this point by my noble friend Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal, and he reiterated that the figure would be about a hundred, whereas I have steadfastly said that there would be 450 or more.
I understand that the Department are now thinking that there may well be 450, and I should like to know just how many motor cars the Government in fact think will have to be tested, just how many sets of specified information will have to be shown. I do not know whether your Lordships have taken a look at any of the current motor magazines, but (if I may use the phrase) errors and omissions excepted, I counted 645 motor cars on sale to the great British public in last week's issue of the Motor. So there are somewhere between 450 and 600-odd motor cars which ultimately will have to be tested; and to contain all this information in a notice that is to be posted up so as to be clearly legible would, I suggest, take a notice some 2 metres by 1½ metres large, which is pretty big.
I do not see the practicability of doing that; nor do I see the practicability of amending such a notice; nor, indeed, do see the extraordinary cost of such a notice being reasonably borne by whoever it may be. And I ask the Minister now: Who is to bear the cost of this end of the motor vehicle testing scheme? I have suggested that the notice should be in a booklet form—very much cheaper to produce, very much more easy to amend and very much more easy to pass to a consumer.
I should like to remind your Lordships of what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, said during Report stage on this question of testing. He said—and I quote from col. 809 of Hansard of 10th May:
" One of the conditions of the scheme "
and the noble Lord. Lord Kirkhill, was 'talking about the scheme as it was first presented to the industry—
" read as follows:
"Motor vehicle distributors and retailers will be required to display conspicuously the most
180
recent copy of the official list of fuel consumption figures at each point of sale of new cars '."
That was how the scheme was presented to the industry. It then became very modified when the Bill was printed, in that it used this terminology:
"shall keep posted up (so as to be easily legible) ".
My Lords, I therefore think I have demonstrated that, whether the information is to conserve energy, to help the consumer choice or to help the balance of payments, we as an industry accept that the information is quite useful as a matter of reference, although let me say that with overseas competition currently taking about 31 per cent. of the United Kingdom domestic market in motor cars. I wonder whether such information will always be to the advantage of a home-based manufacturer. I also wonder whether my suggestion that the information should be in a booklet or reference book form would not be better.
As to the second point, we in the industry have acknowledged that apart from information centres having the specified information available—and this is a point that I have raised on two previous occasions—perhaps having it at the point of sale may also be useful. Having this information at the point of sale is not necessarily the same as having it at the point of choice—a point upon which the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, and I disagreed at Committee stage. We also acknowledge that the fuel consumption of cars displayed or offered for sale should be clearly shown; but it cannot be right, my Lords—it just cannot be right—that information of a competitor's product need be shown alongside.
At this late stage in the Bill's progress I am not going to repeat all the arguments which I made at Committee and Report stages. However, I would refer to the point which the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, referred to at Report stage when he spoke about American legislation. I understand that the American law, which is the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94/163, was signed by the President of the United States of America on the 22nd December. It is not generally available, and the US Embassy in fact say that it was published and available to the public only last Friday, so my quotation is that

181
which came on a teleprinter and is not direct from the actual Act. The American Act, as I understand it, says:
"In addition to the fact that the law states that each car has to have a sticker showing its gas mileage and the gas mileage of the class of car into which it falls"
approximately four or five classes—
" each dealer must have available on display and must provide if requested a complete breakdown of gas mileage of cars by make ".
This is quite different from what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, said at Report stage. I think perhaps it would be better if I quoted exectly what the noble Lord said. At column 809 of Hansard of the 10th May, the noble Lord said:
"I think it is also significant that the American Government, who are hardly insensitive to the rights of free enterprise, have recently introduced a law which gives statutory force to a previously voluntary scheme of fuel consumption testing and which requires each car sold to be supplied with a label showing the fuel consumption of the make in question together with the range of fuel consumptions of comparable automobiles, whether or not made by the same manufacturer ".
That, really, is very different from my understanding of what the American Act says.
The noble Lord also referred to other commodities, saying that where a multiplicity of commodities were offered for sale under one roof the competitive nature of each was clearly displayed. I think the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, made a point of this, asking why one brand of medicine should not have upon it the details of a competitive brand of medicine. This really is not quite a fair comparison to make. Certainly if a motor dealer is selling, let us say, Vauxhall motor cars and Fiat motor cars from the same showroom, it is reasonable to say that on the Vauxhall car should be the mpg of that car and on the Fiat car should be the mpg of that car; but it cannot be right that he should have a great big notice saying that an Austin does so and so, that a Datsun Cherry does so and so and a BMW does something else. No can of baked beans carries the specification and details of a rival's can of baked beans. If I say that each item in a motor car showroom is a separate item and should carry an advertisement of its own, that should be enough. The only other comparison that could be made is if two models or more which may be competitive are assembled together under one roof. It would be quite wrong, particularly
182
in an energy conservation Bill, to change t he pattern of retailing, albeit in this instance of motor cars, by compelling the seller of one product to advertise and display prominently the competitive nature of another product which he does not sell.
My Amendment, which I invite your Lordships to decide upon, sets down that any person dealing in or offering for sale motor cars shall keep a notice at any place where the cars are sold giving the specified information of the cars he sells. This could be a sticker on the windscreen, which would certainly be legible and attributable directly to that product. My Amendment also says that he shall keep posted a notice which says that the information relative to other motor cars which he does not sell or deal in is available upon request, so that a consumer can go to a showroom, look at product x and see that it does so many miles to the gallon, and say, " This is all right, but what do product y and do? ''. He can then be referred to the booklet. In this way, we can meet the Government claim that relevant information should be at the point of sale. We have a package of information which is easy to look after, to modify, to present to the customer and we have, at one and the same time, the protection that the retailer who wishes to sell one product only has the opportunity of selling his product without compulsorily having to have competitor information alongside it. I beg to move.
Lord CAWLEY: My Lords, I ought to mention to the Government at this stage that this list which is proposed to be exhibited appears to be a gross breach of Section 4 of the Trade Marks Act 1938. Whether proceedings could be taken against any seller who put up the list, I do not know; but it has been held by the Court of Appeal in the case of Bismag Limited v Amblins (Chemicals) Limited, regarding some medicines, that if you put up a notice which says, " Our product, 20p with the competitor's product next to it at 25p, that is an infringement of the competitor's trade mark if he happens to have it registered. I do not know whether the Government had that in mind when they decided to introduce this question of the exhibition of lists as to the consumption of fuel.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I rise with as much of a smile as I can muster in the light of the last intervention: but the objections to posting fuel consumption data for all types of cars at points of sale, which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, advanced both during our proceedings in Committee and on Report and which in my view were fully debated on both occasions, and to which he alluded again today with his usual perspicacity, stand against the more general proposition—although I concede readily that he has argued in considerable detail—which I announced on 10th May that the Government objective is to ensure a conspicuous display of comprehensive fuel consumption data in car showrooms and similar places in order to catch the eye of customers and inquirers, to arouse their interest in comparison of fuel consumption and to enable them to make choices with full knowledge of how a particular type of car compares with others on the market.
Nevertheless, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has asked me two specific questions this afternoon which relate to the earlier discussions, although he has again touched on these points today. First, he asked me who would bear the costs of these posters to which I refer. The cost of the posters would he borne by the trade. The dealers would buy from the Stationery Office. The cost would he spread over a large number of copies and the cost of each is therefore likely to he very small. The noble Lord also asked whether I could confirm that the earlier assertion as to the number of models bore an accurate relation to reality. Although I felt that I answered him honestly at the time, I am bound to say that I am now advised that the number of models will probably he about 400: but we have undertaken an examination of this problem and we certainly intend to continue the discussions with the industry on this problem of posting information. There can he no doubt about that.
I accepted earlier that doubts have been raised about the effectiveness of the consultation process which led to the procedure agreed with the representative bodies of producers and distributors earlier this year and on which the clause as now drafted is based. I assured the House then, and I repeat that assurance today, that there should be further
184
consultations with these bodies before the clause receives detailed examination in another place. These further consultations will enable full consideration to be given to the possibility of meeting our basic objectives by means other than the one proposed so far. We shall certainly be ready to consider very carefully any alternative suggestions made by those directly concerned with carving out the new requirements.
My Lords, before I make the final Government position clear to the House, I should say in response to the question by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, about the United States Act that I shall certainly look at the US Act, but that my understanding is that there is no inconsistency between what I said on Report and what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has said today about its effect. In the light of my remarks I do not recommend the House to adopt the noble Lord's Amendment but I ask the House to accept our assurance of careful consideration of further views submitted to us by the industry and the trade before the form of the requirement is finally settled.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, the noble Lord is in a conciliatory mood but we are at a rather late stage of the Bill at which to leave my noble friend Lord Lucas much room to manoeuvre. My understanding is that he is simply saying that instead of asking sellers of new motor cars to have a large chart in the showroom they should have a notice saying that there is available a small booklet giving the required information. I must say that when I listened to my noble friend moving his Amendment I found myself attracted to this suggestion partly on the ground of practicability. When I heard the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, say that the cost of this operation should be borne by the retailers themselves I was, if anything. more attracted to my noble friend's Amendment than I had been before.
It seems to me that one of the problems that will arise will be that of keeping one of these large charts up to date. We do not want to have these continually reprinted. In leaflet form this would be relatively simple. I dare say that a number of noble Lords may feel that this is a comparatively small point: but it is evident from what my noble friend is saying

185
that it creates a great deal of heartburning in industry. I confess that 1 find their case convincing and I sincerely hope that the noble Lord will be able to elicit sufficient support to carry this through so that further consideration can be given to it in the Commons.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I intervene for a moment? I have been involved for the last few days in this matter. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Kirkhill for taking at the last moment the responsibility for answering this particular Amendment. I do not think that there is anything between us as to what we are seeking to do: which is to conserve fuel, to make people particularly minded about the way in which fuel and energy is used and the need for information and, also, if I may say so, perhaps to stimulate the motor manufacturing industry to put research into this field so that we may consume less while getting the same degree of reliability and service out of our motor vehicles.
The difficulty that my noble friend and I are in is that we are in the midst of consultations. I will be frank with the House, I have a personal sympathy with the Amendment before the House, not necessarily exactly with its wording. I would not want to prejudice the position of the Government: at this stage in the consultations the Government cannot come along and recommend to your Lordships that this particular Amendment should be accepted. On the other hand, we are not minded to oppose it hook, line and sinker because if we were, then consultation has no meaning whatsoever. I would therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment. If it will help the noble Lord as to whether I or my noble friend is being serious, if he insists on his Amendment I do not intend to divide. I shall negative it: I shall not divide on it.
Frankly, I do not want the Government to he committed in opposition to the noble Lord's Amendment. It is up to the House to decide whether these words are put in the Bill. They may technically be at fault; they may not reflect what, in the end, consultation will bring about. If the noble Lord will accept from me and my noble friend that this is a matter which only divides us upon implementation, that this is something we ought to hammer out with the industry and for the matter to be
186
dealt with in another place—and it will come back to us—then 1 have no doubt that we can give further consideration to it.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, for his persistence in this matter. He is very much like his father, a very dear friend of mine, who also was highly persistent from both the Front Bench opposite and the Cross-Benches to which I regret he found his way. I hope that the noble Lord will think of my intervening as Leader of the House as trying to be helpful and seeking to bring the right conclusion to this difficult matter. We have to reach a solution to it and it is best arrived at through consultation and understanding between the Government and industry.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, f am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, and the Leader of the House. A couple of points arose and I must say that I am shattered to think that the retail motor industry are going to have to pay the cost of this. When I raised this question much earlier the whole system of testing was to be borne out of monies virtually already spent by manufacturers. So far as catching the eye is concerned, the noble Lord is not being altogether fair. because if one takes, for example, the tobacco industry—and tar content is something far more serious to the health of the community—it is not required that a tobacconist has to have a big notice in his shop pointing out the tar content of various competitive brands of cigarettes. It is sufficient that there is a notice on the cigarette packet reminding the consumer and it is for him to go away and find out.
If I challenge the Leader of the House, I hope he will take it in the spirit of inquiry in which it is made. I quote from Hansard, col. 810 of 10th May. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, said:
"…the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has raised doubts about the effectiveness of the consultation process on the procedure for publication of this information. In view of this, I am happy to tell your Lordships that the Department of Energy, together with the Department of Industry, will be ready to discuss the matter further with the appropriate interests before the clause receives detailed examination in another place. I do not hold out expectations of departure from what the Government consider to be necessary,…"
That is exactly what he said. About a week ago I also invited the noble Lord. Lord Kirkhill, to discuss this Amendment. I gave notice that this was a

187
proposal of mine. I know that the Motor Agents' Association have also attempted to have further words with the Department of Industry. There was no reply from the office of the noble Lord. Lord Kirkhill. Is it really fair of the Leader of the House to ask me to accept his assurances when the Government's categorical answer was set down only a few days ago? It was that they do not expect to depart from their present thinking. Only four days ago from the noble Lord's office came the following: " I am sorry, we do not like it and we are going along with what we have ". Even in that short time I am invited to change my mind. I find it difficult to accept the suggestion which the noble Lord the Leader of the House has made. I wonder if, because of procedural matters, he would care to interrupt me in order that I may finish.
Lord SHEPHERD: Yes, my Lords. Before the noble Lord sits down. I have no idea of the communications that the noble Lord. Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has had with Lord Kirkhiffs office. All I know is I was alerted about Lord Lucas's Amendment. I looked at it and started " beavering " away. That is the only reason I gave the noble Lord the assurances that I have just given. This is going to be looked at in consultation with the people directly involved. I do not give assurances lightly: if I did I would not get away with it very long. So far, after 22 years, nobody has yet tripped me up. If I give the noble Lord that assurance it sticks.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, of course I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his intervention. Your Lordships' House have been extraordinarily patient in debating this matter time and time again and most interested parties are now very well aware of what is involved, and where each side stands. As the noble Lord says, the difference is narrowing debate by debate. With the assurances which have been given and the fond hope that further consultations will be more meaningful than those consultations promised in December to the industry, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord SHEPHERD Lord SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 13, line 15, after (" 4(3) ") insert (" or 21(4)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SHEPHERD Lord SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 13, line 18, after (" 4(3)") insert (" or 21(4)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Administration, enforcement and offences]:
Lord SHEPHERD Lord SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 14, line I I, leave out (" to 10 ") and insert (" and 9 ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this with Amendment No. 7. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SHEPHERD Lord SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 14, line 34, leave out (", 9 or 10 ") and insert (" or 9 ")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment, which was spoken to with Amendment No. 7.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 [Citation, commencement and extent]:
6.11 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD Lord SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 17, line 8, leave out (" 10 ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this again is an Amendment I spoke to with Amendment No. 7. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Administration and other matters]:
Lord SHEPHERD Lord SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 19, line 14, at end insert—
(" (3) In this paragraph " specified " means specified by the Secretary of State's directions.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
An Amendment (Privilege) made.
6.11 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Kirkhill, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in our debates on this Bill, and particularly to my noble friend Lord Kirkhill, who has always made himself available to all Members of this House. I should like to place that very firmly on the record. I am also very grateful to the noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Croy, and Lord Strathcoria and Mount Royal. I must admit that I thought they might have been a little more flexible. If they had matched my own flexibility this stage of the Bill might have been dealt with a little quicker and perhaps there would have been less tramping through the Division Lobbies. The Bill will now go to another place and it will he looked at with great care. I have no doubt at all that the Bill will he returned to your Lordships' House for further consideration.
The Bill deals with a matter of great importance to this country; that is, the conservation of those resources we have available. We may have to take certain measures to conserve them. This may mean some infringement for those who in the past have thought they had rights to those raw materials; but when one takes the view which I hope will he taken by noble Lords, that we are in this world today as mere temporary tenants and we have to have regard to those who are following us in the next century, we have a right and a duty to seek to conserve, without fear or favour and without any form of partiality, these very precious resources. This Bill probably marks the first step in seeking to do so.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Shepherd.)
6.12 p.m.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for what he has just said. I am delighted that once again he has introduced into our debate the word " flexibility we really would hardly have felt at home without it. I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill who picked up a difficult brief at short notice, and who has been helpful to us.
At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Lovell-Davies, who has been with us quite a lot today, said that the purpose of the Bill was to meet the United Kingdom's obligations under the Agreement on an International Energy Program and as a Member of the European Communities, and to develop our energy conservation policies. We have probed these intentions fairly carefully during the passage of the Bill, and it has emerged that the Bill does a good deal more than just what the noble Lord was suggesting, which was to consolidate the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act 1973. On the emergency side, the Opposition have not attempted to limit the powers as such, but rather to ensure that they are used only in times of genuine emergency. We also wanted to ensure that the powers required to honour our international obligations were not equally available for dealing with quite separate domestic purposes. I think we have made a number of improvements to the Bill in this regard, because there was scope for any future Government to ignore the undertakings given by this Government during the passage of the Bill. That is something which no doubt the other place will want to explore further. Certainly I believe the domestic powers are now more firmly anchored to domestic crises.
There is still an element of doubt in our minds that powers taken with a view to dealing with international crises might be used outside those circumstances hut, as the noble Lord has said—and it is an unfortunate fact that the so-called conservation aspects of the Bill have exercised us most—we are all against valuable resources being wasted, and to that extent we are certainly all in favour of conservation. We had been concerned lest there should be no limits to the control being taken by the Government in the name of' conservation, which might or might not

191
be used for such a purpose. I do not mean it in a trivial sense when I say that it is always easy to find a noble label for something which some of us would regard as a mischievous intention We have been doing our best to ensure that conservation is not a smokescreen behind which the Government might seek to intervene in the oil and chemical industries, and that the word " conservation " should he regarded in its true light.
During the passage of the Bill we have removed permanent price control as part of the conservation argument. We felt the existence of this could, and in most cases would, conflict with any desire to encourage the sensible use of fuel. Indeed we believe that nothing could he more discouraging to the cause of conservation than to prevent prices signalling the true costs involved in the provision of resources. One of our main preoccupations has been to question the Government's proposals for powers over the supply and use of offshore natural gas. All kinds of gibes could no doubt be poked at us. I think we have at least had to appear to he experts in the natural gas field, and we hope that the practical effect. whereby the Government were greatly extending their control over both the oil and petrochemical industries has been to some extent limited. There was a real danger that the confidence of the industry could have been sapped by some of the powers the Government intended to take, some of which, frankly, were ill-conceived from a purely practical point of view. I really must give credit to the Government for recognising and meeting many of the points we raised in this connection.
Finally, but by no means least important, the Bill has proposed very extensive powers over the collection and disclosure of information. Nobody wants to deny the Government powers to collect the information they require, particularly if it is needed to honour international obligations. But I hope the Government have not felt there was any intention on the part of the Opposition to go " nitpicking in this matter. We believe that one really cannot be too careful when trying to protect the individual or the company against the powers of an intrusive Government. It is all too easy for Governments to assume that the public
192
interest inevitably benefits from all information being made readily available to the State. But certainly we on this side feel that an all-knowing and all-powerful State is not necessarily a universally agreed objective, and this is an area in which we seek to avoid any future abuse by Governments of the powers which were being asked for under this Bill.
One can sum it up by saying that at times we have disagreed with the Government on both the practicalities and the principles of the Bill. I believe we have made a useful contribution to improving at least the elements of practicality in the Bill. Clearly, issues of principle are less easily resolved between us and this Bill now passes to be considered in another place. I should like to end by saying that we have greatly appreciated the way in which all noble Lords opposite have handled the Bill, and in particular the real assistance which the noble Lord the Leader of the House has given us in meeting what at times have been far from easily resolved problems.
On Question. Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

DEVELOPMENT OF RURAL WALES BILL [H.L.]
6.22 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Baroness TWEEDSMUIR OF BELHELVIE in the Chair.]
Clause 23 [Provision for staff of the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas]:
On Question, Whether Clause 23 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord ELTON: My recollection is that our last business was Amendment No. 30

193
to Clause 22, but we did not take Clause 22 stand part. If there is an opportunity to speak to that, I should like to do so.
The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie): That is correct.
Clause 22 [Transfer to the Board of industrial property of the Welsh Development Agency]:
On Question, Whether Clause 22 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord ELTON: I wanted to seize this fleeting opportunity, because in the light of the Statement this afternoon on the Government's intentions about devolution, the situation has changed somewhat since we last discussed this Bill in Committee. This clause deals with the transfer to the Board of industrial property of the Welsh Development Agency, which we hear will now be made an agent of the Welsh Assembly. I realise that this is all sub judice, but I hope that the noble and learned Lord will allow me to take this opportunity to ask him to think about the change in status, as it will affect not only this clause but also the questions which I asked earlier about the budgetary arrangements, with particular reference to the FEOGA payments. It is something of an artifice for me to raise it here, but there should be something on the record to show that the functioning of this Bill will be altered in some respects—not least, in its financial respects—by the provisions of the devolution legislation when we get it, and as it is now adumbrated I think that the budget will be fairly considerably affected. That is all I wish to say at this stage.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I doubt whether what has been said affects in any substantial degree what was said when we were last in Committee on the Bill. But I will certainly look at the point and we can return to it at Report stage if any elaboration, or even alteration, of what I said earlier is called for.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Provision for staff of the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas]:
On Question, Whether Clause 23 shall stand part of the Bill?
6.25 p.m.
Lord ELTON: There is a Motion in my name on the Marshalled List to leave out this clause. This relates to, and is a paver to, a subsequent Amendment to leave out Schedule 6. Your Lordships will remember that I put down a probing Amendment in similar terms on an earlier Schedule, the object of which was to enable the Government to say that they intend by means of advertisement to recruit new skills where they are available. The Government were somewhat pessimistic in their reply, saying that the difficulty would be to keep what they already had. I hope that they will be able to breathe sufficient enthusiasm into the new organisation to overcome that difficulty. But since the last debate I have received messages from beyond Offa's Dyke saying that there is a feeling that it would be a good thing if posts were open to advertisement, which I suppose would necessarily involve some posts already occupied in prospect, as it were, by COSIRA employees. When there is an opportunity to use a new broom, I suppose it should be taken. I do not expect that the Government's reply will differ from that given earlier, but, again, this is an opportunity for them to add to anything they have said in the past.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: The object of the clause and of the Schedule is, of course, to protect and make provision for the stair of COSIRA whose activities in regard to Wales are to be transferred to the Welsh Development Agency. The Schedule itself contains an elaborate account of what is contemplated for the purpose of protecting the staff of COSIRA. We are confident that under the new arrangements the opportunities for those who have been concerned with its activities in Wales will be even greater, and we have every hope that the future bodes well for them. But the purpose of the Schedule and of Clause 23 is essentially to protect the employees of COSIRA from any risk of deterioration in their conditions and circumstances by reason of the change.
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [financial assistance to bodies contributing to the social development of Wales]:
On Question, Whether Clause 24 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord ELTON: We now come to what I regard as a rather odd clause, because although this is a Bill about the Development Board for Rural Wales there is no mention of the Board in it. It is giving a power to the Secretary of State without any relationship to the Board shown in this clause, or indeed in any other provision of this Bill that I can find. It is almost as if it is a postscript slipped in after the post has gone with the previous letter; namely, the Welsh Development Agency Act. It is rather extraordinary to find this arrangement, and I imagine that the noble and learned Lord's attention has been drawn to this Amendment and he will be able to explain why this power is given to the Secretary of State in this place. It appears that he is being given an opportunity to act somewhat in the role of the Arts Council and to subsidise events which, although doubtless highly beneficial to the region and to the culture, do not seem to have a place in this Bill except as they come within the purview of the Board, but the Board appears not to figure in the clause. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can lighten our darkness.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I understand the mystification of the noble Lord, but I assure him that there is nothing sinister about the intrusion of this provision into the Bill. It is not like the circumstances whereby an unhappily married town clerk is supposed to have inserted in the Schedule to a waterworks clauses Bill the provision that " The marriage of the town clerk is hereby dissolved ", in the days when one needed a Bill to accomplish that. The explanation is this. The proposals contained in the Bill involve the taking over by the Board of the functions of the Development Commission so far as its activities relate to Wales. The Development Commission has responsibility for making grants to a number of bodies in Wales for either social development or social purposes. The bodies that are presently in receipt of those grants include the Council of Social Services for Wales, the rural councils and the voluntary services councils which are successor bodies to the rural community councils.
As I have said, for some time the Development Commission has been giving grants to those bodies throughout Wales, in addition to its better known activities
196
of building advance factories, mainly in Mid Wales. It is now intended that the Commission should withdraw from Wales and hand over its functions to Welsh bodies. The Board that we are setting up is being empowered by Clause 3(1)(d)(ii) to give assistance to bodies in its area that contribute to social development, and this will enable it to take over responsibility for Development Commission grants in its area. But Clause 24 is intended to give power to the Secretary of State to take over responsibility for the Development Commission grants in the rest of Wales, outside the Mid Wales Board area. There is simply no other body to which this power should be given. The Welsh Development Agency, for instance, is not so empowered and the only solution appears to he to give the power to the Secretary of State for Wales. Details of how those grants will be administered under the new arrangements remain to be worked out administratively, but- that is the explanation of the inclusion of Clause 24 in the Bill.
Lord ELTON: I should like to make sure that I have got this point right. As I understand it, the Bill already empowers certain functions of the Commission to be discharged by the Board.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes, that is so.
Lord ELTON: It is enabled to do so within the area that is quite properly within its purview and not in any other. So now we have a Bill dealing with the area to be administered by the Development Board for Rural Wales, and it contains one clause that says what shall be done by somebody other than the Board in an area other than that administered by the Board. That is right, is it not?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Yes.
Lord ELTON: Well. I find it astonishing and very droll. I am sure that it is not a matter of earth-shaking constitutional importance but it must be a rare example, that the area specifically excluded for its operation in every other part of the Bill shall be the area in which this clause functions and that the authority which is set up by this Bill shall not be mentioned in the clause. However, I wanted to

197
discover what the explanation was and the noble and learned Lord has now lightened my darkness. It is a very odd answer which I shall think about between now and Report, but it is not a matter of great difficulty.
Baroness WHITE: I hope that noble Lords opposite will accept this anomaly. I think we must all agree that this is an anomalous and most peculiar clause. But may we let the ghost of Lloyd George rest quietly in its grave? This clause is due to the very wide terms in which the duties of the Development Commission were originally drawn. As your Lordships know, the Development Commission is a body which has lasted for quite incredibly long. It seems to me that we should accept this clause in an historic spirit, which I am sure will appeal to the noble Lord, and allow it to go through, although I agree entirely with him that it is a rather odd piece of legislation.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I agree about the oddity of the clause, but it is included to maintain a useful public purpose which has been carried out by the Development Commission. The Long Title of the Bill contemplated the conferring of this power, but I am grateful to my noble friend Lady White for giving me her support and, in the process, calling in aid the shade of Lloyd George. It is droll but, faute de mieux, it is the best suggestion that we have for dealing with the situation.
Lord LYELL: Before the noble and learned Lord finally sits down, I wonder whether he could lighten the slight cloud —I will not say darkness that hangs over the financial assistance. The rubric to the clause begins " Financial assistance to bodies£" and I should be very interested to know whence this financial assistance will come. The noble and learned Lord will remember that on the last occasion when we were discussing Clauses 9 and 10 of the Bill—the budgetary and financial powers—he gave some fairly detailed explanations. I am wondering whether the financial powers contained in this clause are included in the provisions of Clauses 9 and 10 or whether they will come from some other source. I should be grateful if the noble and learned Lord could remove this small cloud on the horizon.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I conceive that they will come from the source from which the grants to the Development Commission for these purposes were drawn. I do not know that I can take the matter any further than that. Those funds were made available to the Development Commission, and that portion of them which is requisite for the purpose of helping the Council of Social Services for Wales and the other bodies that I have mentioned will be appropriated hereafter, through the Secretary of State, for the purposes in Wales for which the grant portion attributable to Wales was previously used. I hope that is right. If it is not, I will put it right at Report stage. I see a nod of confirmation from a certain place.
Lord LYELL: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord and I will be happy with that answer.
The LORD CHANCELLORThank you very much.
Lord ELTON: So indeed will I. The question to which the noble and learned Lord is to address himself will already be before him in the question: how much of the monies we have been considering have to be under the ceiling imposed by Clause 10? We are a little confused about this point but I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will be able to help us at Report stage.
Viscount SIMON: We discussed this matter briefly during the Second Reading of the Bill when it was made quite clear that these sums are outside those provided by Clauses 9 and 10 of the Bill because they do not pass through the Board.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I think that they come from the Development Commission sources. I think that the noble Viscount's intervention is right, but if there is any doubt about it I will clarify the point at Report stage.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clauses 25 and 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Regulations. orders and directions]:
6.39 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 17, line 23, leave out C' (except a compulsory purchase order) and insert (" (other than orders excepted from this provision by subsection (1A) below) ").
The noble and learned Lord said: Perhaps it would he convenient to take Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 together. As it is presently drafted, Clause 27(1) provides that all regulations or orders under the Bill, except compulsory purchase orders, shall be made by Statutory Instrument. This Amendment will add to the exception—namely, compulsory purchase orders —orders made under Schedule 3, which sets out the new towns code. Schedule 3 re-enacts the various provisions of the New Towns Act 1965. Your Lordships will notice that no fewer than 30 pages have had to be added to the Bill to provide for the necessity which, we have previously agreed. arises from the avoidance of legislation by reference: but it imposes an intolerable addition to the very size of the Statute Book that in a modest Bill like this we are having to restate, in effect, 30 pages of what is already on the Statute Book, with only minor alterations. But there it is: we have committed ourselves to it. It is a generous age, with public expenditure, public printing and so on and this is the price we arc having to pay. I only mention that en passant.
As I have said, Schedule 3 re-enacts various provisions from the New Towns Act of 1965, including the power to make orders concerning the extinguishment of public rights of way, power by order to extinguish rights of way and rights as to apparatus of statutory undertakers: power by order to extend or modify the powers and duties of statutory undertakers and similar power to direct in certain circumstances that statutory undertakers be relieved of the fulfilment of an obligation. Under the New Towns Act of 1965 the orders that I have identified are not made by Statutory Instruments: they are simply executive orders and it is desired to make this Bill consistent with the New Towns Act in that respect. They are essentially executive orders rather than legislative in character and we do not think that they need to be made by Statutory Instrument.
As at present drafted Clause 27(1) provides that the power to make all orders shall he exercisable by Statutory Instruments, hut as I have said. certain orders—and perhaps I had better identify them—under paragraphs 38(1). 44(6) and (7), 46(4) and 48(1) of Schedule 3 to the Bill are not made Statutory Instruments in the equivalent provisions of the New Towns Act of 1965 and the purpose of these Amendments is to make the provisions of this Bill consistent with the New Towns Act in this respect. I beg to move.
Lord ELTON: I feel I must make a rejoinder about what I call the Renton Schedule to the Bill. I accept that there is a good deal of expense in paper and print in reprinting amended Statutes at the back of new Acts of Parliament. On the other hand, I think a great deal of ink, time and oil are saved in countless lawyers' offices and planning offices, and more particularly by those not trained in the law, in discovering what is their position under an amendment to an old Statute, because they have not got the benefit of the Library that we have. Therefore 1 shall be interested to see whether these savings occur. I hope they will.
While I should like to look a little more closely at the provisions of the Amendment, they seem to reduce what might become an unnecessary and intolerable burden on the Parliamentary process and my first reaction would be that there is a duty on public and privately supported bodies to look out for an abuse of the system rather than to insist that all these orders should he subject to the Statutory Instruments procedure of the Houses of Parliament. That is all I wish to say at this stage.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I was certainly not intending to decry the changes that are recommended in regard to the form of the legislation, but I have little doubt that before long there will be furious complaint about the enormous increase in the size of the Statute Book and I simply want to remind ourselves that this is the price that unfortunately we have to pay.
Lord ELTON: The remedy lies in the hands of the noble and learned Lord and his friends: we must have less legislation.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.43 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 17, line 24, at end insert-—
(" (1A) The orders excepted From subsection (I) above are compulsory purchase orders and orders under any provision of Schedule 3 to this Act.").
On Question Amendment agreed to.
Lord ELTON: We have in fact spoken to Amendment No. 33 with Amendment No. 3. It was a means which has in any case been rendered nugatory by the Amendment we have just passed, on providing for an Affirmative Resolution procedure in two particular cases. As I said earlier, this is something to which we may return at the Report stage. but at this stage it is not necessary for me to move the Amendment.
Clause 27, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 28 to 30 agreed to.
Clause 31 [Interpretation]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 18, line 40, at end insert-—
(" " local authority means the council of a county, of a district or of a community and includes any joint Board or joint committee if all the constituent authorities are local authorities:")
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment has already been discussed along with Amendment No. 14. which was agreed. T beg to move.
On Question. Amendment agreed to.
On Question. Whether Clause 31. as amended. shall be agreed to?
Lord ELTON: I apologise to the Committee for not giving notice of my intention to speak on this clause but there are one or two points I. should like to raise. On the question of definitions it has been suggested to me that there is a need for the definition of the term " function which does not at present appear in the clause, as comprising powers and duties and other such terms which occur particularly frequently in the earlier part of the Bill. I merely ask the noble and learned Lord to give his expert view on that after he has had an opportunity to look at it. As I have not given him notice of this I
202
would not expect him to be able to do it at this time, but I gather that there arc respectable precedents for this and that it can be of service.
There is another point on which I should like clarification. namely, the general question of the interrelationships between planning authorities, particularly in the National Park area covered by the Bill. If the DBRW goes ahead as has been said to be probable—and I do not know whether it is reliably so said—with a new town either at Bala or Brecon, what will be the consultation prodecure before the Board's proposals are accepted by the Secretary of State and will there be automatic prior consultation with the local planning authority or will it simply he subject to the Board's general obligation to consult: and what is the planning authority of the National Park? One might think that that is a simple question to answer. but I believe it is not. Schedule 17 to the Town and Country Planning Act is very difficult to interpret. It may he that the noble and learned Lord will surprise, delight and indeed impress me by having the answer to that point also at his fingertips, but if he has not I think it might be proper for me to table an Amendment at the Report stage, getting as near the mark as I can to what I think is the interpretation and he, in Ins refutation or acceptance of it, will be able to show whether or not I am right.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I would also be impressed if 1 knew the answers to those questions which have been addressed to me. However, I assure the noble Lord that I will look into them. They have come somewhat like a bolt from the blue, but I will certainly examine them and perhaps we can deal with them expressly and publicly at Report stage or I can write to the noble Lord.
Baroness WHITE: While my noble and learned friend is examining this, will he at the same time examine paragraph (6) of Part I of Schedule 3? There is a reference there to local planning authorities, and I would suppose—although I have not had time to look at this with much attention—that it might be necessary to consider park planning authorities at that stage also.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Certainly this debate on the definition clause

203
is raising very interesting general questions which might be fitted in to sonic other part of the process at Report stage, but I will have to look at them.
Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
Schedule 1 [The Development Boar/ for Rural Wales]:
6.51 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 20, line 18, at beginning insert—
(" With the exception of the office referred to in sub-paragraph (3A) below ").
The noble Lord said: I suppose we all think we are hands at Constitution making. At this stage I should explain that the purpose of this Amendment taken with Amendment No. 38, to which I hope your Lordships will think it convenient that I should speak at the same time, is to ensure that the balance of the membership of the Board shall preponderate in favour of the local authorities. Earlier in this Bill we were at pains to say that we wished to preserve as democratic a means of government in the Principality as was possible. Your Lordships will recall that when we alluded to a consultative council we were beaten with our own stick, being told that there was such a proliferation of bodies that the ordinary voter in the valleys would he lost among those. This is an attempt to make sure that the ordinary voter in the valleys is properly represented upon the Board, by giving him seven seats for his representatives rather than five. Amendment No. 37 paves the way, and Amendment No. 38 specifies how the extra seats shall be allocated.
It is possible, of course, to argue for a long time about the relative merits of the total number or the quorum of the Board, but I hope your Lordships at this juncture will be primarily concerned not with those considerations, albeit that they are important, but with the consideration of whether they wish to see this Board as the servant of the Secretary of State, as the servant of the Assembly, or as the servant of the local authorities involved. I should have thought that, of the three
204
only the latter two were suitable suggestions and that while the future nature, let alone existence, of the Assembly remains in doubt and obscurity, it would he wise to say that the preponderance of wisdom and guidance should be drawn from local authority sources. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not sure that Amendment No. 37 does not more readily amount to a paving Amendment in relation to Amendment No. 40: one sees reference to paragraph (3A) in Amendment No. 37, and one sees paragraph (3A) set out in Amendment No. 40. But it may be convenient for us to discuss together Amendments Nos. 37. 38 and 40, and to reserve Amendment No. 39 for my noble friend Lord Champion who has waited so long for this matter to be raised.
Amendment No. 38 provides that seven rather than five of the 11 to 13 members of the Board will be appointed after consultation with local authority organisations, and that would have the effect of making the majority of the Board members local authority members. While I think it is obviously important for local authorities to be adequately represented on the Board, it is equally important that other interests are adequately reflected on the Board as well. Indeed, this is reflected in other Amendments, in particular Amendment No. 40 which, for instance, provides for representation of agricultural interests on the Board, and an Amendment calling for cross-membership with the Wales Tourist Board. In addition, if it is to be wholly effective, the Board will need to have among its members people with experience of finance and business, and the real question is one of the balance of the Board. The view of the Government is that local authority interests are adequately represented by five out of the 11 members to be initially appointed. These include the chairman and deputy chairman.
A further point which I think perhaps ought to be made is that the Board will be administering moneys provided by central Government rather than money from the rates. This would seem to me to point to adhering to the balance of local authority membership rather on the lines proposed in the Bill. The Bill provides

205
that five of the members of the Board shall be appointed after consultation with local authority organisations. As I have said, we think that this strikes about the right balance. Members will in any event be appointed for the contribution they personally can make to the deliberations of the Board, and not as delegates of any particular interest. The Board will be taking independent decisions which will serve the best interests of the area as a whole.
With regard to Amendment No. 40, which proposes that the chairman and deputy chairman of the Wales Tourist Board should ex officio become also members of the Rural Wales Board, in my view that is not a helpful or, indeed, even possibly a desirable proposal. The Wales Tourist Board has responsibilities over the country as a whole. As I say, the Board itself will have to take the impartial view as between conflicting interests which will arise on the problems it will confront, and it should be so far as possible free from the pressures arising from the divided loyalties of its members. We do not think it would he helpful for the chairman or deputy chairman of the Wales Tourist Board to be members of the Board as of right, but there will clearly he need for close liaison between the two Boards, because tourism obviously is going to form an important part of the economy of rural Wales and of Mid Wales. Inevitably there will be that link and liaison between them, but I do not think there is justification for the automatic allocation of two places on the Board to the chairman and the deputy chairman.
Lord ELTON: If I may intervene for just a moment, the Amendment says:
"…the chairman of the Wales Tourist Board or his deputy"
It is not two places, but one.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry; I have been in error there, but my criticism applies to either being automatically entitled to appointment to a place on the Board. It is a nationwide organisation suddenly being projected into wider membership, and I can well imagine, if this were introduced, that there will be clamant demands from other nationwide organisations possibly to have a place among the membership.
206
The second part of Amendment No. 40 reads:
" Two offices as members of the Board shall be held by members appointed by the Secretary of State after consultation with such organisations as appear to him to be representative of agricultural interests in Wales."
As I said when we discussed this earlier, agriculture is one of the area's basic industries, and clearly there will he some farmers, or people involved in agriculture, whose claims for membership will be considered. But, here again, if we were to identify particular interests with a claim to representation, as suggested here, we should need a Board much larger than the present 11 to 13 members we are contemplating. There is little doubt that the membership of the Board will include persons with close links with the area's basic industries, of which agriculture is one. I hope therefore, in the light of what I have said, that these proposals will not be pressed and that the general balance that is suggested in the composition of the Board may be accepted as a reasonable balance.
Viscount SIMON: I should like to support strongly Amendment No. 38, although I am bound to confess that 1 would prefer Amendment No. 39 when the noble Lord, Lord Champion, comes to move it. The noble and learned Lord suggests that because this Board will he administering funds provided from central Government there is not a case for having a majority of local authority representation. But, as I said on Second Reading, it seems to me that it is enormously important, if this Board is to have the confidence of the people in the area which it serves, that they should see that the Board is close to their own feeling. I would have thought there was everything to be said for having a Board the majority of whose members represented local elected interests. I hope the noble and learned Lord may perhaps be able to give further consideration to that point. I do not want to speak to Amendment No. 40; I have no very strong views, and on the whole I agree with what the noble and learned Lord said about that. But I feel that either Amendment No. 38, or preferably when we come to it Amendment No. 39, should be given very serious consideration.
Lord ELTON: I am much obliged for the support received from the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. at least on one of these Amendments. I am sure he will see that we would not wish at this stage to allow it to collide, like a frigate in the cod war, with Amendment No. 39, and that, of course, we shall avoid. But I am not really very happy with what the noble and learned Lord has just said to us. I feel that there is a strong case for the introduction of a preponderance of local authority seats in order to secure the confidence of those whose confidence is essential for the working of the Bill. I thought we were on common ground. I was rather surprised by the noble and learned Lord's remarks about the Wales Tourist Board and the agricultural interests, because it was, I thought, established at Second Reading that the purpose of this Bill was to maintain a healthy economic and social structure or society in the area of the Board, and that this economic and social structure was in fact a rural and agricultural and touristic economic and social structure.
If it is to operate to the benefit of the area, it is important to include those interests on the Board, in different capacities, because the Tourist Board is in itself supporting the area as an outside body whereas agriculture is essentially an inside body. It would be helpful to have people on the Board who are thoroughly conversant with its business because they are attendant at all its meetings, so that it is not necessary to canvas the opinion of outside bodies, however representative and well organised, when it comes to matters of policy for discussion at Board meetings. I would have thought that if there were, for instance, two farmers, or two people appointed by the Secretary of State after consulting the farmers, they would be of immense service to the Board; they would be of greater service to the Board by being members of it and therefore present at every meeting, than they would be if they had to be rung up or written to every time an agricultural question arose. As for the Wales Tourist Board, I think we are agreed that the tourist industry is in a unique position in this area, and this was a method, we suggested, of ensuring the liaison which the noble and learned Lord, in this and many contexts, tells us is certain to take place. and nobody in his senses would try to run the board without it. It
208
would be better if the fellow was there, to put it bluntly. I do not want to make an issue of it at this stage, because we have rather a large group of Amendments and I do not want to hold up the proceedings. I should like the noble and learned Lord to reflect upon this, possibly beyond the confines of his brief, before we meet again on this Bill. I think perhaps it would be as well if I gave him an opportunity to furnish an ad hoc rejoinder at this stage.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I am certainly willing to reflect upon this. I have little doubt that when I discuss the matter with the Secretary of State one of the things he will tell me will be that he will, of course, welcome nominations from any source of persons for consideration for appointment to the Board. I have little doubt that the agricultural interests and others will be making their suggestions. Clearly the membership of the Board should reflect the paramount interests in the area, the farming interests, other interests and tourism. I have no doubt that that will be the aim of the membership of the Board, that it should fairly represent those w hose livelihood is involved, those whose participation will be crucial to the success of the development that we contemplate. But I am bound to say that I am at the moment persuaded, where there is a statutory obligation for at least five of the members of the Board to be representative and nominated by local authorities, that that provides an effective hard core of those directly linked to local authorities. But I am perfectly willing to ponder over this again and discuss it with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.
Lord ELTON: I am sure there is nobody better at pondering than the noble and learned Lord, and I feel very confident in leaving it in his hands. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 20, line 21, leave out (" Five ") and insert (" Seven ").
The noble Lord said: I think all these stand or fall or are withdrawn together. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord CHAMPION Lord CHAMPION moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 20, line 22, after (" with ") insert (" the councils of any county which will be wholly or partly included in the area of the Board and ").
The noble Lord said: The Amendment that I am now moving was suggested to me by a county council. That county council feels that the county councils of the area in which the Board will operate should either themselves have a direct power of appointment or at least a direct power of suggesting appointees as members of the Board. I did pot think it was very likely that my noble friend would be prepared to accept direct appointment by the county councils to the Board, so I took the very much more moderate step, and I hope the more acceptable suggestion, of giving the appropriate county councils the function of suggesting people for appointment to the Board.
Last Thursday, in reply to an Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, my noble friend said that the Government's proposals for the constitution of the Board permit the appointment to it of members with wide experience of the locality. With that sentiment I am wholly in sympathy, for this is to be a body which is to be responsible for the social and economic development of its locality. I would think that there cannot be any authority with greater experience and knowledge of the area to be covered by the Board than the county councils within the area.
My noble and learned friend will probably in his reply to me call my attention to the words in the paragraph I am seeking to amend which say that the Secretary of State will appoint five members:
"£after consultation with such organisations as appear to him to be representative of local authorities in Wales."
That is better than nothing, but it has to be remembered that such organisations tend to be a little remote from the day to day knowledge and experience of the area of each county council within the Principality.
I was for some time the chairman of an education committee. I represented my committee on the body which was representative of the Welsh education authorities, and I served on its executive council. That was an excellent body in every way. I do not say that merely because I was
210
sitting on it; it was a good body before and it remained a good body afterwards. But that body did not know the personalities, nor the requirements, of my authority's area anything like as well as I did, for I lived in it, I knew it and I served it. I am not, however, proposing to cut out consultation with such organisations. What I am proposing is that we should, by Statute, require the Secretary of State to consult the authority, or authorities most directly affected before appointing members of the Board. This is a moderate and modest proposal.
In addition to the argument which I have advanced, I think that the very act of consultation and possibly the appointment of a person, or persons, suggested by the county councils might have the advantage of facilitating the consultation that the Board is to have under the terms of Clause 2(6) with the planning authority and,
"£such other local authorities and other bodies as appear to the Board to have an interest "
in preparing its proposals for submission to the Secretary of State. I am grateful for the support, which I am sure I am going to get from the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. He has already indicated this fact. 1 greatly value his support. I have had experience before of his excellent suggestions, and I am sure that my noble and learned friend will, if not think of my encouragement and request to him, at least consider the opinion of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon.
For the reasons that I have advanced, I sincerely hope that my noble and learned friend will give careful consideration to the suggestion that the county councils should at least be consulted about the people who will serve on the Board. I am not asking that the Board should be increased in size, or anything like that, at this stage, but rather that the county councils, the body most affected, should at least have a say in the whole matter of the appointments. I beg to move.
7.13 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: In so far as I am capable of conversion on the road to Newtown, I can assure my noble friend that he would be very effective in accomplishing it as, of course, would the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, also. But may I try to explain how I

211
see the land lies. At the moment, within the ambit of the proposed Board, there will be included in the Board's area a number of county councils; the Powys County Council as a whole; Gwynedd; and Dyfed in part, and then there will be five district councils as a whole. Schedule 1(3) provides, as a statutory duty imposed on the Secretary of State:
" Five offices as members of the Board shall be held by members appointed by the Secretary of State after consultation with such organisations as appear to him to be representative of local authorities…"
Now the county councils have their own organisation in Wales—the Welsh Counties Committee. With that body, as I understand it, the Secretary of State has had discussions. I further understand that the Bill's provisions have been drafted in the light of the discussion with the organisation representing the county councils. To channel a decision upon what nominations should go forward to the Secretary of State through the county council's own organisation would seem to be an easier, certainly a quicker, way of achieving the best result than a series of separate consultations with one, two, three county councils, and possibly live district councils as well.
Not all county and district councils can be represented on the Board. The kind of approach that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has in mind will be to invite the submission of, say, four candidates from the Welsh Counties Committee of county councils, and possibly four from the Council of the Principality of borough and district councils, from which the five appointments will be made. Then he, the Secretary of State, must make the final decision in the light of securing a Board best capable of achieving a balance of the appropriate geographical, professional and other interests. That is how the matter stands.
Manifestly, on a matter of this kind, the county council within the Board area, by its representatives, would be keen to have its favoured son's name considered for nomination. And rather than clutter up this organisation with a massive series of consultations, which could really hold things up a great deal and lead to a great deal of unhappy
212
conflicts of loyalties here and there which do arise in most parts of the country, I should have thought that to channel it through, as is suggested, the Welsh Counties Committee organisation was really the most sensible way of dealing with this modest problem.
Viscount SIMON: I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Champion, in this Amendment, and say briefly to the noble and learned Lord that there are of course difficulties where there are a number of people who, it may be thought, would be suitable members of the Board. I think that the noble and learned Lord let the cat out of the bag by saying that it would be much simpler if the Secretary of State could go to the County Councils Association. He is really only passing the difficulty to the County Councils Association. They have then to determine who the suitable people will be. After all, at least half the County Councils Association are not concerned in the matter at all.
This seems to me to be essentially a matter where the discussions should be with the elected representatives of the people concerned rather than with the County Councils Association. It is quite appropriate to consult this body on matters which affect the whole of Wales equally but not, I suggest, on a matter which concerns only a section—an important section but a fairly small section—of Wales. I urge the noble and learned Lord to give further consideration to this matter between now and Report.
Viscount AMORY: I support what the noble Lord, Lord Champion, has proposed and also what the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, has said. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said, there is a Welsh Committee of the County Councils Association and at first sight it is attractive to think that that might be the body which it would be simplest to consult. However, I think there is something in what the noble Viscount said in that that body is concerned primarily with the interests of the county councils in the whole of Wales and is set up primarily for the purpose of consulting the interests of the whole of Wales in this matter.
I should have thought that the complications of consulting four or five

213
county councils in a specific matter of this kind would not have been overwhelming and that some way could have been found to consult them without it being too enerous or complicated a task. I hope very much that the noble and learned Lord will consider this matter further and will see whether the objections he put forward to Lord Champion's proposal are really as strong as he asked us to accept they were. The noble and learned Lord with his usual courtesy will, I am sure, treat this suggestion carefully and will see what he can do to meet the wishes that I thought were put forward very clearly indeed, and for very clear reasons, by Lord Champion.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: Before my noble and learned friend replies, I would question him about the phraseology that is used in connection with the appointment of members to the Board after consultation with organisations " as appear to him " to be necessary. Considering the semantics and etymology of the word " appear ", it could be a shade or a shadow; an appearance may not be a reality. My noble and learned friend is so mellifluous and embracing in his language that we are liable to fall for the fact that once again we are introducing into central legislation even more remoteness, this at a time when we wish to destroy remoteness. One of the difficulties of the material age in which we live is the distance of the ratepayer and taxpayer from the operative forces that control his life, be it the local gas board or the Welsh Committee, and we should do all in our power to avoid this feeling of remoteness. We want nearness, and that seems to be the succinct purpose of this gentle Amendment.
The phrase, " No taxation without representation " should be impressed on us today when we in London are surrounded by so many Americans. We want democracy to come nearer instead of growing more and more remote, but I fear that with each piece of legislation which 20th century legislators turn out, remoteness grows. We in this tiny country are appealing for remoteness to disappear. I therefore beg my noble and learned friend to look at this matter again—to consider, if necessary, the possibility of ad hoc representation in the transition—and so meet the wishes of noble Lords.
Lord ELTON: It was clear when the noble Lord, Lord Champion, rose to his feet that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor was outflanked. When the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, rose to speak it was clear that he was surrounded. I can only counsel that he surrenders, and he can do so honourably since he will be surrendering to his friends. The case has been argued with such cogency and eloquence by Lord Champion and by all the four speakers who preceded me that it is necessary for me only to say that I share their motives and would welcome any success which they may obtain.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I agree that is is very important that we should have on the Board people of the area people who know the area and who can look after the interests of the area—and the fact is of course that on the county council's own organisation in Wales, Powys, Gwynedd and Dyfed will all be represented there; they will all have their man there. That noble roll of great Welsh authorities will be there represented by no doubt eloquent representatives with almost the eloquence of my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek, though to expect them to have as much eloquence as his would of course be an absurd expectation.
I will look at this matter again. I note the views that have been expressed. One of the problems that occur to me is that the Board's area will in due course possibly be extended, and then there will be yet another county council which will need its membership consulted by the Secretary of State, and so on ad infinitum. We want a little practicality, a little bit of sense, in this and I should have thought that where there is an organisation in existence representing these various councils, we should use it. If Lord Davies thinks that it will not appear to the Secretary of Stale that he should consult with the county councils and their representatives, it will indeed be a very remarkable politically minded person who would forget to do that when he has undertaken to appoint five representatives of the local authorities to the Board. I will, as I say, look at the matter again, but I implore noble Lords not so to clutter up the organisation of this modest body with such an excess of consultation that it will not only

215
break the heart of any Secretary of State who will have to do it but reduce the thing to impotence in the operation. Without giving any promises, I will look at it again.
Lord CHAMPION: My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is very persuasive. Equally, however, noble Lords who have supported my case have been very persuasive and I am delighted to realise that my noble and learned friend is willing to yield to that persuasion and to look at the matter again between now and Report. At least it appears that lie is likely to give it some consideration between now and then. With that in mind, I will not delay the Committee beyond thanking noble Lords who have supported my proposal: and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule I agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Members and staff of dissolved development corporations]:
On Question, Whether Schedule 2 shall be agreed to?
Lord ELTON: I had put down a marker to speak to this Schedule, but, having spoken to the paving Amendment, I will not delay the Committee further.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Schedule 3 [The new towns code]:
7.29 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 55, leave out lines 39 to 42.
The noble and learned Lord said: This is consequential on Amendment No. 36, which simply transferred the definition of " local authority " into Clause 31 itself, thereby applying the definition to the whole Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.
Schedules 4 and 5 agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Staff. of Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas]:
On Question, Whether Schedule 6 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord ELTON: Again, I feel that I have spoken to a sufficient extent and have received sufficient answers to press this no further.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Amendment of Acts]:
7.31 p.m.
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 71, line 31, at end insert-—
(" (6) After section 47, at the beginning of Part VI there shall be added the following section:
" Consultation with Board about acquisition or disposal of land by Land Authority for Wales.
47A. The Land Authority for Wales shall consult the Development Board for Rural Wales upon all decisions to acquire or dispose of land in the area for which the Board is for the time being responsible and upon all matters concerning the management of land for the time being in the ownership of the Authority or of any of its agencies in that area.".")
The noble Lord said: At the end of the day, we present the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor with the opportunity of undertaking the difficult task of explaining precisely what are to be the relationships between the Board and the Land Authority for Wales in the matters specified in the Amendment. We spent some time in our deliberations during the first day of the Committee stage discussing the relationships between the Board and other authorities. This seems to me to be perhaps the most difficult of all. It did not seem right to allow the opportunity to pass at the Committee stage for the noble and learned Lord to do more than say that it is perfectly straightforward and to see exactly what the relationship should be. The Amendment proposes that, where the functions of these two bodies appear to us to overlap the Land Authority—which would appear to be the superior or more powerful body in this context—shall not act without consulting the Board because if it were to do so, it might well prejudice, pre-empt or, indeed, destroy plans which the Board had for the development of its own area. Since it was very clearly pointed out to us earlier on that the acquisition of land very often meant also its management for some considerable time, it is probably proper that mention of management as well as acquisition and disposal should be

217
a matter for consultation by the Land Authority for Wales with the Development Board for Rural Wales. However, I would concede on a point of drafting that " all matters concerning the management of land " is probably an excessive demand.
I feel that we might be swifter in our deliberations if I now gave the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor a chance to reply so as to see whether the reply, which I am sure he will already have prepared, suffices to answer what might be a longer and more elaborate dissertation upon my part. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: The effect of the Amendment which the noble Lord has moved is to require the Land Authority for Wales to consult the Board on all decisions to acquire or dispose of land in the area of the Board and upon all matters concerning the management of such land. Provision is already made in paragraph 15 (2) of the Schedule requiring the Land Authority to consult the Board in considering whether any land which is within the designated area of a new town within the Board's area is development land under the terms of the Community Land Act 1975. The Amendment seeks to extend the requirement for consultation to land other than land comprised in a designated new town area falling within the area of the Board. It also requires consultation prior to the disposal of any such land and upon all matters relating to management of such land.
In my submission, it is an unnecessary restriction on the Land Authority's role to impose such an extensive statutory requirement for consultation. It is envisaged that the bulk of the land acquired by the Board will be for purposes in connection with new town development. The Board has a major role in the development of the present new town and any future new towns. It is important that the momentum of this new town development should not be disturbed by uncertainty between the Land Authority and the Board as to which authority should acquire land within designated areas. Under the Comunity Land Scheme, the Board will at all stages be able to acquire and dispose of land for its own purposes without necessarily having to deal through the Land Authority. It is envisaged that it will itself acquire land for new town development
218
without dealing through the Land Authority. Outside the designated area of a new town, it is anticipated that the Board will require small areas of land for advance factories and for housing key workers. The Land Authority, as the authority for the purposes of the Community Land Act, will have at first the power and eventually the duty to acquire land for development, and it could well he that, where the Board requires land for advance factory building and housing in support, it will acquire such land from the Land Authority. Alternatively, it will he able to acquire such land direct from private owners. However, its role in acquiring land for these purposes will not be so extensive as to require the extensive consultation that the Amendment specifies.
It must be remembered that both the Land Authority and the Board will be subject to direction from the Secretary of State, who will ensure the co-ordination of their respective activities. It is inevitable that consultation will occur between the two bodies, albeit not on the scale imposed upon them as a statutory requirement by the Amendment. The relationship established under the Community Land Act is between the Land Authority for Wales and the planning authorities. There is a statutory requirement for the Land Authority to consult county and district planning authorities. Their land acquisition programmes have to be based on local authority plans and to insert the Board into this process would be confusing and unnecessary except within new town areas where the bodies are required to consult under paragraph 15(2). I hope that that admittedly complex statement will satisfy the questions raised by the noble Lord in what is undoubtedly a difficult field.
Lord ELTON: Clearly, I shall want to read with care what the noble and learned Lord has said. However, I have listened with care and I take his point about paragraph 15(2) placing an obligation upon the Land Authority to consult the Board in certain cases. The noble and learned Lord went on at some length—and I do not say that critically, so I hope he will forgive me—to say that the Board should not be required to consult the Land Authority on a number of cases, including that of housing in certain areas.

219
However, the Amendment does not seek to impose such a duty; it seeks to impose a duty to consult upon the Land Authority for Wales when the latter does the acquisition. It may be that a closer study of the sub-paragraph will relieve my fears. But if it does not, then I think it is relevant to say that throughout the debate it has been implied by the Government that consultation, when it takes place as a result of Statute, is in some way more onerous than consultation which takes place ad hoc as being the commonsense way of carrying on. If that be the case, then it is an argument for statutory requirements to consult, because it would seem to imply that ad hoc arrangements may on occasion act superficially. But I think I ought to read with great care what the noble and learned Lord said about what is, admittedly, a very complicated matter, and it would be better if I did my thinking between now and Report stage rather than on my feet. Therefore. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

SEX DISCRIMINATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1976
7.42 p.m.
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) rose to move, That the draft Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, laid before the House on 11 th May, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the order be approved. The purpose of the order is to apply to persons in Northern Ireland provisions similar to those applying to persons in other parts of the United Kingdom under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975.
Before embarking on the preparation of this legislation, the responsible Department prepared a consultative paper which was distributed widely in Northern Ireland. The paper outlined the provisions in the Sex Discrimination Act, which was at that time before Parliament, and invited comment. The consensus of opinion was that legislation similar to that for Great Britain should be introduced for Northern
220
Ireland. The same arguments as were adduced in Great Britain in favour of positive action to prohibit discrimination against women in employment and in the provision of goods, facilities and services, apply with even more force in Northern Ireland, where very few women occupy senior positions in industry, business or indeed in the Civil Service or local government. A contributory factor to this situation has undoubtedly been the tradition in Northern Ireland that most married women—at least until comparatively recently— did not continue to work after marriage. But economic pressures, together with better education, have meant that increasing numbers of married women are either continuing in employment after marriage, or are seeking to return to employment after bringing up their families, and are therefore competing with men for employment and promotion. It has been said with some truth that Northern Ireland is still largely a male dominated society, but there are signs that women there are becoming less prepared to accept a subordinate position, and the proposals of this order are designed to accord them an equal opportunity with men of making their way by their industry and ability.
I now turn to the provisions of the order. In general, it prohibits discrimination in employment against persons of either sex on grounds of sex or marriage; it prohibits discrimination on grounds of sex in the provision of goods, facilities and services and the disposal and management of premises. Indirect discrimination, instructions, or pressure to discriminate, and discriminatory advertising are also prohibited. The employment provisions apply equally to employment for the purposes of a Minister of the Crown or for a Government Department, and appointments to public bodies by Ministers or Departments are required to be made without discrimination. Certain exceptions are, however, made to the provisions of the order. The main ones relate to those cases where sex can be regarded as a genuine occupational qualification. These are set out in some detail in Article 10 of the order. They cover such matters as considerations of decency and privacy, jobs in single-sex establishments such as prisons, single-sex hospitals, or parts of hospitals, special care establishments and establishments where the character of the

221
job requires that it be held by a man or a woman. In addition, bodies not carried on for profit—for example private clubs—are also excepted.
Apart from the exceptions of genuine occupational qualifications, other exceptions include employment in a private household, or in a firm employing not more than five persons, certain requirements of the police and prison services, employment for purposes of an organised religion, employment and training of midwives, single-sex establishments of education, education courses in physical training, charities, certain forms of insurance, and communal accommodation. The order enables positive discrimination in training to be provided to enable persons of either sex to fit themselves for certain types of work—for example, work which in the past has been the preserve of the opposite sex—or for entry, or re-entry, to the labour market, for example, after a period of domesticity. An exception is also made in the case of elected bodies, such as committees of trade unions, which may reserve a number of places for persons of one sex so as to maintain a reasonable balance between the sexes.
An important exception is that relating to acts of a discriminatory nature empowered by an enactment enacted before the making of the order, or by any subordinate legislation made under such n enactment. There is also an exception or discriminatory acts done for the purpose of safeguarding national or public security. Transitional provisions are included in the order to enable organisations and professional bodies to comply with the requirements of the order within a given period of time. Victimisation of a person who has taken action, whether as a principal, or in giving evidence, or has acted in any manner whatsoever under the order or the Equal Pay Act (Northern Ireland) 1970, is prohibited, provided that the person has acted in good faith.
The order establishes an Equal Opportunities Commission for Northern Ireland, consisting of 12 members including a chairman and deputy chairman. The Commission's duties may be summarised as working towards the elimination of discrimination; the promotion of equality of opportunity between men and women generally; and the review of the working
222
of the order and of the Equal Pay Act (Northern Ireland) 1970. If necessary, the Commission is empowered to propose Amendments to those enactments. The Commission may also, in specified circumstances, initiate legal proceedings in industrial tribunals and county courts. Legal action under the order lies, in employment cases, to industrial tribunals, and in other cases to county courts. Damages of up to £5,200 may be awarded against a respondent found guilty of discriminatory practices. Provision is made for appeals.
The order empowers the Equal Opportunities Commission to assist a person in the preparation and presentation of a case to an industrial tribunal or to a county court, where that case concerns a matter of principle, or is so complex that it would be unreasonable to expect the complainant to present it unaided. The Commission is also empowered to carry out formal investigations and to make recommendations to obviate discrimination. It is required to report its findings in any formal investigation and to make the report available to the public. Further to preventing discrimination, the Commission may issue a nondiscrimination order requiring a person or persons to desist from discriminatory practices and to furnish evidence to the Commission that he, or they, have done so.
In employment cases a duty is laid on the Department of Manpower Services to attempt to promote a settlement through its conciliation service. The order amends the Equal Pay (Northern Ireland) Act 1970 to make it clear that it applies only to contractual terms of employment and to bring its provisions into line with those of the order. The order will come into operation on such day or days as the Secretary of State may by order appoint. My Lords, I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, laid before the House on 11th May, be approved. —(Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge.)
7.50 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, this is the second substantial Northern Ireland order to be presented to your Lordships' House this week, and, as was the case with yesterday's order, which was on

223
industrial relations, this order, which is the draft Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order, is in essence repeating legislation which is already applying to Great Britain. I think it would he undesirable to have a very long discussion on it. However, as statistics have shown that the opportunities for women to obtain employment in Northern Ireland have been less favourable there than they are in Great Britain. so this order could he of quite considerable practical effect in the Province, and I was relieved to hear the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, say in his explanation that widespread consultations had been undertaken in Northern Ireland before the order was laid before Parliament.
I think it is just worth recognising that, in the matter of equal opportunities, the Government of the Republic decided that they would not proceed with very similar legislation because of the level of unemployment there, and they were indeed criticised by their own EEC Commissioner for doing this. So there will be two different systems for offering jobs on the two sides of the Border, and as there is, of course, as the noble Lord very well knows, quite a lot of cross-Border traffic in a variety of ways, I wonder whether he would like to comment on the Government's view as to whether there will be any practical problems ensuing from this. But in the context of this order I have just one substantive question. Could the noble Lord give the latest unemployment figures for Northern Ireland, and, if possible, the trend in unemployment over, say, the last year? The principle which lies behind this order has already received the approval of Parliament, but the practical effect of it may be more marked in Northern Ireland than it will be in Great Britain. With that one substantive question and those few comments, I shall certainly give my support to the passage of this order.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, although I have not put my name down to speak, I should very much like, if I may, to welcome this order. When the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 was going through both Houses of Parliament a number of us were much concerned that a similar order should be prepared for the benefit of Northern Ireland. I should like to take
224
up very briefly the point that the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has raised. It seems to me unfortunate to give the impression that to provide greater opportunities to women is an undesirable thing to do when there is unemployment. The idea that the women would in this way be taking jobs away from men is, if I may say so with all respect to the noble Lord, far too simple an interpretation of the economic situation and the employment situation in any country, including, I would suggest, Northern Ireland.
There is one question I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, and one point I should like to raise. I have looked at this order only briefly, but it seems to me that there is a slight difference between this order and the 1975 Act in that the prohibition on male midwives is total here, whereas in the 1975 Act some slight modification was made with regard to the opportunities for men to train for midwifery and to practise midwifery in certain restricted areas. Whether it is a deliberate decision to have this difference in the Northern Ireland situation, and, if so, why, would be very interesting to know, but perhaps I am mistaken in my quick reading of this order.
I should also like to ask a rather more general question. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, made the point that, in the past, women in Northern Ireland, particularly married women, have not taken a very active part in the labour market. If women are to do this—this is well understood in this country; and, from a reference which the noble Lord made, I gather that the Equal Opportunity Commission in Northern Ireland will also be concerned with this—there must be the provision of facilities to make a reality of married women's opportunities to work. I would have thought that in Northern Ireland it was particularly important that better child-care facilities should be provided than exist at the present time. In this country, where the problems of married women leaving their homes are not as acute as the problems would be in the situation that obtains in Northern Ireland, women find very great difficulty with child-care provision, and T would have thought that in Northern Ireland there was a double purpose to be served. If this is to be a reality, resources must be made available for proper child-care; and, also, in the situation which obtains

225
in Northern Ireland, an extension of childcare services would serve other very important purposes as well.
7.56 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGS-BRIDGE: My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble Lord and the noble Baroness who have responded to my statement of this case. May 1 reply first to the point which the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, made about the Dublin Government's approach to this? There is a slight misunderstanding here. No proposal has yet been put forward there for legislation on the lines of the present draft order, but the Republic has deferred the introduction of its equal pay legislation because of financial constraints. The noble Lord will know that the Equal Pay (Northern Ireland) Act 1970 became operative in Northern Ireland on 29th December of last year, the same day upon which the Equal Pay Act became operative in Great Britain. The activities of the Government of the Republic of Ireland do not. of course, influence legislative progress in Northern Ireland, which is an integral part of the United Kingdom. The Government believe that the likely cost of the Equal Opportunity Commission, about £88,000 per annum, will be well spent in providing the means whereby equality of opportunity between the sexes can be promoted.
The noble Lord asked about the unemployment figures, and he asked the trend, too. I can give the latest figures. In 1965 there were 586,000 working population, of which 194,000 were women. There were 30,000 unemployed, of which 8,300 were women. Five years later the global figure was 580,000, the unemployed figure was 35,700 and the number of women was 8,100. The number of unemployed men was up by 6,000, and the number of unemployed women was down by 200. In 1974-5 there were 582,000 employed, and the unemployed were 44,100, of which the women unemployed were 13,300—a very large increase. Those are the actual figures. I think it might be worth mentioning that the proportions of women at work were: in 1960, 36·3 per cent.: 1965, 36·7 per cent.. in 1970, 38·4 per cent.; and in 1975, 40·8 per cent—a very considerable increase in the proportion of women working.
226
My Lords, I think the noble Baroness has produced something out of the draft order which is not there. I am advised that there is no real difference in the rules about male midwives. As to child-care facilities, I think the answer is that of course both Northern Ireland and Great Britain are less than perfect in child-care facilities. From my experience in Northern Ireland—I was never concerned with this particular thing—speaking off the cuff I think that our facilities are no worse there than they are here. But clearly if a woman is going to work then the need for child care facilities grows; and I accept that. We have monetary problems the same as anybody else in Northern Ireland. Whether anything can be done I do not know, but we accept the point that to allow women to go to work involves the provision of beau- child care facilities. I am grateful for the discussion. I think I have nothing further to add.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

GREEN HOWARDS: BAND EQUIPMENT
8 p.m.
Lord TRANMIRE Lord TRANMIRE rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have yet reached a decision on the claim of the Green Howards to compensation in respect of the loss of band instruments and equipment belonging to the regiment and destroyed in the IRA attack on Strensall Camp on 11th June 1974. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to give the background to the Unstarred Question which stands in my name. At three o'clock in the morning of the 11th June, 1974, the IRA, following their attack on the Parachute Officers' Mess in Aldershot and the attack on the Catterick bus on the M62 earlier in the year, destroyed three huts in Strensall Camp with explosives. In those huts were the equipment and instruments of the regimental band. The circumstances were that the battalion was on active service in Northern Ireland, the band were completing a programme of engagements in Yorkshire and the Ministry of Defence had provided temporary accommodation for the hand and their equipment in their huts. The total loss suffered by the regiment as a result of that IRA attack was £23,670. Of that sum of

227
regimental loss, not one penny has been paid in compensation by the Government.
This matter was raised on December 16th in this House when the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, assured the House that the matter was not yet closed. It was raised again on April 29th when the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, offered to bring the claim again to the attention of the Secretary of State. Meanwhile, on April 14th, the matter had been raised in the House of Commons by Sir Timothy Kitson, who was the Member representing the regimental headquarters. His argument was answered by Mr. Brown, the Under-Secretary of State.
Mr. Brown explained that this claim could not be met because there were only two ways of the Government paying compensation: one as a result of common law action, and the other under the regulations. Mr. Brown went on to explain this point on the regulations; and I quote from column 1433 of Hansard of April 14th:
" I want now to deal with the issue of compensation payable under the regulations…Unfortunately the band's claim did not fulfil two of the basic requirements, which are that the loss must be due to the exigencies of the Service, as defined in the regulations,"
and I ask noble Lords to note that—
" and that compensation cannot be obtained under an insurance policy or elsewhere."
He went on:
" We have already seen the band obtained some compensation from its insurers, and terrorist activity is not solely an exigency of the Service as defined in the regulation in question. Indeed, since the majority of terrorist attacks are against civilian targets, it would be difficult to argue that they are an exigency of military service."
My Lords, this was a surprising statement on the exigencies of military service. It is very hard to understand that; therefore, let us refer to the regulations from which he was quoting. Under paragraph 1527 of the regulations the exigencies of military service are defined under " (a), (b), (c), and (d) ". Under heading " (d) " it says:
" Accidental fire in barracks, Service hutments, single quarters or camp."
Under " (e) " it says:
" Loss and damage to property handed in to the unit store or otherwise entrusted to official custody during the absence of the owner on leave et cetera".
Is the noble Lord tonight going seriously to suggest that because this was not an accidental fire in the barracks, because the IRA intended what they did, the Government can run away from liability? But if he does, then surely the circumstances fall well within " (e)"; because this equipment was handed in to a unit store in the barracks of the King's Division by order of the Secretary of State for Defence. But it is not even limited to that; because paragraph 1528 of the regulations goes on to say:
" If loss or damage should arise from exceptional causes not mentioned in paragraph 1527, special consideration may be given to cases where it can be shown that the risk was not insurable."
My Lords, I am confining this argument to the regulations because that was the point taken by Mr. Brown. I hope that other noble Lords who follow me will deal with the wider considerations of what may appear to many of us to be very shabby, mean, shortsighted treatment by the Government of a regiment that has had six tours of duty in Northern Ireland, where it has, I fear, lost a great many valuable officers and men.
Let us turn to the insurance point. These are the facts. The loss was £23,670. The regiment originally insured the band in 1967 for £4,220. In 1969 the insurance was put up to £9,176. From 1969, when it was on active service, the adjutant or the quartermaster did not raise the insurance until 1974. That has been assessed as a deficiency of £3,000. If the noble Lord doubts that he can go to the military insurers. I see that the noble Lord agrees that figure. At no time has the regiment asked or claimed compensation for that £3,000 deficiency. That is a debt that must be shouldered by the regiment; and it accepts it. From the figures I have given of the total loss, of the insurance compensation received and of the under-insurance borne by the regiment, your lordships will see that the deficiency is £11,000. It is that £11,000 that the regiment has claimed, and is claiming tonight the Government are under a legal liability under the regulations to pay.
Paragraph 1525 of the regulations lays down as a condition that the compensation for the loss or damage cannot be obtained under an insurance policy or from other sources. The undisputed facts are that in June 1974 the only insurance

229
cover available to the regiment was limited to the figure for the replacement of each instrument by a reconditioned instrument. That is the difference between the £23,000 and the £12,000 that we are asking for tonight. If there is any doubt on that I have a letter with me from the military insurers explaining that at that time you could not insure on a new for old basis for band instruments. That has been changed as a result of this IRA attack on Strensall Camp, and the regiment now are fully insured on the new-for-old basis and are paying premiums on that basis. If it had been available to them at the time they would have been so insured.
In the debate in the other House Mr. Brown made the point that under the regulations the Government could not give compensation on the replacement new-for-old. I should like to draw the attention of this House to Regulation 1544. I will read it out to the House so that the House can judge whether Mr. Brown is accurate in his account of the regulation:
" The compensation admissible for each article lost is to be based on the vocabulary rate, if appropriate, or otherwise assessed on the reasonable cost of replacing the article by a new one, less an abatement where applicable in respect of wear and tear according to the condition of the article at the time of loss."
There was nothing to stop the Government under the regulations from paying this claim of new-for-old that could not have been covered by insurance at that time.
Perhaps the most extraordinary attitude from the Ministry in this very sad story is the way they treated another claim at the same time. The regiment was insured but the bandsmen's equipment—and, in some cases, their private instruments—were not insured; they were very largely uninsured. Their loss was £2,780. The Government paid £2,480; there were the same circumstances of loss, except the regiment insured. What is the difference? The regiment has no more resources than the individuals. The regiment is a collection of individuals. Yet, owing to the action or inaction of the Government, the regiment is faced with a loss equivalent to £25 per officer and man in the regiment. That is what we are talking about tonight, my Lords. For two years this claim has been resisted.
Perhaps the most despicable aspect of this sorry story was when the regiment was on active service in Northern Ireland it was—perhaps not unreasonably—being pressed by the suppliers of the instruments to pay the bills which it had always thought the Government would honour. My Lords, I beg the noble Lord to give further consideration to this matter tonight. I believe not only the honour of the regiment—which has never been in question but the honour of the Government is at stake in this matter.
8.13 p.m.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, the House will be familiar with the case of the band equipment of the Green Howards, I think I can say entirely through the untiring efforts of my noble friend Lord Tranmire. The House will be aware that he has asked more than one Question in your Lordships' House on previous occasions and, as he has already pointed out, there was an Adjournment Debate in another place shortly before Easter on this very subject.
The noble Lord, Lord Tranmire, has outlined the facts of this case very lucidly this evening, and especially how a terrorist explosion one night in June 1974 virtually destroyed the entire band instrument stock, together with the uniforms of the bandsmen. Quite naturally, the regiment decided that the main priority was to see that in the shortest possible time the hand was in good order and able to fulfil its numerous engagements. I believe that this must have been the correct decision for a number of reasons. First, there was the question of morale. I do not want to say a lot on this subject as there are other speakers this evening who are going to express themselves far more eloquently and I believe more forcefully than I can. It is vastly important to the serving soldiers to know that a terrorist attack such as this should not be seen to cause more than a minimum of inconvenience or indeed expense to the regiment.
Secondly, we have to think of recruiting for this famous and gallant regiment. happen to believe that a top class regimental band is very good for recruiting. The local areas of population whence young men are drawn who will serve in the regiment can see evidence that there is still pride, vigour and life in their local identifiable army unit. Apart from this

231
simple form of recruiting, such events as hand concerts and appearances at shows, major sporting matches, et cetera, make the public aware of the existence of and the necessity for our defence forces. Whatever the views of the Army itself—and I do not believe that such views are so different from those of the public at large—this particular element of glamour and of tradition would he much missed if it were merely to wither away into insignificance.
Also in this particular case the regiment decided to re-equip the band as speedily as possible to meet its existing obligations and engagements. There are valid reasons, as indeed there were two years ago, for so doing and mainly these concern the competition for such engagements. Had the Green Howards band been unable to meet its obligations in 1974, there could have been the danger that it would be forgotten or at least out of the limelight for a lengthy period. When the noble Lord, Lord Winter bottom, comes to reply, can he give some indication as to whether the regiment did wrong in deciding that the band should be re-equipped as quickly and as cheaply as possible? Do the Government disapprove of what the regiment did, and was it in the regiment's interest, or indeed that of the Army, that the band should be out of circulation for a while—even for a period of months—while stocks of instruments and uniforms could be accumulated?
Then, my Lords, we have to discuss the vexed problem of insurance. It is this which gives rise, I believe, to the Unstarred Question asked by my noble friend Lord Tranmire this evening. Throughout the lengthy negotiations between the Ministry of Defence and the regiment, the question of the adequacy of insurance has been argued, disputed and challenged. So far as 1 am aware, the view of the Government up to now has been that the loss, which is in financial terms around £13,000, suffered by the regiment has been due to under-insurance. Neither the Secretary of State for Defence, nor Lord Winterbottom's right honourable friend in another place have stated that the entire £13,000 could be attributed to under-insurance. But in all the replies that have been given, both to my noble friend Lord Tranmire and to my honourable friend the Member
232
for Richmond in another place in his Adjournment Debate, the Government have consistently stated that the loss was due to under-insurance. Now the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, may be surprised to learn the regiment admits that the equipment was under-insured at the date of the explosion. According to the information available to the regiment and to the insurers, the amount of under-insurance was in the region of 25 per cent., or approximately £3,000: indeed, that figure has been quoted this evening by my noble friend. This under-insured figure of £3,000 was on the agreed and paid value of the lost equipment, being some £9,170. The regiment does not seek aid from the Government or compensation for this element of under-insurance.
In June 1974 it was not possible to insure against the type of incident that resulted in the loss of the band's equipment. In order to replace the equipment totally and completely an insurance policy of the new-for-old type is necessary. This would allow the regiment to obtain instruments, uniforms and music immediately, all the time at the cheapest price. Such a policy would have met almost all the expenses incurred by the regiment in re-equipping the band. However, such a policy was not available to the regiment in June 1974, and I have the confirmation of this from their insurance brokers. Had the regiment kept its existing insurance policy up to date in 1974, the proceeds would have covered the replacement of each item of equipment on a piece-by-piece basis. This could, and 1 hope would, be satisfactory where one or two items are destroyed and some uniforms scorched: but where everything is ruined even this type of insurance is insufficient.
Furthermore, it is absolutely clear that in all previous Government replies this type of insurance policy is under discussion when the question arises of under-insurance. In a letter to the honourable Member for Richmond, the Secretary of State for Defence states that this question of new-for-old insurance is, in his view, academic. He also admits that this type of insurance " might not have been available " at the time of the explosion. My Lords, we know it was not. The Secretary of State goes on to

233
say that any compensation payable from public funds is limited to the actual value of the items lost. Nowhere in his letter, nor anywhere else, can I find any indication of what might be the actual value.
When any compensation is paid, does it merely top-up the contribution from the insurance company to compensate the regiment on a piece-by-piece basis? Or, since the Secretary of State now indicates in his letter that new-for-old insurance is now available and recommended for all regiments of the British Army to cover disasters such as we are discussing this evening, does the actual value in this context mean a new-for-old basis? I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, will be able to tell us quite simply about this when he comes to reply, and we look forward very much to hearing what he has to say.
As my noble friend Lord Tranmire has already mentioned, there was an Adjournment Debate in another place shortly before the Easter Recess, when the matter was raised again. In his reply on behalf of the Government, at column 1435 of the Official Report, the Minister admitted that new-for-old insurance was not available at the time of the explosion but that such a matter was something of a red herring as the main loss arose from the band's under-insurance. This does not seem to he strictly accurate. as failure to update the insurance could he said to have contributed about £3,000 to the overall loss of £13,000—it might he more than £3,000, but certainly not much more. Thus, the Minister's conclusion that the taxpayer could not he expected to make up the regiment's failure to take out adequate insurance once again appears to be inaccurate since, on the admission of the Secretary of State, of the Minister and of the regiment's insurers, such new-for-old insurance—which in this instance would have been adequate—simply was not available in June 1974.
I do not think the debate this evening should become too legal, but we should be most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, if he could explain to us why, under paragraphs 1525,1527 and 1528 of the Allowance Regulations, compensation is payable in cases of an accidental fire in barracks, so long as this can he considered as one of the exigencies of the
234
Service. Further, paragraph 1528 goes on to mention loss or damage where the risk is not insurable. I would consider that all such conditions have been fulfilled in this case.
This is an exceptional case, where a famous and very gallant regiment has lost its entire band equipment and uniforms. The regiment had not taken full account of the effects of inflation so far as insurance was concerned. But there was no question of adequate insurance being available to cover the whole loss and I think everyone who is concerned with the case admits that to be so. But in all the replies we have had so far from the Government, this problem of new-for-old insurance has been excluded. It has been claimed as admirable, and indeed all regiments are now advised to take this as the basis of insuring their equipment. Yet the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, knows that in June 1974 such insurance was not available. In reply to my noble friend Lord Tranmire. the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, told us of his belief that at the end of the day the regiment would not be out of pocket. Many of us hope that the end of the day is not yet with us, for the regiment is still out of pocket, through no fault of its own, to the extent of £10,000.
In conclusion, could the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, tell us the answers to one or two fairly simple questions: First, should the regiment have defaulted over its band engagements in the period immediately following the explosion?— for such would surely have been the case had not the band been re-equipped swiftly. Secondly, how could the regiment have been expected to insure itself against such a disaster, given that adequate insurance was not available? Thirdly, is it not incredible that such a case occurring in Northern Ireland, or even as the result of an accidental fire in barracks, would not receive full compensation, particularly in the light of the first question? To these, and to all the other points that I have raised and those that will be raised by other speakers this evening, we await with considerable eagerness the replies of the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom.
8.27 p.m.
Lady KINLOSS: My Lords; I was rudely awakened at three in the morning

235
of 11th June 1974, by the explosion to which the noble Lord, Lord Tranmire, has referred. My house is only four and a half miles from Strensall Camp. We are all used to nocturnal noises because of military exercises. We all accept these happily because they are necessary for the defence of the country; so we do not pay too much attention when there is a bang in the night. However, when the news came out we were very distressed to hear about it. There was a great deal of local feeling on this subject of the loss of the band instruments and uniforms of the Green Howards, who were serving in Northern Ireland at the time. It was described to me in our village as being " a dirty little stab in the back ".
It seems to me this is not a political question, but simply one of equity. It seems hard on the regiment that it should suffer as a result of very complex legal circumstances, concerning which I have seen some of the papers. Not only had they pressing engagements to keep, and so needed to replace the instruments and uniforms quickly, but they have served several times in Northern Ireland; so that the loss of their band would hardly help their morale. Could the noble Lord who is to reply say whether the Minister could consider making an ex gratia payment of the balance outstanding, on the express condition that it is not to be considered as a precedent? If the noble Lord could say the Government would consider it, he and the Government would earn the praise and gratitude of everyone, I think, in the area in which I live, and not least of the regiment of the Green Howards.
8.30 p.m.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, about 34 years ago, plus a couple of months, a young, newly appointed adjutant of a unit of 50 Div. had occasion to report on behalf of his commanding officer to an equally young grade II staff officer in 50 Div., and if my memory serves me correctly I was that young adjutant and the noble Lord was the grade II staff officer. I believe that in 50 Div. there were four battalions of the Green Howards, and for the next 18 months I fought side by side with them in the desert campaign. After I was winged and put in the bag, I had many members of
236
that regiment along with me, so I hope your Lordships will understand that I have a sentimental approach to this matter. Secondly, having been a soldier I went through all those stages where a non-musician officer has to deal with the band—as president of the regimental institute, band president and finally commanding officer. I mention that only because so far this evening we have been hound up with the legalistic side of this subject, but what annoys me more than anything else is the emotional side.
Every person all over the country to whom I have mentioned this case is absolutely scandalised by the behaviour of the.Government. One after the other says, But look at the compensation they pay to the members of the IRA in Northern Ireland. Look at the things they do for people there who are supporters of those who cause the damage." After all, they compensate a soldier inadequately. Every— one says how the £20,000 given to the widow of an IRA man compares unfavourably with the £8,000 given to the widow of a soldier, and this is just another step in that direction. I do not look at this from a legalistic point of view, and I consider this behaviour an insult to the dead of that regiment in Northern Ireland.
I seem to remember that between the wars a battalion of the South Staffordshire regiment went out to India, and the Indian Government at that time decided that they would charge import duty on their band instruments. So, if my memory serves me aright, the regiment left their instruments in Bombay, Calcutta or whatever it was, and said All right, no play ". I think that something like that is what this regiment ought to do now. If they were a trade union instead of a loyal regiment of the British Army they would not go to Northern Ireland on their next tour of duty. I know that a very large number of people all over the country—every one of my friends—feel very strongly on this subject. If the Government had any sense they would pay the lot now. This penny-pinching, mean behaviour does not do the morale of the Army any good, and it is certainly doing the reputation of the Government a lot of harm.
8.34 p.m.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend

237
Lord Tranmire and the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, not just because I also was in 50 Division at the time referred to but because I feel that the Government ought to stop considering this case as a fine legal point and instead look at it with a broader view and at its importance, not just to this regiment but to the Army as a whole. I do not want to make a speech now, but I should like to ask the noble Lord two questions.
I know something about this subject, having been a band president in ancient days, but I am now entirely out of date. What I should like to ask the noble Lord to confirm is that it was not possible for the regiment to insure for the full value, as has been suggested. Secondly, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether the Government consider that regimental bands are a good thing. We can hear regimental bands play in London every day, and on Horseguards Parade shortly we shall have more than one, so I assume that in the opinion of the Government they are a good thing. If that is so, why are they trying so hard to disparage the efforts of this regiment, and making it so very difficult for them to reform their band?—which all of us who have served in regiments would say is something of which everyone is proud, which makes a great contribution towards morale in an Army, and which has done so through the centuries. Therefore, I beg the noble Lord to do his very best in this case, where everybody is agreed that the present stand taken by the Government is exceedingly mean.
8.36 p.m.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, I regret that I did not put my name down and give notice that I was going to speak, but I was not sure that I could be here. However, I made an effort because the issues raised by this matter are of very great importance indeed. The noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, thought that he might be out of date but let me assure him that he is not. What is at issue here is something which has worried the Army in peace down the years. It is a system of financial control by regulation. One or two things have been said by Ministers, and I excuse them because, obviously, they are not in their jobs very long and they cannot be expected to know very much about them. But there is no question whatever of the Common
238
Law being invoked in this matter, because if, for example, the instruments had been held by trustees for the regiment and they or the president of the band had sought to sue the Ministry of Defence, they would have come up against the argument that one cannot sue the Crown.
The classic case was those poor benighted individuals—not all of them poor and benighted—who, at the outbreak of the First World War, joined the Army on the basis that they would get six shillings a day as drivers of mechanical transport. Then, when they were compulsorily transferred, they found that their pay was reduced, so after the War one or two bright sparks sought to sue the Crown. Although they had a cast iron case, they were told that they could not sue the Crown, any more than I can sue the Crown for my pension, pitiful as it is. I get it by the grace and favour of the Crown, and there is no question at all of suing. The regulations which the noble Lord, Lord Tranmire, has quoted are derived from the old Allowance Regulations. Some of us, who looked around to earn ourselves an honest copper, used to make ourselves expert in these regulations, but the spirit is just the same.
Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, put a fundamental question when he asked: do the Ministry of Defence think that hands are a good thing? Judge them not by what they say, but by what they do. The bandmaster and the whole of the band are borne on the strength of the peace establishment. The bandsmen are trained at Kneller Hall from public funds. But although the Ministry of Defence think that bands are a good thing, paying the bill for them is quite another matter. The reason for that is that, certainly up to the outbreak of the First World War and perhaps, to some extent, up to the outbreak of the Second World War, it was considered that officers had private incomes, and as a band was one of the social graces of a regiment the officers ought therefore to pay, as indeed they did, although of course the bulk of the money came from band engagements.
That is why when, in a few days' time, as the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, has just said, noble Lords go across to Horseguards Parade and see the only tangible evidence they can get of the

239
thousands of millions of pounds which they pour out—the Trooping of the Colour—and all they get is a wonderful spectacle. Every instrument that is played in the massed bands of the Brigade of Guards is owned privately by the officers of the regiment. The instruments do not belong to the public. Every morning the public gather around Buckingham Palace and hear the band playing at the Mounting of the Guard, which is paid for not from public funds but from private sources. There is a pragmatic reason for that. There is a lucrative business in band engagements. The bandsmen themselves get private engagements. I noticed with amusement that the noble Lord, Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, asked whether this was a trade union affair. Of course it is. Every one of those bandsmen is a member of the Musicians' Union. How do I know? Because the Musicians' Union made me their honorary member for the interest I take in regimental bands, and that is one of the reasons why I am here tonight.
The Ministry of Defence are defending a quite indefensible system and they have given this away in just a few words. In another place the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence, Mr. Brown, was goaded by Sir Timothy Kitson into Saying, " What do you want us to do? Do you want us to insure the property of every citizen in the country? " That is what is worrying the Ministry of Defence, not the Green Howards. The Ministry of Defence are worrying about the enlargement that may come from the contents of the paragraph which the noble Lord, Lord Tranmire, quoted, which is derived from the old Allowance Regulations.
The case, not for generosity but for plain British fairness is quite indisputable. If the Minister is worried about how he can do it 1 will tell him what to do. He should read the preamble to the present Queen's Regulations—the King's Regulations of my day. Those regulations say that they do not govern every case. There are self-evident exceptions and the regulations should be read intelligently with that in mind. This is a perfect case for reading intelligently the regulations, not in the spirit of how not to give. One should read the regulations—all of us who have been Regular soldiers know
240
the trick—not to deny but to grant. If the spirit to grant is there, then it will be given.
I want also to underline the point that was made by the noble Lord who spoke before me. The noble Lord is absolutely right. Are bands good things? Are they essential to the well-belly of the Service? I have made my point conclusively. The fact that the public bears the major cost is evidence that bands are an essential part of the morale and well-being of what is called, euphemistically, the tribal or regimental system—something that has served this country very well in war. This is not capable of esoteric explanation. The explanation is the quite simple one that the chap who is in " B " company thinks that he is better than the bastards in " A " company; and if that chap is transferred to " A " company, then he thinks that that company is better than " B " company. The Green Howards think that because their band and their march past is what it is. they are better than the West Yorks. And the West Yorks think that they are better than the Green Howards. Sometimes this finds expression in the playing of the band: sometimes it finds expression in the regimental polo, hockey, or football team, or in the fact that the regimental sergeant major has a better vocabulary than the other chap. It is these indefinable qualities which have given the British Army its reputation and served this country well in both war and peace.
If tonight the Minister simply reaffirms, underlines and accepts in toto the brief which has been given to him, it will be another stab in the back of the regimental tradition in which the Green Howards have played a noble and illustrious part. I join my voice with those noble Lords who have spoken and beg the Minister, in the name of common decency, to take this Question back with the will not to deny but to grant.
8.45 p.m.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, Members of your Lordships' House and of another place have now been pursuing this matter for some time. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Tranmire, for raising this matter in an Unstarred Question. As a result of his initiative we are to have a much more effective and

241
rational discussion of the problems surrounding this episode in the history of the Green Howards than we could have done had we continued the debate during Question Time. I can, of course, understand their feelings that the regiment is entitled to some financial help, and sympathise with the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord Tranmire, who served with the Green Howards with distinction during the 1939–45 war. There are, however, so many misunderstandings about this case that I must set out the facts once again, and I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I speak at some length.
On 11th June 1974 there was a terrorist attack on Strensall Camp, near York, which destroyed certain public property. In addition, the explosions and subsequent fire caused the loss of the musical instruments, music scores, band uniforms and band equipment belonging to the regimental band of the first battalion of the Green Howards and also of musical instruments and possessions privately owned by individual members of the band. The regiment made a claim on its insurers and received £9,176. Since the total cost of replacement of the lost items was considerably more than that sum—it was about £30,000 at new prices—the regiment then asked the Ministry of Defence for the difference; that is, some £21,000. After the claim had been considered, compensation of about £2,500 was paid from public funds to individual bandsmen, but Her Majesty's Government were not able to meet any part of the loss sustained by the band itself. Various representations have been made by the noble Lord and there has also been a debate in another place, as noble Lords have mentioned. But since Her Majesty's Government have been unable to offer any further compensation, the matter has again been raised today in this Chamber.
I think that I should explain two points which form an important part of the background to this case but about which, as I have already said, there may well be misunderstandings. First, what is the position of the regimental band? Although the men forming a regimental band are, of course, ordinary serving soldiers on an authorised establishment, and although some financial help is provided from public funds to establish and maintain the band's instruments and equipment, the latter are the property of the
242
regiment and not of the Army as a whole. It is the regiment which is primarily responsible for their maintenance. A modest annual grant is made from public funds but the rest of the money needed to maintain and replace the band's instruments and equipment is found privately by the regiment. Some of it comes from the proceeds of private engagements, concerts, recordings, et cetera, undertaken by the band, and this is not small money. Never let us forget that " Amazing Grace " was " Top of the Pops ". The sums of money concerned are often very large.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord says that there is misunderstanding about this and that he is informing us of the true position, but he is repeating only what has been said so far by almost every speaker.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, thank goodness that we seem to be in agreement so far! Disagreement may come later. May I stress the point that bands are quite big business. As I have said, part of the cost of maintaining and replacing the band's instruments is found privately by the regiment—in the main, I stress, because of the money that they earn from playing at various public and private engagements. Nearly all the income from such engagements, after expenses have been met, is shared between the bandmaster, the bandsmen and the regiment's band fund. I am delighted that this is so. This is an incentive to play instruments with the skill and feeling that is common in all regimental bands, as those of us heard who this afternoon walked through Westminster Hall during practice time. A band—I assume it was a band belonging to one of the Guards regiments—was tuning up most harmoniously.
Only a very small percentage of this money, however, which is earned goes back to public funds. Should the band's instruments or equipment need replacing—without, in fact, the instruments being destroyed by an act of revolution—the cost must be borne by the regiment, not by the public. These items do not, therefore, come in the same category as ordinary military stores and equipment such as machine guns and rifles which were mentioned by my noble friend Lord

243
Shinwell, on a previous occasion and which are, of course, provided, maintained and replaced at public expense. The instruments and band equipment are, for all practical purposes, the private property of the regiment, not public property, and it is entirely the responsibility of the regiment to make sure that the property of the regimental band is properly looked after and insured, in the same way that any other prudent property owner will look after his own possessions and insure them adequately.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me? If by chance this IRA bomb had been thrown into a barrack room in the North of Ireland, would the position be exactly the same or would the regiment then have been entitled to full compensation from public funds?
Lord WINTER BOTTOM: My Lords, subject to the right to correct later any statement I make, I understand that the situation is different in Northern Ireland and that there the regulations differ from those existing in this country, but I believe I may be able to confirm this a little later.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, does not the noble Lord see that the act is the same, whether the bomb destroys the instruments in Strensall or whether it destroys them in Northern Ireland? They have been destroyed by a bomb. What is different is the regulations.
Lord INGLEWOOD: And an Irish bomb, my Lords.
Lord WIGG: Of course, my Lords, because the regulations have never been kept up to date to deal with the current situation. That is the crux of the problem.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am just coming to the point of whether or not the regulations have been kept up to date. The noble Lord, Lord Tranmire, pointed quite specifically to two regulations which he thought were relevant to this particular situation. I think everyone will agree that it is in the regiment's own interests to see that the affairs of the band are properly conducted in every way since, as I have explained, the profits from
244
private engagements go mainly to the regiment and the members of the band, and not to the public. The Ministry of Defence therefore draws specific attention to the importance of insuring band property adequately.
The noble Lord, Lord Tranmire, referred to Regulations 1527 and 1544. May I draw your Lordships' attention to Regulation 1535, which is absolutely designed to cover the situation which we are discussing tonight. Regulation 1535 says:
" Band committees are to effect adequate insurance for all band property vested in the Defence Council, and in view of the provisions of this section they are also strongly advised "—
because this is private property, as we have already said, regimental property, the Defence Council advises them to insure all other property owned by or on loan to such committees and so protect themselves from the high cost of replacements in the event of loss or damage. Really, my Lords, this was advice to the regiment which they could accept or reject.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, but is he suggesting that " new for old " insurance was at that time available?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am afraid I shall have to agree with the noble Lord that at that time it was not available, but a more extensive insurance policy could have been undertaken in the situation existing at that time.
Lord DENHAM: How, my Lords?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, if the House will forgive me, I will give your Lordships a substantial view on this particular point. The House is obviously clearly interested and I am also interested in this particular point, and therefore in due course I will discuss the " new for old " or " new for new " problem, but at the moment I see that the noble Lord, Lord Tranmire, wishes to make a point.
Lord TRANMIRE: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord can clear up this point, because it is most important. So far the Secretary of State for Defence and the Under-Secretary have both said that it is an undisputed fact that they

245
could not have insured on a " new for old " basis. I gather that the noble Lord did not dispute my figures. I gave the total loss as £23,000; under-insurance for which the regiment was responsible, £3,000; insurance money back £9,000, making a difference of £11,000. Does the noble Lord dispute that or not? We want to know.
Lord WINTER BOTTOM: My Lords, I cannot answer the question of what might have happened if something different had been done. What I can do later in the discussion is to state the problem of inflation insurance, which is really what we are discussing. But if I may just leave that for a moment, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention once again to Regulation 1535, which I really cannot believe could have been clearer. The regulation says:
" Public property must be properly insured; private property—the property of the regiment—should be insured so that the high cost of replacement in the event of loss or damage is covered."
It really could not have been clearer and presumably the adjutant at his desk on the particular day when this was issued, read it.
The second point is the question of compensation, and since this really does give rise to a great deal of confusion I should like to go into the matter in some detail. Broadly speaking, Her Majesty's Government pay compensation of the sort we are now considering in two ways; either as Common Law damages, or where provision is made either in legislation or under Departmental regulations. The noble Lord, Lord Tranmire, is perhaps better qualified than I am to explain certain Common Law damages, so perhaps I may confine myself to saying that such damages are paid by Her Majesty's Government when loss, injury or damage has been caused to the claimant or plaintiff by negligence for which the Crown is legally liable. The legal position is based, of course, on the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, which enables the Crown to be sued in tort, and any claimant at Common Law may, if he so wishes, ask the Court to hear his case against the Crown, and give judgment.
It has been suggested that Her Majesty's Government might have some legal liability for the loss of the Green Howards band property because it took place on
246
premises owned by the Crown. This suggestion was not pursued and since the loss was caused by terrorist activity I suggest, with respect, that it most unlikely that a court of law would hold the Crown legally liable to meet the regiment's claim. This leaves compensation which may be paid under legislation or regulations, and we have been talking about regulations. There are, of course, a great many varieties of this form of compensation, but the feature common to all is that payment is made if certain pre-determined conditions are fulfilled, and the question of negligence does not normally arise. Perhaps the most widely known compensation of this type is the industrial injury benefit paid by the Department of Health and Social Security to an employee who is injured at work.
Among the various regulations which govern the lives of Servicemen and civilian employees of the Crown there are, therefore, regulations, which include provision for the payment of compensation to officers and soldiers who lose personal possessions in specified circumstances, subject to certain conditions which are clearly laid down. May I stress, officers and soldiers. It was under this particular part of the Ministry of Defence regulations that the regiment's claim was made and considered. Unfortunately, the band's claim did not fulfil one of the basic requirements, which is that compensation cannot be obtained under an insurance policy or elsewhere. We have already seen that the band obtained some compensation from its insurers. Furthermore, bands are specifically mentioned in Regulation 1535. The attention of band committees is specifically drawn to the need to effect adequate insurance of their property to protect themselves from the high cost of replacement in the event of loss or damage. A similar warning is given in the Ministry's Instructions for Bands.
As I hope to show in a moment, the regiment, unfortunately, nevertheless failed to take this simple and sensible step, and they now seek to obtain assistance from public funds to make up for their omission. In spite of the fact that the claim did not fulfil the conditions laid down in the regulations, Her Majesty's Government decided, as a special case, to pay sums totalling nearly £2,500 to individual bandsmen who had lost private

247
instruments and other personal possessions, because it was thought that, as good employers, it would be reasonable to do so.
Lord TRANMIRE: My Lords, surely the men who are not given this compensation are also employees of the Government. Why is there discrimination between the two?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, because not everybody in the regiment is a bandsman. It was the individual bandsman, who was also a soldier, who was compensated for the loss of his instrument; but the regiment is also a corporate body and as such has responsibility for its own hand—not the Government. May I make the point that compensation paid to the individual bandsman was paid, as usual at the estimated second-hand value of the items at the time of their loss. I am sure—perhaps I am not so sure after this debate —that it will be recognised that in making these payments Her Majesty's Government were acting generously and as good employers, particularly since there is in Great Britain no general scheme for paying such compensation from public funds for damage to private property caused by terrorist attacks. May I say that again? It is the key of the argument. There is no general scheme for paying such compensation from public funds for damage to private property caused by terrorist attacks. Those instruments of the band were not the private property of soldiers or bandsmen; they were not private property, but corporate property.
Damage from terrorist attacks has become a tragic feature of life in England. and, when personal injury or death is caused thereby, a claim may be made under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme. However, there is no corresponding provision for paying compensation from public funds for damage to private property in Great Britain, as there is in Northern Ireland.
Lord TRANMIRE: My Lords, in that case, why is there in Clause (g), paragraph 1530,
" and band property limited to articles considered necessary "?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I cannot answer that at this point. What
248
I am saying is that at present there is no corresponding provision for paying compensation from public funds for damage to private property in Great Britain, as there is in Northern Ireland. This is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, made—the noble Lord is not here at the moment. I said I thought there was a difference, and this is confirmation of that fact. The situation in Great Britain and Northern Ireland is different. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary has been asked more than once to introduce a scheme for compensation for damaged property to be paid from public funds, but has declined to do so since the risk can be covered by insurance, and the sensible owner should insure his own property. If the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood (who has just returned to the Chamber), will read Hansard tomorrow, he will see that I confirmed what I said to him earlier, that the situations in England and in Northern Ireland are different.
My Lords, it has been argued that having paid compensation outside the regulations to individual bandsmen, the same should be done for the band itself. This is what the argument tonight is about. However, there is a difference between individual soldiers and a regimental band which, as 1 have said, is expected to organise its affairs properly. With your Lordships' forbearance, 1 will state the new-for-old argument, because this has been raised. It has been argued that at the time of the loss the band could not obtain insurance to cover the cost of replacing the lost items with new ones, although what is now termed new-for-old insurance has since become available. That is the point. It was not available at the time. This was raised by several noble Lords. I am not quite sure why it is considered that this is a good reason for asking for compensation from public funds, but a few words about this might be appropriate.
In normal times, most articles have a second-hand value which decreases as they wear out. If the article is insured for its original value and is lost, the insurance company will pay either the original value, the insured value, or the actual value at the time of loss, whichever is the lesser. Inflation has changed this picture, however. As the cost of new articles continues to rise, so, very often, does the second-hand value of used articles. The actual value

249
of a used article, therefore, can increase instead of decrease, although the increase may well be less than the increase in the price of the new article. Because of this situation, insurers introduced new-for-old insurance. This means that, subject to certain conditions which often include an additional premium, an insured part-worn item lost or destroyed can be replaced by a brand new one, of which the insurers will pay the full cost. This change in insurance practice started, I believe, with the insurance of house contents. By 1975—and what we have been talking about took place in 1974—it had been extended to some other types of insurance.
My Lords, I am quite willing to accept that new-for-old insurance may not have been available for bands in 1974 and, indeed, may not have been widely known. However, for various reasons I do not think the argument has any validity. In the first place, if new-for-old insurance was indeed not available, the regiment was in no worse position than anyone else whose property was destroyed or damaged, and for whom " new for old " insurance was not available in 1974. Secondly, even if new-for-old insurance had been available to the band, I am not at all sure that they would have taken advantage of the position and increased their insurance cover.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, I think this is coming into the realms of supposition in a way that is not wholly right. What we want to know from the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, who has said that the regiment should have insured the instruments and did not do so, is how they could have done so when new-for-old insurance was not available.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, they could have insured on the old basis, but not on the new basis introduced following inflation.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, many of us believe it is a very far cry to assume that, had new-for-old insurance been available, the regiment would not have used it because they did not take out adequate insurance on the old basis. Would the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, agree that this is supposition, and that it is really a smear on the regiment and, indeed, on the Army?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am not smearing the regiment or the Army, but just stating facts.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, that is not so. What the noble Lord stated is pure supposition, and I really must stress this.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: Well, my Lords, what is the supposition?
Lord LYELL: That because the regiment did not take out adequate insurance on the old basis, they would not have taken out adequate insurance on the new-for-old basis had it been available. To suppose this goes well beyond, I believe, what we are debating this evening. It goes into the realms of hypothesis, and I understand that what we are asking for is fact.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, may I accept the noble Lord's point; I was moving into the field of supposition and I will cease to do so.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, surely if the noble Lord abandons the supposition then he must admit that the regiment was in no position to insure on an adequate basis. Having regard to the fact that it was IRA terrorism, should not the Government at least say, " We will pay the difference "? The regiment had been hit right between the eyes because it could not do something which it was impossible for it to do, and the Minister now admits it.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: No, my Lords. What I am going to say is, quite simply, that it would have been entirely possible under the old regulations to have placed a value on the band's instruments and insured them for a certain value. When we insure property we do not always go out and get a valuation of its value as at today; we say that obviously the value of the property has risen and we assess its replacement value today at EX thousand, and therefore we raise the value we place upon this particular property for the purpose of insurance. Even under the old rules it would have been possible for the regiment to make an intelligent guess at the replacement value of the instruments and to have insured them at that estimated value at the time of the insurance. That was open to the regiment.
Lord TRANMIRE: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord did not hear me when I said that that had been done, after the attack, by the insurance brokers, Wilson & Co., who are the military insurance brokers. They set the figure at 25 per cent., which was repeated by my noble friend Lord Lyell, and that made £12,000. The difference we are talking about tonight is between £12,000 and £23,000. I am still waiting to hear the answer of the noble Lord to the argument that all noble Lords have addressed to him on that difference. We are not talking about the £3,000.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, we are talking about the procedures of the prudent insurer of private property. In any case, however comparatively small the sum is, the regiment fell short: it did not, even on the lowest level, pay a proper premium for the instruments as at that time.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I am sorry to come back to this point, which is a very difficult one. Was it, or was it not, open to the regiment to insure those instruments for £23,000?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I really cannot answer that because I am not an expert on insurance. I would have thought that I could insure my life for a quarter of a million pounds. Whether it is worth it or not is another question.
Lord LYELL: But you could not insure the instruments for £23,000.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: Well, my Lords, I would have thought that under the old regulations it would have been entirely possible to insure the band's instruments for any value that the band committee agreed to place upon them.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, would the Minister be good enough to keep away from the question of insuring his life? He is going to live for a long time yet, so the answer to that is academic. Would he concentrate on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tranmire? Would he concentrate on finding some respectable argument—because he has not done it yet—as to why the Government should not cough up £11,000? That point has not been answered.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am about to find a respectable argument which I shall give to the noble Lord. It is respectable certainly, unpleasant also, but that is the argument I am about to give. I have mentioned more than once that the band's property was under-insured, and since it is this fact which is the main cause of the regiment's difficulties I must give some details. I say this in accordance with my brief, but I think all the details have been covered by noble Lords who have laid the foundation for today's discussion. At one point in our earlier discussion, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, made exactly the same point as the noble Lord, Lord Wigg. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, is on his side. Obviously Gog and Magog are against me. He said that the Government might pay the insurance premium, but, as I have explained, the property involved was the regiment's private property and the responsibility rested fairly and squarely on them to insure it at a realistic value.
Lord DENHAM: How?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: By making a realistic estimate.
Lord DENHAM: You could not do it.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: Of course you can. I can estimate the value of my life. The hand can estimate the value of its instruments.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I cannot insure my small car to be replaced by a Rolls-Royce. That is what we are talking about. Insurance does not work that way. One can obtain insurance now on the new-for-old basis, but if one went to an insurance broker in 1974. Wilson and Company as the noble Lord, Lord Tranmire, mentioned, and said that one wished to insure the instruments of the Green Howards, which as noble Lords and experts from the regiment have stated were worth about £12,000, I do not believe that it was possible. From the inquiries I have made outside, apart from the papers I have received from the regiment, we do not believe that it was possible then to insure, on the basis that the noble Lord is claiming, for £23,000. We should be grateful if, at a later stage, he might be

253
able to let us know whether his argument is correct. From all the researches I have done—and they are quite considerable—he is, I am afraid, wrong.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I do not know how much value the noble Lord places on expert advice, but I am always somewhat sceptical of its absolute value. May I repeat again what I said before the interjection: As I have explained, the property involved was the regiment's private property, and the responsibility rested fairly and squarely on it to insure it at a realistic value. It did not do so, and it has only itself to blame.
Reference was made at the same Question Time to the compensation paid to Members of Parliament who lost some of their belongings in the explosion in Westminster Hall a week after the incident at Strensall Camp. The compensation which was paid was assessed on the same basis as that paid to individual bandsmen of the Green Howards. In both cases the payments were to individuals. The regimental band is not in the same category.
Lord TRANMIRE: My Lords, could the noble Lord say whether the Members of Parliament were duly insured against their loss?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the bandsmen were not duly insured, but nevertheless they received an ex gratia payment from the Government, as did Members of Parliament on the same footing.
If I may say so without disrespect, the arguments which have been advanced to support the band's claim have been based mainly on sentiment, and partly on misunderstandings. I hope I have cleared up the latter. I am as sensitive to sentiment as I think any noble Lord here. am not, of course, suggesting that the question of sentiment should be brushed on one side, but there comes a time when sentiment must be weighed against reality. This is where I must give the respectable answer to my noble friend Lord Wigg. Her Majesty's Government have, as good employers, already paid certain compensation when such compensation from public funds was not generally available. But if they were, in addition, to pay compensation to the Green Howards, who failed to keep its
254
band property adequately insured, other organisations with insufficient insurance, whose property was damaged by terrorist activity, would look to the Government to pay them compensation. In fact, the payment of compensation of the type proposed by various noble Lords tonight would create a precedent which would have absolutely unforeseen results in the future. As I have already explained, it is not the policy of Her Majesty's Government to pay compensation to the owners of property damaged by terrorist activity, and it is for this reason that we cannot make any payment to the Green Howards.
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, would he take back to his right honourable friend the very evident feeling from all quarters of this House?
Lord WIGG: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, once again I beg of him to admit this: ex gratia payments were made to individuals, so there is obviously no objection in principle to ex gratia payments being made to somebody else. That is the first point. The second thing is—and will he please write this down because it is clear that he does not understand it—that the regiment could not do that which he says it ought to do. It could not insure beyond £12.000. Therefore, as it could not do that which he says it ought to do, the Government, having made an ex gratia payment to individuals, should make an ex gratia payment of £11,000 at least to the regiment. Would he be good enough to take that back?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: Of course, my Lords. I spoke against sentiment, but I am not insensitive to the feeling of this House. I think the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, at the end has validity. I shall give him, I would suggest, a written answer
Lord WIGG: Write to the noble Lord, Lord Tranmire.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: I shall give to the noble Lord, Lord Tranmire, a written answer on this particular point. My whole case has been based on the fact that the regiment could have insured its instruments properly and it did riot. If I

255
am wrong, I shall certainly inform the House.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, I express my gratitude to the Minister for that, but would he bear in mind that if the reply is not satisfactory I will add my name to that of any other noble Lord in putting down a substantive Motion in which not only my voice but my vote can have an effect.

HOVE BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with Amendments.
FOYLE AND LONDONDERRY COLLEGE BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with Amendments.
NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL BILL
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with Amendments.