Lords Sitting of 27 May 1976

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock:
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Bradford.

POST OFFICE: MAIL COLLECTIONS
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will give a direction to the Post Office to ensure that where there is no Sunday collection of mail, Saturday collections will be timed to take place not earlier than 2.30 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE. DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Lord Melchett): No. my Lords. I will, however, draw this suggestion to the attention of the Post Office which will be reviewing the effect of this service change after a year.
Lord INGLEWOOD: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for half of that reply, may I ask him to impress on the Post Office that a collection from local letter boxes at 9 a.m. is next best to useless if the delivery of letters does not happen until later in the morning? In many rural areas I think it is the opinion of most of us that people deserve a rather better service than this. even in difficult times.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords. I am sure that the Post Office will take note of what the noble Lord has said.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, can the Minister say at what point administration of the Post Office for which the Post Office are responsible ceases and public interest for which the Government are responsible commences? This seems to me to be a matter of public interest in which the Government should take some part.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, regarding the Government's power to give a general direction, to which this Question refers, the words in the Act, at any rate. are not, " public interest " but, " national interest ". I think that the noble Lord would agree that the question of what time collections are made from rural post offices is probably not a matter which is in the national interest, although I accept. and I am sure that the Post Office accept, that it is of considerable importance to people living in those areas.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, arising also from the Question and answers on this subject the other day. may I ask whether this is not a matter which is of great interest to everybody in the country, both private individuals and businesses? Can the noble Lord ask the Post Office whether they will consider the proposal that at least there should be some central collecting points where post can be delivered, can actually be posted. by the public, during the weekend?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, his noble friend Lady Young asked a similar Question last week, to which I replied last week. I said that I would ask the Post Office to write to the noble Baroness.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, does not the great barrage of Questions about the Post Office show that it was a great mistake to disturb the existing arrangement whereby the Post Office was part of the Civil Service and had a great and proud tradition?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, that may be a point of view and it is not for me to argue one way or another. The fact is that the Act has passed through both Houses of Parliament, and we must live with the position as it is today.

OVERSEAS REPRESENTATION: CPRS REPORT
11.10 a.m.
Lord MERRIVALE: 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 when it is expected that the Central

347
Policy Review Staff will complete their review of the priorities and requirements of our overseas representation; and

(a)whether they will carefully look into the question of over-staffing in some of our larger posts with a view to opening or re-opening smaller posts; and

(b)whether they will pay particular attention to the opening or reopening of smaller posts in the light of any existing economic potential or political desirability.

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd): My Lords, we hope that the review will be completed early next year. In considering the most suitable, effective and economic means of representing and promoting our interests overseas the CPRS will have regard to all relevant factors, including those mentioned by the noble Lord in his Question.
Lord MERRIVALE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his Answer. Could the review body look very carefully into the desirability, particularly on political grounds, of reopening our Embassy in Madagascar? For in spite of a politique d'ouverture tous azimuts on the part of the Government there, there has been an increase in Russian influence and less Chinese influence, and a very recent anti-Western Powers and anticapitalist States campaign throughout the Press, the television, and radio. Furthermore, would the noble Lord not agree that due to a switch from an Embassy to an honorary consulate we have lost influence there, and possibly status too?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, as with a number of Questions that have been asked of this House in recent weeks, this concerns public expenditure. Savings have to be made, and therefore we have to look very seriously at our representation overseas, but we have clearly too to bear in mind the disadvantages of any particular saving. The noble Lord has expressed his view on many occasions. He may be aware that Sir Kenneth Berrill, the head of CPRS, invited members of the public to make representations to this inquiry, and I understand that over 100 companies and individuals have already done so. I suggest to the noble Lord that he might
348
like to make his own submissions direct to Sir Kenneth Berrill.
Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, the conclusions of the Duncan and Plowden inquiries into our overseas representation were published. Will the report of the Central Policy Review Staff be published?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, when he was Foreign Secretary, said that this was under consideration, but that a report would be given to Parliament. As I say, whether the full report is published is still subject to consideration, and I suppose must depend on the way in which the report is written and what can be disclosed and what should not be disclosed.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the sooner we abandon this folie de grandeur of our great imperial past and realise the limitations of our power in the world today, the sooner we would solve our home economic problems?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, the purpose of overseas representation is not only to show the flag, it is also to provide political and economic information, and to be of service particularly to those who are exporters. That is why I believe that we should look very carefully not only at our representation but at the type and class of it.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the help that business finds from our various representatives in Government service has improved so much over recent years that it would be a pity to give any sort of impression that we are dissatisfied with it on any great scale?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I do not think that my noble friend was in any way suggesting that. I am glad that the noble Lord has paid tribute to what our Embassies and High Commissions do, often under very difficult circumstances.
Lord MERRIVALE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord—I wonder whether this is a matter for the Government or for the Review Body—if there are not implications for this country of not having an

349
Embassy in, for example, Gabon, despite the fact that the Government of Gabon have one here? Are there not certain repercussions from the fact that we do not have one? I feel that this is a matter which should be considered by the Government because it has political implications.
Lord SHEPHERD: This is clearly a matter for the Government, my Lords, but at the moment we are awaiting the report of the CPRS and, on the basis of that report, we shall make a judgment. I hope the noble Lord and his noble friends will remember the pleas that they are making about public expenditure; there is not a day when we do not get pleas from the other side of the House for increased public expenditure, which flies contrary to their public posture.

DISABLED PERSONS: LOCAL AUTHORITY SURVEYS
11.15 a.m.
The Countess of LOUDOUN: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the surveys undertaken by local authorities under Section 1 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, and whether they consider the information gained from those surveys to be of sufficient quality to enable local authorities to plan the provision of their services for disabled people.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the purpose of the surveys was to enable local authorities to estimate the extent and scope of services required in their area; they have been a useful planning tool but do not of course obviate the need for continuing action to identify individual people needing particular services.
The Countess of LOUDOUN: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask whether it is a fact that, without the full implementation of Section 1, the benefits outlined in Section 2, and in some cases social service benefits, will never reach those for whom they are intended, and because of their disabilities
350
the disabled and especially the mentally handicapped have been unable to claim their due share of the resources?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I do not accept that there has not been a full implementation of Section 1. The very nature of Section 1 lays a duty on the local authority to ascertain in its area the needs of people, and, first, to find out whether they are disabled in one form or another. It must of course be a continuing process, and in the year 1974–75 local authorities in England were able to add the names of 135,700 disabled people to their general class registers. This is a considerably higher number than was added in the previous year. At present there are about 580,000 people on the general class registers of local authorities, and this compares with 234,000 five years ago; so considerable progress is being made.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a number of authorities are not exercising the powers which they could exercise under the Act? What steps are being taken to ensure that councils appreciate that this is a very important matter for them to attend to?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, officials of my Department are constantly in contact with local authorities. if my noble friend has any concrete example of a local authority which is not facing up to its responsibilities, we should be glad to have it.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that all the local authorities have submitted surveys the completion of which is required of them under the Act, which was passed six years ago? If not, may I ask him to say which local authorities have so far failed to do so?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, since I do not happen to have it, I cannot give any information of the individual local authorities which may be behind with their surveys. However, if we do not get surveys at regular intervals from local authorities, we are in touch with them to ensure that we get them within a reasonable time.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, if local authorities do not co-operate—and I gather that there

351
are some local authorities which have not taken action which they should have taken —would it be a good idea to name them in this House?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: That is a matter of opinion, my Lords. One would first have to find out why the local authorities which are not meeting the requirements are unable to meet them. I think that all noble Lords are aware of the continued and continuous pressure which is today on local authorities, particularly the social services, and there is a limit to how far we can push them at the present time.
Lady KINLOSS: My Lords, now that Dr. Brown's report has been received and the Government have some idea of what has been done to date, may I ask the noble Lord to say what plans the Government have for implementing the report?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, on the survey by Dr. Malcolm Brown into the methods adopted by the former local authorities implementing Section 1, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services has recently reviewed the first draft of the report of the Social Services Unit at Birmingham University which surveyed the action taken in 1971–72 by the former local authorities to inform themselves as to the extent of the disablement problem. At the present time we are considering the report and I hope that it will be possible to lay a copy of it in the Library of your Lordships' House as soon as any points of doubt on the draft have been resolved.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, does the Minister believe that some local voluntary groups which want to help the disabled people get as much assistance as they might from social services departments in finding out who are the people who need help? If the noble Lord does not think that that is happening, will he encourage social services departments to give more help to voluntary groups?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, with great respect, it sounds as if that is a supposition. Many of your Lordships know that local authorities have used a number of voluntary organisations which are in touch with the people at all levels
352
in order to compile these surveys. I have no reason to believe that any local authority has rejected any help that voluntary organisations can give in this matter.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, in view of the fact that local authorities are under very great pressure to cut their expenditure, will my noble friend consider sending a circular to local authorities saying that any cuts they make should not be at the expense of the services for the disabled?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the programme for personal social services, which is highlighted in the public expenditure White Paper (Cmnd. 6393), allows for a continuing implementation of Sections 1 and 2 of the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. Those of your Lordships who have read the Priorities for Health and Personal Social Services in England will know that the rate at which expansion is suggested for certain key services provided for under Section 2 of the Act has been increased for the forthcoming year by 9 per cent.

THE QUEEN'S VISIT TO NORTH AMERICA
11.22 a.m.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: 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 confirm that Her Majesty the Queen has decided to travel in Concorde on her visit to North America, now that the aircraft has been granted a certificate of air worthiness.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd): My Lords, the Queen will be finishing Her tour of the United States in Boston, and the most convenient and obvious way of starting Her visit to Canada will be to travel by Britannia.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, but I asked about the Queen's visit to North America, not to Canada. Is the noble Lord aware that I have received a

353
multitude of letters from BAC employees expressing their unhappiness and dissatisfaction at this decision? Is it too late for the Government to reconsider the decision? If they cannot reconsider it completely, perhaps there can be a compromise; for example, Her Majesty might fly at least as far as Bermuda?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Earl will be aware that until the very last moment there have been legal doubts as to whether Concorde could fly to the United States. Fortunately this is now possible and we wish great success to both airlines which operate this aircraft. But when one is arranging a programme of this kind, one must make certain conjectures, and it was felt that in all the circumstances governing the visit to the United States and to Canada the Queen should arrive in the United States and in Canada on board Britannia. That was the reason the decision was taken. I understand the feelings of those, particularly in British Airways, who feel passionately about the success of this aircraft. But the decision was taken solely on the question of convenience.
Lord MERRIVALE: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord one question. In view of the fact that Concorde is a joint venture. and bearing in mind that President Giscard d'Estaing has used the Concorde to fly to Zaire and for his recent visit to Washington, does the noble Lord agree that every opportunity should be sought so that in the not too distant future Her Majesty the Queen does fly in Concorde?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, it is not for me to suggest to Her Majesty what mode of aircraft she should use. But I have no doubt at all that one day Her Majesty will fly in Concorde.
Lord HALE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that Her Majesty is going to the United States as part of the Bicentenary celebrations and that she has decided, to the great satisfaction of the Americans, to go by boat along the historic route of the boats that travelled to Massachusetts 200 years ago? Is the noble Lord also aware that all this is part of the ceremony? Will he formally deprecate the use of the name of Her Majesty with regard to an invitation to advertise Colman's mustard,
354
Senior Service cigarettes, or even a British aeroplane?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Earl had that in mind. Those who seek to use the name of the Queen for any particular commercial advantage would, I think, be condemned by all in this House. My noble friend is quite right. The Queen is travelling on Britannia along the old route, and this is being very much appreciated in the United States.
Lord PARRY: My Lords, as an author of peace and a lover of Concorde, might I suggest that those who are seeking in this debate to promote it might inadvertently he doing the opposite by suggesting that Her Majesty would not want to travel on Concorde? We should conclude by agreeing that this magnificent plane is one in which we should all love to travel, and that everyone else in the world would probably like that opportunity, too.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. Concorde is an aircraft in which almost everyone—at least those who enjoy flying would love to fly.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES &(No. 2) BILL [H.L.]
11.27 a.m.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend certain enactments relating to weights and measures; and to make provision for the alleviation of shortages of food and other goods. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill now be read la.—(Lord Oram.)
On Question, Bill read la, and to be printed.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of the House, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given to the Baroness Birk to advance the Committee

355
stage of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill from Thursday the 17th to Thursday the 10th of June next. —(Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe.)
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend I must say that I regret that a misunderstanding has arisen. Unfortunately, it was not appreciated last night that it would not be satisfactory to advance the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill by a week, because it was not then realised that the Amendments would in all probability have to be put down today. I hope that the Government will appreciate the exigencies of the circumstances.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, there is, I think, a genuine misunderstanding on the part of noble Lords opposite. The Amendments can be put down during the Recess perfectly easily. The re-arrangement of Business was agreed through the usual channels after very careful consideration. The arrangement still leaves a whole month between Second Reading and the Committee stage of the Bill, and I think that that is quite sufficient.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, I must point out that some noble Lords in this House wish to take their holidays and I believe that there is a genuine problem here. The arrival of the Whitsun Recess is normally a signal for the advancement of the Parliamentary programme into a different rhythm. We regret that the Government wish to take this step, and it would not be satisfactory to my noble friend Lady Young.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I think that this is most unreasonable. It has all been agreed through the usual channels where the Business always is settled. If the noble Baroness wishes to take a 10-day Recess she still has a fortnight left in all. I happen to know that she was to be in the House on that day, in any case, and I think that the Motion should not be challenged.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, does not my noble friend think that the easy way out of the difficulty would be
356
for the Opposition not to put down any Amendments?
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONGENITAL DISABILITIES(CIVIL LIABILITY) BILL
11.30 a.m.
Lord STOW HILL: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill comes from another place where it was introduced as a Private Member's Bill by Mr. Ray Carter, whom I am sure we should all like to congratulate on recently becoming a member of the Government. If I may say so. Mr. Carter introduced, in a speech of most admirable clarity, what is a very complicated Bill; and, what is important, made it very clear that the Bill is one of limited scope and objective. It comes to this House from another place, where it had all-Party support as well as Government approval, and the Solicitor General was present to deal with the many legal difficulties that arose. After it had received its Second Reading, it was most exhaustively probed in Committee, when all proposed Amendments were withdrawn after discussion except for one Division, in which a proposed Amendment was defeated. It was again carefully considered on Report, when no Amendments were made except one to Clause 2, which was moved by the Solicitor General and accepted without a Division.
My Lords, public conscience was alerted and public anxiety directed to the situation of children born with deformities by the appalling tragedy of the thalidomide children, born with dreadful deformities because their mothers had taken the thalidomide drug, sold in this country by Distillers. Perhaps at the outset I ought to declare a financial interest, having for many years held shares in the Distillers Company. Possibly also it is relevant that, although I retired from active practice at the Bar in January 1964, 12 years ago, I had been acting professionally as counsel for the Distillers Company, or their underwriters, in relation to the thalidomide case.
A difficulty that arose in the thalidomide case was that there seemed to be some uncertainty as to what was the law with regard to a claim by a child born with a

357
deformity for damages where it could be proved on the child's behalf that the deformity was caused by some wrongful act affecting the parents' capability of bringing to birth a healthy child without that deformity. There was doubt whether in law the deformed child had any right to damages for the deformity from which it suffered as a result of that wrongful act committed before its birth. It was felt that it was absolutely essential that it should be clearly stated in a Statute what exactly the law is in this respect so far as births in the future are concerned. It is in order to achieve this, by clearly laying down what is the law, that the present Bill has been prepared.
It was with this end in view that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, then Lord Chancellor, on 20th November 1972, invited the Law Commission, under the provisions of Section 3(1)(e) of the Law Commission Act 1965, to advise him what the nature and extent of civil liability for ante-natal injury should be. In response to that invitation the Law Commission produced a most valuable report dated 14th June 1974, published as Command Paper 5709 in August 1974. In this report they examined with great thoroughness the legal and other problems that would be involved in creating a legal right in a child born with a disability to sue for damages a person whose wrongful act, committed before the child's birth, could be proved to have adversely affected the child's parents so as to give rise to the child's disability.
To give effect to their findings they annexed, in a schedule to their report, a draft Bill, upon which the Bill at present before your Lordships is based, although there are some departures in the present Bill from that prepared by the Law Commission. Before they prepared their report, they, in January 1973, circulated a working paper inviting an expression of opinion by distinguished lawyers, including the Lord Chief Justice and the President of the Family Division, and a very wide range of medical opinion and of other organisations. Consultations and discussions took place orally between the Commission and many of those to whom the working paper was circulated, and extremely valuable advice was tendered to the Commission, none of it hostile to the general purpose underlying the preparation of legislation.
358
On the question of whether existing law provided a remedy, the Commission in paragraph 8 of their report (if I may quote their words) expressed it as their opinion,
" that it is highly probably that the Common Law would in appropriate circumstances provide a remedy for a plaintiff suffering from a pre-natal injury caused by another's fault ".
The Bill does not apply to Scotland, because the Scottish Law Commission was of the opinion that existing Scottish law clearly does, as it now stands, provide an appropriate remedy; so there is no need to seek to alter or clarify the existing law of Scotland by Statute.
It is not easy to form a view as to the scale of the problem. In paragraph 19 of their report the Law Commission say:
" We were told by the Medical Defence Union that there were 1,000 handicapped children born in the United Kingdom every week."
But this figure has been criticised as being too large; and whatever the figure should be, it is only in a comparatively small percentage of cases that the necessary connection between the child's disability and the ante-natal injury could be proved. But in paragraph 21 of the report of the Commission the Commission state that there are known to be about 1,500 drugs capable of injuring the foetus, the use of which in the treatment of pregnant women involves varying though usually slight degrees of risk. But apart from thalidomide, with its terrible effects, the drug stilboestrol if taken by pregnant women has been followed by the development of vaginal cancer in their adolescent daughters, and there are other dangerous drugs.
This Bill thus has a limited objective. It is to ensure that children born with a disability are to have a remedy in damages in cases when it can be affirmatively proved that their disability is attributable to a wrongful act committed before their birth, and to declare and adapt the existing general framework of our law so as certainly to produce that result. But before I invite attention to the actual provisions of the Bill designed to achieve this result I must refer to one other matter.
On December 19th, 1972, the then Prime Minister announced that a Royal Commission, under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson,

359
was to be established to conduct a wide-ranging inquiry into the question of civil liability for personal injury, including ante-natal injury. In a letter to The Times dated January 21st, 1976, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson, acting in his capacity as chairman, raised objection to the introduction of the Bill then about to be introduced in another place on Second Reading. I confess to not having found it easy to understand exactly what is the basis of the objection. In his letter, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson, pointed out—as I accept—that the Bill has a limited objective and probably will be of temporary application if the Royal Commission recommends changes in this branch of the law.
All this, the Promoters of the Bill accept, and, indeed, assert. The Bill in no sense pre-empts the scope of any recommendations that may be made by the Royal Commission. It is only intended to clarify and to make certain what the law is until changes, if any, are made as the result of the Royal Commission's findings. The Royal Commission's report, I understand, may be expected some time after the end of this year. Legislative changes to implement any of its recommendations may not be possible for months or even years after the report is completed. In particular, there is a general expectation that the Royal Commission will address itself to the question of whether in order to recover damages a person who suffers personal injury should have to establish that the injury was caused by somebody else's fault, or whether the injured person should be entitled to receive damages to compensate him for his personal injuries whether or not their infliction was occasioned by somebody else's fault. In other words, all that he would have to establish would be that he in fact had suffered the injuries, proof of which automatically entitled him to damages.
Personally I very greatly hope that the Royal Commission will come down in favour of a " no fault " right to compensation for injury, as it is called. I have always thought it utterly absurd that if, for example, an elderly person steps from the pavement in the path of an oncoming motor car and is run over, the question whether that person should recover substantial damages or nothing
360
should depend on whether or not, before stepping off the curb, he looked in the direction from which the car was coming; and that hours of the time of the court, judges, witnesses, counsel, solicitors and others should, day in, day out, be wasted in minute inquiries into questions of that sort, with the large expenditure involved which could much more sensibly be used for compensating the injured person.
I remember that at one time, it was, I should have thought, almost an even bet that if you entered a county court or a court of the Queen's Bench Division you would find that the court was trying this kind of fault issue in a personal injuries case or in a " running down " case, as cases involving injuries in which a motor car was involved were called. Perhaps I exaggerate, but, at any rate, much too much of the court's time was occupied in this way.
But if the Royal Commission, as I hope, recommends the " no fault " principle, how is it to be financed? Will some State insurance scheme have to be set up, or will it be operated through private insurance companies? It may take years before there gets on to the Statute Book legislation bringing any such scheme into operation. If there ever was any ground for the pre-emption argument raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson, before the Bill received its unopposed Second Reading in another place, the argument is no longer maintainable now that the Bill is before your Lordships having, as I have described, passed through all its stages and having been most fully probed and examined in another place.
In a word, the Bill may be described as of temporary duration, and as limited in scope and designed to make sure that should, unhappily, there ever be another tragedy like the thalidomide case, the law clearly provides that the children who are the victims of that tragedy can obtain compensation for the disabilities they sustain. That was a major tragedy; but minor tragedies of that kind equally poignant can take place. Purely as an example, the case has been envisaged of a child born with disabilities because, long before birth, a hospital when giving a necessary and proper blood transfusion to the child's mother may have negligently used blood supplied by a syphilitic blood

361
donor. The child who in consequence suffers disabilities is given by the Bill the right to recover compensation.
That being its objective, the Bill's framework is as follows. It applies only in the case of children who are born alive after the Bill becomes law. Such children are given a right to compensation if they suffer from a disability caused by an occurrence which happens before their birth if the following characteristics apply to that occurrence. It must be an occurrence which constitutes a wrongful or tortious act committed by some person other than the child's mother, and which affects the capacity of either of the child's parents to have a normal healthy child, and which occurrence can be proved to have caused the child to suffer from a disability. The word " tort " is widely used to describe the wrongful invasion of another person's civil rights. For example, trespass, assault, negligent conduct causing damage to another person constitutes tort. There may also be breaches of a Statute designed to protect persons who would, or might, be injured by breach of a statutory provision which it creates. Whatever its form, in a given case there must be some occurrence constituting tortious behaviour on the part of some person towards one or both of the parents, affecting their capacity to produce normal healthy children.
In the case of the tort of negligence, the existing law provides that no tort is committed unless the negligent act results in damage caused to the person against whom the tort of negligence is committed. The Bill provides that in the case of negligence no such damage need have been caused and that all that needs to be shown is that the parents' capacity to produce a healthy child has been affected.
Ordinarily, the wrongdoer will be somebody outside the family circle—for example, the negligent hospital in the blood transfusion case which I envisaged —but, as the Bill is drawn, it could be anyone except the child's mother. It could be a brutal husband who assaults or injures the mother or a stranger who rapes the mother. These would be the rarer cases; but I hope the House will agree that it is right to exclude the mother. Theoretically, she could, by a wrongful act, affect the father's capacity to produce a healthy child. The Bill produced by
362
the Law Commission also excluded the mother from the category of potential wrongdoers. It was thought by those who prepared the Bill that the distress which would be occasioned if a child grew up believing that its disability was due to some wrongful ante-natal act committed by the mother against the child's father would greatly outweigh the advantage achieved by giving the child the right in law to recover compensation for its disability from the child's own mother. That is the basic framework on which the Bill is constructed, and it is contained in Clauses 1(1), (2) and (3).
I shall refer later to the question of the time within which, under our Statutes of Limitation, a child must bring its action; but this is somewhat complicated, although dealt with in Clause 1(3). It would be broadly true to state that the remaining provisions of the Bill deal with questions which arise as the result of the application of existing law to the basic framework which I have just described; and I shall shortly state how these provisions deal with those questions.
Clause 1(4) provides that an occurrence may be one which occurred either before or after the actual time of conception, but this, in the case of an occurrence taking place before conception, will not qualify as an occurrence giving the disabled child subsequently born a right to compensation if it could be established by those against whom the child makes its claim that, after that occurrence, the parents were aware that a risk was involved in the event of the child being conceived, except that the defence shall not be available when the father is the defendant and was aware of the risk but the mother was unaware of the risk.
This somewhat technical provision is in reality only an attempt to apply the well-known principle that damages cannot be obtained if it can be shown that the chain of causation between the act complained of and the damage in respect of which compensation is claimed has been broken by the intervention of some new happening—a "novus actus interveniens ", to use the Latin tag which is often employed—which can be pointed to as interrupting the flow of effect from cause, in the present context if, after the relevant occurrence, or tortious act, the parent or, if he is the defendant, the

363
father, were aware of the risk that would be involved if conception took place that would break the chain of causation. Apart from this, in so far as the child's right to compensation is concerned, it makes no difference whether the ante-natal occurrence is pre-conceptual or post-conceptual. It would be a mistaken view of the Bill to think that the child's right to compensation depends on the existence of, or damage to, a living foetus.
Clause 1(5) is designed to protect doctors from the risk of a multiplicity of actions by children, and provides that it will be an adequate defence if they have acted in accordance with the accepted medical opinion in treating or advising the child's parent. Clause 1(6) deals with the case where the parent has accepted some limitation of liability by a contract made by him or her of any liability to pay damages for injury caused to him or her, for example, in tickets issued for travel, admission to sports grounds and so on. As the child claims by virtue of the tort committed against the parent, the child will be bound by any exclusion clause in such a contract. This, again, is a branch of the law which in a sense may be said to be subject to review, as the Law Commission have recently published a report on so-called exemption clauses, recommending a number of changes. But in this temporary Bill it has been thought best to apply the existing law.
Clause 1(7) again deals with a practical question arising from the adaptation of existing law. Cases may arise in which the parent affected by the relevant antenatal occurrence may himself or herself have been in part responsible for the child being born disabled, because he or she was guilty of behaviour which was a contributory cause. In such a case subsection (7) provides that the damages recoverable by the child are to be reduced to such an extent as the court thinks just and equitable, having regard to the extent of the parent's responsibility.
Clause 2 deals with a special case in which a pregnant woman who knows, or ought reasonably to know, she is pregnant is driving a motor car. As T indicated, she can be under no liability under Clause 1, but Clause 2 contains an
364
exception to this general principle. She will in general be insured, and if she is not it may well be that the Motor Insurers Bureau would feel it right to treat her as insured. It was felt, as the Law Commission recommended, that she should be treated as being under the same duty to take care for the safety of her unborn child as she is to take care for the safety of other people. The Bill. as originally drafted, did not include the requirement that the mother should have been aware of her pregnancy, but on Report stage in another place the Solicitor-General moved an Amendment, which was accepted, that the mother should know, or ought reasonably to know, herself to be pregnant. Indeed, this was the only Amendment made to the Bill in all its stages through another place.
Without trespassing on the indelicate, it may not always be easy for a respectable lady to answer the question: " Did she on such a date know she was pregnant? " But it is to be hoped that in practice very rarely indeed will such a question be an issue to he decided before the courts and common sense will intervene. But on the general question whether, in these motor accident cases, a child affected by them should have a cause of action for damages even against its mother —which in effect means the insurers—there is, it is submitted, as a matter of humanity, a very strong case. It is submitted that any contrary argument should give way to the overriding consideration that the child who, through no fault of its own, suffers disability ought to be entitled to receive compensation.
Clause 3 provides that exposure, contrary to the prohibitions imposed by the Nuclear Installations Act 1965, of the child's parents to the effects of nuclear matter or ionising radiation, which affects the parents' capacity to produce a normal healthy child will give rise to a claim for compensation for disabilities sustained by the child of those parents as a result of that exposure. The 1965 Act imposes absolute liability not to cause such exposure, and a claim may be brought for breach of the prohibition within a period of 30 years from the exposure.
Clause 3 contains some other necessary adaptations to bring the provision in the 1965 Act within the general scheme of the Bill, and it is submitted that in order to

365
achieve the general objective of the Bill the extension of its provisions to disabilities suffered by children as the result of exposure of their parents to nuclear matter is clearly desirable. Clause 4 contains definitions which deal with some specific topics and I should refer to some of them. First, I think I should quote the definition contained in subsection (1), in wide terms, of the disability with which a child may be born. The definition is as follows:
" Any deformity disease or abnormality, including predisposition (whether or not susceptible of immediate prognosis) to physical or mental defect in the future ".
It is submitted that clearly the definition must be in very wide terms because it is in the nature of things impossible to foresee what form the disability may take.
Subsection (3) provides that the child is to be treated as having sustained its disability and loss immediately after its birth. This is for rather technical reasons, but it produces the result that, under our existing Statute of Limitation 1975, the child may bring its claim up to the time when he or she reaches the age of 21 or when he or she first knew, or could reasonably have known, that he or she had suffered injury and by whose fault, whichever is the later. It may seem hard that a potential defendant may have a claim hanging over him for very many years. But in this respect the Bill merely follows our existing law, although where a pre-conceptual ante-natal injury is involved, the time may be considerably longer. As against this however the longer the time goes by before a claim is actually brought, the more difficult it will be to prove, as evidence will probably have disappeared.
In practice a claim by a child is conducted by its " next friend " or person appointed by the court to have charge of the conduct of the proceedings on the child's behalf. Ordinarily the next friend would be the child's father or mother, although somebody else is chosen if the father or mother, as the case may be, are defendants in the action. Any decision to settle the action by way of accepting a compromise has to be approved by the court under Order 80, Rule 10, of the Rules of the Supreme Court.
There are only two more topics that I think I should mention. One is that
366
dealt with in subsection (4); namely, compensation for loss of expectation of life. It is in our law a well-recognised head of damage that if A, by his wrongful act, either brings about B's instantaneous death or causes him injuries which will result in his expectation of life being shortened, A is in the case of B's instant death liable to pay damages to B's estate and, in other cases, to B himself. This may not seem easy to fit logically into the scheme of the present Bill where the ante-natal injury causes the child, though born alive, to die almost at once, though not so difficult when the injury complained of by the child is a shortening of its expectation of life.
The draftsmen of the Bill have in these circumstances adopted what is in effect a compromise solution. The Bill provides that damages for loss of expectation of life owing to ante-natal injury may be recoverable by the child, but only if he survives for a period of not less than 48 hours after the birth.
The Royal Commission may well wish to reconsider the whole topic of damages for loss of expectation of life. In the meantime, the Law Commission in their Report on Assessment of Damages (No. 56) have proposed the abolition of the right to recover damages for loss of expectation of life, and in its place have proposed the creation of a specific right to recover damages for bereavement. This again must await any amending legislation based on the findings of the Royal Commission. In the meantime, it is submitted that the solution contained in subsection (4) of Clause 4 of this Bill is most practical and sensible for this temporary measure.
The final topic I would mention is that dealt with in subsection (5): it is that the operation of the Bill is limited to one generation. It is submitted that this also is a sensible and necessary limitation of the scope of the Bill. I commend the Bill as a measure of justice to children who, through no fault of their own, have suffered injury—sometimes, as in the thalidomide case, very serious injury indeed. Whatever its failings, it, as it were, holds the legal position for them until the law is more exhaustively revised and improved. As such, I ask your Lordships' House to give the Bill a Second Reading.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, may I ask him to clarify one point. This may be obvious to a lawyer but I am not a lawyer. The child can sue after the passage of the Bill: but has the occurrence got to occur after the passage of the Bill?
Lord STOW HILL: No, my Lords. The occurrence need not occur after the passage of the Bill. That was a problem which was discussed exhaustively in another place and objections were taken on the ground that retrospectivity is undesirable in itself. The answer which I would respectfully offer to the House is this. I agree that retrospectivity is undesirable in circumstances in which it properly applies. If I adjust my tax affairs in accordance with the existing law as I know it and I produce a certain result on my tax liability, it is obviously unfair after I have done that in accordance with the existing law if perhaps years afterwards there is a retrospective change made in the law relating to that aspect of tax affairs which produces an entirely different result from that which I achieved by applying the existing law. That consideration does not apply in this case. If one considers the provisions of the Nuclear Installation Act 1965, and the long period of exposure, it will be practically unworkable if there is not some measure of retrospectivity. I am grateful to the noble Lord for making the point. It is one which has caused anxiety. But I submit that this is a question of balance and, on balance, the answer I have given should come down in favour of that degree of retrospectivity which the Bill includes. I beg to move this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a —(Lord Stow Hill.)
12.8 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking my noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill for the characteristically lucid and thorough way in which he has explained the provisions of this Bill. I am pleased to welcome the Bill both personally and on behalf of the Government. The law governing liability for ante-natal injury has long been obscure, and the necessity for clarifying it has in recent years become all too sadly apparent.
368
The courts in this country have never had an opportunity to dispel the uncertainty. There has never been a case which has really made that possible. Indeed, the very uncertainty in the state of the law may itself have been, and in the future may continue to be unless we clarify it, a factor in preventing suitable and worthy cases from coming before the courts.
Following the public attention which was, not surprisingly, given to the thalidomide tragedy in 1972, as my noble and learned friend said, my predecessor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, requested the Law Commission to undertake an urgent study of the difficult problems involved in this branch of the law. The Commission proceeded, as has been explained, to carry out very wide consultations with medical, insurance and legal experts of all kinds and only 18 months later, in June 1974, were able to produce their Report on Injuries to Unborn Children. I should like to pay tribute to the Law Commission for producing, in so short a time, so thorough and authoritative a Report, and also for annexing to it a draft Bill which is always one of the most valuable services that the Law Commission, in their reports, provide to Parliament.
The Bill now before the House, which very largely represents the proposals contained in the Law Commission's report, is, I believe, right both in its approach and in its scope. As my noble and learned friend has explained, it would enable a child who suffered a congenital injury as a result of another's fault to recover damages from the wrongdoer, subject to the usual defences available to a defendant in a tort action.
There is, plainly, a close relationship between this measure of law reform and the matters which are at present being considered by the Royal Commission on Civil Liability and Compensation for Personal Injury. I have given consideration to this earlier, as has the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson, who is the Chairman of that Royal Commission. I am very pleased to see that he now appears in the list of speakers today, and we look forward to hearing his views. The possible overlap between the work of the Commission and this Bill was fully discussed in another place. The Royal Commission has undertaken a

369
wide-ranging review of the whole area of personal injury compensation, of which congenital injury forms but a small, though an important, part. I look forward as I am sure does the whole House, to the Royal Commission's proposals in relation to this and other branches of the law, and would always advise the House to look with disapproval on any measure which would adversely or unjustifiably impede or pre-empt the Royal Commission's work. In my view, this Bill does not present any such problem. It is a limited proposal based on the principles of tort liability, whose purpose is not to create new rights and duties or a novel regime of liability, but simply to clarify the present obscurity of the law.
It may well prove to be only an interim measure, and may be overtaken when the Royal Commission's Report is implemented. None the less, in my view, we ought not to postpone carrying and giving effect to this Bill. We do not yet know what the Royal Commission will propose, nor do we know when it will report. In any event, art appreciable time is hound to elapse before full implementation of its report will be possible. In the meantime, it is highly probable that children will suffer congenital disabilities, some of them as a result of another's fault. It would be wrong that they should face the present uncertainty in the law, given the opportunity which this Bill now provides to make clear, as a matter of law, what their rights are.
I must add that this Bill is limited in its scope, as my noble and learned friend has explained. Unhappily, many thousands of children are born deformed or defective each year, and it would only add to the burden which those children and their parents and others responsible for them already bear, if we were to give the impression that this Bill provides an easy answer to all their problems; obviously, it does not. In only a limited number of cases will it be possible to establish liability and recover damages. As has been explained, in all tort actions causation and fault must he proved in the state of the law as it exists at present, and the origin of many types of congenital disabilities cannot readily be established. Many children are born disabled as a result not of anyone's fault, but of circumstances beyond human control. Such children will not benefit directly
370
in any way from this Bill, and false hopes should not be raised. The most we can say is that, in making clear what the law is, a few children may benefit directly and others may be benefited indirectly, in that the clarity which the Bill will bring in place of the present uncertainty will at least enable those who cannot claim under it to know where they stand and to make plans for the future. But even to benefit a few children, disabled by the tortious fault of another, is a wholly and worthy legislative object.
It is indeed a modest claim that we make for the Bill, but its very modesty serves to show that we need not wait for the Royal Commission. It may be that in the future there will be a regime of compensation for personal injury which Will benefit children w hose disabilities cannot be shown to arise from the fault of another. But such a scheme is far beyond the limited scope of this Bill which. as I have said, is intended to clarify the law in this area of personal injury liability. More wide-ranging and fundamental reforms—for example, the imposition of" nu fault liability "—arc relevant to all forms of personal injury compensation, and resolution of the problems to which that proposal gives rise must await the conclusion of the Royal Commission's deliberations and be decided upon in that wider context.
Finally—and I wish to address the House only briefly on the Second Reading of this Bill—I am sure that the House would wish me to thank my noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill for taking up what I regard as this very useful law reform measure. I am very pleased that the primary responsibility for it rests in the hands of one whose widely reputed learning, thoroughness and expertise—and, not least, his humanity—has shone through his speech this morning. Those gifts will, I am sure, be of great benefit when we reach the Committee stage of the Bill. I accordingly have great pleasure in supporting the Second Reading of the Bill.
12.18 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I shall have to ask your Lordships to wait for a moment before we listen to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson, whose views we are all very anxious to hear, because despite the

371
two admirable speeches to which we have listened I still have a few things to say about this Bill, though perhaps not as many as in some circumstances might be necessary. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, has done such a thorough job in explaining it to us that none of that need be repeated, and I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for giving his views about the relationship of this legislation to the Report of the Royal Commission, when it comes.
Any of your Lordships who happened to be listening to the radio this morning may have heard a rather remarkable boy. He was one of the victims of thalidomide, but he certainly was not complaining about it. When one listened to the enormous—indeed, staggering—range of activities that he appeared to enjoy, one was at once very heartened. But, upon reflection, it occurred to me, at any rate, that the adaptation of the equipment and everything that he uses in the course of his life must he very expensive, and I do not suppose that the family of the boy has a great deal of money. There is, therefore, a practical purpose behind this legislation and for that reason, if for none other, I find it very easy to welcome.
Both noble and learned Lords who preceded me have said that, as it stands now, the law on this subject is uncertain. Indeed, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor went on to say that it has been long obscure. It has always been obscure—except, apparently, in Scotland. Certainly South of the Border there has never been any decided case which deals with this matter. It is this fact more than anything else which persuades me that legislation is at this stage needed. In other countries there have been attempts by the courts in the course of litigation to specify what are people's rights. In Southern Ireland there has been legislation on the matter but in this country there has been no decided case. Perhaps of all the reasons which the Law Commission put forward in paragraph 110 of their report in support of the need to legislate now, this is the most important.
Not only is the law uncertain—and it would no doubt be very risky and expensive for any individual litigant to try to discover what his Common Law rights are
372
—but there is the corollary that upon the facts of any given case it is unlikely that one would get the answer to all the questions, because the facts simply would not cause all the questions to be asked, let alone answered. Those two points, very forcibly made by the Law Commission, seem to me most certainly to justify the introduction of legislation at this stage. In so recommending, the Law Commission have been very careful, so far as they can, to avoid conflicts.
There are a number of Law Commission reports with which provisions in this Bill potentially might conflict. There is a report by the Law Reform Committee and there is, of course, the forthcoming report of the Royal Commission. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has said, this Bill has been very carefully considered in another place and certainly the Law Commission themselves have taken full account of the possibility of a conflict with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson, and his Committee. Paragraph 3 of their report deals with this possibility, and we know that the Government, when setting up both matters for consideration, had this in mind as well. I should very much like to hear what the noble and learned Lord has to say in a moment about this matter, because we should all be very concerned if he thought that there was some undesirable by-product from this legislation which would in some way curb what he and his committee might wish to report. Certainly, I should like to reserve judgment about anything that he says, because who better than the noble and learned Lord to tell us about these matters? At the moment, however, I am convinced by what is said by the Law Commission themselves, by what has been said in another place and by what the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has told us this morning.
There is one point about this. Bill which is very evident. I do not wish again to go into all the details, but my noble friend Lord Hawke found that there was no easy answer to a question which, as a layman, he validly wanted to put. The reason for this is that the Law Commission have produced an incredibly dense piece of drafting—and by " dense " I do not mean stupid; on the contrary, the drafting is immensely acute. The Law Corn-mission have had to stitch this provision

373
into the Common Law so that it will knit together with other parts which in themselves are not static but flexible.
They have also had to fit this provision into the law of contract, in such cases as the exemptions clauses, and they have had to deal with a number of different questions of policy which are very finely balanced. For myself, I find it difficult to decide about the merits of Clause 2, the sole exception to the case which is general in the Bill that the tort committed by a mother will not give rise to liability that can be enforced by the child. It may be that we are trading upon the good nature of the Motor Insurance Bureau but fortunately we are lucky in having that institution to back up the compulsory third party insurance under the Road Traffic Acts, and I suspect that on balance the answer is right.
There is also the point of retrospectivity that my noble friend Lord Hawke raised. While I agree with the answer given to him by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, I would suggest to the House that there may be a further point in this respect. Whenever the event which turns out to have caused the injury may have occurred, if the Bill is merely clarificatory of the existing law then we are not creating a new right: we are merely explaining what in future may be the details of the enforcement of an existing right. And if the injury has already occurred before the Bill comes on to the Statute Book it would not follow that without the Bill it would not have been a case where the child could have sued. Therefore I find that this is a good deal less reprehensible than almost all other retrospective legislation.
There is only one other point I want to mention, and it is perhaps both general and also rather technical. One of the enormous advantages for everybody of the Law Commission's procedure is that not only do they produce a draft Bill at the back of their report but that they also put beside it explanatory notes. For those who are going to have to interpret the law—and, as I say, this Bill is very closely and cunningly constructed—those explanatory notes will be of immense value to text writers, but there is one practical problem. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has told us, there have been minor amendments to the Law Commission's text. I do not
374
think that any of them are of great substance but some of them are sufficient to change the nuances in the legislation from what it was that was explained by way of the notes on the Law Commission's report. I know of no device whereby amended explanatory notes can be produced so that an up-to-date version will be available to those who wish to use this Bill—as it will be when it has passed through Parliament.
Without having considered the matter too carefully, I would simply make one suggestion. I would not for a moment wish to incur the wrath of the noble Lord. Lord Shepherd, by suggesting that there should be extra public expenditure, but when, for instance. the Bill comes to be printed in the loose-leaf Statutes it might be that on that occasion loose leaf amended notes could go with it. I simply put it to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor as a possible suggestion whereby we could get the maximum benefit from the work put in by the Law Commission. But that may not he possible.
With those comments, I would recommend from this side of the House that this Bill should indeed be given a Second Reading. We shall have to see whether there is anything left to deal with in Committee, because the Bill has already been very thoroughly discussed in another place.
12.29 p.m.
Lord PEARSON: My Lords, as your Lordships have been informed, I have to declare an interest or a special position as the Chairman of the Royal Commission to which reference has been made: the Royal Commission on Civil Liability and Compensation for Personal Injury. I have to explain why the Royal Commission have had, and still have, some misgivings about this Bill in its effect on their work. Let me say at once that the explanations which have been given by my noble and learned friend Lord Stow Hill and by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor as to the limited scope and possibly merely temporary duration of the Bill when it has become an Act, are of great assistance to the Royal Commission. I appreciate the great value to us of what has been said and I shall come back to that later.

375
I have to begin by explaining the reasons for the misgivings which we have felt and still feel. I am in rather a difficult position, having to steer between Scylla and Charybdis and various other dangerous rocks and whirlpools. On the one hand, I must not try to anticipate or to forecast what will be the ultimate findings and recommendations of the Royal Commission. Any attempt to present any kind of controversial argument on any point would lack the necessary foundations and therefore must be completely ruled out. On the other hand, I have to explain the attitude of the Royal Commission and why they have not welcomed this Bill. It is because this Bill, on the face of it, pre-empts and pre-judges an important issue which is expressly within the terms of reference of the Royal Commission and is intimately associated with a number of other questions which we have to consider. Eventually we have to consider them altogether.
The principle of this Bill is to recognise and affirm and regulate the application of the action of tort to congenital disabilities caused by pre-natal injuries. There is considerable doubt whether congenital disabilities are a suitable field for the operation of the law of tort. I am not seeking to anticipate any conclusion of the Royal Commission. We may say that they are suitable, or we may not. If we come to the conclusion that they are a suitable field for the action of tort, then of course no major difficulty will arise, although there might still be some questions of minor detail to be considered. But if we come to the conclusion that the action of tort is not a suitable means for providing compensation in such cases, and that something wider and radically different is required, then we shall be in the awkward situation of having to recommend either the total repeal or drastic modification of an Act of Parliament only recently passed.
Therefore I would suggest to your Lordships that plainly this Bill could be an obstacle to the work of the Royal Commission. In order to show that this is not merely an academic point, and in order to make plain what the attitude of the Royal Commission is, and has been, I will read a passage from a letter which I wrote to The Times in January last after careful consideration and full approval
376
by the Commission as a whole. I said this:
" Parliament should also be made aware of the special objections which can be and have been urged against relying on the operation of the tort action in the field of ante-natal injuries:
First, according to the expert evidence which we have received it is only in the rarest of cases that even the physical cause of a congenital deformity can he ascertained, and even if that is ascertainable the plaintiff in an action of tort would still have to prove that the deformity was caused by fault, usually negligence, on the part of the defendant.
Secondly, thus the Bill, so far from dealing comprehensively with a widespread and highly distressing social problem, could result in compensation for no more than a minute proportion of the children concerned. The Bill therefore would raise many false hopes, not least by its very title.
Thirdly, there would still be delay and expense, especially in difficult and complicated actions.
Fourthly, the accusations and counter-accusations in such cases could have an adverse effect on family relations and on relations between doctors and patients. For example, in an action against a drug company or a doctor, the defence might allege that the damage to the unborn child was caused by the mother's own action such as smoking or drug addiction.
I hope it will be accepted that this Bill falls far short of providing a comprehensive solution to these problems. If it is passed, it will come into effect probably less than a year before the Royal Commission's report is presented, and that report may recommend a different system of compensation.
The Royal Commission understand why this Bill is being introduced but feel it right to draw attention to the complexities of the problem."
That is what was said in the letter. I do not wish to add anything to it, but I do wish to acknowledge now with warm appreciation that important assurances have been given. In short, they have been given first in another place and now in your Lordships' House. I understand the assurances to be to this effect, that the passing of this Bill will not be allowed to pre-judge or prejudice the consideration of the Commission's conclusions and recommendations when their report is made. I should refer also to paragraphs 5 and 6 of the Law Commission's report, on which this Bill is based. I will read one sentence. They say this:
" It is our view that any legislation based on our proposals neither can nor should pre-judge the much wider issues which the Royal Commission is considering."
So my Lords, while we—the Royal Commission—do not like this Bill, we take comfort from the assurances that

377
have been given and we shall of course rely upon those assurances in forming our conclusions and making our eventual recommendation.
Lord BRADWELL: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I should like to ask one question. Would he consider that what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor called. " circumstances beyond human control ", would include the testing of nuclear devices, since a subject can now sue the Crown and the most expert geneticists have given it as their considered opinion that a calculable and definable number of babies are born blind or deformed as a result of these tests?
Lord PEARSON: My Lords, I can only assure the noble Lord that these very difficult problems are occupying the earliest attention of the Royal Commission, and we will certainly do our best to provide some more adequate and comprehensive remedy for what we fully appreciate are infinitely distressing cases—more comprehensive than would be provided by this Bill.
12.38 p.m.
The COUNTESS of LOUDOUN: My Lords. I must confess to having had grave misgivings when I first read this Bill, hut having carefully gone through all the stages of its progress through another place I find that now many of my fears have been allayed.
This Bill will confer clear legal rights on children who are injured before birth; those whose disabilities can be shown to result from a pre-natal event caused by the fault of another. It will not assist those whose disabilities result from inherited characteristics or natural illness or pure accident. It will not assist those whose disabilities result from unidentifiable causes. So it is a modest Bill, and certainly it will have a limited scope. Only a small number of children will benefit from it directly, but the very fact that damages will be awarded to them will draw attention to the severity of the problems of all disabled children.
What are some of the arguments against this Bill? Some people object to it on the ground that litigation by families will cause distress. but the Bill compels no
378
one to sue; it merely gives the opportunity to those who wish to do so. It has also been claimed that the Bill, which will help a small minority of handicapped children, will jeopardise the long-term interests of the majority.
Here. I should like your Lordships to consider the thalidomide campaign and the financial benefits that stemmed from it. It was as a direct result of this campaign and the pressure it generated that the Rowntree Trust was set up, and £3 million was allocated to help all disabled children throughout Britain. This is still continuing, with more money being allocated all the time to help these children. In the three years since it was launched, this Trust has helped some 22,000 families at a cost of over £6 million: so many more than the original thalidomide victims have benefited.
My Lords, we are all waiting anxiously the report of the Pearson Royal Commission on Civil Liabilities. It may be some time before we receive this report and for the subsequent legislation to be enacted. Meanwhile, some children will have no legal redress for injuries. Surely, anything that extends the rights of disabled children is to be welcomed, however limited it may be. The system of no-fault liability, a very firm and more equitable system, is one which I favour, as did many of my friends interested in the question of disabled children. This system has been working very well for some time in New Zealand, and I very much hope that eventually we will be in a position to adopt it here; but this is very much in the future. In the meantime, the Bill before us, despite its limitations and drawbacks, may help a number of disabled children, small though that number may be. I do hope that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading today.
12.42 p.m.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, it may seem very rash of me to rise to speak on a subject which so far has been discussed, with the exception of the noble Countess, Lady Loudoun, who has just sat down, entirely by distinguished and learned lawyers, but in a way it is particularly for that reason that I felt that as a doctor perhaps I should get up and say something. To me, this Bill presents enormous

379
difficulties. It presents difficulties of proof as to whether the disability was or was not done by the supposed tort, and difficulties as to what is a tort in these circumstances. I was pleased to hear the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson, who carefully did not come to any final conclusion but begged to doubt whether adjustments to the law of tort were a relevant way of dealing with the question of congenital deformities and disabilities.
My Lords, one difficulty which I think can be rapidly got out of the way, although it cannot be answered, is the question of the Statute of Limitations. Do I understand that a doctor who took a certain action, perhaps X-raying a pregnant woman at a very early stage of the pregnancy, must keep his records for 21 years in case some deformity or congenital disease develops in the child? Is he under possible threat of litigation for the whole of that time? I agree with anyone who says that this is a very difficult Bill to read. It seems to me that Clause 1(3) leaves this matter very obscure, but I thought that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stow Hill, referred to a period of 21 years. However, that is just one of the difficulties.
As to what is tort and what is not, I am not a lawyer, and am not arguing this from the legal point of view, but I should like to give your Lordships one or two examples. An example which I know only too well is that of a woman who developed rubella, or German measles, at a very early stage of the pregnancy. She consulted a very distinguished obstetrician who advised that the chances of any disability were small, that the pregnancy should go on and should not be terminated. The child was in fact born deaf, with all the disabilities and sadnesses that follow such an incident. Was that doctor committing what I understand is called a tortious act when he gave that advice? Your Lordships may say that the answer is simple, but I do not think it is simple at all. I think it is a case which might well be fought in court. Having been fought, is it then going to have the repercussion of possibly influencing a doctor's advice because behind him he knows there is this Bill which may lead him into trouble if he does not give advice in accordance with what seems to be the recognised view? There is no end to this, because in bio-
380
logical matters, there is no beginning and there is no end. The consultation might have taken place a little further on in the pregnancy, and then the doctor's advice might have to be different in order that he could not be sued for giving wrong advice. What happens if a child is invited to a party, and the person giving the party fails to disclose that one of the children in the party is in quarantine for rubella, and the mother of the other child develops it, with the possible consequences? Is that a tortious act, or is it not?
Then there are all kinds of modern ways, really remarkable ways, of finding out from examination of the fluid which surrounds the unborn child, and by other means (X-rays and so on), the state of the unborn child—whether, for instance, it is a carrier of a known hereditary disease which occurs in that particular family. Perhaps it might be haemophilia. The sex of the child can be determined. All these are actions which in certain cases could be deleterious to the mother and which might be in occasional cases disastrous. None of the modern methods of investigation in medicine is entirely free from risk. Here again is a case that I can see being argued in the courts for a very long time and at very great expense.
My Lords, there is then the question of whether the disabilities were attributable to the supposed tort. I think all noble Lords have referred to the difficulties of proof in most of these cases. It seems to me that those who drafted the Bill and those who support the Bill—and, of course, I support the humane aspects which led to its drafting—have been over-influenced by the rather obvious and very tragic case of the thalidomide babies. But there are far more congenital disorders and disabilities which are due to chromosome mutations which can be induced by radiation, or may occur through what we call natural causes; in other words, causes which we do not know or understand. The chance of a certain mutation occurring in a chromosome may be X in 100,000 births. If radiation is being used, or something of that kind, it may be X + 10 in 100,000 births, but no one can possibly tell whether this particular case is one of the naturally occurring ones or one of the extra ones which occur when radiation is used in certain circumstances.

381
For all those reasons it seems to me that this Bill. with the best of intentions, is going to give rise to a very large number of difficulties.
There is one matter to which I should have referred, which is Clause 1(5), which is a sort of let-out clause for doctors, if I may put it in that way. The actual wording of it is:
" The defendant is not answerable … if in a professional capacity he took reasonable care having due regard to then received professional opinion applicable to the particular class of case."
So. far from letting the doctors out of a difficult situation, I think that is adding to their difficulties enormously. Experimental medicine must go on. If unjustifiable experiments are being done on human persons. there is a remedy at law for anybody who is injured thereby. But I would remind your Lordships that every operation that is ever done has been done for a first time. It seems to me that these new developments of finding out about the unborn child would not have taken place if doctors looked at the Bill and read Clause 1(5):
"…having due regard to then received professional opinion applicable to the particular class of case."
If you read it literally, no further advances in medicine can take place. I know that is not the intention and it would not be interpreted in that way, but nevertheless it does not seem to me to add clarification in this very difficult subject.
12.52 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I had not intended to intervene, but may I just make two or three very short comments. First, I think that the noble Lord who has just spoken has perhaps overlooked the fact that the burden of proof in all these cases will be on the plaintiff. The difficulty of ascertaining liability and causation is one which inures to the advantage of a potential defendant, among others the medical attendant, and not to his disadvantage. The more difficult it is the less likely it is that the plaintiff should succeed. With the solitary exception of the application of the Statute of Limitations, which is a Committee point, I think he can reassure himself on most of the individual cases he has mentioned. In particular I am quite clear in my own mind that in the second
382
of the two cases he mentioned—namely, the case of a doctor who advises against a termination of pregnancy—there could be no possible liability, because the child who is born deaf as a result of an infection by the mother of rubella cannot under this Bill claim for not having been aborted before he was born. This, I think, is absolutely plain on the construction of the Bill.
But I intervened simply to clarify my own rather limited part in what I might call the conception of the Bill. f originally came across the thalidomide problem long before most other people; it occurred either in 1957 or 1958, when I was in touch with the Medical Research Council, and it was then I first heard of the thalidomide problems. I was then very much concerned about the legal possibilities in the case. I was persuaded by the then Secretary of the Medical Research Council that the children could probably not have recovered, partly because of the absence of any clear legal liability for ante-natal injuries, and partly because he persuaded me that in the then state of the medical art the injuries could not have been foreseen. However, it was apparent to me, from then onwards, that serious legal problems either could or most likely would occur from time to time. When the thalidomide actions began, and I found myself halfway through them as Lord Chancellor, I felt it was absolutely essential that the Law Commission should recommend legislation to deal with the whole problem of ante-natal injuries, due to the vast complexity of the problems involved. This was accentuated by the fact that there was current litigation in Scotland which resulted in a Scottish case deciding that under the law of Scotland there was a liability for ante-natal injury. It seemed to me to be intolerable that there should be one law in this respect for Scotland and one for England and Northern Ireland. This is what led me to refer the matter to the Law Commission.
At a somewhat later stage I became persuaded that this was not enough, partly because the thalidomide case developed in its various complexities, but partly also because an increasing amount of evidence began to emerge that certainly in Massachusetts and certainly in New Zealand a case existed for non-fault liability in personal injury cases

383
in general. It was even argued that it may well be the case—I am not seeking to pre-empt what the noble and learned Lord may ultimately decide—that without increasing expense to the insurance companies and without loss to the potential plaintiffs a more efficient system could be arrived at whereby those who suffer from accidents of one kind or another, if I may use the word in a generic sense, could get compensation almost as generous as that which they now get under the far more doubtful chances of litigation.
I therefore persuaded, or helped to persuade, my then right honourable friend the Prime Minister to set up the Pearson Commission, and I was, I think, the author of that idea. I made it very clear at the time, I think, in this House but certainly through my right honourable friend in another place, that, although there was a potential conflict between the two bodies, the Pearson Commission report was not to prejudice anything which might emerge from the Law Commission recommendations under the earlier reference. It seemed to me that this was necessary because the Law Commission recommendations were an interim step to take in the light of the existing law, whereas the Pearson Commission recommendations would be a far more widely ranging change in the law on liability for injuries over a much wider field and certainly not confined to antenatal injuries. It is not for me to judge between the two points of view which have been put forward, but certainly from the very start it has been made clear that Parliament would be free to legislate on the more limited field and on the interim measures without prejudice to the ultimate results of the Pearson Commission. I thought it right to lay that down as my own understanding of the matter, simply as a matter of history.
12.59 p.m.
Lord STOW HILL: My Lords, it is customary for the mover of a Bill to reply shortly to the debate. I should like to begin my remarks by thanking your Lordships very sincerely for the way in which your Lordships have received this Bill. May I also associate myself with what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said in reference to the work of the Commission. Their work
384
was extremely thorough, really very brilliant, and undertaken in a very short time. I feel that 1 am at fault in not having said that with regard to their work when I was making my opening speech.
May I refer shortly to some of the things that have been said in the course of the debate. May I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone. that I should have thought that he deserved very well indeed of us in having done what he has just described in having engineered the setting up of the Royal Commission, for reasons which I think I indicated in broad outline in my opening remarks.
May I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson, that I certainly would think it quite out of the question that anything which is done as a result of this Bill, anything enacted by this temporary Bill, could conceivably preempt or prevent Parliament giving such effect as it thought appropriate to the recommendations which the Royal Commission may make. The noble and learned Lord asked, could I give, I think he put it, a personal assurance that Parliament would not do that. Of course I cannot do that, because I cannot govern the view of Parliament. It is for Parliament to decide what it does. No doubt in the ordinary way, when the Royal Commission has made its recommendations, they will be considered and carefully pondered on, and in due course it will be for the two Houses of Parliament to decide what. if any, action they decide to take to implement those recommendations. As I have said, I greatly hope that they will implement any recommendation that may be made in favour of no-fault liability. I will give to the noble and learned Lord the assurance that, so far as in me lies, so far as I can influence it, I certainly will do my best to see that any recommendation of the Royal Commission which it seems ought to be accepted will be in fact accepted and substituted for anything which is contained in the Bill which the House is at present considering. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will feel that that is, in the first place, all that I can assure him, and, secondly, that he will think that I have correctly stated the position, and that the work of the Royal Commission is adequately safeguarded in being left at the discretion and to the decision of Parliament as a whole.

385
May I turn to the noble Countess and to the noble Lord, Lord Platt, both of whom—neither of them lawyers—contributed observations of the greatest value to this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Platt, apologised for taking part in the debate. I hope that he will withdraw that apology. I am sure that we all welcome him as a participant in the debate because he could add a great deal which lawyers very often are not in a position to add. May I make some observations with regard to what he said. He said, " How are you going to prove fault'? " If it cannot be proved, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, just said, then the case will not he established on behalf of the infant: that is that. I hope that it will not he as difficult as all that to prove a case. I accept that opinion changes, arid that various features are present in different sets of circumstances which may make it difficult to prove. All I can say is, so much the worse for the plaintiff. But that applies in every case which comes by way of litigation before the courts.
The noble Lord said, " Isn't it very hard on a potential defendant, a doctor, that he might have to wait years under our existing Statute of Limitations before he knows whether he is going to he held liable in respect of some deformity'? " That is the case with regard to every other defendant who has to conform to our existing scheme of limitation of actions. When you are concerned with an infant you may have, under our existing legislation, doctor or no doctor, to submit to having a claim hanging over you for years and years and years: the period until the infant reaches the age of 21, or could first know that he had a cause of action against sonic particular defendant, whichever is the longer. So in that respect the doctors are in no worse a position than other citizens, although I can see that they are in perhaps a rather worse position in regard to some pre-conceptual injuries. The difference is not so very much. This was again carefully considered, and one had to come down to a decision one way or the other.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, perhaps I could intervene to say, in view of what the noble Lord has said and in view of what t he noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said, that I was not trying to make matters easier for the medical
386
profession. I pointed out certain ways in which I thought it could he made difficult. What I was concerned about was to point out the difficulties it was going to make for everybody: the plaintiff, the defendant, and the rest of us.
Lord STOW HILL: My Lords, I am sorry if the language I used conveyed a misleading impression. I simply meant that everybody has to put up with this, or nearly this; people are not always quite in the same position. I feel really that he is much better protected than he indicated in his view by the provisions of Clause 1(5). Suppose you take a doctor who has treated a particular patient, a mother or anybody else, and in applying the treatment he has used professional knowledge as existent at the time. The noble Lord read out the language:
" The defendant is not answerable to the child, for anything he did or omitted to do when responsible in a professional capacity for treating or advising the parent, if he took reasonable care having due regard to then received professional opinion applicable to the particular class of case …"
If the doctor treating the parent uses the accepted canons of treatment as understood at that time, then provided always that he does not act negligently and provided he uses " reasonable care ", as the subsection says, he is under no liability at all. I submit that that is a considerable guarantee, and that it adds greatly to the protection of the professional man, and not only the doctor.
The noble Countess was concerned with the possibility of this sort of thing causing distress to families. The Law Commission in particular had consultations and invited the opinions of judges, the President of the Family Court, and there were oral discussions. As a result of the discussions and deliberations which took place on the circular that they sent round, and of the meetings, they left out the mother as a possible defendant for that sort of reason. As I said in my opening speech, it was thought better that the child should not have compensation where the mother was to blame, rather than that the child should grow up thinking, " My disability is due to some fault of my mother. " That might have been the right or the wrong solution, but it was a solution which was reached, may I say, as a matter of a practical

387
approach to a desperately difficult problem, as I accept. I think that that is all I can usefully add in reply. and having said that—and I apologise for having inflicted on your Lordships such a long speech in opening the debate—may I hope that your Lordships will agree to give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question. Bill read 2a. and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

EXPLOSIVES (AGE OF PURCHASE. &c.) BILL
1.10 p.m.
Lord AYLESTONE: My Lords. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Bill came to us from another place having been introduced there by Mr. Gwilym Roberts. the Member for Cannock. as a Private Member's Bill. I wish at the outset to pay tribute to Mr. Roberts. who has persistently and with sustained interest over the years worked hard to improve the safety of, and achieve a reduction in the number of injuries from the use of. fireworks. Indeed. in 1969 he introduced a 10-Minute Rule Bill. Noble Lords who know the other place will realise that for success with a 10-Minute Rule Bill one has to be really lucky. and Mr. Roberts was not: it went the way of all flesh and was lost. Finally, however, his Private Member's Bill went through all its stages in another place with very little difficulty and I hope that this House will be equally generous and that we can add something to legislation on the sale and use of fireworks which may in the long-term prevent injuries.
Although the title of this measure is the Explosives (Age of Purchase) Bill, its real concern is only with fireworks because most other explosives require a special licence issued by the Chief of Police to purchase them, apart from any desire to use them, so the Bill deals only with a few aspects of the sale and use of fireworks with a view to greater safety. It is that and nothing else. The Government and the fireworks trade, if I may so describe it—wholesalers, retailers and manufacturers—have reached agreement on a number of additional safety measures which
388
should still further prevent fireworks injuries at that period of the year, on and about 5th November. which has been regarded as the fireworks period. I hope the House will forgive me if I mention some of the points of agreement between the trade and the Government and other organisations. I might add that it was not complete agreement in every case because there are people who feel that fireworks should he banned altogether. and no improvement in the law or in the regulations controlling them quite meets their view.
The Governmental responsibility for fireworks was transferred in 1974 from the Home Office to the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection, and shortly after that transfer the then Minister of State decided to conduct a full review of the manufacture, sale and use of fireworks. In doing so he decided that the best way was to issue a Consultative Document to all interested organisations. to hold meetings with them, to hear their views, to see what would he necessary in the non-legislative field—-that is. by agreement—and what would be necessary on the legislative side, of which this Bill is part. The Consultative Document was issued to 96 organisations including manufacturers, wholesalers. retailers. Government Departments, local authorities, fire departments, police. women's organisations, organisations of aged people and of course the medical profession, and numerous meetings and discussions took place.
I have said that there was fairly general agreement between the trade and the Government. In this respect we should pay tribute to the fireworks industry. whose sales were already falling rapidly, in that they not only made contributions to the discussions but suggested methods by which safety in the use of fireworks could be improved. I will quickly go through some of the main decisions and points of agreement.
The first was the phasing out of what are known as flying fireworks—flying saucers, helicopters and so on—fireworks which move through the air in, it is hoped. a particular direction and away from the viewers of the display. something which does not always happen because, 1 am told, they are controlled by fins, made of either cardboard or tin, which can

389
become bent in packaging or in being handled by boys and girls using them. They can therefore go in the wrong direction and he a danger. They are to be phased out. The industry also decided to cease the production of what are known as jumping crackers. Noble Lords will know what they are; having been ignited and thrown on the floor, they jump in all directions and never in the direction one expects. The decision, volunteered by the industry. was to cease their production.
The next point of agreement was to reduce by 50 per cent. over the next two years the number of bangers produced. Perhaps I should explain that bangers are fireworks which have nothing to do with that edible delicacy which one can obtain in the Bishops' Bar. They make a noise and that is why they are called hangers: they are miniature bombs. The agreement was to reduce the number of bangers produced by November 1977—that is, over a period of two years—by 50 per cent., and the industry voluntarily offered to reduce the explosive content of hangers. It is the flying type of firework plus hangers which cause most injuries. Perhaps I should mention the danger of igniting a hanger and pushing it through someone's, particularly an aged person's, letter box where, in an enclosed space such as the hallway of a small house, it can he very frightening indeed. It makes a terrific noise and many elderly people have been frightened in that way. The next point of agreement was to limit the sale of fireworks to a period of about four weeks, three weeks before 5th November and a few days afterwards.
Another point of agreement was by November 1977—that is. over a two-year period—to restrict the sale of all fireworks, other than bangers and sparklers and large individual pieces, to boxed selections; selection boxes of fireworks not containing bangers but containing those fireworks which are not regarded as quite so dangerous as bangers or the flying type. This again was agreed by the industry. It may be that boxed selections will be beyond the pockets of some of the young boys who are concerned only in buying bangers and things that make a noise. For that reason it was felt that boxes should not contain hangers. As for sparklers, noble Lords will know that in their use one holds a piece of wire—I do not know the content
390
of the explosive; it may he magnesium—and, when lit. stars move in every possible direction. There is not much real harm or danger from their use and they can be held in the hand, preferably a gloved hand. but there is danger if the sparks should fall into a nearby box of fireworks which have not yet been used.
The next point of agreement was an increase in the maximum fee for registering premises in which fireworks are kept. The current maximum fee is 63p—or 12s. 6d., as it used to be—and that has been the fee for well over 100 years. The Government have no intention. in arriving at a new maximum fee, of doing anything punitive, and it will he up to the local authorities who administer this side of the licensing or regularising of fireworks to decide within the new figure what fee should he paid. provided it does not exceed the maximum. 63p. This will require legislation and a Government order.
I turn to the Bill before us. which is the legislative requirement of what might describe as the package deal. Clause 1(1) refers to Section 31 of the Explosive Substances Act 1875, which makes it an offence to sell fireworks to a child apparently under the age of 13. The word " apparently " makes it difficult to enforce this 100-year-old law. It is difficult when a boy of 12 approaches the counter of a newsagent's shop to buy fireworks. The retailer has to try to decide whether or not the boy is over 13. It is not difficult with a child aged only 9 or 10 years, but it is very difficult with a 12-year-old, particularly if he is a big boy. Looking at the record one sees that there has been little evidence of the evasion, willingly, knowingly, or purposely of this section of the 1875 Act. But in the Bill now before us the apparent age goes up from 13 years to 16, which would rule out, without much difficulty, the 13 or 14-year-old boy. The record of injuries arising from the use of fireworks shows that most injuries have occurred to children under 13.
In 1875 the penalty for selling fireworks to a child under 13 was £5. In 1967, under the Criminal Justice Act, the penalty was increased to £20, and under this Bill a penalty of £200 is proposed. I have endeavoured to discover what figure would today be equivalent to a penalty of £5 101 years ago, but that is

391
beyond me. It is certainly an astronomical figure, and £200 may or may not be enough.
Clause 1(2) deals with another section of the 1875 Act, Section 80, which makes it absolutely clear that fireworks must not be thrown in a public place and the penalty for so doing was, 101 years ago, £5. We are told that there was considerable hooliganism even in those days and that fireworks were thrown into passing coaches. Consequently many people were frightened and so action was then taken. It was felt that £5 was an adequate penalty, but in this Bill it is proposed that the penalty should be £200.
Under Clause 2 it is provided that if the Bill becomes an Act it shall come into force one month from the date of its passing, and so it would then cover " fireworks day " this year. The Bill does not extend to Northern Ireland. The reason for this is quite simple. In 1970 the then Northern Ireland Government decided that, with two exceptions, no fireworks should be sold to anyone without his first having obtained a licence. I have seen one of the application forms relating to this and I can understand why, after 1971, very few people in Northern Ireland bought many fireworks for legitimate and genuine fireworks display purposes. The prohibition on the sale of fireworks in Northern Ireland applies, with two exceptions, to all fireworks, unless one has made an application and has a licence. One exception is caps for toy pistols, with which noble Lords (and perhaps noble Baronesses) are familiar. The other is snaps used in Christmas crackers. Neither of these items is particularly dangerous. They are the only items of that type which, in Northern Ireland, can be bought without a licence.
Finally, I should like to say a few words about fireworks injuries because it is important to get this point on the record. Since 1962 hospitals have been required to provide information on all injuries which they have treated in the four weeks period around 5th November—Guy Fawkes day, which we continue to celebrate 370 years after the event. The record of injuries during the fireworks period shows that between 1962 and 1975 there was a considerable drop in the number of injuries each year. But it must
392
also be borne in mind that sales of fireworks have dropped in the same period from 300 million individual items to 150 million.
It is heartening that the number of injuries has continued to drop, but unhappily the injuries are still, in the main, to children under 13 years. In 1975 the total injuries were a little more than a quarter of what they were in 1962. Nevertheless, last year, 1975, 400 children were treated in hospital, but the number of children who had to spend one or more nights in hospital as a result of injuries from fireworks was approximately one-seventh of what it was in 1962, when records were started. So the trend is heartening and encouraging. Unhappily, the number of eye injuries has not dropped proportionately, and injuries to children's eyes arising from fireworks are still much too high.
One has heard occasional criticism of the advertising of fireworks in newspapers and on television. As a former chairman of the IBA, I am particularly interested in the television advertising of fireworks. At the time that I held that post the Minister responsible, the Home Secretary, could always have stopped the IBA from allowing fireworks advertisements by issuing an order, as he did for cigarette advertising. He elected not to do that; he left it to the Independent Broadcasting Authority to deal with the problem. In its code of advertising standards and practices the IBA decided on a special appendix to deal with advertising of fireworks on the screen during the fireworks period. The decision was, first, that no advertisement in which children were shown to be handling fireworks would be accepted for transmission on the screen, and, secondly, the picture must always show an adult present and, presumably, in control of the situation.
Apart from the question of advertising, I should mention that the IBA and the BBC provide free air time for the COI, or any other Government Department, to indicate to viewers the importance of taking every possible precaution when using fireworks, whether it be at a family party in the garden of one's home or in the street; and I think some credit is due to both the BBC and the IBA for the reduction in the number of injuries over the last 13 years.

393
My Lords, we all rejoice at the reduction in the number of injuries. We are all glad that they are falling, as they are, each year. We should like that reduction to be greater: 400 injuries are still far too many. We applaud the agreed measures reached with the trade, whose public-spirited attitude is greatly appreciated; and we hope that this Bill will make its own contribution to still greater fireworks safety. There is room for improvement and we must move in that direction. Fireworks can be great fun, they can be very enjoyable, but they can also be very deadly. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 23. —(Lord Aylestone.)
1.31 p.m.
Lord AUCKLAND: My Lords, I rise to express the gratitude of these Benches to the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, for having moved this Bill in a constructive and convincing manner. I should also like to pay tribute to the honourable gentleman the Member for Cannock, who initiated the Bill in the other place. I have an interest to declare, although strictly a non-financial one, as a vice-president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, which I am quite sure will give ready support to this Bill. Also, for some years after I first entered your Lordships' House I was chairman of the all-Party Parliamentary Committee on Home Safety. A very good friend of mine, the then Member for Belfast West, the honourable lady Mrs Patricia McLaughlin, was the Secretary of this group, and at that time we had several meetings with the firework manufacturers. I am talking now of possibly ten years ago. The manufacturers at first showed a somewhat frigid approach to our deliberations then, but eventually, when they realised that this was not a snooping exercise but was an exercise in generally trying to promote safety, they became particularly co-operative; and, as the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, has brought out in the course of his most interesting speech, discussions with the fireworks manufacturers have been very much more satisfactory. As I understand it, there are now very stringent rules regarding labelling and about instructions on the fireworks, as to how they should be used, being clearly legible.
394
As was pointed out in the other place, much responsibility lies on the parents, of course. I do not think anyone can doubt this. By far the safest way, and indeed the most enjoyable way, of having firework displays—we have done it in our own family and in the families of friends of ours—is to form a kind of syndicate of families so that these displays can be properly supervised by a cadre of adults, with proper sand buckets, water buckets and all the precautions necessary. In that way, at least some of the terrible accidents about which we read can be prevented, even if they cannot all be completely eradicated.
So far as concerns the penalties laid down in the Bill, I think the penalties in relation to retailers are adequate. Of course, with the height to which young people grow these days it is not always easy to tell whether a lad, or even a girl, is 16. They can always claim to be 16 when they are probably 13½. Short of issuing some kind of identity card, or something like that, it is not easy for a retailer to know beyond peradventure how old these people are, and so this provision is not easily enforceable. But the thinking behind this particular provision is rational, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, has said, I think it will deter some of these youngsters from going into the shops, and will keep some of the retailers very much on their toes.
Of course, there is another problem here. Many of these fireworks are sold by small shopkeepers who deal, not only in fireworks for a few days of the year but also in sweets, tobacco, aspirins—you mention it, they sell it. With all the additional burdens which they now have of filing returns of various sales and things, it is not always easy, particularly in the case of a one-man or two-man shop, for the shopkeeper, on the spur of the moment, to determine a youngster's age before making a sale. But where the penalties really need to be heavy is in the case of these hooligans who throw fireworks in the street. In the village in which I live, in Surrey, some years ago, some hooligan threw a firework into a pram in which a baby was lying. Mercifully, the firework did not explode. I really think that people like these ought to have the book, metaphorically and in every way, thrown at them. These are the sort of people who should be punished

395
really heavily. Of course, at football matches, too, and at other organised games, where the vast majority of people behave perfectly well, one gets the odd cadre of hooligans who tend to throw fireworks and other missiles, and I hope that this Bill can perhaps be further strengthened to deal with them. I rather wonder whether these penalties are tough enough. For the purposes of getting this vital Bill through, I think they will do for the time being, but perhaps the Government, who may well have to bring in more composite legislation on this, will think of higher penalties.
When, some years ago, I initiated a debate on home safety in your Lordships' House, I paid a visit to Mount Vernon Hospital at Northwood, which deals with many cases of burns and other horrible injuries. As I pointed out in your Lordships' House all those years ago, I saw there some horrible sights, including some coloured slides; but one particularly dreadful sight which has always remained in my mind was of a small baby who had lost two arms and one leg through a firework accident—and that baby was about six months old. Bearing in mind the debate we had before this one. the future of that baby does not make for very happy thought. But it would be wrong to he entirely depressing on this subject. The number of accidents has decreased over the past few years, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, has rightly said, the number of accidents to the eyes, which are always the most vulnerable part of the body in these firework mishaps, is, unhappily, not decreasing.
The magistrates courts have a duty to perform here. My wife is herself a magistrate and I know that in our court anybody throwing fireworks has a rather stiff penalty thrown at them. Magistrates really do need in these instances to impose the maximum penalties because it is not only the person throwing the firework who is likely to be injured, it is not only the person at whom the firework is thrown, deliberately or otherwise, but there is the possibility of injury to a lot of people around, quite apart from the fright given—as the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, mentioned— to elderly people, and to animals and the damage which can be done to property.
396
As far as the banning of fireworks is concerned a lot has been said about this over the years. Banning things like fireworks can lead to even more ghastly implications. You will get youngsters getting hold of whatever acid it is—I am not a scientist—sulphuric acid or sodium chlorate, and making their own. It does not leave much to the imagination to ascertain what could happen, and what has happened, when these home-made fireworks go off. They can do very much more damage than even what used to be called the " penny bangers " which small boys could carry in their pockets and to whom when they exploded the most unthinkable damage could be done. It is reassuring to know that these particularly abnoxious fireworks are being, as it were, phased out.
It is the packaging and labelling of fireworks and the instructions on the box which make so much difference. The organised firework display held traditionally in places like Lewes in Sussex and in hospitals have given pleasure to many people. In one hospital in which I have had an interest for some years, one of our mental hospitals, in Epsom, we always have a firework display each 5th November for the patients who are ambulant and able to enjoy it. It is very good therapeutic treatment. It is a treat for them because the displays are properly surpervised by adults and there are proper rules organised. If we can get some kind of organisation into firework displays and, as this Bill seeks to do, cut out all the mavericks who are causing these horrible accidents, then, I think, this Bill will be very valuable: and the sooner it is on the Statute Book the better.
1.45 p.m.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, we on these Benches would also like to be associated with the kind remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, about the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, and the Member for Cannock who is producing this Bill on explosives. But we must, I think, remember that fireworks have been with us from time immemorial and one of their original beginnings was from pagan and religious festivals and, later in this country, in commemoration of the late Mr. G. Fawkes. But there is no doubt that if, as other noble Lords

397
have already said, they are properly controlled, they can give a great deal of pleasure and much joy to multitudes of people—and not only on 5th November.
My Lords, I think this is a good, sound and sensible Bill. I must admit that perhaps the only thing 1 might possibly have against it is the age limit: that is, whether 16 years of age is not still too young. I am not sure. Perhaps the age should be 17, the age at which youngsters consider themselves grown up by their being allowed to drive a motor car on the public highway. However, 1 do not wish, and would not wish, to make an issue of this point. I am happy to see that this piece of legislation has been voluntarily agreed by such consumer groups as the National Campaign for Firework Reform, the firework manufacturers, including Brock. Astra, Standard and, last but not least, by Her Majesty's Government.
As the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, has said this voluntary package contains a lot or very good clauses and in particular the registration of premises where fireworks may be kept. The noble Lord talked about the phasing out of certain types of firework such as " Flyabouts " and the " Helicopters ". And I think he is probably right. He also pointed out that the hangers are going to be phased out over the next two years; although 1, for one, will be a little sorry to see these go. Another point raised is that there should be a limitation of time when fireworks are on sale for around four weeks about 5th November. This I shall refer to shortly but a little later. I should like to say that the fireworks industry appears to have been very co-operative over these measures, which is remarkable considering that the market for fireworks has been diminishing very largely and substantially since 1960.
The voluntary measures which have been undertaken by the manufacturers rightly include a very significant trend towards the sale of boxed fireworks only—for that will prevent children from going to buy one or two rather nasty squibs and so on, for they will not be able to buy any at all if they cannot afford to buy a box. It may be that this is a slightly kill-joy approach but I feel that it is the right one.
398
The noble Lord, Lord Auckland, said that everybody seems to be agreed that there is no need to phase out fireworks completely. He mentioned the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents—and it is good to know that they agree with this; and, rightly so, for if' fireworks become unobtainable then young people will invent and endeavour to build their own and things may well become much worse. I believe that there are also fears that such a Bill would force some of the manufacturers to close down—for instance, in Dumfries where I believe Brocks have a factory and where there is a fairly high percentage of unemployment. Happily, I have been informed and led to believe from both sides, consumers and producers, that everybody has come to an agreement on this.

One of the things that the industry faces is competition from cheap. foreign imports, mostly Chinese; and it appears that if this agreement and this Bill is to work it must be basically on a voluntary basis, with a voluntary code. In this way the public will be protected and the consumer given safety. I would not mind seeing some form of ban on Chinese or other foreign imported fireworks, particularly if those do not conform to an adequate safety margin which would satisfy the British Standards Institution. I saw some fireworks not very long ago which were made in China. On them was printed: " Light and run away ". I do not believe these can be very good for us.
The problem that always seems to be associated with a Bill like this is that somehow, as the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, said, we have to ensure that we achieve the correct climate within the family and within our society. As the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, said, it is most unlikely that children of II and 12 will try and buy fireworks if the age limit is raised to 16. If fireworks are sold during term time, this will help shopkeepers, because with the school-leaving age at 16, obviously children in school uniform would not be allowed to buy fireworks. The noble Lord.. Lord Auckland, said that if a person is prosecuted no doubt it will be the parent who will probably pay the fine. So I think it will be seen that it is the parent who is the one who should educate because he will suffer the financial penalty in the end.

399
The Bill seems a very sensible one; a means of protecting the Community from itself. It would be a great pity after 370 years if that well-known occasion on 5th November were killed off by such a Bill. I am led to believe that the firework producers do not seem to think that this will happen. The logical conclusion is that large-scale firework displays should be held in different places throughout the year so they may be established as a pleasant and safe form of entertainment in many years to come. Could we not have a special municipal firework display, such as on the occasion of Her Majesty's Silver Jubilee next year? The Bill, preventing the sale of fireworks outside the four weeks, could benefit the manufacturers from the point of view that it might be possible to export fireworks. If we had firework displays throughout the year. that would get over this four-week period.
I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Oram, if he could tell us if there is a register of firework sellers in each town, and whether that would be beneficial? At the risk of being censored for repetition, I should dearly love to see the Department of the Environment hold a mammoth firework display every year in Hyde Park where literally many hundreds of thousands of people could enjoy the spectacle. Should the Department feel unhappy about this, perhaps they could send some representatives to France to see what they do there on the quartorze juillet.
1.54 p.m.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, on the whole I dislike restrictive legislation, particularly where it might be in the form of kill-joy nature. I accept in many activities one must have or allow for a certain amount of casualties of one sort or another. Nevertheless, in this case I believe that the injuries sustained and the nuisance caused by the indiscriminate use of fireworks justify control measures. This is particularly so as most of the injuries occur to young people who do not realise the risks they run or how to avoid them. What worries me about this Bill is that it is almost wholly ineffective and will not help the situation at all. Sixteen is not a responsible age, and big brother will almost certainly buy and distribute the fireworks to the younger
400
ones. Moreover, I am not convinced that we can be guided by the accident statistics. I think it at least arguable that most of the troubles and injuries are directly or indirectly caused by the older boys.
I believe that we should go one stage further. I am all in favour of putting fireworks in boxes, but I would have thought that if we could arrange so that they were sold only to householders that would put the responsibility back on the parents and it would not prevent a certain amount of family firework displays. In the longer term, I think we must watch the situation and see whether stronger measures are called for. I do not believe that it would necessarily spoil Guy Fawkes' night or people's fun if there was a prohibition—I am not suggesting it now—if necessary in the future. Then fireworks could be sold only to recognised clubs or societies.
Some of the village or town societies could arrange displays on Guy Fawkes' night. That would give far better value for money. There are certainly bonfires on 5th November in the country, and so the celebrations could be combined. Though I hate to say so, I believe this will not accomplish anything that has not already been accomplished, or is going to be accomplished by the agreement with the manufacturers. For that reason, I rather regret that the Bill was brought forward.
1.57 p.m.
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, I hope your Lordships will forgive my speaking at this point; it was not that I had not tried to put my name down on the list of speakers but I was inadvertently left off. Consequently, despite being defused, I hope you will at least permit me to go off in a small and controlled way. This Bill may do something, I hope, to reduce the number of accidents. What worries us on these Benches is the fact that there are two aspects of it which cause concern; first, the confusion of age. I will come to this point later. Secondly, the unenforceability of some of these measures.
Looking at the situation as a whole, sales for 1974–75 were down 5 per cent. and accidents were down 18 per cent. That is most encouraging. Due to the efforts of those who have been concerned with

401
this Bill—and we must give credit to the gentleman in the other place who brought forward this Bill and to the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, who has so ably explained it today—the effect of reducing accidents will come not so much from legislation but more from the co-operative action with the manufacturers and a greater awareness of the dangers of fireworks. Other speakers have mentioned the question of responsibility and, as a parent with a lot of children, I know only too well how easy it is for children to get hold of fireworks and misuse them. It is vital that parents accept this responsibility. When children go wrong, inevitably it is the responsibility of the parents and the parents must be aware of the dangers of fireworks. I am very glad to see the trade has cooperated as fully as it has on boxing fireworks. I shall not go into all the details of this. I am also glad to see that this year a poster is being produced which talks about the Code, using the rather nice term " Freddy Firework ". I hope this will create further awareness regarding the proper handling of fireworks.
Who gets hurt in these accidents? I have been looking at the figures of accidents and they are frightening. I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I refer to the figures for the past year. 1 shall not trouble your Lordships with other figures. In the over 21s there were 114 accidents; in the 16 to 20 age group, 50 accidents; in the 13 to 15 bracket, 152 accidents: and in the under 13s—and this is really worrying—the number of accidents was 412. It is the actual figures which matter at the end of the day.
This brings me to the question of age, of who gets hurt and how. The Consultative Document pointed out that the under 13s were most at risk, but it did not say how they got injured; for example, whether it was as a result of their own action or the action of somebody else. They state quite positively that little research has been done into the cause of the accidents. Assuming it is the 13-yearolds who let off the firework and hurt themselves, obviously the age limit should be put up and then one would deal with the 13 to 15 group, which was the next highest group of accidents.
We have so many different ages as to when one is allowed to be at risk. For instance, one is not allowed to drink
402
under 18 in a pub, but one can drive a car at 17, and a moped—which is exceptionally dangerous—at 16. On the other hand, cigarettes are allowed to be sold at 16. On this point we seem to be putting up the age, and I am a little concerned over the actions of certain groups, notably the National Council for Civil Liberties, who were anxious to reduce the age of consent. This seems a bit of a nonsense. I should like to see all ages brought more into line and, as regards fireworks, I think it is adults who should be allowed to purchase them, and not children. I consider this would be much more sensible.
All pyrotechnic displays are boring if they are allowed to go on for too long. Consequently, I will not detain your Lordships for much longer, but I should like to talk finally about enforceability. I know the police are very worried about enforcement, not only of the purchase of fireworks because the word " apparent" gives a total let-out, but also about the use of fireworks in a public place or in a street. The police find enforcement very difficult in such cases. It may be a deterrent to put up the fines, but only in so far as offences are detected and punished.
I said earlier that our concern was to reduce accidents, and although this Bill may not in itself do very much it is part of the package, I agree. But we must make it clear to parents that it is the parents' responsibility to ensure that their children know about fireworks and how to handle them. I welcome this Bill in terms of its scope, and I hope that it will have a quick passage.
2.3 p.m.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I am sure we are all very grateful to my noble friend Lord Aylestone for the very interesting way in which he has moved the Second Reading of this Bill. I found his speech not only interesting but clear and comprehensive, and I feel therefore I need add very little to what he has already said in respect of the Bill itself. However, I should like to make it quite clear that the aims of this Bill have the wholehearted support of the Government.
The problem of firework safety has been with us for a long time, and Governments of all complexions have sought to minimise the suffering which can be

403
caused by the misuse and abuse of the Guy Fawkes tradition. Some of the examples given to us by the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, would have made us think very deeply about this, if we had not already done so. Injuries caused by fireworks particularly affect the young, and therefore this is a matter which merits close scrutiny. The Government are anxious that all steps should be taken to reduce the toll of these injuries.
The problem inevitably boils down to a balance of freedoms. On the one hand, we have the perfectly legitimate desire of millions of ordinary families who want to celebrate the 5th November in a safe and sensible manner in the privacy of their own gardens. On the other hand, there is the question of the welfare of many other people, and in particular I am thinking of the elderly, the handicapped, the very young and those concerned with the welfare of their domestic animals, and their wish not to be molested by the abuse of fireworks and, in particular, by hooliganism.
I would wish to congratulate my noble friend Lord Aylestone and my honourable friend in another place Mr. Gwilym Roberts on the initiatives they have taken in this matter; also I should like to pay a tribute to my honourable friend the former Minister of State for Prices and Consumer Protection, Mr. Alan Williams, for it was he who decided to carry out a full review of the need for extending the existing controls. The main provisions under which these controls are applied are contained in legislation which is now over 100 years old, and it is clearly right that these questions should be looked at from time to time in the light of new developments. This review, instituted by Mr. Williams, was, in my view, timely and very comprehensive. My noble friend Lord Aylestone referred to it and gave an indication that the range of organisations consulted was a wide one, and he indicated the scope of those organisations.
These consultations inevitably produced a wide range of opinion. On the one hand, there were those who thought that all fireworks should be banned and, at the other extreme, there were some who felt that no changes at all should be made. All these views were given very careful
404
consideration, and a series of meetings with the principal organisations was held by the Minister at the time. My noble friend Lord Aylestone avid other noble Lords have made the point that this Bill, which has two fairly straightforward provisions, should be seen not just in itself but as part of a substantial package of measures which were agreed with the manufacturers', retailers' and wholesalers' associations. This package, taken together with the statutory proposals, will result in a substantial change in the fireworks situation. My noble friend spelt out what the five provisions are under the agreement, and I need not repeat what he said. It is clear that, taken together, they will have a substantial impact in curbing the wilful misuse of fireworks, which can so easily cause distress, as I have said, among the weaker elements of our society, whom I am sure we are all anxious to protect.
Firework injuries in the 1975 Guy Fawkes season were, I am happy to say, the lowest since records were first kept in 1962. The number of persons requiring hospital treatment for firework injuries in England and Wales showed a welcome reduction of 18 per cent. from the 1974 figure, and a fall of 40 per cent. compared with 1973. The number of serious injuries has declined even more sharply and these trends arc very encouraging. With the elimination of the flyabout firework—to which a number of noble Lords have referred and which has a relatively bad injury record in relation to the number sold—and the substantial reduction in the number of bangers available, we can reasonably anticipate that injuries and a good deal of the nuisance caused by deliberate misuse will be further reduced. Many people will, I know, be very glad to see a shorter period during which fireworks are on sale. This is particularly welcomed by the elderly who live in areas where there is a good deal of hooliganism, and by many of those who have domestic pets. But it would be wrong to be complacent about the recent encouraging trends in the injury statistics and the Government must, and will, continue to keep the matter under regular review and to assess the impact of the new measures to which we have referred.
This is a heartening example of what can be achieved by voluntary co-operation between the Government and the industry.

405
The firework manufacturers and retail and wholesale interests are all agreed that every reasonable step should be taken to improve the situation. The welfare of the young is close to all our hearts, and there must be no slackening of the effort made in terms of publicity and persuasion by the Government, by the manufacturers and by safety organisations—such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents to which the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, referred—in publicising the need for care in the use of fireworks. I very much hope that the media will continue to give good coverage to this message at the relevant period of the year, and that we shall continue to see warning posters in our shops and schools. Firework safety is an important aspect of home safety, and all whocontribute to its improvement are to he commended.
The noble Earl. Lord Kimberley, addressed one or two questions to me and I think I can help him. He referred to imported fireworks and, despite his example of a particularly horrid-sounding Chinese firework, I can assure him that no fireworks may he imported without a licence under Section 40 of the Explosives Act 1875. Her Majesty's inspectors of explosives apply stringent controls to ensure that these are safe in the hands of users. and the standard is the same as for fireworks made in this country. He asked whether there is a register of firework sellers. and I can assure him that there is. All premises in which fireworks are stored must he registered with the local authority under Section 21 of the Explosives Act 1875. So I think the noble Earl will take comfort from those two assurances which I am glad to give.
We look forward to the reply from my noble friend Lord Aylestone, but perhaps I may make one comment on the question of age, to which the noble Lord. Lord Redesdale. referred. He quite rightly pointed out that there are a number of ages for various hazardous occupations. There is one to which he did not refer: namely, getting married. It is not for me to put these various hazardous occupations in order of merit. However, it shows the difficulty of choosing the right age and, probably, there is no universally accepted age. One point that appeals to me in thinking about this subject is that an age of 16 for buying fireworks coincides with the school-leaving age. and that will to
406
sonic extent help a number of retailers who are near school premises to decide whether or not a person is of the right age.
It was not my intention to delay your Lordships unnecessarily, but I thought it would be helpful to set this Bill, which we very much welcome, in the general context of the problem of fireworks. The Bill is simple and straightforward and its objects are clearly beneficial. The Bill has the wholehearted support of the Government. and I have every confidence in urging your Lordships to give it a Second Reading this afternoon.
2.17 p.m.
Lord AYLESTONE: My Lords. in thanking noble Lords who have contributed to this debate, there are only two points which I wish to mention. First, home-made fireworks, to which I did not refer earlier. are a real danger, because they can he made very easily. I made them myself as a child. I remember the ingredients—but 1 shall not quote them. in case they become general knowledge and putting the material so made between two stones, throwing another stone at it and, with a hit of luck, getting a terrific explosion. We know from our records that home-made fireworks are used in what may be regarded as perfectly safe, organised displays. to which young boys, and possibly girls as well. take them and join in the fun. hut they can he extremely dangerous.
The other point which I wish to make has been made on so many occasions during this debate: that is. the difficulty of fixing the right age below which fireworks ought not to be sold by retailers. When I first read the Bill, my immediate reaction was that the age should have been 18 and not 16. But, as a number of noble Lords have pointed out, things happen below the age of 18 which should be regarded as much more serious than buying fireworks. One can also buy a gun at the age of 17, so it is not an easy matter to resolve. But I am convinced in my own mind—and I hope I am right—that fixing the age at 16 will help retailers, who are always anxious and willing to obey the law, to decide whether a boy who buys fireworks over the counter of a newsagent's shop is only 13. 14 or 15: and as most injuries are caused up to the age of 13 it should be a help. Nothing is perfect in this most

407
imperfect of worlds, but I think that this Bill is a contribution.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ATOMIC ENERGY AUTHORITY(SPECIAL CONSTABLES) BILL
2.19 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord DOUGLAS of BARLOCH in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Extension of property in respect of which special constables may exercise their powers]:
Lord AVEBURY Lord AVEBURY moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 32, at end insert—
" (4) The manner in which an Authority constable may exercise the powers and privileges conferred on him by this Act outside any nuclear installations belonging to the Authority, shall be prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State; and any such regulations shall be made by statutory instrument and be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment which stands in my name and that of the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield. By giving to the Secretary of State the power to make regulations as to the manner in which the Authority Constables may exercise the powers and privileges—" privileges ", by the way, is the wording of the Bill, not mine—conferred on him by the Bill, we are making sure that the Atomic Energy Authority constabulary is fully accountable to Parliament—as I am sure all noble Lords would wish. As we have seen in the course of the debates on the Bill, the chain of responsibility is from the constables to the chief constable of the
408
Authority, from the Authority to the Secretary of State and from the Secretary of State to another place.
Considering that here we are dealing with a major innovation—what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, on Second Reading called a departure from British traditions in respect of police forces—if another place had a fresh opportunity to consider this aspect of the Bill more fully, being properly seized of the discussion that we are now about to have, they would prefer to arm themselves, if I may use that phrase, with the right to put questions directly to the Secretary of State in another place about the manner in which an Authority constable exercises these powers and privileges. Of course, another place could not do that at the moment because the Secretary of State has no direct responsibility but only the indirect one, through the channels I have described, for the way in which they carry out their functions.
The Linder-Secretary of State gave what I thought was a most remarkable assurance to my honourable friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed in a letter which he wrote to him on 20th April. After saying that the Authority's standing orders relating to the use of firearms would be agreed between the Authority and the Secretary of State, he went on to say:
" The Secretary of State would be ready to answer in the House in relation to any incident in which weapons were fired by the Atomic Energy Authority constabulary other than for training purposes
Mr. Eadie then went on to repeat the substance of that assurance at the Report stage of the Bill on 4th May, at col. 1235 of Hansard.
Two major questions arise from that undertaking. First, what possible force can an assurance have which is given by a junior Minister to an honourable Member, even though it may have been repeated in the columns of Hansard? As we all know, Ministerial statements have no legislative force whatsoever. Certainly there is nothing in the Bill itself which would oblige the Secretary of State to answer a question about the use of firearms by a constable. I have always been under the impression that it was entirely a matter for the Table Office in another place to decide, quite independently of Ministers, whether or not any

409
particular question is valid according to this test of Ministerial responsibility: can one find some phraseology in the Statutes which would allow that Question to be put and to be fully attached to the responsibility of a particular Minister? In this case I would say, from fairly considerable experience of dealing with the Table Office in another place and, I hope, a clear understanding of the principles that they follow, that the Clerks would have to tell the Member, with the greatest possible courtesy, which they always employ, that they did not regard any promises made by an Under-Secretary of State in private correspondence, or assurances given in the course of debates at Committee or Report stage of a Bill, as requiring them to accept that particular question.
The second point that arises is that even if this undertaking could be made to stick on the Government, it would not take into account all the circumstances in which an honourable Member might reasonably wish to put down a question concerning the conduct of a constable. First of all, the Under-Secretary specifically excluded from the assurance any incidents in which the weapon had been fired for training purposes. If, therefore, a member of the public was accidentally killed or injured by a weapon fired by a constable during training, that could not be raised in another place, nor could any incident which involved the presentation of firearms by one of the constables if the weapon was not actually fired. If I may take an extreme and, I hope, theoretical example, if one of these constables were stationed at the Atomic Energy Authority's head office in Charles II Street and he went berserk and threatened members of the public in the centre of London, that would not be a matter about which the honourable Member for the Cities of London and Westminster could table a Private Notice Question to the Secretary of State.
On several occasions during the proceedings upon this Bill the Government have maintained that all that we are doing is to return to the situation which existed before the creation of the Atomic Energy Authority when these constables were employed by the Ministry of Defence. Therefore it is important to look at whether the Bill restores that situation and whether the Atomic Energy Authority
410
constabulary is treated in the same way as the Ministry of Defence constabulary so far as the tabling of questions in the House is concerned. As I see it, they are not treated in the same way. On 21st May my honourable friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed asked a question in general terms about the rules governing the carrying of firearms by Ministry of Defence police and he had no difficulty in getting it past the Table Office.
Since then I have been investigating the matter a little further and find that the Standing Orders which determine the conduct of the constables employed by the Ministry of Defence are laid down by the Defence Council and that this Council is a body which is constituted by Letters Patent and is, therefore, a matter of Royal Prerogative. However, the important point is that under the Letters Patent the Secretary of State for Defence is automatically the Chairman of the Defence Council. lf, therefore, an honourable Member were to put down a question to the Secretary of State concerning the application of these Standing Orders—in particular about the use that was made by a Ministry of Defence constable of a firearm—certainly it would be accepted by the Table Office. Therefore I say there is a difference between the Ministry of Defence constables and those who are employed by the Atomic Energy Authority and that this Amendment would restore the position, which the Government say they are trying to do, which operated prior to the creation of that Authority.
In conclusion, it seems to me that this Amendment would be a very good example of the way in which co-operation between the two Houses of Parliament ought ideally to work. This Bill passed through another place so fast that it was hardly possible for any of the important issues adequately to be considered. It is true that my honourable friend put down an Amendment in similar although not identical terms to this one, but it was discussed after midnight on an occasion when only 131 Members were present. If the matter were to be considered at a more reasonable hour of the day, with a full House to go into the points that I have raised, it is quite possible that a different conclusion would be reached. Therefore it is only right that by passing

411
this Amendment your Lordships should give that opportunity to another place. I beg to move.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: It may be helpful if 1 make my few remarks now because the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal can then, with one bite at the cherry, give a compendious answer to both the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. and myself. I added my name to the noble Lord's Amendment because in many ways I agreed—and. indeed, do agree—with the spirit in which he tabled it. I shall not follow him in all his remarks, mostly because I agree with what he says and to repeat them would he tedious to your Lordships, hut also because I want to touch on one or two aspects which mieht he considered a little different.
So far as accountability is concerned. I agree with the noble Lord that there may he room for the Government to have some further thoughts about this matter. We are discussing a situation which, as I understand it, is wholly new in our history. For the first time we are giving citizens who are not members of the Armed Forces the right to bear arms. Unlike the police, who do so only in certain very unusual circumstances, as I understand it many of these special constables, either guarding installations or fissile materials on their way from one installation to another, will, in the ordinary course of events, hear arms with ammunition in public and will, if the need arises, be in a position to fire them.
Let us just consider that these people will—so one can glean from the Official Report in another place —have received a period of training in Dorset, I think, and I have no doubt that that training will he as complete as can he devised. Nobody has yet said what " refreshers they are going to have and to my mind that is an important matter in the public interest. Neither has it been said who will see that the standard remains as high as it obviously should be.
Here I think it is less than satisfactory if Members of Parliament cannot inquire, if they so wish, as to what is going on. I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in regard to tabling Questions in the other place, but I confine myself to your Lordships' House, which
412
his the only one I know. To my mind it would be intolerable if a situation of an unsatisfactory nature were to arise and noble Lords wished to put Questions (as for instance, they have recently on the subject of the Post Office) and some unfortunate—and I say that in a spirit of charity—Minister was supposed to answer the Questions in the manner, according to the circumstances and with the briefing material that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, answered such Questions.
I know it will he rightly said that this is not likely to happen, but of course, nothing is likely to happen until it does happen. If there is an occurrence and it then transpires that it has happened through inadequate training, under-preparation, muddle or confusion, and above all a sense of complacency on the part of the Atomic Energy Authority, it would he quite intolerable if in either House of Parliament the proper Questions could not be addressed to the proper Minister.
I complained on Second Reading that in the other place many Members' points of anxieties had been answered by letter. I think this is one such point. When it came to Report stage, the Minister enlarged somewhat on what he had said in a letter to a private Member, but suggest that this is hardly a satisfactory way of going about seeing legislation through two Houses of Parliament. There is the wider point that in this Bill the powers and privileges are set out, but there is no way in which we can see from the Bill how they are to be carried out by the constables. Various assertions were made in the other place. For instance, it was said that there would be some sort of standing orders. I suppose there will; but who is to draw them up and who is to see to it that they are properly drawn up and are comprehensive and envisage everything that should be envisaged? Who will lay down the manner in which these arms will be carried and used and is it satisfactory that in this very special case Parliament should not keep an eye on that process?
I am aware it will be said that tactically it is wrong for all the plans which may be made to deal with this situation to be revealed for all to read. I quite agree that they do not have to be, but I think some noble Lords would feel happier if the Government had thought through this

413
whole process and were in a position to say precisely what is to happen over this new and rather unwelcome power which has been given to these special constables.
2.36 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: I have given this matter most careful consideration over a period of some months and it was only with the greatest reluctance that I came to the conclusion that we should provide arms for the constabulary at those stations where fissile material was either being processed or stored. I think the Committee will remember that certainly at this stage we only intend to arm the constabulary at four sites, although I believe the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, thought that perhaps we ought to he doing more in regard to some of the atomic power stations: but as I explained on Second Reading, in my view that is not required at the present moment.
I am quite sure, too, that the House should spare a little time to see whether we have got it right, whether we should make amendments to the Bill, particularly in regard to what one might call the accountability of the Secretary of State to Parliament. I should like to make it clear at the outset that this is a highly disciplined force. The position is that the AEA constabulary is a force of civil police. sworn in by two justices of the peace under the Special Constables Act 1923. They are sworn in on the nomination of the Authority and are then, in accordance with Section 3 of the 1923 Act, under the exclusive control of the department on whose nomination they are appointed: namely, the AEA.
But, on the other hand, the Secretary of State has the ultimate responsibility to Parliament for that authority. He also has powers under the Atomic Energy Authority Act to give directions to the authority, subject to his being satisfied that there are overriding national interests requiring him to intervene. I should have thought that, in the setting up of this new force, all those requirements are present and he not only has the powers but he intends to exercise those powers in giving directions to the Authority in the manner in which this force will be armed and the manner in which it will act.
Clearly standing orders will be necessary not only for the carrying or the weapons
414
but above all else—and nearly as important—the storage of the weapons. This is a matter to which I attach particular importance. I should also make it clear that it is not our intention that the whole force shall he armed: it is really only those officers who are in positions where they are providing safeguards for that particular fissile material, whether it is in store or in transit. The standing orders will he made by the Authority, but the Secretary of State will see them and will approve them. I have no doubt at all that those standing orders will be no different from the standing orders which already exist for other services, particularly the police.
In regard to training, this is important. I am grateful to the chief constable of Dorset and his officers who have cooperated very well indeed in training the constabulary. The training is up to a very high standard, and it is certainly our intention that the officers will attend retraining or re-testing approximately every three or four months. I should have thought that would he a reasonable time, bearing in mind that most of these officers were in the Armed Forces before they came to the constabulary—not all. but quite a number of them. So they have received a high standard of training, and they will receive retraining.
It seemed to me that the maw problem or worry of both the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, was not so much about the standing orders, but the accountability of the Secretary of State. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that since our conversation earlier I have gone into this matter with the greatest care and I am satisfied, and I can assure the House, that there is no reason for any Question put to the Secretary of State for Energy on matters relating to this constabulary not to be accepted by the Table and answered by the Secretary of State.
If the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has any doubts, I would refer him to the Notice of Question). and Motions for 26th May 1976:
"The honourable Member for South-West Hertfordshire to ask the Secretary of State for Energy how often nuclear material is transported along the MI motorway to Windscale and and other nuclear establishments".
There are another five Questions, all of the same sort, all seeking information

415
with regard to the movement of this material. These Questions are clearly matters which I would have regarded, and I should have thought most people would have regarded, as coming within the everyday responsibility of the Atomic Energy Authority; but clearly this is information which a Member of the House wanted and the Table has accepted the Question. So with that sort of Question on the Order Paper, I am reinforced in my belief, to which I have come as a consequence of advice received, that if any Member of another place and certainly of this House wished to inquire of a Minister about the position of these policemen, their methods of arming, and so on, their Questions would be accepted and answered by the Minister.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: While accepting the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, I must say that the Question he gave as an example is one that I do not think ought to have been asked publicly. It could well have been dealt with privately, and I hope that people will show some restraint in getting information, because otherwise they cause more trouble than they are trying to prevent.
Lord SHEPHERD: That may be. I was merely using this as an indication that the matter that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, have in mind does not arise. I am not opposing the Amendment by saying it is undesirable, or in that particular sense unnecessary. I am going to ask the noble Lord and the noble Earl to appreciate that this is a new force—at least, it is an old force but is being given a new task—which is operating in a particular period of anxiety and threat. That is the only reason why it is being set up. There are a number of other forces in similar positions. None of these forces has ever been asked to disclose to the public what the standing orders are in relation to their duty, and what actions they can and cannot take. I would not imagine any noble Lord opposite would say that the public should know what are the standing orders of the police in Northern Ireland, because that is information which could only be of assistance to the troublemaker.
416
So I say to the noble Lord and the noble Earl that if this Amendment were passed and it was required that regulations ought to be made and approved by Parliament, then the standing orders of this force would be known. Your Lordships may say that that is not all that important, but we have kept other standing orders secure in the interests of those forces. If we were to publish these standing orders, the standing orders of the various other forces would be quickly and easily construed. At this of all times I should have thought that that was not desirable.
I have sought to ease the feeling of the Committee that the Secretary of State will be responsible for the standing orders, will be responsible through the Authority and through the chief constable for the discipline and the training, of this force, and will be answerable to Parliament. I should have thought that sufficient, but I hope that here the Committee would not put in a measure which may disclose information that could only be of use to the troublemaker, and of very little use, I think, to the general public.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: Before the noble Lord sits down, I wonder whether he could help me over one matter. What other civilian forces are there, the members of which will be expected to bear arms in the ordinary course of their duties, who are liable on suspicion under Clause 3 of this Bill to pursue suspected malefactors, for want of a better phrase, in public places, and presumably, if necessary, use all reasonable means to arrest them or place them in the custody of the police?
Lord SHEPHERD: Certainly there is no other force other than the ordinary constabulary, if they were involved in a particular incident. I think that the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, is really exaggerating the dangers and the risks. This material is moved under very strict precautions. One seeks to move it in such a way that it would be very difficult indeed to break in and obtain the material. That does not mean that one should not take these extra precautions of having armed constables present, if only to delay, in order that the regular police and the Regular Army could come to their assistance.
There is no question, in my view, of constables chasing all over the country looking for somebody who may have

417
broken in and collected this material. Clearly you have got to have it in the legislation that if one of these vehicles had been broken into and people were escaping with material the constables should under the law be permitted to go after it and bring it hack into safe custody. But it would be quite wrong to imagine that these constables, under their standing orders, would be moving around places like Manchester or Birmingham on the off-chance of finding these chaps who may have broken in and stolen some of this material.
I can understand the noble Lord's anxiety, but I hope he will appreciate, first, that the force is a responsible force and, secondly, that the responsibility is clearly that of the Secretary of State, that he is answerable to Parliament. Whatever fears we may have, we have the choice of either arming the force, providing this protection. or having standing orders which we immediately disclose to the general public, which puts those forces at a great disadvantage, and, as I said earlier, will create an even greater threat for some of our forces who may be acting and working under similar standing orders but in much more dangerous circumstances than any of these constables are ever likely to face.
Lord AVEBURY: I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for his comprehensive and courteous reply, but I am afraid I shall have to try to convince your Lordships that it does not satisfy the case which I put forward. First, I must emphasise that nothing I have said—and I am sure this goes for the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield—should be taken as criticism of the way in which the Atomic Energy Authority have carried out their responsibilities in the past, or of the high standards of training and efficiency which they have achieved, with the assistance, as the noble Lord mentioned, of the chief constable of Dorset, to whom we all must be extremely grateful. But even in a highly disciplined force, as the noble Lord will be aware, things can go wrong. We have a highly disciplined Army serving in Northern Ireland, and yet complaints are from time to time, rightly or wrongly, made against that force, and the Secretary of State is fully responsible for answering questions in Parliament which may be addressed to him on that subject. So while ac-
418
cepting everything the noble Lord has said about the efficiency and discipline of the force, that of itself is not a sufficient argument for undermining the accountability of the Secretary of State to the House for their activities.
The noble Lord mentioned—I do not think this is terribly important, but I deal with it in passing—that we are confining our attention to those stations where fissile material is processed or stored. It has been said on several occasions that there -are four named sites where these constables will he stationed. But there is nothing in the Bill to prevent constables being stationed on any premises owned either by the Authority or British Nuclear Fuels Limited. That was why I picked Charles II Street as one of the examples that I gave.
The noble Lord said that the Secretary of State may give directions to the Atomic Energy Authority, and among other things it was quite probable that he would give directions not only as to the manner in which the force is to be armed but how it will act. If that is so, I cannot see why these powers of the Secretary of State to give the directions which he is thinking of exercising, which the noble Lord says he is likely to exercise, should not be formally placed on him by the regulation, making machinery which I am asking for in this Amendment. He said that the standing orders would be no different from other services and particularly the police, but, as I tried to show in moving the Amendment, there will be a difference between the way in which these standing orders are promulgated and the way in which those for the Ministry of Defence have been made by the Defence Council under the chairmanship of the Secretary of State for Defence. That was one part of the case that I myself felt to be of some considerable importance, if only because of the emphasis laid by the Government all through the proceedings of the Bill that we were merely returning to the status quo when these constables were employed by the Ministry of Defence. I felt that that argument was not properly covered by the Minister in his reply.
In order to show that questions have in fact been answered by the Secretary of State for Energy and were in fact being answered by the Secretary of State, the noble Lord referred to a particular

419
Question which was tabled on 24th May about nuclear material being transported along the M.1 motorway. This, if I may say so, is a different matter entirely, because at the moment these nuclear materials are transported along the M.1 motorway, accompanied, no doubt, by the constables, but the constables are not armed. The honourable Member was only seeking to Lind out how often this occurred, and not what rules had been made for the conduct of the constables who might be accompanying these loads. But, in any case, that would be a different set of rules from those which presumably will apply once these constables are armed. I hope that it is not an everyday occurrence that nuclear materials are transported along the M.1 motorway; it certainly is not an everyday occurrence in the sense of commonplace, even if it is happening at such frequent intervals of time.
The noble Lord said that if my Amendment were accepted the Secretary of State would be obliged to publish the standing orders. With great respect, I do not think that is so. I also enquired of the Ministry of Defence whether the standing orders that the Defence Council make for the regulation and conduct of the MOD constables have to be published, and I am told they are not. An individual member of the public has no access to a copy of those standing orders, although, as I have explained, because of the power of the Secretary of State as chairman of the Defence Council, it would be possible for a Member of Parliament to put a particular question to the Secretary of State in the House.
Lord SHEPHERD: Could I ask the noble Lord how is it possible for Parliament to approve, as is required in his Amendment, without those regulations being laid in the House and available to the general public? The regulations he is talking about in the MOD may not be regulations requiring Parliamentary approval. I am sure the noble Lord will agree that the moment you have a provision that they are to be approved, or are open to be annulled, by Parliament, that requires these regulations to be laid on the Table.
Lord AVEBURY: Then they would, but what I was going on to suggest to the
420
noble Lord was that if that was the only objection to the Amendment then the right way to approach it would be to use the letters patent procedure, as is done in the Ministry of Defence, if the Minister was prepared to accept that. But the only way it could be done would be for the Amendment first of all to be passed through this House; otherwise, the other place will have no further opportunity of looking into the matter. If it was decided that the letters patent procedure used by the Ministry of Defence was appropriate because of the security problems involved in publishing the standing orders, then I would be quite happy to accept that.
Finally, the noble Lord said that any question whatsoever would be answered by the Secretary of State; he was prepared to give this undertaking on behalf of his right honourable friend. That goes very much further than what was said by the Under-Secretary, Mr. Eadie, in another place, who only gave the undertaking that where the firearms were actually fired other than during training exercises questions would be answered. But my point still remains that no assurance, even given by such a distinguished figure as the noble Lord himself, can be taken as binding on the Table Office, and the assurance also would not be capable of being pinned on any future Secretary of State who did not feel inclined to follow the practice set by the present Government.
I conclude with this thought. Principally, the matters which I have raised are ones for a democratic assembly to decide, and what we are doing in seeking to put this Amendment into the Bill is, as I have explained, to give another place a fresh opportunity of looking at the arguments rehearsed this afternoon. If we do not pass this Amendment, then that opportunity will be missed, and it may be many years before a return can be made to it and fresh thought be given to it.
3 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: If one of the noble Lord's arguments is that we should put this Amendment in to allow another place to consider it, the noble Lord must be aware that, first, there was a good deal of discussion behind the Chair, one might say, in regard to the Bill; there was a general recognition that it ought to be placed on the Statute Book

421
as quickly as possible, and that it did have a Committee stage; secondly, there was a Liberal Amendment on the Marshalled List, but the noble Lord will know that it was not moved. Why it was not moved, I do not know, but certainly the opportunity was there for this matter to be considered. It then had its remaining processes. I cannot believe that another place, if it had so wished to take this matter up, did not have the opportunity of considering it.
I could not ask the Committee to accept the Amendment for the reasons I have already given. I think it would he quite wrong to put sonic of our forces at risk as a consequence of standing orders relating to this force being made available, and therefore easily to he construed as to what the standing orders are of those other forces. Therefore I could not accept that. However, I see that there is a feeling that there is an element of doubt, shall I say, about whether the Secretary of State is accountable in another place and whether the Table will accept it. My great difficulty of course is that we are in this House; we have no real cognisance of what the rules are of another place. I have given my best assurances as a consequence of my own inquiries in the matter. The noble Lord said that maybe there is the question of Letters Patent. I shall look at that. I shall certainly have another look at it to see whether there is a way in which, if there is doubt, we can secure the accountability of the Secretary of State. I am willing to do that, but I would beg the Committee not to prejudice the position of all our security forces by insisting in this Amendment that the details of those standing orders should be made public.
Lord AVEBURY: Could the noble Lord confirm that he will have an opportunity of looking at this before Third Reading? I know that we are in a cosiderable rush to get the Bill through, and I understand that Third Reading is to be taken next week. It does not give the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, very much of an opportunity of having a look at the points which have been raised. If he thinks that that time would allow him fully to consider the points discussed this afternoon, perhaps we could have his comment on that.
Lord SHEPHERD: We shall not be here next week: we shall be in Parliamentary Recess. The Report stage is to be taken the week after next. That gives me at least ten days, if not longer. to examine this matter, and to decide what to do. I have the time. if the noble Lord will give me the opportunity, to look at it again.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: While considering this I think that the noble Lord ought to have in mind that I do not think that the noble Lord. Lord Avebury, has made out a strong enough case to go to too much trouble. Some of us are getting a little tired of the word " democracy " being used in order to do what they call " put all the cards on the table face upwards ", when, in a quite unnecessary way, you are giving information to people who want to injure you. I should have thought that if we have passed the stage where we have rot enough confidence in the interchange on matters of security between an elected Government and all the procedures that are possible in Parliament, quite apart from putting it on the Order Paper in public. then it is time that we ought to look at the whole of our Parliamentary procedures. There is an element of common sense in matters of this sort in the view that in giving information in the supposed democratic way you are also giving ammunition to people who are doing all they can to injure you on every possible occasion.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: It seems to me that there are two. parts to this matter. First of all there is the part to which my noble friend has referred. I do not think that any noble Lord on these Benches would expect any Secretary of State of whatever Government to do anything which might prejudice either the safety or the efficient working of the system we are now trying to set up, or of those who are engaged in it. That is one side of it. I think what some of my noble friends (and indeed perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Avebury) would welcome is a re-examination of the system by the Government so that if something goes wrong—and I do not wish particularly to speculate at this moment on the various things that can go wrong, and the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal did not quite answer the situation that I postulated to him—we can be certain

423
that this new force is going to have a Minister who will answer, so that we do not have the absurd situation that we presently have in the Post Office.
Lord SHEPHERD: I thought I had explained to the noble Earl that the Secretary of State for Energy is the Minister directly responsible for the Atomic Energy Authority, for all the duties it is required to perform, and the way in which they are done. It is the Secretary of State for Energy who will be responsible, completely and entirely, for the AEA staff. There is no question of doubt at all about that. I have suggested by the examples that I have here that the Secretary of State is answerable to Parliament. I should have thought that that is as watertight a position for Parliament, and for the general public, as one is likely to be able to legislate for.
The way in which you ensure that things do not go wrong is by the quality of the officers you recruit, the discipline of the force, and its training. I have given indications of training. I know the force myself, and I gave on Second Reading my own assessment of it. I have complete confidence in this matter, but clearly Parliament ought to exercise caution here. I say that the Secretary of State is directly responsible, and is accountable to Parliament.
Lord AVEBURY: We are in a difficulty here because we do not see at this moment how the Secretary of State could give any binding force to the undertakings which he has given to your Lordships' House that these questions would be answered in another place.
Lord SHEPHERD: This is nonsense.
Lord AVEBURY: Wait a minute. Nor do we see how he would be able to do that within the space of a few days. Certainly in view of the assurances that the noble Lord has given, I should like to help to find a way out of the problem and to leave it until we come to Report when the noble Lord has kindly undertaken to come back to the House and see what can be arranged. I beg him to remember that while the matter was looked at, as he reminded us, on Report in another place, that was done an hour after midnight
424
when only 131 Members were there. Several other Members in another place have since told me that they did not think that adequate consideration had been given to it by the House as a whole, and it is possible that another conclusion would have been reached if there had been a better opportunity to examine the matter at that time.
However, the noble Lord has done his best to give assurances and we are grateful to him for the undertaking he has provided. If he can see a way of attaching binding force to what he has said and can perhaps come forward with a solution on Report, we shall be very grateful. In view of the assurances he has given, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Extension of places where special constables may exercise their powers]:
3.9 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY Lord AVEBURY moved Amendment No 2:
Page 2, line 35, after (" place ") insert (" in Great Britain ").
The noble Lord said: On Second Reading I intervened in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, to ask whether the constables would cross St. George's Channel if it was suspected that criminals or terrorists in possession of stolen nuclear material had taken it to Northern Ireland, and he replied that it was not the intention of the Government that they should do so. He went on to say that under the circumstances envisaged other authorities would take charge, and I suppose they would be the military forces stationed in that Province. However, Clause 3 (1) says:
" An Authority constable may exercise the powers and privileges … in any place where it appears to him expedient to go ".
Thus, he is not even limited to the United Kingdom, let alone to Great Britain, as I am proposing. If we are considering simply the Northern Ireland point, then the Amendment merely gives statutory force to the statement made by Lord Shepherd. There is however another matter which the Amendment allows us

425
to consider, and that is who is to guard the shipments of special nuclear materials in transit between the United Kingdom and places overseas where the customers for our re-processing facilities are located.
It is our policy to expand the reprocessing facilities at Windscale, which means that in future substantially increased quantities of these materials will be passing over the oceans, perhaps even being transported by aircraft; I do not know whether that is under consideration. The operations of terrorists are international and it is possible they might turn their attention to the hijacking of vessels and aircraft outside our territorial jurisdiction. I understand that we already send back plutonium on a small scale which arises from reprocessing undertaken at Windscale, and this is likely to he a much larger volume of traffic if the contracts which we have been negotiating with the Japanese come into effect. As your Lordships, know, much of the criticism of the Japanese 'contract has focused on the problem of the disposal of waste from Windscale, and so far as I am aware no attention has been given to the question of guarding plutonium shipments in transit between the United Kingdom and Japan or between the United Kingdom and any of the other overseas customers we have, such as the Italians. If it is the Government's intention that Clause 3(1) should permit armed constables to travel overseas accompanying these shipments we should be clear about that at this stage, otherwise we should he told how these shipments are to be protected.
Perhaps the noble Lord will deal at the same time with the question of what will happen if the vessels or aircraft concerned are not under the British flag. I hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment, which simply clarifies what he said at an earlier stage, and I hope that it will he possible for him to deal with the important question of how we are to protect shipments overseas. I beg to move.
Lord SHEPHERD: I am happy to assure the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that his Amendment is unnecessary. The Bill as drafted provides these privileges—I think that was the word that was used—only within Great Britain. Northern Ireland has been excluded. Therefore the area within which they can operate is solely within Great Britain. The noble Lord
426
also spoke about the movement of this material overseas and I suppose one must anticipate that it will grow in scale. These constables will not be able to operate outside Great Britain. Therefore, if they were to go on a boat they would cease to be constables: they would become ordinary civilians, and so they would not be covered by this legislation. They would not have an authority to carry a weapon. It may be that if one were using them, authority could perhaps be given by the captain of the ship, but the authority for carrying weapons would not come from under this legislation.
Certainly, at present we do not anticipate the use of this force for this particular task. Their responsibility will be for the sites themselves and for the transit of material within Great Britain. I hope the noble Lord will feel that what I have said meets the point he was making, certainly in regard to the limitation of the area in which this force can operate.
Lord AVEBURY: Obviously, notwithstanding the apparently broad terms of Clause 3(1) which allows a constable to go anywhere
" where it appears to him expedient to go ",
if the noble Lord assures me that technically that is modified by the operation of Clause 4(5), limiting the Bill to Great Britain, then I accept that. But I think I have uncovered a point of some substance: that is, if constables are not to be with the shipments of plutonium returning to Japan, Italy or other overseas customers of reprocessing facilities, then it appears that we have made no arrangements whatsoever for the protection of these shipments, unless the captain of the vessel, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said, gave authority for somebody to carry weapons on board.
This is an extremely important matter, because as the noble Lord agreed with me in his reply there would be a growing volume of these shipments. Obviously we have to be satisfied—perhaps not during the course of proceedings on this Bill, but on sonic other occasion —that proper steps have been taken not only by our own Government but, I suggest, also in co-operation with other owners of reprocessing facilities to make sure that international agreement has been made to safeguard these shipments against hijacking. I do not know

427
whether the noble Lord wanted to add anything—
Lord SHEPHERD: I do not want to be offensive, but I think that the noble Lord is not acting in the best interests of the country in the kind of statement he has just made. It is quite wrong of him, because of the mere fact that I did not go into what arrangements are made for the movement of this material, to let it he known that it is his opinion (which could have wide circulation) these materials w ere being moved around without any form of guard or protection. If they allowed that, any Government, any authority, would have been acting with complete irresponsibility hut I do not intend to match that irresponsibility by disclosing to the Committee what steps are taken to protect this material, except to tell the Committee that it is protected.
Lord AVEBURY: I can only say that we are in a dilemma which clearly is not going to he resolved this afternoon. But if we are not told about the measures that are taken to protect special nuclear material when, after all, the Government agree that we are entitled to know something about them as far as the internal affairs of the United Kingdom are concerned, then there is always the possibility (I put it no higher) that the public will have some anxiety as to whether these arrangements are adequate. We shall have to return to this matter on some other occasion and discuss what arrangements the United Kingdom has made with our allies overseas who operate reprocessing facilities to see that shipments of this nature are properly protected against the activities of international terrorists. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
3.19 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY Lord AVEBURY moved Amendment No. 3:
After Clause 3 insert the following new clause:
Complaints against Authority constables.
. Any complaints by members of the public against Authority constables in respect of the powers conferred on them under this Act shall he subject to the same complaints procedure as is for the time being in force for police forces maintained by police authorities.
The noble Lord said: I preface my remarks by saying that nothing that I am about to say should be construed as any criticism of the Atomic Energy Constabulary as it is at present or the way it has been operating, and I am fully aware that there have been practically no complaints made against the constabulary whatsoever during the past 10 years. I return to this subject not because of any anxiety about how the constables have carried out their responsibilities in the past, or how they might do so in the near future, but simply as a matter of legislative necessity we must take into consideration a much longer period of time than even the lifetime of office of a particular Parliament or Government.
This matter has been dealt with rather more thoroughly than others arising from the Bill, but I have to say that after very thorough consideration of what has been said by Ministers we are still not entirely satisfied. For instance, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said in another place on the 4th May, at col. 1213 of the Official Report, that the Government were, if anything, even more anxious than certain Members of the Opposition to ensure that the complaints procedures which apply to civilian police forces should also apply to the AEA constabulary. That is what my honourable friend the Member for Berwick was trying to achieve on Report stage in another place, yet it is not what is accomplished in the Bill as it stands at the moment. Nor would it he if the undertakings which have been given by Ministers were implemented.
The position we have today is that a Police Bill containing an improved complaints machinery and applying to England and Wales is slowly grinding its way through another place; and, of course, we can have no absolute guarantee that it will complete all its remaining stages by the end of this Session, particularly now that the whole of the business programme in another place appears to have been thrown into confusion by other events. But if the Bill does get on to the Statute Book then, as I understand it, the Atomic Energy Authority constables in England and Wales will be subject to exactly the same complaints procedure as that which applies to civilian police forces. and I think my honourable friend

429
the Member for Berwick is to be congratulated on having achieved that much during Report stage in another place.
However, as I say, this Police Bill applies only to England and Wales, and the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland said—and this is in col. 1213, on 4th May —that it was the Government's intention to introduce an independent clement into the machinery for complaints against the police in Scotland at some future date, although it would not necessarily be identical with that in England and Wales. But this is not a Bill which is coming forward in this Session. For all we know it may not appear even in the Queen's Speech this autumn, and therefore it might be not until 1978 that anything is done about it. In the meanwhile—I hope I have this correctly—the AEA constables in Scotland will he dealt with only under the existing internal AEA procedures, which I do not understand to be the same as those which apply to the civilian police in Scotland.
There are two possible solutions to this problem. One is to extend the England and Wales Police Bill to Scotland for this particular purpose alone, as the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, has proposed in another Amendment. On that, I would say that, while it would certainly be a very much tidier arrangement so far as the AEA itself is concerned, I very much doubt whether it would be an acceptable solution for Scottish opinion bearing in mind the very different legal situation under which police forces in Scotland have always operated. It would also mean that every time an Amendment was made to the Police Bill complaints procedure there would have to be a corresponding change in this legislation.
The alternative, which I am putting forward in this Amendment, is the same as that which was advocated by my honourable friend the Member for Berwick and which was argued by him in another place with his usual force and cogency. It is that, whatever the complaints procedure may be applying to civilian police forces either in England and Wales or in Scotland, respectively, for the time being, then those same arrangements will apply automatically to the AEA constabulary. That was always the situation so far as Scotland is concerned, and it avoids the need for any further altera-
430
tion in this Bill when changes are made in the machinery for complaints against civilian police forces. I beg to move.
Lord SHEPHERD: As a general principle, there is nothing between the noble Lord and the noble Earl who is to move the next Amendment. which is for a similar purpose although it is drafted differently. Therefore, with the permission of the Committee I should like to speak, if I may, to both Amendments, although that will not in any way prevent the noble Earl from speaking to his Amendment either separately or alongside the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Avehury. This is an important issue and I am glad that the noble Lord has acknowledged the discipline of this force which I have spoken about earlier and that there has only been one complaint during the last 10 years.
Clause 6 of the Bill provides that forces like the AEA police, usually known as employers' forces, may opt voluntarily to be covered by the hoards. So far as the AEA police are concerned, the Authority are ready to have their force covered by the provisions of the Police Bill when and if it becomes law. However, since the Police Bill will not apply to England and Wales, the AEA police when in Scotland may be subject to different procedures.
Lord AVEBURY: It may have been a slip of the tongue, but the noble Lord said that the Bill will not apply to England and Wales.
Lord SHEPHERD: The Police Bill will apply to England and Wales. In Scotland, there is a different situation. It is intended to introduce legislation to establish a Police Complaints Panel for Scotland and it is intended that this should be available for the officers of the AEA constabulary. I appreciate that no one can anticipate when that legislation will come forward, but in the interim period before legislation for Scotland can be brought into force, the Authority's constables serving in Scotland will be subject to an adequate complaints procedure as close as possible to what will be provided for England and Wales.
Noble Lords will appreciate that complaints involving a criminal allegation would he dealt with by t he procurator

431
fiscal as with officers serving in the regular Scottish police forces. Other complaints would be handled by procedure certainly no less rigorous than that applied to officers serving in the regular police force. We intend to find a way to ensure that any complaints arising in Scotland will be treated in a manner similar in spirit and form to that provided by the Police Bill. What I have said, I hope will convince noble Lords that we are dealing with the substance of the issues raised and that the interim period before Scottish legislation could be in force will certainly be adequately covered.
Turning to the terms of the Amendments, I have grave doubt whether they will achieve the effect desired.The Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, would force the constabulary to remain subject to the existing complaints procedure in Scotland until legislation to establish a police complaints panel for all regular police is enacted. As I have said, we intend to go one better and to find a way to make the AEA police subject to similar procedures to those contained in the Police Bill for England and Wales in advance of the enactment of similar legislation for Scotland. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, would wish to frustrate that intention.
The Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, refers to a Police Bill which has not yet been enacted. I think that we ought to give careful thought to whether it is right to put into (shall we say?) current legislation a requirement to act and comply with other legislation which has not yet been seen in your Lordships' House. I conclude by saying that there is nothing between us at all; that it is our firm intention to see that the spirit and form of Clause 6 of the Police Bill shall be operated for the AEA constabulary throughout Great Britain.
3.30 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I should also like to emphasise that these Amendments deal with a hypothetical situation in the sense that, as has been said, complaints against the Atomic Energy Authority as an employer have, mercifully, been almost unique. One hopes that that happy situation will be continued. But we are dealing with a situation which the
432
Government regard as grave. There is apparently to be an increasing use of fissile materials. There will be an increasing traffic in fissile materials and therefore it would be idle to say that because there has only been one complaint in the past 10 years that does not force us to consider what may happen in the future.
So far as my Amendment is concerned, I was aware that the Police Bill is still a Bill and in a somewhat unsatisfactory state in the other place, if the Government do not mind me saying so. So far as the Public Bill Office were concerned, they were perfectly happy for that situation regarding my Amendment. Naturally, the Lord Privy Seal will know this was merely a device to get the Government thinking and, hopefully, produce those thoughts to your Lordships for discussion.
So far as complaints against police officers of all kinds are concerned, we are approaching what I regard as a somewhat unsatisfactory situation. We are going to have one system of complaints for regular police officers in England; we are going to have a residuary complaint system for police officers in Scotland. Then we are going to have what I might call " Mr. Benn's irregulars ". They are going to have one system of complaints in England and there will be a second—or perhaps I should say a fourth—type of complaint for Scotland. It should be noted that the Dorset-trained " irregular " stationed in England will find an entirely different procedure when he is on duty in Scotland. As Clause 6(4) of the Police Bill says, it does not extend to Scotland. If we are unionists—and most of us are in this small island—it is absurd to set up a new framework for an armed police force and not have the same system of complaints from one end of the United Kingdom to the other. I think that in this day and age we ought to do better than that.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, says that the Police Complaints Board can apparently take on the AEA Constabulary voluntarily. That was the word he used. I should like to ask: what does the word " voluntarily " mean? It means somebody has to be willing, but who? Is it the Police Board, the constabulary, or both?
Lord SHEPHERD: The Police Board.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: The noble Lord says that it is the Police Board. Supposing the constabulary are not willing, can they be directed? If so, by whom and under what power? To be voluntary it has to be willing. So far as Scotland is concerned, we understand that the Scottish Office intend to introduce similar legislation to establish a police complaints panel for Scotland. May I say in parenthesis that denotes to me at any rate that the Government acknowledge the present system in relation to regular police forces is less than satisfactory. Until that happens, it is said that there will he some interim measure for the AEA police in Scotland. Again I ask: who is going to lay down this measure? Is it a matter for the Department of Energy? If so, can they dictate in this way? How does it become voluntary and who has to consent?
There is some confusion over the duty and scope of the procurator fiscal. As I understand the position, the procurator fiscal is an officer of court and he comes in at a fairly late stage to consider first of all whether he thinks an offence against the criminal law has been committed. If—and only if—he thinks it has, and he thinks that is should be ventilated before a criminal court, he then brings the matter before the Sheriff. Before some legislation is introduced which would cover Scotland, one asks: what is going to take the place of this system? Is there to he a chief constable's inquiry? I am not now distinguishing between a complaint which may be in relation to a criminal offence, or may not, according to how the inquiry turns out.
I hope from what I have said it will be seen that the situation is less than happy. I should have thought that, though there seems to be what I might call a rush to get this Bill on the Statute Book, surely there would be time to get the complaints procedure right. I should have thought that the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal could take this matter away and look at it again.
I know my Amendment does not meet the bill, if only because of the fact that if the Atomic Energy Authority (Special Constables) Bill goes on the Statute Book before the Police Bill—which at the present rate of progress appears to be extremely probable—my Amendment falls to the ground. Nevertheless, I would ask the
434
noble Lord to look at this again and see whether he cannot come up with something a little more logical and rather more comprehensive.
Lord BROWN: May I intervene over the logical fault I noticed in the noble Earl's comment. He said that if the appeals body he mentioned (I have forgotten the word) agreed voluntarily to take on the business of dealing with complaints about the AEA constabulary then you could not regret that the AEA constabulary should be forced to use it. That is a logical fault because if one body says that they are prepared to deal with these matters then you can direct the extent to which the constabulary should use it. The noble Earl seemed to think there was some inconsistency there. I do not think there is any inconsistency at all.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: I always like to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Brown, especially when he gives me advice, which is frequently. I did not make any point. I merely asked for elucidation and I asked who was going to give the orders. If it is voluntary, that is one thing. If it is less than voluntary, that is another.
Lord BROWN: If the noble Earl reads Hansard tomorrow, he will find my comments are correct.
Lord SHEPHERD: Who would dare to stand between two Scots? The Police Bill says in Clause 6 that:
" The Police Complaints Board may, with the approval of the Secretary of State, make arrangements for any authority maintaining a body of constables, not being a police authority … for the discharge by the Board in relation to those constables of functions corresponding to any of those conferred on the Board by the foregoing provisions of this Part of the Act; and any such arrangement may, with the like approval, be varied and terminated."
I have already indicated to the Committee and to the House on Second Reading that it is the intention of the AEA and the chief constable concerned that this force should be subject to the provisions of Section 6. Once it has entered into this arrangement with the Police Complaints Board, it is not possible for any force, voluntary or otherwise, to withdraw from these procedures without the consent of the Secretary of State.

435
I recognise that on the face of it there is this difference between England and Scotland, with their different structures: but so far as the AEA police are concerned. they will be covered by exactly the same procedures in the interim, until the Scottish Bill comes into force, as the force is in England, which will be subject to the procedures laid down in the Police Bill.
The procedure if there is a complaint will not he that of a Chief Constable's inquiry, as I think the noble Earl suggested. What we have in mind is that when it has been created the Board will look into any of these complaints. But since the Bill which will set it up Will not apply to Scotland, it is expected that it will operate on an ad hoc basis so far as the AEA police are concerned. It is certainly desirable that the Scottish legislation should he introduced as quickly as possible. I suspect that it w ill be broadly similar to the Police Bill that is now in another place. When that is done. many of the difficulties to which the noble Earl. Lord Mansfield, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, have referred will clearly disappear.
I can give this very firm assurance that the AEA constabulary are only too anxious to participate in Clause 6 of the Police Bill. that we will set up the administrative arrangements and that the Secretary of State w ill ensure that the spirit of Clause 6, and of the Police Bill as a whole, is complied with by the AEA constabulary throughout Great Britain.
Lord AVEBURY: The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has certainly gone further. if I understood him correctly, than Members of the Commons managed to go, in clarifying the complaints machinery which will operate in Scotland between the passing of this Bill and the coming into force of any future legislation which may set up new machinery for civilian police there. I must say that the noble Lord astonished me, not for the first time this afternoon, in saying that under a Bill which applies only to England and Wales it is possible to have what he called ad hoc procedures to deal with the situation in Scotland. I should have thought that was yet another innovation among many which are being introduced under this Bill, hut I am perfectly happy to accept the
436
noble Lord's assurances that that is so. Also, I do not want to become involved in a technical argument between two Scotsmen on the exactitudes of the work of the procurator fiscal.
I want to make only one point. In the first of his interventions. the noble Lord. Lord Shepherd, said that the machinery which applied in Scotland would he similar in spirit and form to that in England and Wales. I thought he had chosen his words rather carefully, so as to take into account the differences which exist because of the judicial background, particularly the role of the procurator fiscal. As I have understood it. in the case of any complaint against civilian police in England and Wales. if there is evidence showing that a criminal offence has been committed the complaint must go straight to the Director of Public Prosecutions: whereas in Scotland the investigation can he pursued further down the line by the police themselves before the procurator fiscal cones into it. Therefore, I quite agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that the machinery which is to be introduced as a temporary measure in Scotland will have to he similar and not identical to that in England and Wales. I do not know whether or not it was a slip of the tongue, hut in his last speech he used the term " exactly the same I see that the noble Lord is nodding his head to indicate that he meant " similar ".
This is probably the best solution that we can devise. As I said, if we exactly applied to Scotland the Police Bill procedure in England and Wales. we should not only step on Scottish susceptibilities but we might run into some legal difficulties there. We merely have to accept the fact that this rather unsatisfactory interim procedure is necessary, by reason of the fact that the Scotland and the England and Wales Police Bills are not absolutely in parallel, which would have been a much better solution. But in the light of the assurances that have been given by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without Amendment.

SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFIT (DETERMINATION OF REQUIRE- MENTS) REGULATIONS 1976
3.46 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL rose to move, That the draft Supplementary Benefit (Determination of Requirements) Regulations 1976. laid before the House on 13th May, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House if, subject to the consent of the noble Lord who will he speaking for the Opposition and of your Lordships, we discussed the draft Supplementary Benefit (Determination of Requirements) Regulations 1976 together with the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1976, which also was laid before your Lordships on 13th May.
The two Instruments together provide for most of the increases in benefits announced by my right honourable friend the former Secretary of State in her Statement in another place on 7th April. I will deal first with the National Insurance and industrial injuries benefits which are covered by the Order and then turn to the supplementary benefit increases provided by the regulations.
I do not propose to enumerate all the various increases, because a list of the main rates is to be found in Appendix I to the Government Actuary's Report (Cmnd. 6478) which accompanies the Order. It might help your Lordships if I refer to the standard rates of retirement pension, which will be increased from £13.30 to £15.30 for a single person, and from £21.20 to £24.50 for a married couple, increases of about 15 per cent. Other long-term benefits will rise by corresponding amounts. It might also be helpful if mention the standard rate of sickness and unemployment benefit which will go up by about 16 per cent. from £11.10 to £12.90 for a single person, and from £18 to £20.90 for a married couple. Other short-term benefits will rise by corresponding amounts.
Your Lordships will realise that on this occasion the Government have departed from usual practice and have given a higher percentage increase to the short term benefits—benefits which, however, are not, for some people, all that short-term. The Government have been concerned about the widening gap between
438
these benefits and the long-term pension rates and considered that there should be some closing of the gap.
If I may refer briefly to the structure of the Order, Article 1 is formal. The increased rates are provided for by Article 2, together with the Schedule, and Article 3 provides for the dates from which the various increases in benefit are to take effect in the week beginning 15th November. Articles 4 and 5 are technical: the one up-dating the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 and the other formally revoking last year's Up-rating Order.
This will be, as your Lordships will recall, the fourth uprating since this Government entered Office, and this is the second occasion on which National Insurance and industrial injuries benefits have been increased by an Order rather than by an Up-rating Bill. This method is provided for in the Social Security Act 1975 and was first used for the up-rating of benefits implemented in November 1975. It is proposed that the new rates of benefit in the present order will come into force in the week beginning 15th November, one year after the last increases. Although in the last two years up-ratings have been more frequent than once a year, the Government now feel that the falling rate of inflation means that such emergency measures are no longer necessary. It has always been our intention to return to the system of annual reviews of benefit levels, which the law obliges my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to carry out.
From April 1975 the Social Security Act placed upon the Secretary of State the duty at least to maintain the value of the pension in line with the movement of earnings or of prices, whichever is more favourable to the pensioner. In April 1975 the standard rate of retirement pension for a single person was £11.60, and £18.50 for a married couple. These rates were in fact introduced from that month by the Social Security Benefits Act 1975, and this was the last occasion on which the Secretary of State needed to use major legislation to increase pensions. By the first order made under the Social Security Act, pensions were subsequently increased to £13.30 for a single person and £21.20 for a married couple. These rates came into effect in November 1975. Between April and

439
November 1975, prices rose by 11.7 per cent., and earnings rose by 12.1 per cent. To maintain the value of the April 1975 pension rates it would have been necessary, therefore, to increase them by the higher of these percentages to give rates of £13 for a single person and £20.80 for a married couple. Therefore the rates introduced in our last up-rating order—£13.30 and £21.20, as I have said—were more than sufficient to maintain the pension levels, and we are confident that the 15 per cent. increase proposed for November 1976 will be more than sufficient to protect and maintain pensions against prices and earnings increases between November 1975 and November 1976.
My Lords, I will turn now to the Supplementary Benefit Regulations. These regulations provide for increases in the supplementary benefit scale rates laid down by the Supplementary Benefit Act 1966. As your Lordships will know, the scale rates, together with an addition for rent, represent the levels to which the incomes of retired and other people not in full-time work can be brought up by means of supplementary benefit. It is proposed this year, as in previous up-ratings, to increase the main supplementary benefit scale rates by the same cash amounts as the corresponding National Insurance pensions and benefits.
The main supplementary benefit increases are provided for in Article 2. It is proposed that the long-term rates which are payable to supplementary pensioners and to people, except the unemployed, who have received a supplementary allowance continuously for two years, shall be increased by £2 to £15.70 for a person living alone, and by £3.30p to £24.85p for a married couple. The rates for those aged over 80 remain 25p higher. The ordinary scale rates which apply to the unemployed and to people who have received a supplementary allowance for fewer than two years are to be increased by £1.80p to £12.70p for a single person, and by £2.90p to £20.65p for a married couple. Increases in the rates for children are in roughly the same proportion. The blind are to continue to receive their existing preferential margin on top of the improved rates.
Article 2 also provides for increases in the amounts allowed for attendance
440
requirements in the Supplementary Benefits scheme. They apply to supplementary beneficiaries who are in receipt of the National Insurance attendance allowance. The increases in attendance requirements are the same as those being made in the attendance allowance itself, with the higher rate becoming £12.20 and the lower rate £8.15. A standard weekly addition for rent is given to a beneficiary who is not a householder, and it is proposed that this shall be increased by 20p to £1.20 a week. This increase, together with the raising of the scale rate, will give the non-householder an increase of £1.80 if he is on the long-term scale, or £1.65 if he is not.
That concludes my account of the specific increases contained in the order and regulations before us. Your Lordships will, however, be pleased to learn that the Supplementary Benefits Commission have decided to raise their discretionary additions for extra heating from 55p, £1.10 and £1.65 a week, to 70p, £1.40 and £2.10 respectively. The standard additions for special diets are also to be increased from 60p and £1.35 to 75p and £1.75 a week respectively. These increases in discretionary additions will also take effect from November.
About l2½ million people will benefit from the increases proposed in the draft order and the draft regulations. The annual cost of the proposals before your Lordships' House today is no less than £1,340 million. It is probably not generally recognised that all our pension schemes cost £160 million per week; in other words, £23 million per day. I think my figures are correct. There will at the same time be an additional cost of £37 million for war pensions and of something in the region of £14 million for the increases in supplementary benefit discretionary additions. Of the total cost nearly £1,160 million will fall on the National Insurance Fund, the rest being provided by Exchequer grant. The new contribution rates which came into force in April will be sufficient to finance in the current year the rates of benefits which I have been able to announce. For 1977 to 1978 there will be a review of contributions later this year. With your Lordships' permission, that is all I feel 1 need say at this stage, and I hope that there will be no hesitation on the part of your Lordships in accepting these Instruments. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Supplementary Benefit (Determination of Requirements) Regulations 1976, laid before the House on 13th May, be approved.—(Lord Wells-Pestell,)
4 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for giving details of the schemes which we have heard. He can rest assured that we on this side of the House warmly welcome the proposals made and the terms in which they have been carried out_ There are a number of queries which must inevitably arise. Taking the datum of April 1974 as the period when the Government took Office, up to May 1976, a two-year period, I think the Government should be congratulated that this is the fourth uprating since they took Office. But one must remember that set against that there is the very unwelcome piece of news which was announced in another place on Monday, that during that same period the cost of living, variously worked out, rose by approximately 51 per cent. However, we must be pleased to hear what the noble Lord has said in regard to the fact that the arrangements made for the increases in November more than cover the rise in the cost of living.
The question which I should like to ask the noble Lord is this. I wonder whether he can give us any direct evidence of the purchasing power of the pension during these last three upratings, because that is perhaps the most significant piece of information your Lordships would wish to have. In regard to the information over the discretionary allowances for both heating and additional feeding, it must be a matter of grave concern for both statutory and voluntary organisations concerned with old people suffering from hypothermia, especially bearing in mind the expected rise in the cost of electricity. Therefore, the Government's proposals will be particularly welcome. Whether they meet the requirement is a different matter; nevertheless, in the circumstances, it is probably something which may be adjusted in due course.
I would like most warmly to welcome the additional expenditure of £37 million for war widows, which bears out the concern the noble Lord expressed in a debate a few weeks ago on this subject. So far as the regulations are concerned,
442
the noble Lord gave us full details. I have no observations in that regard, except to welcome the terms in which he did so.
4.4 p.m.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, I also would like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for his very thorough explanation of these two Instruments. Of course, we all in this House welcome increases in social security benefits, even while we realise that their main purpose is to keep pace with inflation. I understand there will be no improvement in the relation of benefits to net average earnings as a result of these increases.
The noble Lord mentioned the cost of the increases, which, of course, is a large sum; but he went on to say—and it is stressed in the Government Actuary's report on these instruments—that this would be met by the contribution rate which was fixed last year. The Government Actuary stresses the fact that where you have contributions related to earnings they should provide a buoyant revenue which will automatically meet the increase in benefits. Therefore, we must not be too alarmed by the size of the figures that are mentioned by the noble Lord as to the cost of these proposals.
Some credit was taken in another place when these changes were announced by the then Secretary of State, Mrs. Castle, for the fact that there had been an increase in the real value of pensions under the present Government. But if you set up a scheme under which pensions and longterm benefits generally are to rise in line with whichever is the higher—the increase in prices or the increase in earnings—then inevitably the pension will either increase in real value or become a higher percentage of national average earnings. It must do one or the other. An increase in real value then underlines the original virtue of the scheme rather. than any subsequent Government generosity.
When we discussed the last up-rating order on 30th June 1975 the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said at column 49:
" … the interval between the April and the proposed November upratings is, as I have said, just over seven months, so that the movements of 1 prices and earnings were measured over a seven-month period, starting from August 1974—the point where the calculation of the last uprating ended. Thus the period of measurement was for

443
the seven months up to March 1975. Later information is now available, but changes in earnings and prices after March 1975 will be reflected in the next uprating."
But we see now that that is not going to happen. The Government have decided to jump ahead to the date of the last uprating of November 1975 and estimate a year ahead from there.
Since the rate of inflation has been reduced, it is true that this will mean, if the Government prediction is correct for the current year, that there will be no fall in the real value of benefits when next November rate is compared with last November rate. But recipients will have been denied compensation for the higher rate of inflation which took place in the period from March 1975 to November 1975, and which has been left out of the calculations. That increase has nevertheless been built into the current levels of earnings and prices. After all, earnings and prices continue to increase, even if more slowly. They are certainly not falling. So there has been no offset for the higher increase in that period. In conclusion, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether, should the rate of inflation increase again, the Government intend to move the reference period back again wholly into the past, so that one way or the other the recipient loses out?
4.8 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, for their understanding of what the Government are endeavouring to do. The noble Lord, Lord Sandys, expressed some concern about the heating. This is a matter of considerable moment so far as my Department is concerned, and I was at some pains to endeavour to find out what the situation really is. The position is that I was surprised to learn what personal attention was given to each individual person who needs some kind of heating allowance. If, of course, the cost of heating goes up, then it will be the concern of the Department to see that the real needs of people, particularly those who are in receipt already of a heating allowance, will in fact be met.
As the noble Lord, Lord Banks, said, we are at some pains to try to keep
444
pensions in line with inflation. The only thing that the Government can do in matters of this kind is to try, using the best means possible when introducing an up-rating, to see what the situation will be when the pensions in fact come in. This is not easy but there are ways and means of assessing trends and that is what we have sought to do. I was asked how much real improvement the Government had achieved in the level of retirement pensions. The rates of £13.30 for a single person and £21.20 for a married couple introduced last November are worth about 8.1 per cent., in other words 99p, for single persons and 6.8 per cent. for married couples more than the equivalent of the October 1973 rates after allowing for price increases up to April 1976, the latest date for which figures are available.
Reference to the missing period, which Lord Banks put his finger on, as I thought he would, serves only to obscure the real issues. They are, first, whether this Government have maintained the value of the pension and, secondly, whether the present proposals will continue to do so. On the first, as I tried to say earlier, the last up-rating established levels of pensions which were worth more— on a comparison either with earnings or prices —than any previous rate. On the second, the Government are confident that the present proposals will maintain the pension value with something to spare. This must be a matter not of conjecture but of what will happen between now and November.
As noble Lords will know, Government Departments have an opportunity to assess fairly accurately what will happen even if they do not always say what will happen, and this is what has been done. Further, the pension in November will be worth substantially more than the rates introduced by the previous Government in the autumn of 1973. I do not say that in any way unkindly; I was asked to give some sort of comparison. We shall have increased it by over 97 per cent., whereas up to last month prices had increased by only 59 per cent. So this is a real step forward and shows that the amounts which we have fixed really are giving a plus and not a minus.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS UP-RATING ORDER 1976
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I spoke to this order when moving the previous one and, with the permission of the House, I move it formally.
Moved, that the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 1976, laid before the House on 13th May, be approved.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ROYAL ASSENT
4.14 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1976,
Land Drainage (Amendment) Act 1976, Licensing (Amendment) Act 1976,
Seychelles Act 1976,
Australian Estates Companies Act 1976,
Standard Life Assurance Company Act 1976,
Railway Clearing System Superannuation Fund Act 1976,
Samuel Montagu & Co. Limited Act 1976.

THEATRES TRUST BILL
4. I 5 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Experience has taught me that the necessary ingredients for piloting a Private Member's Bill on to the Statute Book come under three headings. First, the result, or the anticipated result, must be seen to be for general good. Secondly, the Bill must be modest in what it wants to do. Thirdly, perhaps most importantly, it must have a strong element of support from the Government of the day. I can say with complete confidence that this Bill, guided through the other place by my honourable friend the Member for Canterbury, Mr. David Crouch, passes all three tests. I think that we can accept the requirement of the
446
first test easily; whether it be on cultural grounds or on material grounds, assisting the national balance of trade, this Bill is clearly eminently desirable. With regard to the second test—that the Bill should be modest—I believe that it is modest even to the point of being too modest as regards asking Parliament for more legislation to attain desirable ends. On the third test—the important one—the Government have shown very clearly up to now that they are sympathetic, and I know that no one is more sympathetic than the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, who is to speak for the Government in this debate.
Briefly, the Bill is designed to make it more difficult for anyone to add to the demise of existing live theatres by demolishing them or by radically changing their nature and making them unusable as live theatres. Under the Bill such a change would have to be examined by a theatre trust, set up by the Secretary of State for Education and Science, before any planning authority could sanction such a change that would mean the end of a theatre. I believe that anyone who has even a passing knowledge of the history of theatre in this country would recognise that such delaying powers have been long overdue. If note is taken of the many British theatres which have been allowed to perish over recent years, it will be seen that time ought not to be allowed to go without trying to rectify what has been an omission. We have seen the inevitably disastrous effects that losing so many theatres have had on those employed in the theatrical profession. We have seen, too, the danger it presents to our being able to maintain our world leadership in the quality and the standing of the British theatre.
We can also look at the matter in money terms. The income which the theatre brings to our tourism, the royalties from new plays which are presented and are sent on tour, and the income from the actors' salaries, all added together, form a very important part of the Exchequer income, and we cannot disregard that. Your Lordships will know that for many years certain theatres have been protected from premature demolition because the structure of the buildings brought them within the ambit of being of either special architectural or historic significance. This

447
power has been exercised under the Department of the Environment for a long time and has been used to some purpose.
This protection operated at the planning stage under the auspices of the other Ministry, the Ministry of Environment. That will remain, and it is in no way affected by what is proposed in this Bill. It is quite separate from it. They are both doing the same thing, but they are doing it under different auspices and for different reasons. What we are now endeavouring to do by means of this Bill is to protect from ill-considered demolition bona fide theatre buildings which have no special architectural or historic significance but which are good working theatres, meeting a public need and providing a venue for preserving the art of acting in Britain. That is the purpose of the Bill.
My Lords, having described it in those general terms I can say with confidence that this is a realistic Bill. There is no question of trying to establish by Statute that a certain site must carry a theatre in perpetuity, in spite of other considerations. It is recognised that other considerations, such as a radical change in population in any area, may make a situation different. It is recognised that clear proof that a theatre could never come anywhere near paying for itself is a matter that would have to be taken into account; and this Bill is an indication of the awareness of those realistic considerations. The Bill merely lays down that before a change of user under existing planning permission is made, a Theatre Trust set up by the Minister of Education and Science shall be consulted, not with any powers to stop it at that stage but in order that it may be made certain that all of the considerations for preserving the theatre have been taken into account.
My Lords, this is also a realistic Bill in what is intended from this point of view. There is no question at all of the Trust comprising what I would call " stage-struck bigots ". It will consist of men of commerce and business, professional people and the consuming public, as well as those who are of the theatre and who understand the nuts and bolts of theatre management. It will cover the whole range, and the considerations to be taken into account will be taken into account by people of experience, not overborne with
448
emotionalism such as I have described as being " stage-struck ", or anything of that sort. When consulted, the members of this Trust would apply themselves to seeing whether there was a case for protecting a theatre. If they decided there was no case—and there will be instances where that will happen—they will report, and the Trust would then withdraw, leaving any planning decision to the normal planning authorities.
Alternatively, if the Trust were to report that the theatre should be maintained and the owners of the theatre and the site were to find difficulty in maintaining it, then the planning authority would ask the Trust what it would do about it, having recommended that a theatre should he preserved but that there are practical reasons which make that difficult. If the Trust, recognising those dangers, still recommend that planning permission for demolition or alteration should not be given, then the planning authority asks the Trust. " What do you do about it? ", and the Trust would then have to take such steps as are set out in the Bill, using their own funds, to see that the theatre was maintained.
Let me emphasise at once that there is no question of public money being made available to the Trust. If they make a decision which necessitates their stepping in at any time in a way which involves the spending of money, then they have to raise the money in order to give effect to what they are recommending. There is no question of Government money being involved. I emphasise that in view of the comments made by the noble Lord the Leader of the House when he warned your Lordships about asking for all sorts of extra facilities which cost money and, at the same time, complaining about the high level of Government spending. In this instance, if the Trust makes itself responsible for giving a recommendation which will maintain a theatre and it is going to cost money to go on maintaining it, they must find that money in order to see that it can be done. It is at this stage that I think it right to ask the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, the Minister responsible in this House, to reinforce here the undertaking given by his colleague in another place.
I have suggested already that under the Bill the Theatres Trust must be consulted

449
before any planning decision is given. In fact, such mandatory powers will be given, not under this Bill; the mandatory powers will be given by adding the words set out in Clause 5 of the Bill to the appropriate section of the existing Town and Country Planning Act 1971. The words in Clause 5 were:
" 5.—(a) Before a local planning authority grants a planning permission for the development of any land on which is situated any theatre as defined in the Theatre Trust Act 1976 they shall consult with the Theatre Trust incorporated by this Act."
This requires an authority other than the Ministry of Education and Science to include in their instruments this necessary mandatory power.
The colleague of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, has given a clear undertaking in another place that this will be brought in this year in order to make the Bill effective; and I should be grateful, while accepting a categorical assurance given in another place, if the noble Lord, for the Record here, could give a similar undertaking in this House. Having got that, I think one can then recommend this Bill to your Lordships as being something worth while and which in the future will be valuable.
I think that the timing of this Bill is about right. We have to keep in mind the often-mooted redevelopment of the centre of London, especially in the Covent Garden area, where no fewer than 16 theatres are affected by the Greater London Council's plan for redevelopment-16 London theatres. We cannot overlook the fact that many theatres have leases with only a few years to run, with the owners being more interested in property development than in the social balance. I do not abuse them for that. It is not their responsibility or duty, but it is the responsibility and duty of Parliament, of which this House forms a part, to see that the social balance is maintained.
The owners to whom I have referred have their rights, rights which must be treated fairly; and this is a Bill which allows for them to be treated fairly. If they are robbed of their full development rights they can call upon the Trust that is forming some obstacle to their having full freedom of action in that field to justify their opposition to it by finding money of their own. There is much more to all this in my view—and this is
450
the reason why I undertook the piloting of this Bill through your Lordships' House—than merely rescuing a theatre or two from bankruptcy. The one field in which we truly lead the world is the British theatre and British acting. There is no argument about that. It is universally acknowledged. Having achieved that very satisfactory situation, it increases our influence in the world—for the theatre is the most articulate of all lobbies.
Furthermore, if we remain supreme in that field, it will not only maintain our leadership; it will add to our coffers, for the theatre overspills into films and into television and television, in particular, is only in its infancy. We think that because we have three or four channels of television in this country there is a lot of television about. The effect of television and the extension of it throughout the world is only beginning; only a fraction of the world is using this medium in the way it is being used in this country and in America. That will grow. If we can remain the centre, the power house for providing the material for this great industry which is going to grow, we can become the Hollywood of the world just like that part of America was when films were at the beginning.
I believe this is a true vision. We should be stupid in a very material sense if we did anything which took away from us the leadership which we have in the world of the theatre and acting generally. This Bill may be of only miniscule proportions in aiming to maintain this supremacy. But though tiny, its influence can be important and I believe the timing of its entrance on to the Statute Book is just about right. Because I feel that your Lordships will feel the same way, I am encouraged to believe that before the end of the Session it will form part of the legislation of this country. With that hope in mind, I am happy to move its Second Reading. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Harmar-Nicholls.)
4.31 p.m.
Viscount NORWICH: My Lords, the afternoon is already rather far advanced and I am perfectly sure that your Lordships will not want to spend a great deal

451
more time listening to me. Fortunately, I do not think your Lordships are going to have to do so, because the Bill we are considering is first of all a model of clarity and conciseness. Secondly, it has been most admirably summed up by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. Thirdly, I have a clear feeling that, in any case, if I did go on " rabbiting " about it for too long, I should only be preaching to the converted. If there is any better argument for a short sermon then I should like to know it.
The basic purpose of the Bill—and there can be no disagreement of any kind on this—is admirably summed up in the Preamble. It is simply for the better protection of the theatre. As the noble Lord said, it goes farther than that because through protecting the theatre we also protect the hard-pressed, overcrowded, struggling, underpaid theatrical profession. We also give a superb cultural feast to foreign and particularly Commonwealth and American visitors, and improve our balance of payments.
I know that the following is not the purpose of the Bill, but it is a useful spinoff of it: we shall protect a great many theatres of very considerable architectural merit, because although not all theatres are of any considerable architectural merit, a great many are and the architectural conservation side, although not an integral part, is something which, none the less, is not to be dismissed. Far more important is the fact that in bringing this Bill on to the Statute Book, we are striking another blow for the greatness and glory of the English theatre. It has been the brightest jewel in our cultural crown in the past 400 years, and it is the duty of us all to keep it bright and burnished.
The protection that we shall give if' the Bill is passed is of vital importance and necessity—let nobody be in any doubt about that. We can all draw up a fairly long list of theatres of which we have had personal knowledge in the past twenty years or so which have disappeared. Scores and scores of them, literally without exaggeration, have gone since the end of the last war. At this very moment there are fifteen London theatres whose leases are due to expire before the end of the century. Five of those are in respect of freeholds
452
held by property development companies. They include the Royal Opera House and the Royal Court, which are two of the subsidised theatres.
On top of that there is the unfortunate but undeniable fact that even the theatres that make money are at risk, because they do not make as much money as an office block would do on the same site. It is totally unrealistic to expect a theatre, which operates for three or four hours a day at most, to make as much money as an office block in which every room would be occupied for about eight hours per day. Therefore, the great enemy of the survival of the theatre—I do not think there is any point in whitewashing it—is greed.
To some extent, also, it may be said to be due to insensitivity on the part of local authorities. There is no more dangerous doctrine than that which holds that it is the inhabitants of a locality or the local authority which should he responsible for the architecture, atmosphere or amenities of that locality. We have seen what has happened in so many of the historic medieval cities in this country, such as Gloucester, Worcester and, in part, even Bath. We have seen the appalling threat hanging over Petworth Park, due to the incredible insensitivity on the part of the Sussex County Council, and we have to assume that a great many local authorities have been simply unwilling to bother about what seems to them a matter of relatively minor interest in these days of television, and have been only too ready to grant planning permission.
At the same time, we should not be too hard on all local authorities, some of whom are models of enlightenment and who have simply had to give in because they have known there was no good legitimate reason why planning permission should be withheld. By continuing to withhold it, they might have laid themselves open to the risk of being sued for enormous sums of money: and they have had to give in. In particular, it is those enlightened local authorities who should be particularly grateful for the protection offered by this Bill. I do not think there is any reason for me to repeat the terms and the form this protection will take. That has been admirably described already by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls.

453
When I looked at this Bill in its present form, I shall not conceal from your Lordships that I was very concerned to see that, however admirable its basic principles seemed to be, it did also seem to be totally devoid of teeth. There seemed to be absolutely no reason why the Theatres Trust, having been formed, need be consulted; but 'this is a matter which has been hammered out at very considerable length in another place. I understand it has been agreed that the best way of achieving its purpose is not to amend the Town and Country Planning Act 1971 hut to achieve the same end through an amendment to the General Development Order under that Act. This is a technical question which I shall not pursue, because I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kings-bridge, is just about to do that, with far more authority and clarity than I can boast.
However, before leaving the point, I should like to join my voice to that of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, in asking the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, whether he will—and I am certain he will be delighted to do that—repeat the assurances already given in another place. The first is that the General Development Order will be amended when, as I understand the position, it comes up for revision in any case during the course of the present year. The second assurance, which I am sure your Lordships will agree is equally important, is that by achieving the aim in this way we are giving the point every bit as much of the force of law as if we had decided to keep the original Clause 5 in the Bill and amend the Town and Country Planning Act 1971.
When I looked at this Bill for the first time, it seemed to me that this Theatres Trust would be the same kind of animal as the National Trust in which, as some of your Lordships may know, I have an interest and I serve on the Committee. I now see that in several important respects it will not be at all similar to the National Trust. First, it will not he a private charity, as the National Trust basically is, despite the fact that it boasts over 500,000 members; and, secondly, the members of the Theatres Trust will be appointed by the Government. These are very important differences. But there is one overridingly important respect in which the two are
454
similar, which is that the Theatres Trust, like the National Trust, will serve a tremendously important purpose. It will achieve something which, if the Government themselves set out to achieve it with their own money, would prove enormously expensive. As it is, this very important task will be achieved without the expenditure of a single penny of public money, and for this alone it seems to me that this Bill is of most vital importance.
Finally, it only remains for me to add another word to the points already made by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls. Our theatre is, and always has been, the best in the world. In the present grim period through which we are passing, it is rather marvellous to think that at least the theatre, despite all the appalling financial difficulties with which it is surrounded and which occasionally threaten to crush it, has in the last few years gone from strength to strength. During the years in which I have had the honour to be a Member of your Lordships' House, we have seen the abolition of theatre censorship, we have seen the establishment of a National Museum of the Theatre, and of course we have seen the great buildings going up on the South Bank, with the final realisation of the long-awaited dream of a National Theatre in this country. I believe that this measure will he another step forward in the same splendid progress, and for that reason I hope very much that your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, in this brief intervention I want only to say, firstly and lastly, how much I support this Bill. I believe profoundly, as the noble Viscount, Lord Norwich, has just said, that our theatre is one of our biggest credits abroad, apart from the edification of our people, and I feel that this Bill is something which your Lordships' House should support.
4.43 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge): My Lords, when one is going to say, No, to something, it is as well to take one's time about it. But if one is going to say, Yes, there is no reason why one should not do so quickly. This afternoon, I am

455
in affirmative mood. Our position on the Bill is quite clear and we welcome it. We agree with its aim, as described in detail and extremely clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, and, as we understand it, its purpose, which is not simply to preserve buildings as architectural monuments, which is already covered by other legislation, but also to protect theatres for the performance of drama. I shall add nothing to what has been said about the common ground between us, that for financial reasons theatres have been eroded in the last 10 or 15 years and need protection.
I do not mind saying that the Bill is particularly welcome to the Government, because it does not involve any finance and it is very much to the credit of the movers and the people behind this Bill that they have quite firmly said that they will shoulder the cost. I do not think it need be a very heavy expense when it works out, hut, at any rate, it is theirs and not ours and we are wholly behind the objective.
Both noble Lords who spoke first asked me to renew the assurance which was given in another place. The position is that subsection (5)(a) to which the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, referred has been removed from the Bill as it now stands and will appear in the same, or similar provision, in the General Development Order, under Article 13 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, as something to which planners have to refer before they can give planning permission. The Government, and particularly my colleagues in the Department of the Environment, took the view that this was a much safer way of making certain that this was looked at than having it in the Bill.
The assurance that noble Lords are asking for from me is that that will be incorporated within the year. This assurance was given by my honourable friend in another place and we are in the very strong position of having a charming colleague of his in this place. If there is any delay we can all make certain, through my noble friend Lady Birk, that that delay is immediately halted. Therefore I think that I can give this assurance with absolute conviction.
I shall say no more on that point. I shall not go into the detail any further
456
than this because I think that we all understand it. I hope that this will turn out to be one more weapon in the armoury with which to defend the theatre in this country. I agree with everything that has been said about the predominance of the British theatre today not only in Europe but throughout the world. I was rather surprised to hear the noble Viscount suggest that this has always been the case. I could find some periods in the nineteenth century when it certainly was not the case, but this has nothing to do with the argument. Today we lead the world. The Government are as anxious as everybody else to see that we continue to do so. This is one method, combined with the £3 million that we are spending on the two national companies and twice as much again on the companies outside them. It is no mean sum. Combined with that, this should be one further weapon towards maintaining the predominance of the British theatre. I hope that nobody will doubt that the Bill will have a fair passage through this House.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, on behalf of all of us on these Benches may I wish noble Lords in all parts of the House a very happy, relaxing and, for some of us, rehabilitating Recess.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, on behalf of noble Lords on this side of the House, may I thank the Chief Whip very much for her kind wishes. We reciprocate them fully.
Lord AMULREE: My Lords, on behalf of noble Lords on these Benches may I also thank the Chief Whip. We trust that she shall come back greatly restored. I cannot see that the Chief Whip needs a great deal of restoration now, but I take it that she probably feels she does!

ANGLIAN WATER AUTHORITY BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments, together with a Special
Report; Bill recommitted to an Unopposed Bill Committee, and the Special Report to be printed.

YORKSHIRE WATER AUTHORITY (RIVER DERWENT) BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with Amendments.