Lords Sitting of 22 March 1977

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Salisbury.

HUMAN RIGHTS: UN COMMISSION RESOLUTIONS
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what conclusions were reached at the United Nations Commission on Human Rights at Geneva, and what proposals were made by the United Kingdom delegation.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, the Commission passed some eleven resolutions, including ones on Southern Africa, Chile, and the use of torture. The United Kingdom delegation succeeded in having passed a resolution on the protection of mental patients, it co-sponsored the resolution on Chile, contributed to the drafting of the resolution on torture, and other resolutions, and pressed hard for an independent investigation into the situation in Uganda.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, appreciating the decisions which were reached, were they not rather inadequate? Is it not one of the illnesses of the world today that the denial of human rights, according to the American State Department, now occurs in 80 countries? Is it not now possible for Her Majesty's Government to take an initiative in an international convention which shall deny the right of Governments to persecute people for their political opinions?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I very much appreciate my noble friend's concern, as always, with these matters. We certainly were not satisfied
378
with the Commission's performance taken as a whole, but I am glad to assure my noble friend and the House that our delegation played a forceful and honourable role in these discussions. I will not quarrel with him about the extent to which Member States of the United Nations are, in varying degrees, guilty of the infringement of basic human rights. As to the efficacy of a new international convention, the proposal certainly has merit, but I would remind my noble friend that at the end of the day the terms and obligations of an international convention are for application and implementation in the Human Rights Commission.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that it is all very well to pass resolutions in Geneva but it is another matter entirely to have proper machinery for their enforcement? What view do Her Majesty's Government take about the proposal that there should be a United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights? Do the Government intend to present concrete proposals for monitoring the adherence by Governments to the United Nations Convention on Civil and Political Rights, which has been signed by many of the 80 nations which are in contravention of it? Will the noble Lord make a further Statement about this matter in due course?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords, I would welcome the opportunity. At the moment I would say that this country, with others, is in favour of examining any practical way to make effective these resolutions. Of course, these resolutions, when they are adopted, have a certain influence and a certain force. But I take the point that we need to consider at least moving on to the applicatory aspects of the discussions in Geneva and in New York. As to whether the appointment of a High Commissioner is the best way to do this, it may well be. I will certainly, with my right honourable friend, give consideration to this. I repeat, I would welcome the opportunity in due course, not too soon, of making a Statement on this matter.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether any other countries sponsored the draft resolution

379
on Uganda which was put forward by the United Kingdom delegate? Secondly, would the Minister give an assurance that the Government will co-operate in every way with the Human Rights Committee, which is meeting, I believe, for the first time in New York, under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which, of course, came into force last year?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords, I can be responsive on the second part of the noble Baroness's question. As to the modalities of the resolution sponsorship, I think I would need notice of that question; but I understand what lies behind it, and I should like to inform the noble Baroness, and indeed the House, of the position. We played a prominent, and, I think, up to a point, effective part; but I appreciate that the sponsorship of this particular resolution raises important questions. I will do my best to meet the point raised by the noble Baroness.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether it would be true to say that our delegation did reasonably well in the circumstances of today? Would it not also be true to say that those who ask for conventions and for instant solutions in regard to the problems of human rights, are crying for the moon.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I have a certain reluctance to be drawn into that particular civil war. No doubt the noble Baroness and the section of this noble House to which the second part of her question was directed will get together and agree on the resolution. As to the first part of her question, I certainly agree; our delegation, as I said, played a forceful and honourable part. I think it cannot be too often emphasised that this country, whatever its weaknesses—it has no deficiencies, but temporary weaknesses—plays an effective part in these discussions. It is always to be found on the side of human rights, and it always presents its view on a basis of morality and practicality.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, although I support the action which Her Majesty's Government took on Uganda,
380
is there not now a danger that one may select certain countries as breaking human rights when that action is deplorably extensive over the greater part of the world, even in many countries which are our allies as well as those with which we have differences?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I agree that there is always this danger. However, I insist that Her Majesty's Government's policy on human rights is very well known, and is applied across the board to all countries which are found to be infringing these basic rights without regard to their political or other complexion. However, as my noble friend said, it must be borne constantly in mind that our policy is evenhanded and consistently applied to all countries.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, I am at a loss to understand why Her Majesty's Government should come under attack with regard to this very important matter of human rights, in view of the attitude that they have taken in the past. We are not responsible for the educational systems that operate in countries such as Chile. Nevertheless, is it not also true to say that on this major issue the previous Government took a similar stand to the one which Her Majesty's Government have taken?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, not for the first time I welcome my noble friend's contribution. I agree with all that he has said, and I am sure that he and other noble Lords will agree that it is now time to pass on to the next Question.

SOLAR HEATING
2.46 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: 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 give any information about progress being made in regard to solar heating especially for domestic use.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, about 10,000 solar water heating installations are

381
believed to have been supplied last year. Half of these were for swimming pools and the rest mainly for dwellings. Solar space heating is at present too costly to be widely justified, but the Government are supporting development of this and of other applications of solar energy in their own laboratories, in industry and in the universities.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. What advice has been given to domestic users?—because one has seen advertisements on the television and so on which may be rather misleading. In view of the fact that the costs of electricity, gas and coal are continually increasing, does she think that further experiments could advantageously be continued?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I take it that the noble Baroness saw the programme on television last Sunday night, as I did. I can only urge her to advise people to take the advice that was given in that programme and to consult the appropriate trade organisation before entering into any commitments. The Building Research Establishment has a major programme of research on energy use, with particular emphasis on housing. At present it is costing about £500,000 a year. One of the three new experimental houses that we are monitoring is solar heated. We hope to obtain more information as a result of these experiments.
Lord THOMAS: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that one of the most promising applications of solar energy is the desalination of sea water? Is any effort being made towards the development of this system which can bring infertile lands into good agricultural use?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I was sure that this House would live up to its name and that we would even find an expert in solar energy. I do not have the answer to the noble Lord's question. My brief is peculiarly concerned with the application to domestic heating, but I shall certainly make inquiries and will write to the noble Lord if we have any information.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell the House what improvement
382
grants one is eligible for if one installs a solar-assisted hot water system?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, none, because at the moment it is not one of the approved means of heating the water in one's house.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, in view of the peculiarly scandalous nature of some of the advertisements, would it be possible for Her Majesty's Government to take steps to advertise the fact that only those systems which have been approved should be installed? Many people are not aware of how deplorably inadequate some of the systems can be.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, although I share my noble friend's concern, we might be accused of trying to tell people how to spend their money if we said in which direction and with which firm they should spend it. I can only reiterate what I said in my answer. There is a trade association covering this and I hope that those who are considering spending a lot of money will make sure, through the auspices of the trade association, that they deal with competent and reputable people.
Lord IRONSIDE: My Lords, can the noble Baroness say whether the Government are participating at present in any European Community programmes with regard to solar energy?
Baroness STEDMAN: Yes, my Lords; there is international collaboration involving several of the international scientific organisations. In addition, we include programmes under both the EEC Joint Research Centre and indirect action sponsored research, and the International Energy Agency also has a five-point solar heating programme. The United Kingdom will eventually take part in all these programmes.

RUDOLF HESS
2.50 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: 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 the time has not come for a new consultation with the other three powers responsible for Spandau, to give Rudolf Hess parole in view of his state of health and the 30 years he has already spent in jail.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, there is, unfortunately, no evidence that there has been any change in the Soviet position on this matter. But we are always ready to consider and to take, in consultation with the French and American Governments, any steps likely to lead to agreement between the four Powers concerned on Hess's release; and we are in touch with them on this subject at the present time.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Would he not agree that the continued incarceration of this sick old man in solitary confinement is a gross violation of human rights? Would the noble Lord impress on his right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary to do all he can to impress on the Soviet Government that, if the other three signatories to the Potsdam Agreement request the release of Hess on parole, it would be entirely in the spirit of détente and humanity if they would comply with this request?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I shall certainly convey to my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary the noble Viscount's feelings, which I take to be the general feeling of the House. I think it is the general feeling in this country. I do not think that this is quite necessary. I know my right honourable friend's views on this and those of the Prime Minister and of the Government, but it is always well that good intentions are reinforced, especially from this House.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the occupying Powers other than the Soviet Union contribute to the maintenance of Spandau? Is it not time that this situation, which is no longer a farce but a tragedy, was brought to an end? What possible advantage is it to the Soviet Union to keep this old man in prison almost at the end of his life?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I think we are all familiar with the statement of Soviet objection to the release of Rudolf Hess. It is based, as they say, on the state of Russian public opinion, which recalls, as they say, the involvement of Rudolf Hess in the events of 1933 to 1941, when he left the country. However, on my noble friend's question as to the costs of Spandau prison, all the costs of the three Western Powers in Spandau prison are borne under the 1953 agreement by the Federal German authorities as part of the Berlin occupation costs. I would hazard the opinion, in reply to my noble friend, that the Russians have no financial preoccupation about this, but they do insist that they have an ideological, and indeed political, preoccupation arising from what they conceive to be a continuing responsibility for the events of the period I have mentioned.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, will the Government remind the Soviet Government that Hess was not sentenced to solitary confinement, but that he has been having to endure that penalty for several years simply because of the death or release of all the other war crimes prisoners who were at Spandau? Should not this be the deciding humanitarian reason for mercy now, to which even the Russians ought to be able to agree?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I believe it is true to say that Hess is now the only inmate of Spandau. Whether the conditions of his detention there fit the term "solitary confinement", I am not so sure. We are, of course, apart from our representations with our other partners in the four-party agreement for his release on the grounds succinctly put by my noble friend Lord Shinwell, concerned that the conditions of his detention should be as humane as possible. I understand that those are basically acceptable, but I take the noble Lord's point that we should have a constant and careful look at conditions as well as at the question of release.
Lord BLYTON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the trial of Warren Hastings in Westminster Hall was in no way comparable to what we are doing to this old man, Rudolf Hess? Is it not time

385
that we threw away the niceties of diplomacy and that the Three-Power Commission, apart from Russia, said that we are going to release this man, because Russia is only keeping him in Spandau jail in order to keep afoot in West Berlin and to protect that monument beside the Brandenburg Gate?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, my noble friend presents what is an attractive course of action. I would, if I may presume, advise the House that it is very important that we maintain the four-power agreement which was negotiated with some difficulty in 1953. Although it creates this kind of difficulty in regard to Rudolf Hess, it is very important on the plus side for the allies that it should be maintained. I think that this is a case for keeping a balanced view of the results of anything like unilateral denunciation of that agreement.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, may I suggest to the noble Lord the Minister that the reason why I take particular interest in this matter is that I knew Hess before the war? I spent one whole afternoon trying to persuade him to come to England and not believe his unfortunate Ambassador in London. Already, then, he impressed one with the fact that he was not a normal man. I would suggest to the noble Minister that possibly in getting together with the other three Powers one might save the face of the Russians by this question of parole. Whereas they will never agree to release, one could on health grounds, and from the public opinion point of view, get them to agree to granting parole. I think that this would meet the case at the moment.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we are in touch on this subject with our allies and other co-signatories of the agreement at the present time. I most certainly will convey to my right honourable friend the tone and temper of the House as expressed this afternoon on this subject.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, I think perhaps we might hear from the Cross-Benches now.
Lord BOOTHBY: My Lords, the Cross-Benchers have not had a chance,
386
and I am going to ask a short question. I would simply ask the noble Lord how the Government can bring themselves to participate any longer in an act of barbarity which really amounts to the slow torture of an old man to death?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I think the question, fairly, would be what considerations weigh with this Government and weighed with their predecessors in maintaining the four-power agreement. As I have said, there are distinct advantages to the West in maintaining that agreement which, I repeat, was negotiated by a Conservative Government with laudable skill against very grave difficulties. I would hope that my noble friend Lord Boothby would reflect on the implications of his question to me today.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, would it not be a good idea if—
Lord PEART: My Lords, we all appreciate the feeling of the House on this matter. I think we ought to proceed.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: I should have liked a go, too, my Lords.

ROMANIAN EARTHQUAKE: RELIEF SUPPLIES
3 p.m.
Lord ELTON: 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 had considered the use of an RAF aircraft to deliver a consignment of drugs available for despatch to Bucharest on 7th March for relief of the victims of the recent earthquake there; whether it is true, as reported in the Press, that this method of delivery was rejected as too costly; and, if so, how much time was lost and how much money was saved by the implementation of this decision.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the Government decided not to charter an RAF aircraft to deliver medical

387
supplies to Romania on 7th March because British Airways and the Romanian State airline were able to take the available supplies on their flights to Bucharest on 8th and 9th March free of charge. The cost of an RAF aircraft would have been roughly £5,000.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Do I understand that there was a delay of 24 hours before the consignment was sent and that the saving thereby was £5,000? Did the noble Lord say that an RAF plane could have taken off on 7th March and that a civilian plane took off on the 8th?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, there was a difference in the time of the first delivery of 24 hours, but I am advised that that delay was not effectively impactive on the situation in Romania. It was in part in response to a suggestion by the Romanian State airline. In those circumstances, we did not feel that we should reject the joint proposal of British Airways and the Romanian State airline when the delay was only a few hours, one day, and the saving of £5,000 was available to add to the donation we were contemplating making to the Romanian authorities.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, while accepting that the saving could be otherwise used, may I ask the noble Lord to accept that there are occasions when delay is critical? Will he bear that point in mind with every case, as with this case? Does he feel that there is any other way in which Her Majesty's Government can facilitate the recovery of people who, although they live under a political system with which we do not sympathise, deserve our sympathy all the more in their present physical hardship?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I would instantly agree that there are occasions when a delay of only a few hours may be critical. No doubt the Romanian State airline would also have had that point in mind when they made the proposal to us, with British Airways, that a delay of a few hours was fully justifiable and would not have an effective impact on the operation of the aid. I am glad the noble Lord raised the point in
388
the second part of his supplementary question because it gives me an opportunity to inform the House that, in addition to the governmental and considerable private subscriptions made from this country to the Romanian Government and people, the Export Credits Guarantee Department has decided in principle to make available to the Romanians a special credit line of£10 million on favourable conditions. The Romanians will be able to use this to place orders with British companies to replace equipment damaged during the earthquake.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to say whether the figure of £5,000 which he mentioned as the cost of the aeroplane included a provision for RAF overheads? If so, is not the real marginal cost of the operation substantially less than£5,000?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: That may or may not be so, my Lords, but I must repeat that this was a consensus decision which involved not only Her Majesty's Government and British Airways but also the Romanian State airline. In that context, I think the House can be assured that no undue delay was caused by this, I think, very sensible adjustment of costs. It adds £5,000 to the totality of what we are able to make available to the Romanian authorities and people, and, as I explained in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, we are following up that extra £5,000 with an extra credit line of £10 million.
Lord GEORGE-BROWN: My Lords, may I put to the Minister in the form of a question what is really an assertion? May I suggest that we should protect the Government—if they need our protection—from any suggestion that they acted improperly in this matter? Those of us who know Communist States do not need to spell out in fine detail the embarrassment and tenderness they feel about having a British military aircraft landing in Romania. We can be certain that in this case it was a Romanian suggestion to which our Government had no choice but to adhere. I feel that in this matter the Opposition are not being altogether fair either to the Secretary of State or to the Government.

PEERS' EXPENSES ALLOWANCE
3.5 p.m.
Lord PEART: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a Statement about the expenses allowance for Members of your Lordships' House.
In January 1975 the Top Salaries Review Body under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, were invited by the Prime Minister to undertake a review of the remuneration and pensions of Ministers of the Crown and Members of Parliament and of the Peers' expenses allowance. The final part of the Review Body's report, which deals with the Peers' expenses allowance, is published today (Cmnd. 6749) and copies are available in the Printed Paper Office.
I should like to express my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, and the Review Body members for carrying out their task assiduously and with great insight. The Government welcome their analysis of this difficult problem, and I will summarise their recommendations for your Lordships. I regret, however, that until pay policy permits, the Government must defer detailed consideration of these recommendations.
Since the Peers' expenses allowance was first introduced in 1957, its coverage has never been clearly defined. The Review Body seek to remedy this, and conclude that a clear specification is needed of the items of expenditure that can properly be claimed in attending the House. They recommend that expenditure should be divided into four elements, each with its own separate limit. The first covers night subsistence for those Peers who necessarily have to use overnight accommodation away from their only or main residence, and for this purpose a limit of £11 a night is recommended. Secondly, a limit of £6·50 is recommended for day subsistence to cover meals and incidental travel. The third element is for reimbursement of secretarial expenses within a cumulative limit of £4 a day. Lastly, postage and certain other additional expenses would be met within a cumulative limit of £3 a day. A minority of the Review Body would prefer to see these last two limits combined into a single grouping.
These daily limits together total £24·50; but only those Peers who have to incur
390
overnight accommodation expenses in London in order to attend the House would be eligible to claim against the overnight allowance of £11. Other Peers would be restricted to the three other allowances with limits totalling £13.50.
I ought perhaps also to draw your Lordships' attention to certain of the Review Body's remarks in their concluding paragraph. They said:
"We have observed during the course of this review that an impression exists outside Parliament —and, indeed, that it has been fostered over the years—that the Peers' expenses allowance is a daily attendance fee that Peers can claim as of right by attending the House of Lords. The impression is false, but it has persisted in spite of periodic restatements of the facts…The allowance has always been a maximum daily amount against which Peers can claim reimbursement of at least some of the expenses that they have actually incurred in attending Parliamentary business."
Although detailed consideration of the report has to be deferred, the Government recognise that the current limit of £13·50, which was fixed in June 1975, is now clearly inadequate to cover the expenses of those Peers who have to occupy overnight accommodation in London in order to attend the House. I therefore intend to table a Motion which would enable such Peers, and them alone, to claim expenses allowance up to a limit of £16·50 a day. This increase of £3 a day would be consistent with pay policy, as it broadly reflects the rise in costs since the limit of the allowance was last revised.
Peers who have no need to incur overnight accommodation expenses in London in order to attend the House will remain subject to the present daily maximum of £13·50. Any increases above that amount would in any event exceed the Review Body's recommendations. A resolution to give effect to the £3 increase will be taken on Thursday, 24th March. If this is agreed to, the proposed increase will have effect from that date. My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.10 p.m.
Lord CARRTNGTON: My Lords, I join with the Leader of the House in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, and his colleagues, among them three Members of your Lordships' House, for the report. I must say that I have never been a supporter of the system whereby your Lordships have to claim expense

391
allowances. I think that it leads to anomalies, difficulties and embarrassment, and I think that view is shared by quite a number of your Lordships. The difficulty is to think of anything more suitable. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, and his colleagues tried to do so, but they have not come up with anything. In any event, all these difficulties may disappear, since if, at the next Election, which may be sooner rather than later, noble Lords opposite win, there will, as I understand it, be no House of Lords to have an expenses allowance. If, on the other hand, I have my way, it will be quite easy to pay the House, since we shall have a reformed House. Nevertheless, in the meantime, it seems to me that the Government could do little else but what they have done, since they quite clearly could not breach their own pay policy. No doubt when the Leader of the House introduces his Motion we shall have an opportunity to debate the whole subject; so I will not take the matter any further this afternoon.
Lord PEART: My Lords, the noble Lord made a political comment, but I understand that. I am confident that I will be here, probably dealing with this matter, and that is very important. I agree that a reformed House would enable us to have a completely fresh look at whether or not we should have a salaried element here. But that is another matter. I believe that we should look at this when our colleagues have read the report itself.
Lord AMULREE: My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Byers, I wish to thank the Leader of the House for the Statement he has made. I am very pleased to read from the report of the noble Lord, Lord Boyle, that he tried to make something of the attendance allowance, but it has never been quite clear what it is about. I should like to have longer time to consider the Boyle Report. We look forward to considering the Motion when the noble Lord the Leader of the House presents it.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. This is a difficult task for any Leader of the House. I was new to this matter, and with my predecessor and my noble friend the Chief
392
Whip I have been looking at it very carefully. But as I have said, I think that Members should examine the report. Some of our colleagues sat on the Boyle Committee, and we will have a resolution on Thursday.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, with regard to the reference to the abolition of the House of Lords, would Peers, if they were regarded as redundant, be able to claim a redundancy payment?
Lord PEART: I do not think that that will ever happen, my Lords.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, when we consider this matter on 24th March would it be possible to include the question of postage costs? I am not suggesting extra pay. I agree with my noble friend that not much more can be done than is now suggested; but noble Lords sometimes find that the absence of free postage to cover their Parliamentary work is perhaps unfair, and possibly this question could be included in our consideration of the Motion.
Lord PEART: That is another matter my Lords, but it is something we must look into in the future.

NUCLEAR INDUSTRY (FINANCE) BILL
Brought from the Commons, endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911; read 1ª, and to be printed.
REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL
Brought from the Commons, read 1ª; and to be printed.
AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS (NOTICES TO QUIT) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3ª, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

SOCIAL SECURITY MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
3.15 p.m.
Report received.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 1:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
Power to restrict entitlement to credits for weeks prior to coming into force of amending regulations
. The power to amend regulations made before the passing of this Act under section 13(4) of the principal Act (crediting of contributions for the purpose of enabling contribution conditions to be satisfied) may be so exercised as to restrict the circumstances in which and the purposes for which a person is entitled to credits in respect of weeks before the coming into force of the amending regulations; but not so as to affect any benefit for a period before the coming into force of the amending regulations if it was claimed before 18th March 1977.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name introducing the new Clause 1A and will, if I may, deal also with Amendments Nos. 3, 4, and 5 which are also down in my name, to Clauses 23 and 24. I must preface my introduction of these Amendments, however, with an apology to your Lordships that we should be amending the Bill still further at this late stage in its proceedings. I assure your Lordships that we would not take up the time of the House unless it was absolutely necessary.
These Amendments arise from a problem in connection with our legislation which we simply must put right. Their purpose is to avoid the unintended effect of a complex of changes to the National Insurance Scheme made since 1975, which would have enabled people to acquire contributory benefit rights although they have not paid contributions or received contributory benefit for many years. The new clause will extend the existing power to make regulations, and it will enable regulations to be made restricting the use of existing credits in establishing future benefit rights. I hope that your Lordships will regard it as helpful if I give some background to this matter. I may say that the problem is a highly complex one—as regrettably some of our social security legislation undoubtedly is; and I made this point yesterday, your Lordships will recall, when introducing the new regulations relating to family income supplement.
Perhaps your Lordships will not expect me to venture too far into its intricacies. The problem concerns entitlement to contributory benefits where this is based on credited contributions, and not on contributions actually paid. As your Lordships will know, under the Social Security Act 1975 there are provisions enabling people not in work because of sickness or unemployment to be credited with contributions so as to maintain their contribution record for entitlement to contributory benefits. This was, I understand, seen at the time as a continuation, in slightly relaxed form, of similar provisions under the scheme which existed before 1975, and as part of the general easements for contributions under the new scheme. It has, however, become apparent that the effect of these provisions, together with that of other new or changing provisions—notably the new noncontributory incapacity benefits, and the arrangements for phasing out the married woman's contribution option—produce a quite unlooked-for, and until quite recently unnoticed, consequence. As a result, it would have been possible for large numbers of people to qualify through credits for contributory benefits though they have been for a long period removed from the employment field and also from contributory benefit entitlement, have therefore not paid contributions for many years and, generally, could have had no expectation whatever of contributory benefit. In brief, if a person had at some time, however remote that time, paid some contributions, incapacity or unemployment years later could lead to credits and thence to contributory benefit.
As your Lordships will appreciate, it is hardly consistent with the principles of a contributory scheme to provide benefits where there is only a very tenuous connection with contributions. Furthermore, there are expenditure implications which, while it is not possible at this stage to estimate precisely what they might be, could be in the order of something like £100 million per year. This is an amount which, I suggest, is totally inconsistent with the Government's stance on public expenditure and, indeed, incompatible with proper husbandry of our resources.
In order to prevent this wholly unintended effect of our legislation—which, as I have said, arises from the combined

395
effect of a number of developments in the social security field—we are proposing to make regulations to place some appropriate limitation on the circumstances in which credits given under the new contribution scheme can count for benefit entitlement. The details of the regulations, as to the circumstances and the benefits involved, have still to be settled. They will, however, aim to achieve a restriction consonant with our original intentions and with the contributory nature of the scheme, and, incidentally, rather closer to the pre-1975 arrangements.
The new clause itself is necessary to enable regulations to be made restricting future benefit rights where these depend on credits given between 1975 and a current date. The extension of existing powers is needed if we are to avoid letting in a large number of unwanted claims from this coming May, when the post-1975 rules come fully into effect. But, as the clause itself makes clear, we shall not be seeking to touch benefit claimed before the 18th March for any period before the regulations bite. That sets the outer limit of the new provisions. Within that outer limit, we in fact have it in mind to be rather more generous, both to avoid anything that looks like retrospection and to match so far as possible the pre-1975 arrangements. For example, credits given while in receipt of contributory benefit will not be affected.
The two other Amendments follow on from the introduction of the new clause. The Amendment to Clause 23 provides that the regulations we shall be making under our extended powers need not be referred beforehand to the National Insurance Advisory Committee. The Amendments to Clause 24 enable us to make use of two previous Amendments immediately the Bill receives Royal Assent. As noble Lords will appreciate, we wish to bring the limitations to which I have referred into operation as soon as we can. We shall therefore be making the regulations as soon as we can after Royal Assent, and, in the normal way, these will be laid before Parliament after they have been made. I hope your Lordships will feel that I have said enough on this matter, and I therefore beg to move.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, the noble Lord has dealt very largely with people
396
who were credited with contributions though they were unemployed or sick. I wonder whether he could say a word about the people who are presumably credited with contributions because they earn too little to be subject to National Insurance. Could he say what is their position? Their case has been changed recently. I think that as from 5th April they will be allowed to earn £15 a week without contributing anything. Are they credited in any way so that in due course they can get their various benefits and/or pension?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, my understanding of the situation is that those who are earning too little to pay National Insurance contributions in the ordinary way are in fact covered but, as I understand it, they will not be given any credits now. So I think the answer to the noble Lord is that there are no credits for anybody who is earning less than the £15 a week. It is now £13 but, as the noble Lord points out, it will be going up to £15 in April.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I think we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, for his explanation of these Amendments. He has my sympathy. I think he has been put into a very difficult position over these Amendments, coming, as they do, at a very late stage of this Bill. As they apply to the 1975 Act, they have obviously been put down to meet, as he has indicated, what has proved to be a loophole in the law. From this side of the House we shall not oppose any of these linked Amendments, because we appreciate the reason for them; namely, the need to save public expenditure and, indeed, to fulfil my understanding of what Parliament intended in the case of the 1975 Act, which it now appears was not correctly drafted.
I am bound to say that I think that this is an example of over-legislation, and one is bound to ask what would have happened had this Bill not been going through the House at this time. I suppose it would have meant that the Government would have had to bring forward amending legislation. I am also bound to say that I think it very unfortunate that what could prove to be a major loophole has been allowed to escape attention for such a long time.

397
Perhaps I could now question the Amendments themselves. The noble Lord spoke, I think, to Amendments Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 at the same time. His Amendment No. 3 is in fact slightly different from the Amendment which was tabled with the first list at the weekend. He may find that there is a perfectly reasonable explanation of this, but I would not want us to leave the Report stage and still find that we had not got the matter completely in order. On my reading of it, Amendment No. 4 is also slightly different, again, from the one tabled before the weekend. The earlier Amendments are, of course, unnumbered, so it is a little difficult to tell. There are explanations in italics, of course; but in the case of Amendment No. 4 the original one said, "insert (1A)". I hope that the explanation is in fact a suitable substitute for the new clause. It no doubt means precisely the same thing, but I think the House should know, for our sake as well as for the sake of the noble Lord, that we are not going through all this and will then have to face further Amendments on Third Reading tomorrow.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, could I ask the noble Lord one question? I am afraid I must have misunderstood him. He said that people below £15 a week, as the figure will be, are covered. In what sense are they covered?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I think that I ought to have added something more after that. I was aware of this when I saw the look on the face of the noble Baroness as I sat down. They are covered only in respect of supplementary benefits. They would be entitled to this. They are not covered so far as contributory benefits are concerned. One has to bear in mind that in the ordinary way, as I understand the situation, it would be young people who might be earning less than £13 or £15 a week. They eventually come into the category of contributors.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is mistaken. A considerable number of these people will be elderly ladies who work part-time.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if that is so, then it may well be that they have a substantial contributory record behind them, so that if and when they are sick they would be entitled to benefits.
398
What I am concerned about is people who normally work for only a short period earning now less than £13 a week, or in April less than £15 a week. If they have no contributory entitlement, then they are covered in the sense that they can apply for supplementary benefit in order to live. But when people advance in years and have a shorter period of work, they often have behind them a substantial contribution record which brings them into contributory benefits as and when they require them. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, is right. The answer to what she has said is, Yes. It is merely a tidying-up by the draftsman and there is no change in substance whatsoever.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, this Amendment raises the question of the desirability of the contribution system as the principal determining factor for entitlement. If your Lordships will consider for a minute the position of invalidity pensioners, the point I am making will be appreciated. The invalidity pension on a non-contributory basis was introduced because it was felt that there were people who, because of their disability, had not been able to build up a contribution record at all. But if you look at the figures you find that the contributory invalidity pensioner gets £15·30p a week, and the non-contributory invalidity pensioner £9·20 a week. One is bound to ask whether that difference is fair.
It is not as if the £15·30p level was excessive. We know that many people on that level are obliged to resort to supplementary benefit in addition. So there is a case for saying that all who fall into a particular category shall receive the same basic benefit as of right. It would of course be the aim of a comprehensive tax credit system to bring that about. So long as there is a distinction between Contributory and non-contributory benefits, there will be pressure to maintain the differential. Clearly, so long as the distinction remains, it will be illogical to allow non-contributory benefits to entitle the recipient to secure contribution credits. Although we have these reservations, we nevertheless will not oppose the Amendment.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, in preparing the regulations, will the noble Lord bear in mind the considerations

399
which my noble friend Lord Hawke has mentioned? Some people—be they men or women—look after disabled people who may live until they are in their 'eighties. A person looking after such an invalid may have spent his or her entire life doing this without payment. I suggest that, in the changes which are taking place here, there is room to provide for these people in some way or another. I have a good deal of sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Banks, said in this regard.
There ought to be some means for exempting from paying the contributions people who have no income or a very small income, while at the same time treating them as having contributed in some way. The saving to the State, among other things, is considerable by having invalids looked after by relatives rather than putting them into hospitals or homes. This is a consideration which ought to be taken into account in the changing character of the whole of our benefits system.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I accept what noble Lords have said. If the noble Lord, Lord Banks, will not mind my saying so, it has been declared Liberal Party policy for a good many years, if I understand the situation, that there should not be this difference between contributory and non-contributory benefits. But the system being as it is, it would be a little unreasonable to expect people who had contributed over a period of years a considerable sum of money to secure certain National Insurance benefits, to receive precisely the same benefits as those who had not contributed, although possibly through no fault of their own.
This would be seen as involving a degree of unfairness, until people realise that one has a responsibility to do this in order to help those less fortunately placed. We are, I feel, not living at the moment in a society which would accept that. One also has to bear in mind that there are a wide range of allowances and benefits for people who, for various reasons, cannot receive the normal National Insurance benefits. I was thinking of the attendance allowance and the invalid care allowance. Of necessity, there has to be this difference between the amount one receives on a non-
400
contributory basis and the amount one gets an a contributory basis, bearing in mind that if the non-contributory pension or benefit is not sufficient, then there are other ways—or at least one other way—of getting it made up, so that people get enough on which to live.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, could I put it in another way? I am wholly in favour of the contributory system. I think that it ought to be safeguarded. There are in certain circumstances occasions when a person could be treated as having made a notional contribution because of the saving he—or more often she—is making to the State in other ways. There are considerable savings to the State from people looking after parents or relatives at home.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, this is so. Later we will deal with the question of the allowances to foster parents in the matter of handicapped children. Undoubtedly they are saving the State a considerable amount, because if the children became the responsibility of the local authority that would be an additional cost to the State. It is very difficult to introduce a scheme which would produce a great deal more complexity than the existing schemes are producing at the present moment. We need to have a deep and close look at the whole benefits system with which we are faced at present.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13 [Amendments of Supplementary Benefits Act 1976]:
3.40 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 2:
Leave out Clause 13.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I put down this Amendment not because I have any intention of pressing it this afternoon, but because at an earlier stage we had a discussion on allowances for foster parents and the noble Lord, Lord WellsPestell, then said that the Government were prepared to accept the principle of the Amendment that we on this side had put down, but that they would implement it by regulation.
Following upon the Committee stage of the Bill, the noble Lord was kind enough to write me setting out the circumstances of how this would apply. It seemed to me that it would be valuable to have this on the record, as the question of paying attendance allowances to foster parents who foster severely handicapped children is a matter of considerable concern to a number of organisations as well as to individuals. I therefore thought it would be helpful to quote part of the letter and to ask the noble Lord one more question arising from that quotation. The letter reads:
"The Government accept the case for making the change which your Amendment was designed to secure and we have sufficient powers under the law as it stands to make the regulations necessary to achieve the result which you wish to be brought about. We will make these regulations which will be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure at an early opportunity at a cost at current rates of attendance allowance of the order of some £200,000 a year and benefiting, we estimate, something like 300 children."
It goes on:
"We shall make these regulations at an early opportunity after the Royal Assent and we hope to have them in operation by the date you had put in your Amendment."
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, will the noble Baroness allow me to intervene? It is probably I who am at fault; but I am rather under the impression that the noble Baroness is speaking to Amendment No. 6 and not Amendment No. 2. Am I right?
Baroness YOUNG: No, my Lords. I am sorry if I have caused confusion about this; but I wished to raise the point about my Amendment on foster children and it is difficult to know where to bring it in. I have done so at what seemed to me an appropriate moment in the course of the Bill. I want to say something about the regulations on another Amendment which we shall come to later.
The question which I shall ask the noble Lord is straightforward and, as we are grateful for the Government's agreeing to implement this suggestion, the last thing I wish to do is to put any difficulties in his way or in the way of the Government. Naturally enough, those who might expect to receive the attendance allowance are anxious to know when this would come about. I understand that the Bill is to have a Third Reading in this House
402
tomorrow, will be considered in another place on, I think, Thursday, and will receive the Royal Assent on April 1st. If this timetable is correct, the regulations would be laid immediately afterwards. What I should be grateful for is an assurance that they would come into effect by the Summer Recess. The other regulations concerning students will, I understand, come into effect immediately on the Royal Assent. If the noble Lord could tell me when these regulations could come into effect that would be helpful.
I am grateful for the assurance given in the letter and it is merely to make this absolutely clear to a number of interested organisations that I have put down this Amendment. As the noble Lord will be aware, we could not on Report discuss this matter unless I had put down an Amendment on which we could have some debate. If the noble Lord could let me have this information I should be grateful.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, let me admit at the beginning that I am not in any real difficulty except that, on reading it, I had understood the noble Baroness's Amendment No. 6 to deal with the attendance allowances for foster children. It does not much matter, but this is how I understood it. However, I can deal with it now. The regulations with regard to students we intend to bring in immediately after the Royal Assent, and the other regulations, which will deal with attendance allowances for foster children, as soon as possible. I should like to repeat what I said earlier, that the Government accept the case for paying attendance allowance to foster parents, and we have sufficient powers under the law to make the regulations necessary to achieve this result and to bring about what the noble Baroness wishes. I can assure the House that our intention is to make these regulations as soon as possible and that the regulations will be subject to the Negative Resolution procedure. At the current rates of attendance allowance, which are £12·20 per week at the higher rate and £8·15 at the lower rate, the cost will be about £200,000 a year. We estimate that the allowance will become payable for about 300 children. We aim to make the regulations in time to begin payment by September 1st at the latest.

403
The noble Baroness may know that to some extent we, in this House, have been anticipated by three Questions which were put down yesterday in another place, two of them by a Member of the Conservative Party and one by a Member of the Labour Party. Both are members of the disabled group on this very matter, for which I think the noble Baroness ought to take much of the credit. Perhaps it would be of interest to your Lordships if I read part of the reply given by my honourable friend the Minister for the Disabled. He said:
"This is a matter in which the honourable Gentleman and my honourable friend with their colleagues in the All-Party Disablement Group have taken a sustained interest. They will he glad to learn that the regulations for extending the allowance to qualified foster children will be laid shortly. While at this stage I cannot give the precise date from which payment will be made, it will not be later than 1st September, 1977".
[Official Report (Commons W.A.); 21/3/77, col. 409].
I had hoped that I could have said this in this House. We have been anticipated; but a good deal of the credit should not be taken from the noble Baroness in this matter.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his answer and for the help and courtesy he has shown throughout this matter. The important matter which arises from all this concerns the number of foster parents and children who will benefit. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 23 [Supplemental]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 23, line 21, at end insert ("or that they contain provisions made by virtue of section (Power to restrict entitlement to credits for weeks prior to coming into force of amending regulations) of this Act.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to this Amendment when dealing with the first Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 24 [Citation, commencement and extent]:
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 23, line 38, after ("1(5)") insert ("Power to restrict entitlement to credits for weeks prior to coming into force of amending regulations)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I spoke to Amendment No. 4 when dealing with Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 23, line 39, leave out ("and 17") and insert ("17 and 23(1) to (5)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords. I have already spoken to this Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.50 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG Baroness YOUNG moved Amendment No. 6:
Leave out Clause 24.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, again, the intention of this Amendment is to get on the record a part of the letter that the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, was kind enough to write me following our proceedings at Committee stage. We had a considerable discussion about whether or not the regulations, particularly those governing students, should be by Affirmative or Negative Resolution. We on this side were very anxious that these regulations should be by Affirmative Resolution as the effect of them was to put back the position of students to what it had been in 1966.
The noble Lord indicated in his reply that because of the timing of this it was necessary to use the Negative Resolution procedure since it was the intention of the Government that the provisions should come into effect immediately following Royal Assent. The reasoning for that is understandable because, of course, the Easter vacation is now upon us, and were the regulations not to be enforced it would be possible, following the court case, to claim supplementary benefit in the Easter vacation. Therefore it is necessary that the regulations should come into force if Government policy, as we have always understood it, was to be kept.
Two points concern me. We also had a debate about disabled students, and it would be very helpful if the noble Lord could confirm that disabled students will

405
still be able to apply for supplementary benefit. The important point is that they should have the £4 per week disregard and it is a matter about which the disabled feel very strongly. If we could, once again, have that on the Record it would be very helpful indeed. The position of disabled students is clearly quite different from that of other students and it is a matter of concern to a great many people. Therefore, it will be very helpful to have the information before us.
The other point is purely technical. I am grateful to the noble Lord for having sent me a copy of the proposed regulations. If, as I understand it, they are to come into effect immediately on Royal Assent, does it mean that even under the Negative Resolution procedure they will not be scrutinised by the Committee which looks at subordinate legislation? If so, is that not a rather unusual step to take? I can quite understand the difficulty as regards the timetable, but my understanding is that regulations, even under the Negative Resolution procedure, are normally looked at by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Perhaps in the present circumstances there is not time for that to be done. I beg to move.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I appreciate the point raised by the noble Baroness. It is desirable that we should have this in Hansard, and I think the best thing I can do at this stage—I hope the noble Baroness will agree—is to read part of my letter to her, dated 16th March. I was referring to Amendment No. 12, put down by the noble Baroness at Committee Stage, and I said this:
"…I am afraid that there could be no question of our accepting your Amendment No. 12 if you were to put it down again for the Report stage. What this Amendment would do would be to delay the implementation of the regulations which we are going to make under Clause 12(1) of the Bill, effectively until certainly the end of April, since there could be no question of the necessary Affirmative Resolutions going through both Houses until Parliament reassembled after the Easter Recess. The result would be that, instead of our being able to reapply the longstanding provisions relating to parental contributions and to no disregard of a student's grant from very shortly after the Bill receives Royal Assent—our intention is in fact to bring the regulations into effect on the day after Royal Assent, that is to say from 1st April—we would have to continue the procedures which we are having to apply as a result of the Court of Appeal judgment throughout the Easter vacation. As I made clear on Monday, there is no question of our not applying
406
the law as the Court of Appeal has stated it to be for the moment; but equally we do not want to continue to do so for one unnecessary day after we have the legal powers required to enable us to revert—because the additional public expenditure incurred if the Court of Appeal judgment had effect throughout the whole of the Easter vacation would be of the order of £2 million. Almost all of this would arise in relation to the £4 disregard of student grants which we would have to allow."
I went on to say that,
"under a Bill, the prime purpose of which is a saving of public expenditure, this particular additional expenditure, for this particular purpose of all purposes, could in no conceivable circumstances be justified…".
I pointed out that disabled students would continue to get a disregard but that it would be only £2, as it is at present, and also that there would be a disregard of any special allowances paid by the local educational authority.
The Joint Committee will scrutinise the regulations, but that will be after they have come into operation and not before. In point of fact, they will scrutinise them and I should imagine that if there were any really serious defects they must of necessity call the Government's attention to them. I hope I have covered all that the noble Baroness asked me to deal with.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I think we are in some difficulty here. Not only are we now on Report, but my noble friend and I are privy to a letter which the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, was kind enough to send, and he has quoted to us that section of the letter which deals with the Court of Appeal case. As we understand it, as a result of that case the disregard was increased from £2 to £4. If I am wrong, I hope the noble Lord will interrupt me at this stage. Then may we take it that the Court of Appeal did so declare and therefore we must be concerned with the Court's judgment in regard to the drafting of regulations? The noble Lord was kind enough to send us both copies of the proposed draft regulations under Clause 13(1) to 13(3) and Clause 14 of the Social Security (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. A particular point is made that the disregard is to be only a factor of £2. There appears to be some inconsistency here, because the Court has made a ruling but the Government do not appear to be taking that into account in drafting their regulations.

407
Further, I should like to draw the attention of the noble Lord to another matter; that is, the position of single-parent families and the fact that they are subject at the moment to a £6 disregard. In the case of a disabled student there is perhaps a case for increasing the £4 disregard to £6. However, I will leave that point with the noble Lord.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, in the letter to which the noble Lord has referred I pointed out that the Court of Appeal did not increase the disregard. That is normally £4, but not for students, who will again get no disregard unless disabled or single parents, and such students will get the £2 disregard. I do not think I can add anything more.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that explanation, and for the points he has made. I am bound to say that, as a procedure, it does not seem to me very satisfactory to make regulations and then to have them scrutinised after they have been made and have come into effect. But no doubt this is a matter which, at this stage of the procedures on this Bill, we can do very little about.
I am disappointed that the noble Lord does not feel that the Government can maintain the position on the £4 disregard of income, which followed the Court of Appeal judgment in the student case; and, in fact, in putting the situation back for all students, they are also putting it back for disabled students to what it was before the case. I have, of course, considered this matter and I did not feel (I have not tabled Amendments on it) that it would be appropriate at this stage to pursue it further. But I should like to leave the noble Lord with this thought about it. When money does allow, this is the kind of instance where a relatively small sum would make a great deal of difference to people who will frequently find themselves in a difficult position, as they are, of course, unable to work in the vacations and are therefore in an entirely different position from able-bodied students. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

GAS (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1977
4.2 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Melchett)The MINISTER of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Melchett) rose to move, That the draft Gas (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, laid before the House on 1st March, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the existing code of gas legislation in Northern Ireland is extremely complex, consisting of 15 pieces of legislation made during the past 130 years. This order consolidates this legislation into one instrument. This will have the two-fold effect of removing several archaic Acts from the Statute Book, and providing a more comprehensible legislative code. The provisions have been updated and amended, where necessary, to bring them into line with legislation in Great Britain, particularly in the safety and consumer protection fields. There are also new provisions for bringing the functions and staff of the gas meter testing station under Government control; for introducing quality control of gas, and for enabling powers in relation to metrication corresponding to Section 41 of the Gas Act 1972.
Article 3 of the order applies to the gas undertakers a gas supply code, which is detailed in Schedule 1. This is based on legislation in force since the midnineteenth century, but it has been modernised and supplemented to make it very similar to those provided for the Northern Ireland Electricity Service and the British Gas Corporation under their relevant legislation. The position on debt is clarified so that, while the final sanction of disconnection is reasserted, it may be exercised only after the expiration of 28 days from making the demand in writing, and 7 days after giving notice of intention to cut off supply. Gas and electricity industries in Northern Ireland are currently considering the adoption of a code of practice similar to that in operation in other parts of the United Kingdom, whereby powers of disconnection will be used with discretion and only after considering the financial position of the debtor.
As is usual, this order was circulated in draft to interested parties. All the comments made were of a minor nature, and these have been taken into account in preparing the version of the order which

409
I now ask your Lordships to consider. There is nothing in the order which anticipates the findings of the British Gas Corporation's study team which will shortly submit its final report on the Northern Ireland gas industry. I believe that this order will be widely welcomed in Northern Ireland for consolidating and clarifying a complex and detailed body of legislation. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Gas (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, laid before the House on 1st March, be approved.—(Lord Melchett.)
4.5 p.m.
Viscount LONG: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for the information which he has given us on this Northern Ireland gas order. We welcome it, because it makes the provisions more modern and streamlined, in line with the position in the United Kingdom. I should have thought that that in itself would make it much easier for officials to administer the legislation covering Northern Ireland. What is quite amazing is the number of different Acts which this one order incorporates; I believe it consolidates nine whole Acts and parts of three others, all in one go. The noble Lord said that this order takes account of metrication, which is very important indeed. It also covers the supply of gas, the compulsory laying of gas pipes, the compulsory acquisition of land and penalties for breach of any order. It is interesting to see how this has been brought about in one order. I wish that we could have an order like this to cover much of the legislation which has been going through in the last year or so.
There are only a few points which I should like to make, which are these. In looking through the part of the order dealing with the compulsory acquisition of land, I could not find out—and perhaps the noble Lord can enlighten me—whether the public is still allowed to have a public inquiry in the event of gas undertakers crossing someone's land. The noble Lord informed us that there is still a period of 14 days' notice, but I wonder whether there is still a right to a public inquiry. Secondly, how will the gas undertakers be able to pay for metrication? The cost of dealing with all the
410
gas meters in Northern Ireland will be quite phenomenal, so I wonder how much the Government think it will cost and how long it will take.
Lastly, we in the United Kingdom now have natural gas and are trying to use that more and more. I know that this is an energy matter, but I wonder whether the noble Lord can say whether Northern Ireland has, or is to have, its own natural gas such as we have in the United Kingdom, which they would find very useful. I shall not delay the House any further.
4.9 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, if I may first take the last point on the question of natural gas, this is one of the possibilities that has been mooted in the context of the British Gas Corporation's study team which, as I said in my opening remarks, will be shortly submitting its final report on the Northern Ireland gas industry to the Secretary of State, and I think it would be wise to await the receipt of that report before making any comments. Desirable as it would be for Northern Ireland to have a supply of natural gas, I am afraid that there is not much that any of us can do about it if there is no natural gas there. There have been suggestions made about piping natural gas across the Irish Sea to Northern Ireland, but how practicable or feasible that is I honestly do not know. It is one of the aspects on which the study team will no doubt be commenting, if they think it worth while.
The noble Viscount also asked me about metrication. I do not have any figures on cost, but would make the point that the powers given in the order are only enabling powers; they do not provide for the undertakers necessarily to introduce metrication, but if any figures on costs are available I will certainly let the noble Viscount know. I rather doubt, however, whether anybody has yet got that far.
The first point which the noble Viscount raised with me was the question of public inquiries. My understanding is that the order, as the noble Viscount has pointed out, is mainly consolidation, with the exception of the few modifications which I mentioned in my opening remarks. Public inquiries are catered for in exactly the same way as previously; they are

411
provided for in the order. I do not have with me the reference, but I can give the noble Viscount an assurance that public inquiries are provided for. If the noble Viscount would like me to let him know at exactly what point in the order this provision is to he found, I could no doubt do so afterwards.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

APPROPRIATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1977
4.11 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT rose to move, That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, laid before the House on 1st March, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that this draft order be approved. This order, the first this year in the annual cycle of orders appropriating funds for services administered by Northern Ireland Departments, serves two purposes. The first of these is to appropriate the Spring and further Spring Supplementary Estimates for the current year. Copies of the Supplementary Estimates volumes are available in the Library and provide details of the services for which additional provision is now sought. I should, however, like to say a few words about the main elements of these Estimates.
The sum total of the additional provision required is some £48·4 million. This brings the total Estimates for this financial year to £1,147·7 million, which is some £119·3 million, or 11·6 per cent., more than the total voted for 1975–76. The bulk of the amount now sought is accounted for by pay awards and increased costs. Any real increases in public expenditure have been more than offset by real decreases in other programmes. Major real increases include £6·5 million required for payments under the Meat Industry Employment Schemes. Without these payments, the further devaluation of the Irish Republic's Green Pound in October 1976 would have had a serious effect on throughput in Northern Ireland's meat processing plants. Two million pounds is needed to meet the cost of final payments under the Special Land Improvement Scheme, and a further £2 million is needed for new construction and maintenance work on roads and bridges.
The second purpose of the order is to appropriate the sums required on account for 1977–78 to provide Northern Ireland Departments with funds until after the main Estimates have been published, and appropriation of the balance of the funds required has been approved by Parliament. The sums required on account have, as usual, been calculated on the basis of 45 per cent. of the total voted provision for the current year, the amount required on account for 1977–78 being £502·6 million.
This order has been considered by another place. I have outlined in this brief summary the general nature of its content, and I shall certainly do my best to answer any questions on the order which noble Lords may wish to raise. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1977, laid before the House on 1st March, be approved. —(Lord Melchett.)
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for his explanation of the order. It is an important order because, as the noble Lord has explained, it appropriates not only the spring and further spring Supplementary Estimates for this financial year, but also the sums needed for 1977–78 until after the main Estimates for the next financial year are published. I shall not raise at any length the matter of housing, even though it is dealt with in the order, because an opportunity for doing this was offered last week on another Northern Ireland order. However, I should like to welcome I' hat was said in another place about Belfast building and redevelopment.
I see from yesterday's newspapers a report that the Government are intending to tackle with even greater determination the problem of improving existing homes in Belfast. This must surely be right in Northern Ireland where, as I understand it, the population is no longer expanding very much, and where the House Condition Survey has revealed that approximately 300,000 people are living in unfit houses and that as many as 300,000 people are living in houses which are lacking at least one basic amenity.
My only question is whether the Northern Ireland Housing Executive will be able to spend the sums which are to be allocated.

413
As I understood the Minister's Statement in another place, an annual average rate of over £25 million is to be allocated to new building, redevelopment and rehabilitation and to support housing associations. Obviously, the lion's share of that amount will go to the Executive. The Executive admitted in its annual report for 1975–76 that it had not been able recently to spend its allocation of money for capital expenditure. I realise that there are security reasons for this, but I must express the hope that the Northern Ireland Housing Executive will be able to implement the policy to tackle bad housing conditions in Belfast and that it will be able to fully utilise the allocations which are being made to it for this task.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, mentioned the £6·5 million which is required to meet payments under the Meat Industry Employment Scheme, and that reminds us of the Serious aspect of the Green Pound differential so far as Northern Ireland agriculture is concerned. I have welcomed this scheme in the past. It would appear to be the only way in which the Northern Ireland meat plants can continue to operate at anything like full capacity. However, I must put this question, which I admit I have asked before: What is the future of the scheme? Is it the Government's policy that the scheme will continue to run for so long as the existing Green Pound differential is maintained? This is not the moment to discuss the rights and wrongs of the effect of the value of the Green Pound so far as producers are concerned. Indeed, I believe that this question was touched on in a debate in this House only yesterday. However, it is obviously important for it to be known whether this method of support will continue while it is still needed.
The noble Lord, again because he was keeping his opening remarks brief, did not mention Harland and Wolff specifically. However, Class II of the order provides for selective assistance to industry and shipbuilding. I noticed that when the Statement announcing the £65 million allocation to British Shipbuilding was made about three weeks ago, Harland and Wolff was specifically mentioned as being excluded from that allocation. If one looks at the order, there is a sum of over £41 million recorded for selective assistance to industry and shipbuilding in the next financial year. Could the noble Lord tell
414
the House how much of this assistance is destined for Harland and Wolff; for what purposes, and whether those purposes are in line with the aims and objects for which the £65 million to British Shipbuilding has been allocated?
I do not need to emphasise the importance of Harland and Wolff to employment in Northern Ireland, where unemployment is now running at 10·7 per cent. This is far the highest rate of unemployment in Northern Ireland since the war. Therefore I should like further to ask whether Harland and Wolff have any future shipbuilding contracts at all, bearing in mind that the £65 million has been allocated to British Shipbuilding precisely to try to attract new orders, and whether there may be any possibility of a defence contract for the yard.
The noble Lord's speech did not mention specifically the Quigley Report. Even though the report may seem to fall outside the order, I gave notice to the noble Lord that T might ask a question or two about it. The House may remember that this report is of some significance because, published last autumn, it is a development survey—I do not think one would call it a development plan—for the Northern Ireland economy, and was prepared by the Civil Service, not by outside consultants or an independent committee. I accept that there are aspects of the report upon which the Government may not be ready to comment and, indeed, with which they may disagree. I would have thought that by now the Government could have made some statement about the three Quigley proposals the Committee listed in order of priority as being of particular importance.
The first of those proposals was to reduce energy costs to industry, and, of course, my noble friend and the noble Lord opposite have been talking precisely about the gas industry only a moment or two ago. The noble Lord in his speech mentioned that due to price restraint sums of money are going to be needed to he appropriated for payments to both Northern Ireland gas and electricity undertakings. This form of support is all very well—I think it is obviously necessary—but with the exceptionally high costs of energy in Northern Ireland it is not really a solution to the problem, and this, of course, is why my noble friend Lord Long asked the question about natural gas. I hope that

415
the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, may be able today to give us some news about what is called the Shepherd Report on the Northern Ireland electricity industry which seems to have taken an unconscionable time acoming. My noble friend has put his questions about cost problems of the Northern Ireland gas industry, and I will leave that industry at that.
The second of the three Quigley proposals, the noble Lord may remember, was the need for blue chip industries to be attracted to black spots in Northern Ireland. I understand that private as well as public investment in Northern Ireland industry and commerce is continuing to hold up quite well—I think Ministers are to be very much congratulated if this is the case—despite the dangers to plant and the dangers to businessmen in Northern Ireland. But it would be interesting to hear whether the recommendation for establishing sound firms in difficult areas is making any significant headway. The third Quigley recommendation, which really falls totally outside this order, was for a tax holiday on export profits, a method of rewarding success. I have put that point to the Government before, and doubtless they have not lost sight of it.
Finally, my Lords, I should like, if I may, to turn to Class VIII of Part II of this order, which appropriates just under £5 million for "youth, sports and allied services and community relations". I should like to ask specifically about the building of sport centres and youth clubs. I do not think it needs very much imagination to see that sporting facilities are a significant part of the policy to try to lead the Province to normality and peace. As I remember it, Northern Ireland had plans to build either five or seven large strategically placed sports centres. Three of them were to be in Antrim, Newtownard and Craigavon; but I regret to say I forget where the others were to be. I remember visiting the Antrim centre and, with its marvellous facilities and set in a very pleasant place, it was a sight for sore eyes. I would be interested to hear how completion of these main centres has progressed.
In addition, there are two other kinds of centre or club. One is the community hall, something with which noble Lords
416
will be familiar in towns and villages in Great Britain, financed partly voluntarily and partly by grant aid from the Government. In Northern Ireland, where rural isolation is a very real factor, community centres are again a way of integrating the community and providing a focus for community life. I remember very well a place on the West side of Strangford Lough, Killyleagh, which is a beautiful centre for sailing; the noble Lord obviously knows it. Very nice it is, if one happens to be in a boat or happens to have transport, one's own car, and can get to and from that little market town. But, if one is stuck in Killyleagh, there was, and I expect there still may be, no community centre of any kind at all. I should like to know what kind of grant aid budget exists in Northern Ireland for these projects, because a percentage of grant aid can make all the difference between a project being successfully completed and a project not being started at all.
Finally, there are those clubs or centres which, as the noble Lord will, I am sure, know, are urgently needed in such places as Belfast or Londonderry where the security situation is particularly bad. Frequently the Security Forces will take a visitor to a selected spot and will say, "If only there was a youth club there now, many of our troubles in this particular area would be over as far as young people are concerned." The problem with such projects is that they are always needed urgently and they simply cannot queue up and wait their place in a future year's grant aid programme. It was a weakness of the grant aid arrangements in Northern Ireland that there was no separate grant programme for urgent projects connected with the security situation. I am not saying that they were not attended to, but so far as I know there was no separate programme. But now that education and community relations are under one budget I would have hoped that it might be possible for an overall look to be taken at the community projects problem, and those with particularly urgent needs given a separate slice of the Department of Education budget. Those are the only questions I have to ask on this order. Doubtless we shall be having another opportunity later in the year when the firm Estimates for the forthcoming financial year will be presented by the Government. Meanwhile,

417
I certainly give my support to the passage of this order.
4.27 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for giving his support to this important order and for giving me notice of some of the points he was to raise this afternoon. As he has said, we spent some time recently discussing housing, and particularly the new housing drive in Belfast. I should like to make two points on that. First, I think it is particularly noticeable how widely welcome throughout Northern Ireland is the new emphasis which my honourable friend, the Parliamentary Under—Secretary of State with responsibility for the Department of the Environment, is giving to housing in central Belfast. This is obviously an extremely encouraging sign. The noble Lord raised the problem of the ability of the housing executive to spend all the money that is available; and that is, of course, a real problem, particularly in a city like Belfast with the appalling difficulties that face those contractors who are building in certain parts of the city. My honourable friend, as the noble Lord will know, is chairing a steering committee on housing in Belfast, and it is very much hoped that that committee, with representatives of all those agencies involved, will give some assistance to the housing executive, giving them the necessary impetus and drive which will undoubtedly be needed to make an impact on the appalling problems that exist.
The noble Lord then asked me about the meat industry employment scheme and about the future of that scheme. I certainly agree with him about the importance of that scheme, and I am grateful for his acknowledgment that this is the best way of meeting what is for Northern Ireland an extremely serious problem. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State is not yet in a position to make an announcement about the operation of the scheme after 31st March 1977. He is studying the conclusions of an independent examination of the scheme which has recently been presented to him by outside consultants. An announcement about the future of this scheme will be made at the earliest opportunity. I certainly know that my right honourable friend is aware of the urgency
418
of making an announcement about the future of this scheme.
The noble Lord also asked about Harland and Wolff. May I say, first of all, that the company is working through its order book in an exemplary fashion and maintaining its good record of industrial relations and productivity. The management and the workforce have contributed a great deal to the yard's creditable performance in difficult circumstances. The noble Lord asked me about the amount of £41 million which is mentioned in the Estimates for assistance to industry and shipbuilding, and asked how much of that would be available to Harland and Wolff. I regret to say that I do not have a definite answer on that at this moment, but I will write to the noble Lord. This very much depends on the orders that may come to Harland and Wolff. The Government are determined that if viable orders come forward, Harland and Wolff will receive any help it needs in order to secure those orders. It is a matter of reacting to the orders. Inquiries about possible future orders have been received, but at this stage I am afraid it is not possible, nor would it be right, for me to divulge details of the commercial negotiations which are taking place.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I did not give the noble Lord notice of my question on Harland and Wolff. Perhaps he could write to me on it, as that would be the most useful way of dealing with it. I want to make my question absolutely clear. As I understood the Government's Statement some three weeks ago, the £65 million for British Shipbuilding is to be used to try to attract new orders. That was its purpose. Perhaps I could receive advice in a letter—if the Government are able to divulge the sum of money from the £41 million that will go to Harland and Wolff—as to whether it will be for the same purpose. The crucial question for Harland and Wolff is whether they will be able to obtain new orders.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Lord that that is the crucial question. I take his point and shall certainly write to him about it. I only wish that I knew the answer to that crucial question, as do many others in Northern Ireland. The noble Lord then

419
asked me about the Quigley Report and what progress had been made on consideration of its recommendations. As the noble Lord knows, the report was published on 18th October and since then it has been widely circulated both within and outside the Government. As the noble Lord indicated, it is not a policy document; it sets out a series of options for the Government's consideration. A wide variety of organisations, including those representing both sides of industry, have been consulted and have recently expressed their views about the report. Those views are now being considered together with the report.
I take note of what the noble Lord said about three of the main recommendations, particularly the one about reducing energy costs to industry. As he will be aware, there are fairly heavy public expenditure implications in almost all the recommendations of the Quigley Report. That is something which we must bear very carefully in mind when deciding what, if anything, the Government can do to meet the recommendations. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State intends to ask the Economic Council, which will shortly be reconstituted, to examine the report as one of its first major tasks. Some of the possibilities advanced by the report have public expenditure implications and others are of a long—term nature. All will have to be carefully evaluated in the light of public expenditure constraints. However, in the meantime I assure the noble Lord that all Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office are acutely aware of the importance of maintaining employment and encouraging new investment. My honourable friend the Minister of State is currently in the United States on just such a mission. I am sure that he will be successful.
The record of private investment and of industry in Northern Ireland has been extremely encouraging, given the appallingly difficult circumstances—not only those circumstances peculiar to Northern Ireland but also, as I was aware in my days at the Department of Industry, the enormous difficulties in a period of economic recession in attracting any industry to any area in the United Kingdom. Given that background, we have done extraordinarily well in maintaining the number of jobs in Northern
420
Ireland that we have managed to maintain, in keeping the Northern Ireland equivalent of the regional employment premium, which has undoubtedly saved a large number of jobs in Northern Ireland and in attracting a number of new companies, particularly those from abroad, to Northern Ireland in recent years.
Finally, the noble Lord asked me about the youth and community services in Northern Ireland. It would take me a long time to tell the noble Lord all that is taking place, because an enormous amount is happening in the youth, community and sporting sectors, all of which fall within the ambit of the Department of Education. However, the community services and sporting provision are the direct responsibility of district councils.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord one question. My noble friend Lord Belstead very rightly placed emphasis on help for community halls, youth clubs, et cetera. Can the noble Lord assure us not only that he will think in terms of the very large—scale, modern, highly—equipped, luxurious new centres, which are not always the ones that attract the most loyalty and interest, but that he will also divert a reasonable part of the possible aid to the much smaller, more modest and intimate and what might be called in some cases more old—fashioned youth clubs and community centres? I believe that they are enormously worthy of support as well as the large modern enterprises.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, the noble Viscount should have been at a conference which I attended two weeks ago at Portrush in Northern Ireland where exactly that point of view was expressed. It was a conference on the youth service in Northern Ireland held by the Youth Committee. No doubt when that committee comes to me with its recommendations for the future of the youth service in Northern Ireland, that will be one of the points it will make. It is indeed a matter of which the Department of Education is already well seized.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, asked me about the expenditure on leisure centres, which are at the other end of the scale—a very large and very expensive

421
facility. As the noble Lord said, significant progress has been made in Northern Ireland. In Belfast, the programme has temporarily been reduced to four centres—those at Andersonstown, Connswater, Shankill and Maysfield. The other three centres which were proposed at Ballysillan, Bog Meadows and Whiterock have had to be deferred. We have made a policy decision not to proceed with any large—scale leisure centres outside Belfast in the immediate future.
As I think I intimated when discussing an order recently, I very much hope that shortly we shall see the sort of switch in emphasis that has already occurred on the housing front in my two areas of responsibility in Northern Ireland; namely, education, health and social services. If such a switch takes place, it may be that there will be encouraging news for some of the deferred projects in Belfast, including the leisure centres. I hope to make a statement about that in the reasonably near future.
The four centres that have been opened are at Antrim, Enniskillen, Craigavon and Londonderry and major centres at Newtownabbey and Maysfield will be opening their doors in the near future. Work is going ahead satisfactorily at Carrickfergus, Andersonstown and Connswater and work is shortly due to start on the leisure centre at Shankill.
I shall give the noble Lords an idea of the priority which we are giving to this expenditure on both the small and the large—scale projects. On the youth side, about 60 major building schemes, costing £2 million will be completed in the 1970s and at present work is in progress on 18 voluntary building schemes and 13 board schemes, costing in all about £1·75 million. Seventeen new community centres will be opening in Northern Ireland in 1977 and the number of people employed, which is equally if not more important in some areas than the provision of new buildings, has increased substantially in the youth service in recent years. I hope that we can take some new initiatives on the community worker's front in the near future as well.
In 1975–76 expenditure on sport and recreation was nearly £2½million and it is estimated that £2,600,000 will be spent in the financial year 1976–77; estimated
422
expenditure for 1977–78 is £3,400,000. Expenditure on the youth service has trebled in three years in Northern Ireland. I hope that noble Lords will appreciate that an enormous amount is being done. I wish I could take up more of your Lordships' time to give further details. On the whole, the youth service, community service and sporting facilities in Northern Ireland are receiving priority. My concern is to ensure that priority is given to those areas that are most in need of the facilities and help that those services can provide.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

JOB RELEASE BILL
4.40 p.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I beg to move that the Job Release Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is to give the Secretary of State statutory authority for expenditure on job release schemes. Its immediate aim is to provide such authority for the scheme which is already in operation and which for the time being is being financed under the Appropriation Act. The job release scheme is one part of the Government's programme of selective employment measures. Noble Lords will remember that we debated the programme only last week, and I then touched only briefly on the subject of job release because we were to deal with the Second Reading today. Therefore, today I have the opportunity to deal with it more fully.
The aim of the scheme is to help older workers nearing statutory pensionable age to leave their jobs early and to release jobs for the younger unemployed, and to reduce the competition for jobs among unemployed people by encouraging older workers without jobs to leave the labour market. Job release is a new initiative in this country and it is indeed true to say that we are among the pioneers. I believe Belgium is the only other country which is trying it at the present time, although I would add that in the debate which was held in January in the Council of Europe, in which I took part, this was one of the recommendations made to the Council of Ministers.
The scheme now in operation began on 3rd January 1977 and lasts for six months

423
until the end of June. It offers a tax free allowance of £23 a week to people in full-time jobs who are within one year of statutory pensionable age—in practice, men of 64 and women of 59—and who undertake to leave paid employment and not to seek work, although they will not be disqualified from receiving the allowance if they have small earnings of not more than £4 a week.
The applicant's employer must agree to release him and to recruit instead from the unemployed register another worker who otherwise would not have been recruited. The new worker need not necessarily be for the same job; there is no requirement for a direct replacement. When people leave an employer there may be room for internal promotions or transfers to fill the immediate gap. What is important is that a vacancy is created somewhere in the firm and that it is filled by a registered unemployed person. It is worthy of note—and I emphasise this strongly—that the scheme is entirely voluntary for the worker and employer. Unemployed people in the same age group may also apply for the allowance. In doing that there is no reason for distinguishing between employed and unemployed people. The point of the scheme is to reduce the overall number of people competing for jobs.
If we want to look at it in another way, in social rather than economic terms, it seems right on equity grounds to include the unemployed: to exclude them would be to put them at a double disadvantage. The scheme operates in the assisted areas where more than half the total area of unemployment is to be found. There are two reasons for this limitation: first, there is the obvious question of cost, which has forced the Government to restrict the scheme. Secondly, it seems sensible with a new initiative to begin on a relatively limited basis while focussing on an area of greatest need. I must say however that the response to the scheme has so far been less than we had hoped. Noble Lords will have seen in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill the estimated take-up upon which the projected costs of the scheme was based. Of course estimates for an entirely new scheme are difficult to make.
424
Up to 18th March there have been almost 12,000 applications of which about 10,000 have been approved, about 3,000 from employed people and 7,000 from unemployed people. More publicity is being given to job release in an effort to include the take-up and particularly to ensure that all in employment who are eligible are aware of the scheme. Television advertisements are being used and my right honourable friend has written to the major employers in the country and I know he would like me to repeat his message today: we hope all employers will do all they can to publicise the scheme to their workpeople.
I turn now to the provisions of the Bill. I make no apology however for having spent a little time in describing the scheme since I believe it is the best way of explaining what the Bill is really intended to achieve. It expresses its intentions in very few words. This is an enabling Bill which provides statutory authority for expenditure by the Secretary of State on job release schemes which meet the criteria mentioned in the Bill. These are, first, that allowances under job release schemes may be paid on only a temporary basis; secondly, that allowances may be payable only to a particular group of persons—those approaching pensionable age—and thirdly, that schemes must be for a specific purpose; that is, creating job vacancies and otherwise mitigating the effects of high unemployment. These three factors define the purpose of job release schemes in the circumstances in which they operate. They create a clear statutory framework within which the Secretary of State can adjust the conditions of schemes rapidly in the light of experience and to suit current needs.
I have said that the schemes under the Bill must be temporary. They would cease to exist when unemployment falls to a more reasonable level, but we are anxious to provide that should unemployment rise to an unacceptable degree it will be possible for a job release scheme to be mounted again. So the authority of the Bill will operate for a period initially of 18 months but the authority must be renewed either at the end of 18 months or at some later date for periods of up to a year at a time. Renewals will be by means of a Statutory Instrument, subject to Affirmative Resolution in another place.

425
The Bill also provides a safeguard from the effects of sex discrimination legislation for job release schemes in which eligibility is defined by reference to the time at which a person reaches pensionable age. We do not believe that the present scheme is in practice discriminatory. It pays the same rate of allowance to all successful applicants for the same period of time but, while the statutory pensionable age differs for men and women, job release schemes must take account of that fact. There is no other practical way of running them. However, we were anxious not to put those operating the scheme, and more particularly employers participating, at any kind of risk. That is why the safeguard is in the Bill.
The Job Release Bill is a necessary measure designed to provide authority for expenditure on a scheme already included in the Government's programme of employment measures. The scheme seeks to create permanent full-time jobs for some of the unemployed and particularly for our younger unemployed people. There can be no question as to the merit of that aid. The scheme is a valuable part of the Government's selective programme and one which we must all hope will have an increasing impact in the months ahead. We also hope of course that the need for such schemes will disappear, but in the meantime it is right to arm ourselves with the powers that we need to tackle the effects of high unemployment.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, I think the noble Lord said just now that the service would be available in only assisted areas. I wonder whether he can correct my ignorance: are assisted areas what used to be known as "special areas", or are they in a different category altogether?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I would say that it is more or less the same thing. It is in areas of very high unemployment where special measures have to be taken. So we can more or less say that it is the same thing.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, I was wondering whether there was an element of flexibility in this, because the boundaries of the old special areas are clearly defined and other services are available where there is a little more flexibility than this, and
426
account is taken of the local level of unemployment rather than statutory boundaries.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I hope that the noble Viscount will give me an opportunity to give him a more adequate reply when I come to wind up the debate, which I shall endeavour to do. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Wallace of Coslany.)
4.51 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, for introducing this Bill to your Lordships and for introducing it so succinctly. If he did not get his final sentences quite right, no doubt the Official Box will put him right when he replies to the debate. Any efforts on the part of this Government to bring down the present intolerably high level of unemployment will be welcomed, and to that end I am sure that noble Lords on this side of the House will extend a welcome to this modest measure. Nevertheless, the Bill represents one more of a number of selective schemes which are now in operation. They have this in common: they all relate to different conditions and for different periods of time but they all go to alleviate unemployment in one form or another. Among them, I suppose, are the training opportunities scheme, the job creation programme, the youth employment subsidy, and of course there are others.
I did not take part in the debate last week in which, as I understand it, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, made his debut from the Dispatch Box, and it may be that all these questions have been answered. So far as I am concerned, I believe that a Manpower Services Commission Working Party is presently inquiring into the effectiveness of all these measures to help the unemployed. One wonders, first, when the Working Party is likely to report, and secondly, once it has reported, whether each House will be given an opportunity of debating that report.
The thought must occur, and the question be asked, whether we are diffusing our effort and, indeed, our money in too

427
many different directions at once. Are we spreading what funds are available in the right concentration in the right direction? That is something to which I have no doubt noble Lords will wish to return.
So far as this Bill is concerned, during its passage through the other place a number of welcome Amendments were made limiting the operation of the scheme to a specific period, as the noble Lord told us, and making any further extension subject to an Affirmative Resolution of the other place. In the Memorandum to the Bill the Government state that they expect the number of applications over this three-year period to amount to no fewer than 78,000. Additional staff numbering no fewer than 150 would be taken on in the first six months.
As to that, and pausing there, if my researches are correct the scheme was announced in September 1976 and applications were invited in November 1976. The scheme actually started on 4th January this year but, as the noble Lord has told us, up to the 18th of this month, only 10,000 applications have been approved. Therefore, one wonders whether the 150 have now been taken on. It is six months and more since the scheme was announced, but less than that since it came into operation. If so, what are the 150 doing? On the evidence of the noble Lord, the work rate so far has not been exactly onerous. The ratio—so far as I was able to work out rather rapidly—remains the same as when the scheme came into operation; that is to say, only three applications from employed persons to no fewer than seven applications from unemployed persons.
The general idea of inducing people to give up their jobs when they are near retirement age and to make way for somebody else who is unemployed, is excellent. It is the cascade principle because, as the noble Lord pointed out, the person who gives up does not have to replace somebody on the unemployment register. Nevertheless, so far as unemployed people are concerend, as I understand it the position would be that they will be paid approximately the same by way of benefit as they would be paid if they had remained on the unemployment register, with this considerable difference: not only
428
will they be relieved of any obligation to seek employment, but in fact they are positively prevented from so doing.
If one was being cynical about this, one would say that this was a matter of playing with statistics, so that the individual who previously had been paid for being on one register was now going to be paid the same sum for being on another register. If the Government were to try to claim that this is reducing the unemployment statistics, one would be entitled to point a finger, and even possibly utter a guffaw. However, I accept the Government's contention that this is not the object of the enterprise. But I am bound to say that it is difficult to see how, by taking out a few of the more elderly unemployed, it will reduce the number of unemployed as a whole.
As I understand the position, the vast bulk of the unemployed are in fact school-leaving teenagers, and they will not really be in competition with the elderly unemployed. Further, what about part-time employment? As I understand the noble Lord, a person who is in a job can, under this scheme, seek employment of some kind and take the remuneration if it amounts to no more than £4 a week. I think I understood the noble Lord correctly when he said that. One does not know whether that is averaged out, or how the figure is arrived at.
There are many people who approach retirement age who are full of vigour and well able, and indeed desirous, of holding down some part-time light employment which would he totally unsuitable for somebody who is younger and fitter. The tourist industry, in which I have considerable interest, is very much a case in point. One wonders how the Government arrived at the figure of £4. I should have thought that this is something which could be kept under review. I would hope that it would be extended, or at least uplifted, to a figure considerably higher than £4.
As I say, these people are quite able to do a light job, and I suggest that with productivity on a national scale being as low as it is they should not be prevented from doing so. By the endorsement on top of the Bill we are constrained in our approach to it and in the way in which we deal with it, but as I said at the beginning it is a modest Bill with modest aims and we must all hope that it succeeds.
5 p.m.
Lord ROCHESTER: My Lords, we on these Benches are happy to give general support to the main purpose of the Bill as set out in Clause 1—that is, to pay temporary allowances to people approaching pensionable age so as to create job vacancies and to mitigate the effects of unemployment. But of course the Bill does nothing to create employment opportunities; and, as my noble friends and I never tire from saying, that cannot happen unless there is improved profitability, higher relative rewards for skill and responsibility, and improved training facilities in industry leading to an increase in the rate at which goods and services are produced for the benefit of the community. We understand why the Bill has had to be drafted in general terms that allow considerable flexibility, so that under it new temporary job release schemes can be introduced—for example, to cover non-assisted as well as assisted areas—and I think the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, will find the answer to the question raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, on the back of the excellent pamphlet about the job release scheme which defines assisted areas in clear terms.
We regard it as quite essential that any schemes of this kind should be subject to adequate Parliamentary control and for this reason we particularly welcome Clause 1(3) and (4) under which, as I understand the position, if the Government wish to continue to pay allowances for longer than 18 months, with permitted extensions of up to 12 months, this must first be approved, as the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, reminded us, by an Affirmative Resolution of the House of Commons. I notice that in Committee in another place two weeks ago the Minister gave the further assurance that any changes in job release schemes would be the subject of a Government announcement which could be questioned, and this, too, we welcome.
It is because we support the main purpose of the Bill that, like Lord Mansfield, I was disturbed to hear from the Minister (if I have the figures right) that, of about 10,000 people whose applications to take advantage of the present scheme had been approved by 18th March, as many as 7,000, or 70 per cent., were registered as unemployed. At a time like the present
430
there is of course an understandable temptation for any Government to make use of this kind of scheme simply to reduce the number of people unemployed. But the main objective of such schemes, as the title of the Bill makes plain, is to encourage as many people as possible who are employed to retire early so as to create the maximum number of vacancies for younger people who are unemployed.
The position now appears to be that it is proving more advantageous for someone who is unemployed to claim this new form of benefit—which may, under the existing job release scheme, in some cases be worth a little more than unemployment benefit—than it is for someone who is employed to have his weekly income reduced to less than that which he is already receiving. I should be grateful if, when Lord Wallace replies, he would say whether, and if so how, the Government propose to alter the balance of the scheme so that it gives more encouragement to employed people to retire early. I was able informally to give the noble Lord notice that I would ask this question.
It would also be helpful for us to know whether the Government are prepared to entertain the idea of gradually reducing the minimum age of qualification for job release below 64 for men and 59 for women, depending obviously on the general employment position, which we hope must improve, on the extent to which the present scheme is used, and, particularly of course in these stringent times, on how much it actually costs to run schemes of this kind in practice.
I understand, further, that one of the difficulties about getting enough people who are now in employment to take this tax-free allowance of £23 a week, is that they fear this might have an adverse effect on their occupational pension. Is the Minister in a position to give us any further information on whether this particular obstacle has now been overcome, or what are the prospects for overcoming it? Subject to those doubts, we are happy to support the Bill in principle.
5.6 p.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I have received a number of questions about this short Bill and I will

431
endeavour to answer them. At the outset, however, I wish to correct a statement made by the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield. If I understood him aright, he said that the vast bulk of those unemployed were teenage people. Actually, that is not quite true. Do I see the noble Earl wishing to interrupt?
The Earl of MANSFIELD: Not in so many words, my Lords.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: I am not quite sure what that means, my Lords, so I will give Lord Mansfield the figures and they may provide him with further food for thought. Only 31,596 school-leavers are involved in a total of 1,328,382. They are the provisional figures for March 1977.
This has been a short but constructive debate. We have had support for the Bill from the Benches opposite, with a certain amount of criticism and a certain amount of inquiry, and that is very welcome indeed. Although it is a small Bill, its importance should not be underestimated. It is an imaginative way of approaching a major social and economic problem. The Bill sets out to create a flexible framework within which job release schemes can be adapted to meet the needs of the time.
Lord Mansfield mentioned the report of the Manpower Services Working Party. This matter came up last Wednesday but I will repeat what I said then. The report of the Manpower Services Working Party is expected very shortly. In another place my right honourable friend is making arrangements, subject to certain considerations—others now having been added—to have a debate on it, and, as I said previously, although I cannot arrange Government business here (I have no responsibility for that) I am hopeful that we, too, will have such a debate.
The noble Earl then mentioned the question of staff. The estimate of 150 staff related to the estimated total of applications; we have certainly not taken on the whole of the 150 at the start. The staff increase is in direct proportion to the number of applicants coming forward. In other words, the gearing in terms of taking up staff will, as I said, be related to the number of applicants coming forward.
432
I appreciate that there is a great deal of criticism about unemployed people coming into the scheme and I frankly admit that it is out of balance at the moment; that is a fact and we admit it. However, the main point on which we wish to concentrate, and to which we wish to give greater publicity, is the attraction to the scheme of people who are in employment, who are getting within reasonable reach of retirement, and who are than at least given an opportunity to retire early, if they so wish, on a tax-free £23—which is not too bad considering all the circumstances—and that in turn will release jobs for others. What is needed is publicity, the co-operation of the employers, and all of us doing the best we can to put over the impact of the scheme.
The £4 limit has been mentioned by, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. The Government agreed during the progress of the Bill in another place to introduce a rule allowing people in job release to earn up to £4 a week without losing the allowance. This was in response to pressure from the Conservative Benches. It was represented that we should not prevent people from taking up part-time jobs for a few hours a week. The level of £4 was suggested by the Conservative Benches and was accepted by the Government, and it is the disregard of earnings which allowed people, if necessary, to apply for supplementary benefit, dependent on the circumstances of the individual affected.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, in a very constructive contribution, suggested that we should possibly consider altering the balance of the scheme. The balance of the scheme will be altered if we are successful in persuading more employed people to accept it. On the question of gradually reducing age the noble Lord raised a very difficult point—that it should be reduced further still. But the cost is considerable, and at present there is no question of considering that aspect. In any case, there are pressures about in political circles for altering the pension age, and that would have some effect on the scheme.
Certainly the question of occupational pensions can give rise to some concern, but for the people involved there need be no concern whatever. First, the amount of the job release allowance payable to an

433
individual is not affected by any occupational pension to which he or she is entitled. The allowance is £23 a week in all cases. Whether it will have any effect upon a person's entitlement depends entirely on the occupational scheme in which the person is involved, but, generally speaking, an occupational pension payable to a person is not affected by the £23 a week allowance. The noble Viscount, Lord Amory, mentioned—
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, I do not speak for my noble friend, but this is really a very important point, because if one is in an occupational pension scheme and one is retiring early, then for the rest of one's life one's pension is reduced because one has fewer years of service. Does this count as retirement? I am not a bit surprised that people are not taking it, if they do not get the same pension as they would have got had they retired at age 65. One may go a year early. But the years of service are the years until one leaves, and the calculation for the rest of one's life, if one gets, say, one-sixtieth, is one-sixtieth multiplied by the number of years that one is at work. That number of years at work is reduced, and therefore the pension for the rest of of one's life is less.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, it depends on the terms of any individual occupational pension scheme. In some schemes one can retire at 60, in some at 64, in some at 65, and so on. It is entirely related to whatever scheme is in operation. The point is that this is a voluntary scheme and the person must decide for himself whether or not it is a financial advantage, affecting the occupational pension, to take the scheme. The person concerned must reach that decision. It is the right of the individual to decide. He must decide in the light of the scheme and of his occupational pension whether to take it on. But, certainly, if he receives an occupational pension, his occupational pension is not affected or reduced. He keeps that money, and that is that.
The noble Viscount, Lord Amory, mentioned the assisted areas. The assisted areas include the intermediate development and special development areas; that is, Scotland, Northern Region, Yorkshire, Humberside, Wales and the North West. The areas are specified in
434
Section 6 of the Industry Act 1972, and in effect they contain about 40 per cent. of the labour force and about 52½per cent. of the unemployed. That is why, necessarily in the first instance, we have been selective in introducing the scheme in those areas—
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that information. On my way out the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, slipped me a pamphlet which I think gave me that answer. I wonder whether any consideration is being given to making the boundaries of those assisted areas a little more flexible? I ask this because very often there are pockets of heavy unemployment just outside the boundaries. I wonder whether continuous consideration is being given to local revisions of boundaries in the light of the changing volume of unemployment?
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, the short answer to the noble Viscount is that the scheme itself is under consideration all the time, and the particular points that he has raised would be considered. If the noble Viscount requires further assurance I can certainly get information for him and will write to him in due course. I do not think that there are any more points that I have to answer at present.
I want to conclude by reminding your Lordships once more of the context in which we are debating the Bill. None of us is complacent about the level of unemployment. The Government have mounted a massive programme to reduce its impact, but it is still intolerably high, despite the welcome reduction that again has been announced this morning. Job release is a measure which has the potential to reduce the impact even further, and I hope that the 10,000 or more workers and unemployed who have taken advantage of it will soon be joined by others. It is a straightforward scheme without any complicated rules to deter the applicant. I hope that people will take a good look at it, that people will publicise it, and that they will appreciate that there is something to offer in the scheme which is before them. It is open for another three months, to the end of June, and then the Government will be reviewing its future. But it is highly desirable that we have such schemes in operation at the

435
present time. Small as they might be, they are in fact assisting a number of people in a situation which some of us understand only too bitterly from our experiences in the past.
On Question, Bill read 2ª; Committee negatived.

PATENTS BILL [H.L.]
5.19 p.m.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Oram.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord MAYBRAY-KING in the Chair.]
Clause 90 [The Patents Court]:
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 321:
Page 72, line 41, at end insert ("and two scientific advisers appointed by the Lord Chancellor.").
The noble Earl said: Perhaps I may move Amendments Nos. 321 and 322 in order to ask the Government some questions and because they raise a matter which affects Amendment No. 326A, which I shall be moving presently. This is setting up an entirely new court, and I understand the intention is that it will be a court in the full sense of the word—that it will be part of the High Court, that it will sit as a single judge and that appeals will be made in the ordinary way to the Court of Appeal. In subsection (4) there is provision for scientific advisers to be appointed. I understand these have very rarely been appointed in the past. Can the Government tell us their intention? When is it intended that these scientific advisers will be appointed, and who will be selected?
The Amendment goes rather far, perhaps, in saying that they should be appointed on all occasions and, so to speak, form a permanent part of the court. The object is that the increasing complexity of many patent cases may make this desirable and that this provision
436
should add to the confidence of industry in using the patent court, which is very important because we wish in every way, I think, to encourage new steps which will help and can be used in the application of industry. Indeed, if there is confidence in industry it is unlikely that so many actions will run from the patent court to the appeal court. If the noble and learned Lord can answer those questions, as to what the proposals are in using subsection (4) with regard to scientific advisers, I should be very grateful, and I think it might be of general interest. I beg to move.
Lord CAWLEY: I have had some experience of scientific advisers. I think the last occasion was in the colour television case, where a Court of Appeal had a scientific adviser—and he was in fact made an honorary bencher of Lincoln's Inn for the duration of the proceedings in order that he may lunch with his fellow judges. I think that this Amendment certainly does not achieve what it is meant to achieve. It suggests that two scientific advisers should be permanent officials and that such advisers should not be appointed for individual cases. I think that would be most disastrous, because you must have somebody who knows something about the special line concerned. In the colour television case they found great difficulty in finding anyone who was not biased in some way or connected with either side. In the end they found an official of the BBC who was persona grata to both sides, and I think he was of the greatest assistance to the Court of Appeal. I think it would be a pity to have any permanent officials, and very much better if we carried on as we do now. I think that whenever the court thinks they need somebody to help them, then these officials should be appointed, but that there should be no permanent officials.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Cawley, who has spoken to this Amendment, and to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, for introducing it in the absence of my noble friend Lord Brown. Certainly, as I think I said on Second Reading, it is the intention that, where it would be advantageous to the court to receive the help of a scientific adviser, that should be done; and I respectfully agree with what the noble

437
Lord, Lord Cawley, has just said, that a panel of permanent experts really would not meet the bill because, in view of the enormously wide range of expertise that now falls for consideration in patent matters, it is much better to have ad hoc an expert in the particular field to assist the court.
What the Government have in mind—and, indeed, I have already put it in train —is that there should be a rule of court requiring that the question of appointing a scientific adviser should always be considered, and should have to be considered, on the summons for directions. That will concentrate the minds of all concerned to the question whether that would be valuable in the particular case—clearly one does not want a scientific adviser in all cases—and I am happy to say that the Supreme Court Rule Committee has already approved of that proposed change and that it will enter into force in a few weeks' time. I think that the concern that noble Lords have expressed will be met by that machinery. I am not precisely clear in my mind who would appoint the scientific adviser, or invite him to serve. Whether it would be the court or myself, I do not know; but perhaps I can look into that and let the noble Earl know the answer to that question. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Earl will feel disposed to withdraw the Amendment.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down I should like to draw his attention to a matter which is causing me a little anxiety, and that is the White Paper on Patent Law Reform. On page 6, chapter 4 deals with the court and appeals. This is a Government White Paper which starts off this section in relation to appeals in patent matters by saying quite explicitly:
"The existing arrangements for dealing with disputes over patents and appeals from Patent Office decisions are unsatisfactory".
That is the first sentence. Then, later on, in paragraph 23 it is said:
"With these various viewpoints in mind, the Government thinks it right to consider establishing a new court which would not be part of the High Court".
It seems to me that the recommendation of this specialist committee was that the court dealing with many of these disputes
438
should not be part of the High Court; and during the Second Reading debate I quoted from various judges who said that disputes on patent matters should not go to the High Court but should go to some other sort of tribunal or commission.
I fully realise that the two patent judges in the High Court who have been dealing with patent disputes in recent years, and of course the first patent judge, the late Mr.Justice Lloyd-Jacob, whom I knew very well, have done a great service to industry by the way in which they have conducted these appeals in the Chancery court in relation to patent matters, and I hope that nothing that I say will in any way be considered to be decrying the great work done by the three judges to whom I have made reference. But, for some reason or other unknown to me, the jurisdiction for dealing with patent disputes is to be in the High Court, which is against the view of the White Paper of only a few months ago; whereas, as I have said on many occasions in your Lordships' House, what is required, particularly by the individual inventor and also by the small firm, is a sort of robust action in dealing with these things.
Therefore, I am under two difficulties. I do not quite understand why there has been this reluctance to start to use a court other than in the High Court for these disputes, as recommended in the Government White Paper; and, also, why it is that there is so little practical sympathy—and I regret to put it so positively—for the views I have put forward that small firms and individuals should have the opportunity, if they so desire, to get the matter dealt with robustly before some kind of commission or some kind of court other than the High Court. I fully realise the legal problems involved, but it seems to me that it would not be beyond the wit of the Government to consider this question of the expense to small firms and inventors in relation to getting their disputes settled.
I am grateful for the long letter I received from the noble and learned Lord in regard to the difficulties of setting up a tribunal. If I may tell him again, it was entirely my fault that he has misunderstood what I said when I referred to the Royal Commission on awards to inventors set

439
up after the last war. That Commission was able to make not only ex gratia awards to inventors who had no rights but also replaced the High Court in relation to patent actions against the Crown under Section 29 of the Patents Act then in force. This Commission was in a position, by agreement, to deal expeditiously with patent claims that would have gone to the Court in the normal way but which the Government at the time decided, because they would be too expensive, should go to the Royal Commission. I am sorry to have spent so much time on this but it seems to me to be a matter which concerns small firms— and by "small firms" I mean firms with under 1,000 employees—and individual inventors.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord has robustly revived his plea for a tribunal to deal with these matters and, with great skill, he has managed to do so on an Amendment dealing with a different matter. I forgive him for that; and I will certainly look again at the point he has made, particularly in relation to the correspondence which we have had in regard to the matter of tribunals. The reason why it was originally proposed that the patents court should not be part of the High Court was to overcome difficulties over the right of audience for patent agents. But that difficulty, happily, did not materialise; so the way was clear for appeals from the comptroller to go to the High Court. That was the recommendation of the Banks Committee.
I agree that there is some slight departure from the White Paper. It did not commit the Government to a mixed court but, certainly, it said the Government would consider it. We have considered it in the light of discussions and we have decided to follow the Banks proposals. For the reasons we have canvassed, I, frankly, do not think the small inventor will be prejudiced by this change; but, as I have said, with great respect, the point is slightly removed from the Amendment we are discussing and I pass the Floor, if I may, to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I thank the noble and learned Lord for what he has said. So far as I understand the procedure he has outlined, it means, in effect, that in every case where it seems that a scientific
440
adviser is either desirable or helpful to the court this matter will be considered and no doubt a proper appointment will be made. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 90 agreed to.
Clause 91 [Appeals from the comptroller]:
5.34 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 324:
Page 73, line 17, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: We now come to Clause 91 which is concerned with appeals from the comptroller. Clause 12 of the Bill—we discussed it during the first session of the Committee, stage—deals with the cases of patents which are called "divided out." This appears to mean that there are two inventions which are contained in one particular patent application. Where this is so, the date of filing an application is to be taken as the earliest date on which the applicant's documents for filing comply with certain particulars. The filing date of the application is of the utmost importance because, under Clause 5 of the Bill, the filing date is the priority date for the invention; and, of course, upon the priority date rests the criterion for novelty.
Because so much depends upon the priority date, we are strongly of the opinion that an appeal to the court should be allowed from a decision of the comptroller when he is acting under Clause 12. The real anxiety for an applicant will arise from Clause 12(4), from which we see that it is a matter of great importance to the applicant that a "divided out" application should be able to claim the priority date of the earlier application. If the comptroller decides against an applicant where an earlier priority date is at issue, we think it is surely right (with so much depending upon the decision of the comptroller) to allow an appeal to the Patents Court as it is to be set up. That is the effect of the Amendment. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I fully sympathise with the purpose and intent behind this Amendment. I agree that a

441
decision under Clause 12 could affect, and will affect, the priority date of a patent application and that that may have (as the noble Lord has pointed out) very important consequences for the applicant. What troubled us was that the decisions which the comptroller will be taking under Clause 12 are largely administrative acts not involving the exercise of any judicial discretion. At this moment, I do not see how the absence of a right of appeal could cause hardship.
But I think that I have no confidence in what I have just said on those two points. Accordingly, if the noble Lord is content to let the matter be further considered and not to press it at this stage, I certainly would be very happy to consider it. In the light of my own self-criticism it may be that at the end of the day I shall either let him again put down the Amendment on Report or may move it myself. If I could have another look at it I should be grateful.
Lord LYELL: It is gratifying to start our proceedings on this fifth day in Committee with such a kind welcome for this Amendment. We are grateful for the way in which the noble and learned Lord has received it. It contains some points which we felt were of importance and could arouse some hostility and, indeed, induce some hardship with an applicant. We shall be pleased to allow the noble and learned Lord to take further consultations. With that I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): Amendments Nos. 325 and 326 on the Marshalled List are substituted by manuscript Amendments Nos. 325A and 326B.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 325A:
Page 73, line 39, leave out ("34, 70 or 71") and insert ("15, 17, 24, 34, 37, 70, 71 or 72").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move this Amendment and would apologise to the Committee for an oversight. The noble Lord, Lord Oram, wrote to me and suggested that while the Government might see their way to considering the original
442
Amendment (No. 325) there was one particular clause that they felt could also be added to this list. This was Clause 17. I was a trifle remiss in adding this particular clause to the list.
However, with that I hope I may pass on to looking at the object and effect of the Amendment. Clause 91(3) prevents two separate levels of appeal from a decision of the comptroller. We presume this is in the interests of keeping legal patent proceedings down to the minimum cost and seeing that they may proceed as cheaply as possible. However, we see that Clause 91 provides two exceptions to this general prohibition. Paragraph (a) gives an absolute right of appeal under certain clauses of the Bill: Clauses 7, 34, 70 or 71. We also find under paragraph (b) a further appeal will be allowed if a decision by the comptroller seems to be or is wrong in law. Even then an appeal is only allowed by leave of the Patents Court, or indeed the Court of Appeal.
We see the effect of this particular Amendment as being twofold: first, the four clauses that have been chosen to give an absolute right of appeal concern important legal issues affecting what we term basic rights. These four clauses which are at present in the Bill at line 39 on page 73 should be supplemented using what we hope are the same criteria. We hope that this is the effect of Amendment No. 325A. The second effect of the Amendment is that we believe that the leave of the court should be necessary even for the right of appeal provided by subsection 3(a) in this clause. This would be the effect of Amendment No. 326B to which I will be coming. I beg to move Amendment No. 325A.
5.42 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: It may be convenient for me to indicate at once that we propose to accept these Amendments. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for putting them down. We had already accepted in principle Amendments Nos. 325 and 326, which have now been withdrawn in place of the changed draft which is now before the Committee. We share the view of the noble Lord that a right of appeal on fact or law should not be restricted to cases where the comptroller's decision was given under Clauses 7, 34, 70 or 71. But, at the same time,

443
since we are dealing here with proceedings which originated before the comptroller, it is desirable to avoid an undue proliferation of further appeals to the Court of Appeal. But the requirement of leave in every case should secure this. In the circumstances, I am very happy to accept these Amendments.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: Before the noble and learned Lord sits down, I have not yet spoken to this Amendment because I wanted to listen to what the noble and learned Lord had to say.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I was not seeking to obstruct the noble Lord; I thought he would like to know that I was agreeing to accept the Amendments.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I am much obliged. This Amendment relates to Clause 37. So far as I understand it, this is the clause which deals with the award of compensation to an employee who has a patent and feels he ought to have some compensation. There should be a finality in regard to this kind of appeal from an employee, and indeed I had considered whether an Amendment should not have been put into the previous clause to say that there should be no appeal from the decision of the Comptroller General when he was deciding what award should be paid to an employee. My reason for that would be that there should be that finality in the consideration of what award should be paid to the employee. If the Comptroller General realised that there was no appeal available, that would probably assist him in relation to the realisation of his jurisdiction. I wonder whether, therefore, the Government would consider at least deleting the reference to Clause 37 in the present Amendment, or giving consideration to the question whether or not there should be this appeal as of right to the Court of Appeal in relation to Clause 37.
Lord BELSTEAD: On behalf of my noble friend, may I say that it is not as of right. Amendments Nos. 325A and 326B have been at pains to make it clear that both will depend on leave being given.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. What I meant to say was that it should not
444
be put into the Bill that there was a possibility, even by leave, of getting an appeal.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: That is a matter of opinion that we considered when we were dealing with the compensation provisions. I would have thought that the amount of the award and the grounds on which the award is made, were matters which could in a given case, subject to leave being granted, be very appropriate indeed for appeal. I should be unhappy if that class of case was excluded While it would concentrate the mind of the comptroller wonderfully to realise that he is giving a final decision and, to that extent, is infallible, somebody once said about the House of Lords and its decisions that they are not final because they are infallible but infallible because they are final. While the comptroller's mind would be concentrated, realising his was a final decision, I do not think that the litigant, feeling that he had suffered an injustice, would obtain great comfort from the thought that at least the comptroller knew his decision was final. I do not think I approve of the denial of the right of appeal in an appropriate case, as the noble Lord pointed out, where leave to appeal is granted.
Lord LYELL: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, is not too concerned about Clause 37. I appreciate his professional interest and knowledge in these matters. I wonder whether he would agree with me that there would be two sides to an appeal under Clause 37. I hope an employee inventor who felt aggrieved would have a right of appeal, again where the court felt that there were grounds for dispute, and should then be given leave.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: When the noble Lord talks about the employee having a right of appeal, in my experience that right of appeal is very much limited by the cost of such an appeal. My appeals to the Committee have been to try to reduce the amount of costs in these matters which will he involved to the employee. It is all very well to say that an employee can take the case to the House of Lords; but there is no legal aid for the employee and therefore the cost to him is a serious handicap.
Lord LYELL: I take the point. I wonder what would be the difference in taking an appeal to the comptroller and on. But the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, will know these things, I am sure, as do the people who are involved in these matters in their professional life.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: If the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, wants advice about costs, I may be able to tell him privately. It involves thousands of pounds in disputes on patent matters. I feel that employees ought to be assisted in some way to avoid these heavy costs being incurred or threatened to them and thus depriving them of justice.
Lord LYELL: I think probably we should discuss the details and the figures at a later stage, and not during the Committee stage. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd, will accept that we have gone far enough along the channel today. I should like to say to the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack that we are most grateful to him for indicating that our Amendment attempts to fit the case. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Oram, who indicated that this would be broadly acceptable.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): I now call Amendment No. 326B, which is substituted for Amendment No. 326.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 326B:
Page 74, line 1, leave out ("on that ground") and insert ("under this section").
The noble Lord said: I have already spoken to this Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.52 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 326A:
Page 74, line 4, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
("(4) An appeal shall lie to a single judge of the Court of Session from any decision of the comptroller in proceedings under subsection (5) below, except any decision mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (f) of subsection (1) above.
446
(5) In any proceedings before the comptroller under this Act, the comptroller shall hold the hearing in Scotland where either:—

(a) both parties have their place of business in Scotland; or

(b) the patentee has his residence or place of business in Scotland.

(6) The Lord President of the Court of Session shall make rules for the hearings of appeals by the Court of Session.").
The noble Earl said: We now come to the application of this new court for Scotland and I think, by any conceivable standards, what is written into the Bill is totally inadequate. It says three things. The first is that appeals from the comptroller will be taken to the Court of Session and, secondly, that they will not be taken in the sheriff court, except for incidental procedure; thirdly, that the assessors may be paid. Nothing else is put in; no powers are given to the Lord President of the Court of Session to make regulations. In fact, there is no real explanation of how the Government propose this shall work. I hope the Government will give some indication of how they expect this to be conducted.
I should like to ask one or two specific questions as to what it is the Government have in mind. First, are appeals from the comptroller to be taken by a single judge? I should have thought so, and that the general procedure laid down in England would here be followed. What is to be the position of the assessors? So far as I can see, one may pay them but there is no means of appointing them. I wonder whether that does not require to be looked at again. Finally, the Explanatory Memorandum says that hearings will be taken in Scotland for cases affecting Scotland; but there is no reference at all to that in the Bill. My Amendment suggests that the comptroller should sit in Scotland—and he has not sat in Scotland very often, I believe—where both parties are resident in Scotland or where the patentee or the claimant of the patentee is resident in Scotland. That is what the Amendment says, and I very much hope the Government will be able to agree to it, at least in principle.
One other important matter is whether the Government propose to put a filing office in Scotland. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, said the other day that it does not require statutory authority but it is a matter of administration. This

447
is a matter where time and expense can be of very real significance and importance. I am informed that in many European countries the filing offices are dispersed round the country and there seems no reason at all why that should not equally be the case in Scotland. It would not be a very great matter to have an office of this character set up, for example, somewhere in the Department of Trade offices in Glasgow.
I should be very grateful if the noble and learned Lord could explain what sort of arrangement is proposed for Scotland and on whom it is desired to put the responsibilities. I do not propose to press the Amendment but I think we ought to have a full explanation of the sort of organisation which is envisaged, and not just these very brief and totally unsatisfactory suggestions which are made in the Bill. Incidentally, I would suggest that subsection (4) would fall very much better under the next clause, Clause 92, with which it appears to me to be far more closely connected. I beg to move.
5.56 p.m.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey): Perhaps the Committee would allow me to take the Amendment, first of all, in its own terms and then come back to the criticisms made by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. The Amendment, as we see, would require the comptroller to hold hearings in Scotland in cases where the parties are resident or have a place of business there. These are certainly factors which ought to be taken into account by the comptroller when fixing the venue. But we suggest they are not the only factors which may need to be considered. Others are the convenience of the patent agents involved and that of the expert witnesses; the expense which would or might be occasioned by all these people and the hearing officer having to travel to and stay in Scotland for the duration of a hearing.
Sometimes, as I think that practitioners here could confirm, there is a degree of urgency involved. I understand that sometimes a hearing has to take place at very short notice indeed. Perhaps most important of all are the wishes of the parties, because although they fulfil the
448
qualifications envisaged in the Amendment, they may wish to appear before the comptroller in London and not to have the proceedings in Scotland, for whatever reason. So there is the need to take into account all these other factors. However, I should like to acknowledge that the Amendment has concentrated the Government's mind upon these matters in a way which perhaps it had not been concentrated before. There is the need to take account of all those factors and also the representations which the Government have received from various bodies in Scotland. All these things have led the Government to the view that further consideration needs to be given to the whole clause.
To that extent, I acknowledge the force of the criticisms that have been made, and indeed the Government are now giving the consideration to these matters which has been rendered necessary by the observations which have been made and by the observations which have fallen from the noble Earl. I can, however, say this in general: the comptroller has always been willing to sit in Scotland, and remains willing to conduct hearings there. Indeed, I can go further and give an undertaking that he will do so whenever the circumstances are appropriate, although I would not want to be driven too hard as to what would constitute "appropriate circumstances".
We must also note that under the present Bill the number of cases in which the comptroller can sit in Scotland has been substantially enlarged, compared with those under which he could sit under the 1949 Act. Under that Act, it was only under Sections 55 and 56 that hearings could be directed to take place in Scotland. The Bill extends his discretion to make such an order.
The noble Earl mentioned specifically the question of the single judge. The question as to whether an appeal should be taken by a single judge or by more than one judge is, as the noble Earl will appreciate, a matter which the Court of Session itself should regulate, because that court controls and regulates its own procedure. The Lord President of the Court of Session has confirmed that in his view the Bill should provide merely for an appeal to the Court of Session—I think that is fairly usual—and that rules of court should

449
provide that the appeal will be heard by an Outer House Judge—that is, a single judge of the Court of Session. The Lord President has confirmed that the court is willing to make rules to that effect, and express provision for it in the Bill is therefore unnecessary.
In relation to the matter of the assessor, I think the noble Earl will see that provision for that is made in Clause 92(3):
"The remuneration of any assessor appointed to assist the court in proceedings under this Act in the Court of Session shall be determined by the Lord President of the Court of Session with the consent of the Minister…",
and so on. One of the matters which the Government have to reconsider is this question of what feature of a case, or of the parties to it, should determine whether that case ought to be heard in Scotland, and what the noble Earl has said will be taken into account.
I think that I should say this in relation to the Amendment. The proposed new subsection (6) is unnecessary in the light of what I have said, because of course the Court of Session has power to regulate its own procedure, which is conferred by Section 16 of the Administration of Justice (Scotland) Act 1933. It can make the necessary rules under that Act, and accordingly the new subsection (6) is unnecessary. The noble Earl raised one other matter; that is, the question of having a filing office in Scotland. I do not think that that arises directly out of this Amendment, but the noble Earl will perhaps appreciate that the matter of filing documents in places other than London is not a peculiarly Scottish point. It affects other cities—for example, Liverpool—and I do not know that one can necessarily say that communications are any better between regional centres in England and London, on the one hand, than they are between Glasgow or Edinburgh and London, on the other. The same applies, of course, to places as remote from London, in terms of travel time and expense of travel, as Newcastle.
The Patent Office in fact accepts business by post and, in practice, that means that a document which is posted, whether in Glasgow, Newcastle or Liverpool, will be treated as having been filed in the Patent Office on the day after posting. Therefore, there is a delay of only one day. I think the noble Earl will
450
appreciate that if one set up a filing office, or more than one, in Scotland, there would be pressure to set up similar offices in other regional centres, and the expense would be out of all proportion to the benefit that might be gained. I give that reply in the hope that it is a satisfactory one, although I do not think that it arises directly out of this Amendment. Subject, however, to those comments, the Government are certainly considering both what the noble Earl has said and the representations which they have received.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for what he has said. Of course, the argument about Liverpool is always before anyone's mind and we are discussing a much wider sphere. But the fact is that Liverpool is less expensive than Glasgow and, on the whole, travel to Liverpool is quicker than to Glasgow. Therefore, it is that much more difficult, in terms of cost and time, to do things in Glasgow than in Liverpool. I agree that there is a marginal element, and I would not contradict that for a moment.
But may I ask the noble and learned Lord whether he would consider putting subsection (4) of Clause 91 into Clause 92, and making the one clause deal with the Scottish application of this Bill? It seems to me to be tied on to the end of Clause 91, but it has very little to do with it. I leave it with him and will withdraw this Amendment, in the hope that something will be put forward which deals a little more specifically with this subject. But I should have thought—and I believe that the noble and learned Lord acknowledged it—that the wishes of the parties should be the predominant factor. I would not say that the patent agents stand first here, because they want to have everything where they are working. They would not necessarily consider the cost to other people. I would ask the noble and learned Lord to consider that point very carefully. Unless he wishes to say anything more, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 91, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 92 [Proceedings in Scotland]:
6.4 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 327:
Page 74, line 14, leave out subsection (2).
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment deletes what seems to be an unnecessary provision. I can say briefly that subsection (1) of this clause confers exclusive jurisdiction in patent proceedings in Scotland upon the Court of Session, and that it follows from that that there is no need to make additional provision expressly excluding jurisdiction which the sheriff court might otherwise have been thought to possess. I think that that enables me to answer in this visit to the Dispatch Box the point about the sheriff court which the noble Earl made in relation to the previous Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord LYELL: Can the noble and learned Lord explain to me Section 7 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1907, and Section 31 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971? I wondered what was their importance. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord can also explain the significance of the words,
"…except in relation to questions which are incidental to the issue in proceedings which are otherwise competent there",
in subsection (1).
Lord McCLUSKEY: It will not surprise the noble Lord to know that I do not carry them in my head, nor have I thought it prudent to carry them into the House today. I came to the view that it was unnecessary for them to be there and subsection (2) was to be deleted. I am afraid I did not think that the noble Lord would be so searching as to ask me why they were there, so I cannot give him an explanation. But the question is deserving of an answer, and I will write to the noble Lord and explain how we made the error in the first place.
Lord LYELL: I thank the noble and learned Lord and beg him not to go into too much detail. A very brief explanation would certainly satisfy me.
Lord McCLUSKEY: That is exactly what I had in mind.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 92, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 93 and 94 agreed to.
Clause 95 [Exercise of comptroller's discretionary powers.]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 327A:
Page 74, line 38, at beginning insert ("Without prejudice to any rule of law,").
The noble and learned Lord said: I am comforted by the fact that my noble and learned friend the Solicitor-General cannot, off the cuff, tell us what are the provisions of Section 7 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1907 and Section 31 of the Sheriff Courts (Scotland) Act 1971. It gives me great comfort to realise that, like myself, his memory is fallible on these important matters.
Clause 95, with which we are now dealing, imposes on the comptroller a specific duty to hear a party to a proceeding before exercising his discretion adversely. It seemed to the Government that this might be thought to be overriding the common law rules of natural justice, of which audi alteram partem—the right of each party to be heard—is a mere example, but a very important one. We think it prudent, lest it be thought that, because this has been specifically identified, the other relevant rules of natural justice do not operate. But, of course, that is far from our intention. The rules of natural justice will continue to apply, and the Amendment seeks to make this plain by adding the words, "Without prejudice to any rule of law" at the beginning of this clause. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord BELSTEAD Lord BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 328:
Page 74, line 38, after ("shall") insert (",before exercising his discretion or giving a decision or determining a question,").
The noble Lord said: With this Amendment, I should also like to speak to Amendments Nos. 331 and 332. I am not sure whether the words "exercising…any discretion" in this clause cover the words which my noble friends and I would like to insert into the Bill by Amendment No. 328. But on the assumption that this is not the case, we think that Clause 95 ought to be wider in scope, in that any

453
party to a proceeding should have the right to put its case, whether the proceedings require the comptroller to exercise his discretion, to give a decision or to determine a question.
An example of what I have in mind is whether the employer and the employee have the right to appear before the comptroller when he is deciding under Clause 37 whether compensation should be awarded to that employee for his invention. That would, presumably, be giving a decision. Then there is the kind of case where there is a right for the employer and the employee to be heard under Clause 38, and the comptroller determines the question of what is the fair share of the benefit from an invention to which the employee is entitled. An example of exercising his discretion might be in Clause 26(4), where the comptroller shall, subject to conditions, restore a lapsed patent by order which may be subject to such conditions as the comptroller thinks fit.
Acceptance of these Amendments would make it clear, I think, that under Clauses 37 and 38 in particular the parties concerned have an opportunity of being heard. Anyway, that is perhaps the clearest example of the practical effect of these Amendments. Perhaps I ought to add that if, by any chance, these Amendments are acceptable in principle to the Government, they may feel that the placing of Amendment No. 331 in the clause does not make for very polished English. If I am told that the Government would prefer to redraft, I will, of course, accept such advice. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not think that there is a great deal between noble Lords opposite and the Government on this question. Clearly the result we are seeking to achieve is that the comptoller shall hold a proper hearing and give interested parties an opportunity to put forward their views in the circumstances in which it would be appropriate for that to be done, and for the comptroller to see that this is done before embarking upon a particular course of action. The only difference between us is that, as at present advised, the Government believe, particularly in the light of the acceptance of Amendment No. 327A, that the present wording of Clause 25 will achieve the result that is being sought.
454
We are a little apprehensive about extending the wording of the clause as is proposed in these Amendments. They might result in the comptroller being required to hold a hearing before performing what might be a purely administrative act, and clearly that is not what noble Lords have in mind. In particular, Amendment No. 331 would require the comptroller, before coming to any decision, to anticipate who might be liable to be adversely affected by it and this, I venture to think, would be a difficult, indeed an almost impossible task.
Although I am very willing to look again at the matter I do not think, with great respect, that these Amendments will give to parties to proceedings any right that they do not already have under the clause as it is now worded. On this occasion I do not think that the change proposed would be helpful to those who will be directly concerned.
Lord BELSTEAD: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his advice, and I should like to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.14 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD Lord BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 329:
Page 74, line 38, after ("give") insert ("to").
The noble Lord said: Perhaps I may move Amendment No. 329 and speak at the same time to Amendment No. 330. We feel that these Amendments improve the drafting, but if the Government do not feel that this is so we shall, of course, accept their advice. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I am sorry to sound adamant, which I do not think anybody is on the kind of matters which we are discussing; but I do not think that the Amendments would help. I am afraid that the same criticisms as I had to make before apply to these two Amendments.
Lord BELSTEAD: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 95, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 96 [Right of audience in, and privilege of communications for, certain proceedings]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 332A:
Page 75, line 1, leave out from beginning to first ("any") in line 3.
The noble and learned Lord said: In the Bill as it is now printed, Clause 96(1) confers upon solicitors and patent agents the right to appear and to be heard on behalf of any party to proceedings before the comptroller. For the avoidance of doubt, it is thought desirable to state that parties may also be represented in such proceedings, first by counsel and, secondly, by any other person whom they desire to represent them—as, indeed, is usual these days in tribunal proceedings. Amendments Nos. 332A and 332C seek to achieve that purpose. However, in order to prevent professional men who have been disqualified from practising as such from representing parties before the comptroller as "other persons", the words "subject to rules under Section 103 below" have been inserted. Rules will be made under that clause in due course excluding such people, who may, for instance, have been expelled from whatever professional organisation it may be, from acting as "other persons" and coming under the umbrella of that language. I think I have explained what the Amendments intend to achieve, and I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 332C:
Page 75, line 5, at end insert ("may appear before the comptroller in person or be represented by counsel or a solicitor (of any part of the United Kingdom) or a patent agent or, subject to rules under section 103 below, by any other person whom he desires to represent him").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
6.19 p.m.
The Earl of HALSBURY The Earl of HALSBURY moved Amendment No. 333:
Page 75, line 9, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Earl said: I move the Amendment which stands in my name with some diffidence, as I am well aware that the cobbler should stick to his last. This is a purely legal point and I am not a lawyer. However, I have done my best
456
to assure myself that I would not be wasting the time of the Committee in putting forward this Amendment. In brief, Halsbury has consulted Halsbury and has also taken counsel's opinion. I am concerned simply with the precedent involved in seeking to regulate by Statute the right of audience in what is to be a branch of the High Court. The Supreme Court of Jurisdiction Act has been acted and re—enacted three times altogether—in 1873, 1875 and 1925—and one section has survived for over 100 years. I have the wording of that section here but I will not read it, because "legalese" delivered viva voce tends to be a trifle opaque. It is the section which, as it were, does the minimum amount of regulating these matters by Statute. Save in so far as the Act itself moderates the procedure in court, it leaves everything else unchanged and states that the rules and regulations of court and procedures in court shall be the same as they were before the Act came into force. I am advised that no other Statute has regulated these matters and that they lie within the jurisdiction of the courts themselves because right of audience was not one of the matters which was dealt with by that section of the Supreme Court of Jurisdiction Act.
It is important not to confuse procedure under the various Patents Acts—we have one per generation—with this matter of a precedent. Prior to 1932, an appeal from the comptroller of the Patent Office lay to the law officers of the Crown, which by custom meant the Solicitor General. This was terminated by the Patents Act of 1832 which set up the Patents Appeal Tribunal under a judge of the High Court but it was not itself a branch or a division of the High Court. The Act of 1949 perpetuated the Patents Appeal Tribunal, but enacted Section 8 which gave this tribunal power to make rules and regulations binding upon itself. In 1972 it produced rule No. 9 which gave right of audience to parties in person, to solicitors, to patent agents and to counsel representing them, and although it did this under regulations provided under a Patents Act this is not a precedent for procedure under a superior court. Though I have no doubt it is desirable that the procedure which has been followed in the Patents Appeal Tribunal should by some means or other be extended to the court that is now going to be set up, I have doubts

457
about whether we ought to indulge in a precedent on this matter if an alternative can be found.
I believe that there is an alternative, because in 1971 the Courts Act set up the Crown Court and there was then a good deal of legal argument as to how the right of audience should be regulated in the Crown Court. I believe wisely, the matter was placed under the jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor and he was free to exercise his jurisdiction, subject to a rather general directive which told him to have account of the scarcity of counsel in any district where his jurisdiction was invoked, and also that popular favourite "the common good", and other matters of a similar character.
I believe there we have a precedent for how this matter might be regulated, because a fortiori the Lord Chancellor surely should have more authority over his own court, if authority were necessary, than is provided by Statute over the Crown Court. While I do not for one moment dispute that something of this kind must be accepted as a rule of procedure, I do query this particular way of going about it as a precedent.
It may well be that in his reply the noble and learned Lord will be able to reassure me on this point. He may tell me that it is not a precedent. He may be able to quote a Statute in which we regulated this matter by Statute before. Alternatively, he may say that he considers it to be a precedent but a rather good one; or he may say that my suggestion that the matter should come under the jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor would be rather burdensome for the Lord Chancellor, who already has as many duties as anyone could reasonably be expected to undertake.
I shall not press this Amendment, although I think it proper to have raised these matters and I shall be most interested to hear what the noble and learned Lord says in reply. There are two other Amendments later on the Marshalled List which are consequential on this Amendment, and I ask your Lordships' permission to refer to them. They are Nos. 341 and 342. This results from Clause 102(5) making a cross-reference to the clause which I propose to delete by this Amendment. If this were deleted it would then be necessary to amend those, because they refer to it.
In addition, when it has been deleted, it turns out that Clause 102(5) is a reworded version of Section 88(4) of the 1949 Patents Act and it is not clear why this section needs rewording. Is it intended to extend or to limit the scope of the old Section 88(4) or not? Therefore, to some extent I have restored the wording of the old Patents Act and the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, will remember that last week he told me that if I could persuade the Government to reconsider this present Amendment he would also reconsider Amendment No. 312, which corresponds to the European counterpart of Clause 102(5).
I do not intend to press this Amendment. I hope very much that the noble and learned Lord will assure me that he will take this matter under review, in which case I shall be happy to withdraw the Amendment standing in my name and not to move Amendments Nos. 341 and 342. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Earl, if I may say so, could hardly have gone to a more impeccable source than Halsbury's Laws of England for guidance upon this matter. The history of this point is a curious one. For many years patent agents and solicitors have enjoyed rights of audience on appeals from the comptroller and until 1932 those appeals, I am fascinated to learn, were heard by the Law Officers and now, as the noble Earl has said, by the Solicitor-General, who I understand was paid an adequate fee for each such hearing, which no doubt was some relief from the shock of having to undertake the responsibility.
From 1932 onwards the appeals have been heard by the Patents Appeal Tribunal, and Section 85(6) of the Patents Act 1949 reproduced a provision in the Patents and Designs Act of 1932 which conferred—therefore statutorily—a right of audience before the tribunal upon those who before 1st November 1932 had been entitled to appear before the Law Officers. Unfortunately, Section 85(6) was, I am instructed, inadvertently repealed by the Administration of Justice Act 1970, for which I do not think I had any responsibility, but I do not want to make a political point on that! Since then, patent agents and solicitors have been authorised to appear and to be heard by the tribunal under its rules. It is the case

459
that the Chartered Institute of Patent Agents is particularly keen to see the restoration of its members' statutory right, and we do not think it is unreasonable to meet their wishes in this regard.
From the passing of the 1932 Act, which established appeals to the Patent Appeal Tribunal, patent agents and solicitors have enjoyed that statutory right of audience before the Patents Appeal Tribunal. In that time, I think it is the case that many of them have gained valuable experience in the presentation of those appeals and I am not aware that any complaints about their competence have been received.
As the noble Earl has indicated, the right to appeal to the tribunal is now being replaced with the right of appeal to the new Patents Court, and we feel that patent agents and solicitors should enjoy the same statutory right of audience on appeals to the Patents Court as they have enjoyed before the corresponding institutions under the antecedent legislation for many years now. I am comforted to be informed that neither the Bar Council nor the Law Society object to what is proposed in the Bill. Accordingly, while I have been able to point to a statutory precedent and can reassure the noble Earl that the professions directly affected are happy with what is proposed in the Bill, I hope the noble Earl will now feel reassured.
The Earl of HALSBURY: The noble and learned Lord has given me one of the assurances for which I asked because he has said that it is a precedent and he thinks it is a good one. Who am Ito say that I know better than the noble and learned Lord on this occasion I am happy to withdraw the Amendment and not to move Amendments Nos. 341 and 342. I thank the noble and learned Lord for his reply.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.30 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD Lord BELSTEAD moved Amendment No. 334:
Page 75, line 12, at end insert ("and a patent agent shall have a like right in respect of appeals under section 91(4) above").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment would confer on patent agents and solicitors the same right to appear and to
460
be heard before the Court of Session in Scotland on an appeal from a decision of the comptroller as is provided under Clause 96 (3). The only difference is that in England and Wales the appeal is to the Patents Court whereas in Scotland the appeal would be to the Court of Session. I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: I think the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, is endeavouring to have us believe, by the brevity of the presentation, that the point is so obvious that it must carry the day. I have, with regret, to inform him that the Government cannot accept this Amendment. As has just been said in the debate on the previous Amendment, it is true that for many years past patent agents have enjoyed a right of audience before the Patents Appeal Tribunal which sits for English and Welsh cases. They have thus, no doubt, gained over these years considerable experience in the conduct of patent litigation on appeal. The same, however, cannot be said in regard to Scotland. In a sense we are perhaps shadow boxing in relation to the past here, because the Scottish Appeal Tribunal provided for in Section 86 of the 1949 Act has never been constituted, and, of course, it follows, therefore, that there have never been any appeals from it to the Court of Session. Scottish patent agents and solicitors have, therefore, never been able to obtain in Scotland the experience equivalent to that obtained by their counterparts South of the Border.
I think I must go further than that. This Amendment would introduce a startlingly new departure into the practice and procedures of the Court of Session, a court established some time ago; namely, 1532. The only persons who can plead in this Court, apart from party litigants in person, are advocates, who as such are members of the Faculty of Advocates, and the monopoly right which they enjoy puts the advocate under a heavy duty; indeed, his duty to the Court prevails over his duty to his client, and that principle lies at the root of the administration of justice in the Supreme Court in Scotland. It has grown and been firmly established over the centuries and it is not to be lightly interfered with. I would, therefore, for that reason and for the reason earlier given, say to the noble Lord that this is not an Amendment which we can accept.

461
I think he would also appreciate that to make such a departure would require the most intensive consultation with the interests involved, and of course no such consultation has been possible because of the appearance of this Amendment at this time.
Lord BELSTEAD: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his reply. He has indeed assisted laymen like myself during these days of Committee stage; five different days we have had and there is going to be a sixth, and I suppose on the seventh we all rest. I was intrigued with the reply. Certainly in the cold grey North the noble and learned Lord, although kindly here, rules with a rod of iron. There is the Patent Appeal Tribunal which was set up in 1949 and apparently has never been constituted, and there is no provision apparently for fairly urgent consultations. But let us hope that when everything is put right and power is more devolved than it has been in the past all these things will be more easily regulated in Scotland.
The one point the noble Lord made which I must confess I expected was that this would be a startlingly new departure in the procedures of the Court of Session, which had, after all, been established since 1532. When I told somebody a short time ago that I intended to move this Amendment, the advice I received was that it would not be accepted because it would not be right to interfere with Scottish law. So, with that warning, which I should have heeded, and with the noble Lord's reply ringing in my ears, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Lord McCLUSKEY: Before the noble Lord sits down, may I, in order not to be wholly negative, and also to save myself having to write a letter, and with the permission of the Committee, say that the sections of the Sheriff Courts Act which I was asked about earlier provide that all cases competent to that court not exceeding £50—the figure was subsequently raised to £250—should be brought in that court only, and not subject to review by the Court of Session. That is what the sections I was asked about provide for.
Lord LYELL: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord. That is two sections, Section 7 and the other section.
462
They were separated by something like 64 years.
Lord McCLUSKEY: That was the rate of inflation in those days. The £50 figure was in 1907 and the £250 in 1971.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 334A:
Page 75, leave out lines 13 to 37.
The noble and learned Lord said: It may be convenient for your Lordships to consider this Amendment with Amendments Nos. 336A and 336B. These Amendments deal with the question of privilege for communications with solicitors and patent agents relating to patent proceedings, and, therefore, they have a certain technicality. Section 15 of the Civil Evidence Act 1968 provides for patent agents to enjoy the same privilege of refusing to disclose the contents of communications made in relation to patent proceedings as solicitors enjoy in relation to communications made in the course of litigation. With the advent of the European and Community Patent Conventions, patent agents will find themselves making and receiving communications also in respect of proceedings before the European Court of Justice and the European Patent Office, and it is clearly desirable, therefore, that they should also be privileged in respect of those communications. But under Section 15 of the Civil Evidence Act the privilege which they enjoy is equated with that enjoyed by solicitors, and, unhappily, doubt exists in some quarters as to whether proceedings before the European Patent Office would qualify as proceedings for the purposes of the Common Law rule about privilege. That means that before the solicitors' privilege is conferred on patent agents, it is very necessary to find out and define the solicitors' privilege in that respect.
Moreover, the reason why doubt exists as to whether proceedings before the European Patent Office do so qualify, is that they are concerned with the examination of scientific information which is presented by scientists and assessed by scientists, and that is somewhat different from the privilege enjoyed in respect of legal communications, which are distinguished from other kinds of professional advice in that they are concerned

463
exclusively with rights and liabilities enforceable in law; that is to say, in the ultimate resort in litigation in the courts or before an administrative tribunal. Equally, the examination and search proceedings carried out in the United Kingdom Patent Office by the comptroller and his staff are of the same nature.
Accordingly, the first of the two new clauses we are considering seeks to redefine the privilege which solicitors enjoy in respect of communications relating to patent proceedings. Subsection (1) extends the privilege to communications made for the purpose of
"any pending or contemplated proceedings before the comptroller"
under the Bill, then the 1949 Act,
"or any of the relevant conventions or proceedings before the European Court or the European Patent Office under any of those conventions"
The relevant conventions are defined in subsection (2) as meaning the European Patent Convention, the Community Patent Convention and the Patent Co-operation Treaty.
Neither of these proposed new clauses will, as drafted, extend to Scotland. The Scottish courts have their own common law rules about privilege, and discussions are proceeding as to whether it will be necessary to introduce any extension similar to that contained in either of the first or second new clauses into Scottish law. If on further study such extension is found to be necessary, appropriate Amendments will be moved at the Report stage.
The second proposed new clause deals with privilege for communications with patent agents relating to patent proceedings and is intended to ensure that patent agents enjoy the same privilege in relation to communications made for the purpose of any pending or contemplated patent proceedings as solicitors enjoy in relation to communications made in aid of litigation. The new clause extends the protection so given to proceedings before the comptroller as well as to those before the court, and also extends it to communications for the purpose of proceedings before the European Court of Justice or the European Patent Office in all cases, whether contested or uncontested. For the removal of doubt, the expression, "patent proceedings", is defined as including an application for a patent.
Subsection (5) of the second new clause repeals Section 15 of the Civil Evidence Act 1968 and Section 11 of the corresponding Northern Irish Statute, neither of which will be required when the two new clauses become law. The two new clauses subsume Amendments Nos. 335 and 336, which were set down by the noble Lords, Lord Lyell, Lord Belstead and Lord Cawley. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, and his colleagues will accept that these points have now adequately been taken care of in these rather lengthy but necessary Amendments. I beg to move.
Lord LYELL: In view of what the noble and learned Lord has been kind enough to say—indeed, he has explained these two new clauses in considerable detail—my colleagues and I would certainly not wish to pass any comments or to say much against the noble and learned Lord. We want to read what he has said and give further study to the new clause.
However, perhaps I may raise one small point. We understood that Amendment No. 335 had been met by the provisions in Amendment No. 336A, but that Amendment No. 336, which we had intended to move and to seek an answer to from the noble and learned Lord, was germane to privilege for communications, not as in Amendment No. 336A with solicitors or in Amendment No. 336B with patent agents, but between the comptroller and the Patent Court in the specific cases of infringement hearings. We believe that the Amendment that we propose was covered by Amendment No. 271, which we moved earlier. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Oram, said that the Government would accept this in principle. We were quite happy to accept that at the time; we are quite happy to accept it today. However, there was this lacuna—this gap—which existed, and that would have been the purpose of moving Amendment No. 336.
In view of the clear and lucid way in which the noble and learned Lord has put his three Amendments, including the two major new clauses, we do not seek to move either Amendment No. 335 or Amendment No. 336. We thank him for moving the two new clauses and we should like to study them.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 96, as amended, agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 336A:
After Clause 96, insert the following new clause:
Extension of privilege for communications with solicitors relating to patent proceedings
.—(1) It is hereby declared that the rule of law which confers privilege from disclosure in legal proceedings in respect of communications made with a solicitor or a person acting on his behalf, or in relation to information obtained or supplied for submission to a solicitor or a person acting on his behalf, for the purpose of any pending or contemplated proceedings before a court in the United Kingdom extends to such communications so made for the purpose of any pending or contemplated proceedings before the comptroller under this Act, the 1949 Act or any of the relevant conventions or proceedings before the European Court or the European Patent Office under any of those conventions.
(2) In this section—
"legal proceedings" includes proceedings before the comptroller;
the references to legal proceedings and pending or contemplated proceedings include references to applications for a patent or a European patent and to international applications for a patent; and
"the relevant conventions" means the European Patent Convention, the Community Patent Convention and the Patent Co-operation Treaty.
(3) This section shall not extend to Scotland.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 336B:
After Clause 96, insert the following new clause:
Privilege for communications with patent agents relating to patent proceedings
.—(1) This section applies to any communication made for the purpose of any pending or contemplated patent proceedings, being either—

(a) a communication between the patent agent of a party to those proceedings and that party or any other person; or

(b) a communication between a party to those proceedings and a person other than his patent agent made for the purpose of obtaining, or in response to a request for, information which that party is seeking for the purpose of submitting it to his patent agent.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above a communication made by or to a person acting—

(i) on behalf of a patent agent; or

(ii) on behalf of a party to any pending or contemplated proceedings,

shall be treated as made by or to that patent agent or party, as the case may be.
(3) In any legal proceedings other than criminal proceedings a communication to which
466
this section applies shall be privileged from disclosure in like manner as if any proceedings before the comptroller, the European Court or the European Patent Office for the purpose of which the communication was made were proceedings before the court (within the meaning of this Act) and the patent agent in question had been the solicitor of the party concerned.
(4) In this section—
"legal proceedings" includes proceedings before the comptroller;
"patent agent" means an individual registered as a patent agent in the register of patent agents, a company lawfully practising as a patent agent in the United Kingdom or an individual who satisfies the condition mentioned in section 78(1) above;
"patent proceedings" means proceedings under this Act, the 1949 Act or any of the relevant conventions before the court, the comptroller, the European Court or the European Patent Office, whether contested or uncontested and including an application for a patent;
"party", in relation to any contemplated proceedings, means a prospective party to the proceedings; and
"the relevant conventions" means the European Patent Convention, the Community Patent Convention and the Patent Co-operation Treaty"
(5) Section 15 of the Civil Evidence Act 1968 and section 11 of the Civil Evidence Act (Northern Ireland) 1971 (which make provision corresponding to that made by this section shall cease to have effect.
(6) This section shall not extend to Scotland.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 97 [Costs and expenses]:
6.45 p.m.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN moved Amendment No. 337:
Page 75, line 39, after ("Act") insert (",save in respect of proceedings relating to sections 36 to 40 above,").
The noble Lord said: Clause 97 gives powers to the Comptroller-General in his discretion to award costs to either parties and, in Scotland, expenses. The purpose of my Amendment is to limit his powers in relation to his jurisdiction for dealing with employee inventors who have patents under Clauses 36 to 40. My Amendment is to ensure that an employee who makes a claim to the Comptroller-General should be aware at the outset that he cannot recover his costs and also be assured that no costs can be awarded against him. It seems to me proper that under Clauses 36 to 40 the employee should not be prevented, because of the fear of costs being awarded against him—the costs could be quite heavy for him—from coming to court

467
knowing that he can present his case, that he will have to pay his own expenses and that there shall be no award of costs against him or on his behalf in the course of the hearing.
There are precedents for this kind of action. When an employee is dismissed he can go to the appropriate tribunal and claim that he has been unfairly dismissed. In those circumstances, as I understand it, he has no costs to pay. He knows that he will not have costs awarded against him in the proceedings for unfair dismissal. Therefore, the purpose of my Amendment is that in proceedings before the Comptroller-General if an employee believes, having a patent, that he is entitled to some other rights in respect of that patent as against the employer, then in the discretion of the Comptroller no costs should be awarded against him. I beg to move.
Lord CAWLEY: Can the noble and learned Lord tell me whether, under this clause, the comptroller would have to award costs in accordance with the principles that are observed in the High Court or whether it would be entirely at large?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I would anticipate that the costs would be at the discretion of the comptroller. I am not quite sure whether that would amount to saying that the costs would be at large, but certainly the discretion would be left to the comptroller to award costs as he thought fit. These might be circumstances, similar to the award of costs in county courts, where the exercise of discretion might result in the reduction in an amount of costs which might in other circumstances be available or the denial of costs altogether. I should have thought that the discretion is as wide as that.
The noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, thinks that, in any event, in proceedings between employers and employees over claims for compensation there should be no power to award costs at all. Although he believes that the effect would be protective of the employee, which is what he wants, I doubt that very much. On the contrary, there might well be a case where it would be perfectly proper for his costs to be paid for by the employer. By removing the presence of any
468
discretion to award costs, the noble Lord's formula might well result in the richer party being able to abuse his greatest strengths and his position. I think that the protection of the employee is best reserved and preserved by retaining the comptrollers' discretion. Perhaps the noble Lord would like to consider that again.
There could also, of course, be circumstances—I hope it will never arise—where the applicant is a vexatious litigant. It is the case that both industrial tribunals and the Employment Appeal Tribunal can award costs against a vexatious litigant. It is about the only protection that they might have against them, unless the Attorney-General could intervene and possibly have them declared vexatious litigants; but I do not think one can do that in regard to subordinate tribunals. I did it many a time in respect of vexatious litigants in the High Court and remarkable proceedings they were too, because they were naturally fiercely contested by the vexatious litigants. I think, on the whole, that justice would be more fairly done by retaining a power of discretion in the comptroller. One can, I hope, rely upon him to see that the thing is exercised without oppression, and indeed in a way which, in a given case, would be more protective of the employee than leaving out the power.
6.52 p.m.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his comments, and indeed interested that one of the reasons he has given for the fact that my proposed Amendment is probably not suitable is that the employee requires protection against an employer. Frankly, I had not thought that a situation of that kind would arise very acutely in the circumstances of Clauses 36 and 40. I should have thought that there would be a lot of discussion before any matter came to the court, the employee would be fully aware of the situation, and that the situation would have been clarified as to the view of the employer in court.
As to the vexatious litigant, I realise that vexatious litigants are to be dealt with. But it seems to me a pity that the position of an employee inventor is to be allied with that of a vexatious litigant.

469
Of course, employees can be a nuisance. We realise that. But the attitude of many employers is that the employee should, wherever possible, be prevented from opening his mouth in support of his case, and a lot of injustice is being done to employees. Having regard to what the noble and learned Lord has said, I shall reconsider the matter again and withdraw my Amendment at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.54 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 338A:
Page 76, line 7, leave out ("costs") and insert ("expenses").
The noble and Learned Lord said: Your Lordships will observe that Clause 97(1) permits the comptroller in proceedings held by him in England and Wales to award costs, and in proceedings in Scotland to award expenses. Expenses is the Scottish term, as I understand it—and I have the distinguished authority of the Solicitor General behind me—for costs.
Subsection (2) deals with the enforcement of such an award of costs in England and Wales. Subsection (3) is intended to deal with enforcement in Scotland of awards of expenses, but again it incorrectly refers to costs. The Government's Amendment No. 338A substitutes the correct term. There is an Amendment put down by noble Lords opposite which would leave the subsection referring to costs and expenses, but I do not think that that would resolve the dilemma. I think that, on the whole, Amendment No. 338A probably puts the matter right, whereas Amendment No. 339, if I may say so with great respect, perhaps even adds to the confusion which I have no doubt already caused in trying to explain this Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord LYELL: We are grateful for the explanation of the noble and learned Lord, and indeed for the signs and motions of assent which came from behind the noble and learned Lord in the course of his explaining to us the moving of Amendment No. 338A. I was about to say, "But we, on our side, got there first", but it took the clear exposition of the noble and learned Lord to point out that our Amendment will add further to the confusion. We are grateful to the noble and
470
learned Lord for pointing out on this occasion a point of substance in Scottish law, and we look forward to plenty more expositions of Scottish law from the noble and learned Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 97, as amended, agreed to.
6.58 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 340:
After Clause 97, insert the following new clause:
Evidence before comptroller
—(1) Subject to rules, the evidence to be given in any proceedings before the comptroller under this Act may be given by affidavit or statutory declaration, but the comptroller may if he thinks fit in any particular case take oral evidence in lieu of or in addition to such evidence as aforesaid and may allow any witness to be cross-examined on his affidavit or declaration.
(2) Subject to rules, the comptroller shall, in respect of the examination of witnesses on oath and the discovery and production of documents have all the powers of a judge of the Supreme Court, and the rules applicable to the attendance of witnesses in proceedings before such a judge shall apply to the attendance of witnesses in proceedings before the comptroller.
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 340 seeks to insert a small new clause. We hope that it corresponds, and indeed we intend it to, with Section 83 of the existing 1949 Act, except that subsection (2) of our new clause provides for the comptroller to have the same powers as a judge of the High Court or, might I suggest to the noble and learned Lord and to the Solicitor-General, possibly an equivalent court in Scotland, whereas the 1949 Act referred to an official referee of the Supreme Court.
We believe it is appropriate to give the comptroller the powers of a High Court judge because of the increase in the comptroller's powers under the Bill. Of course, if we look forward in the Bill to Clause 112(2)(d) we find that there are rights for the comptrollers to rule on questions dealing with evidence and also the compulsion of witnesses, and finally with the discovery and the production of documents. It does not seem to us clear that such rules will allow witnesses to be subpoenaed to appear before the comptroller, and we understand that this is the present practice so far as patent law is concerned. We hope that the new

471
clause that we are proposing here will meet the case and will so provide. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, has identified Clause 112(2)(d), and I am advised that that is adequate to deal with the situation which the new clause contemplates. It confers powers on the Secretary of State to make rules regulating the mode of giving evidence in any such proceeding and empowers the comptroller to compel the attendance of witnesses and the discovery and production of documents. I am advised that the words "regulating the mode of giving evidence" which appear in the provision are adequate and wide enough to allow evidence to be given by affidavit or statutory declaration, or for the examination of witnesses on oath, and enable all the normal procedures relating to the summoning and attendance of witnesses and how they should give evidence and so on, to be covered. With respect, therefore, I suggest that the Amendment is unnecessary.
Lord LYELL: We are grateful to the noble and learned Lord for reassuring us that Clause 112(2)(d) gives the comptroller the powers which we seek to give him by the new clause, and particularly by subsection (2). In the comments I made I referred to "subpoena-ing". I presume that has the same meaning as compelling witnesses to attend and somehow extracting information from witnesses. In Clause 112(2)(d) there is reference to dealing with evidence, the compelling of witnesses and the discovery and production of documents, all of which are somewhat terrifying terms to the average layman like myself. Nevertheless, we are grateful to the noble and learned Lord for assuring us that the provision as drafted covers what we thought to be a gap in the Bill and, with his assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 98 agreed to.
Clause 99 [Unauthorised claim of patent rights]:
7.3 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 340A:
472
Page 77, line 6, at end insert ("(or does not continue to be made)").
The noble and learned Lord said: Clause 99(1) makes it an offence falsely to represent that goods disposed of are patented. This provision is also found in the 1949 Act and is intended to protect the public against misleading information. It is recognised, however, that when a patent expires or is revoked, the patentee may well have unsold articles marked with some indication that they are patented, or may have difficulty in immediately preventing the manufacture of goods so marked. Clause 99(3) makes provision for such cases, but could be construed as covering only the case where the goods were made before the expiry of the relevant patent. The intention, however, is to cover not only that case but the case where the marked goods were made after the expiry of the patent, and that is the purpose and effect of the Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 99, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 100 and 101 agreed to.
Clause 102 [Restrictions on practice as patent agent]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 342C:
Page 79, line 1, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
"(7) For Article 23(2)(d) of the Solicitors (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 there shall be substituted the following paragraph—
"(d) a patent agent within the meaning of the Patents Act 1977 preparing, for use in proceedings under that Act defined in the former Act) or on appeal under either of those Acts to the Patents Court or the Court of Session from the comptroller, any document other than a deed;"."
The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment makes two changes. First, it deletes the existing subsection (7). Hitherto, the practice of patent agency in the United Kingdom has been confined to British subjects. We are now obliged to extend the right to practice to all citizens of Community States, and this is the effect of subsection (7) of Clause 102 as drafted. But on further consideration, the Government are of the opinion that the existence of a nationality qualification for practice as a patent agent in the United Kingdom can no longer be justified at a time when

473
the patent system is being internationalised. Secondly, the Amendment introduces a new subsection (7) which relates to an entirely different matter and corresponds to the old Clause 96(5). That is a purely drafting Amendment because it is thought that Clause 102 is a more appropriate bed for that provision to lie in, if that is not too unfortunate a metaphor.
Lord CAWLEY: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for the first part of the Amendment, which deals with a matter I raised on Second Reading. He has told us one reason for making this change, but the main reason is that the Government's right hand does not know what their left hand is doing, because this is contrary to the provisions of the Race Relations Act which passed through Parliament in December of last year. That, I think, is the main reason which makes the Amendment absolutely necessary.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 102, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 103 [Power of comptroller to refuse to deal with certain agents]:
7.10 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 342B:
Page 79, line 29, at end insert—
("(3) Rules may authorise the comptroller to refuse to recognise as agent or other representative for the purpose of applying for European patents any person who does not satisfy the condition mentioned in section 78(1) above and does not fall within the exemption in subsection (2) of that section.").
The noble and learned Lord said: We get into alphabetical disorder again Clause 103, which corresponds to Section 89 of the 1949 Act, provides that the comptroller may refuse to deal with patent agents who for defined reasons are disqualified from acting as such. But as drafted the clause does not take account of the fact that when the Bill becomes law the Patent Office will act as a receiving office for European applications, and in consequence the comptroller should be authorised to refuse to deal with agents or other professional representatives who would not be entitled to act before the European Patent Office. The Amendment
474
achieves this by providing the comptroller, in relation to European business with the power to refuse to deal with anyone who is not on the list of professional representatives maintained by the European office. That power, however, will not affect the exemption of Clause 78(2) of the Bill in respect of European business conducted by barristers, advocates and solicitors. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 103, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 104 [Immunity of department as regards official acts]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 342D:
Page 79, line 36, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
("(b) shall incur any liability by reason of or in connection with any examination or investigation required or authorised by this Act or any such treaty or convention, or any report or other proceedings consequent on any such examination or investigation.").
The noble and learned Lord said: The purpose of the Amendment is to confine the immunity which Clause 104 presently provides for official acts to what is strictly necessary for the proper functioning of the Department. It was never the intention to use Clause 104 as a universal whitewash for official acts, and I agree that the clause as it is now drafted is in excessively general terms. So we have looked again at Clause 104 in the light of the Amendment which was put down by noble Lords opposite, and we have now put down Amendment No. 342D which I hope meets the points to which the Amendment of noble Lords opposite was directed.
I am very grateful to noble Lords for raising this matter and I hope that they will accept the draft which I now propose. I think that it is a little better than the Amendment of the noble Lords in two ways. First, it does not take account of the fact that some of the examination and search processes are optional; for example, in Clause 14(7). Secondly, it fails to mention subsequent reports or other proceedings consequent on any examination or search which are protected by Section 11(3) of the 1949 Act. Accordingly I hone that in the circumstances noble Lords opposite will be disposed to accept the Amendment, which I beg to move.
Lord LYELL: Once gain we are very grateful to the noble and learned Lord, this time for pointing out that the Government Amendment No. 342D supersedes our Amendment and is clearly superior to it in this legal essence. We have no intention of moving our Amendment No. 343, which falls in alphabetical or numerical order.
Lord CAWLEY: I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for this Amendment. This concerns another matter that I raised on Second Reading, and I need not repeat what I said then.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 344:
Page 79, line 38, at end insert—
("(2) Where, by reason of an error or omission on the part of any officer of the Secretary of State, an act or step in relation to an application for a patent or any proceedings under this Act (not being proceedings in court) required to be done or taken within a certain period, whether prescribed by rules or otherwise specified, has not been so done or taken, the comptroller shall extend the period for doing the act or taking the step.").
The noble Lord said: We wish to move this Amendment because we hope it will help to mitigate any liability on the part of the Secretary of State, or indeed any officer of his, if time limits are extendable in the case of a mistake which might have been made by the Secretary of State or one of his officials. By "mistake" I have in mind a small or minor error, but one which could have more grave consequences. That is the entire object of the Amendment, and interestingly we find that it has a precedent in Section 160 of the current Patents Act which applies to Australia, and we think probably that it applies well there. For that reason I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I appreciate that the purpose of the Amendment is to provide applicants and patentees with a guarantee of redress if some official error or omission causes a time limit for doing something under the Act to be missed. However, the existing provision in the Patents Rules for the extension of time limits, which has worked very well in the past, will also appear in the rules under the new Act. It is true that extension of time limits under the provision is discretionary, but this gives
476
flexibility in application. The new subsection which has now been proposed is therefore I think superfluous, and I hope that the noble Lord will accept what I have said regarding the rules covering the situation with which his Amendment seeks to deal.
Lord LYELL: I hope that the noble and learned Lord will accept that in the Amendment we were not attempting to give redress to any aggrieved party. The Amendment hopes to extend the time limits so that any possible passive redress may be given. We did not seek to open the door to any further litigation or to any further action by an aggrieved litigant, but the noble and learned Lord has indicated to us that rules will cover this point and that he believes that our Amendment is superfluous in this respect. Of course we take his guidance, but we would like to study what he has said.
The Lord CHANCELLOR: Perhaps the word "redress" is not a very happy one here. The power to extend the time limits is what I had in mind to refer to.
Lord LYELL: The noble and learned Lord took two barrels to this in his first reply, and we accept the right barrel—that it is just extending the time limit. Nevertheless, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 104, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 105 [Correction of errors in patents and applications]:
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 344A:
Page 79, line 41, leave out ("clerical error") and insert ("error of translation or transcription, clerical error or mistake").
The noble and learned Lord said: In relation to the correction of errors in patent documents, it is thought that the effect of Clause 105 would be the same as the corresponding provision in the European Patent Convention Rule 88. However, in order to remove any uncertainty on the point it is proposed to amend the wording of Clause 105 so as to bring within its scope all the defects specifically referred to in the European Patent Convention Rule 88, and this is

477
what the Amendment does. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 344B:
Page 79, line 42, leave out ("in pursuance of") and insert ("in connection with").
The noble and learned Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to avoid the possibility that some documents filed at the Patent Office, although relevant to patent applications might not, on a strict interpretation of the words, be held to be in pursuance of those applications, and it would he undesirable if for that reason errors in the documents could not be corrected. So we propose to leave out "in pursuance of" and insert "in connection with". I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 346:
Page 79, line 42, leave out ("in pursuance of such an application") and insert ("at the Patent Office, provided, in the case of an error which is not a clerical error, that both the mistake and the method of correcting it are obvious.").
The noble Lord said: Again, this Amendment goes considerably further than Amendment No. 344B, to which we have just agreed; but I would ask the noble and learned Lord, or indeed anyone on the Government Bench who could assist us, whether our Amendment, which goes beyond the earlier one in the case of a clerical error, a mistake and correcting this mistake as obvious, is superfluous or otiose, or whether our particular point has been covered by the noble and learned Lord's Amendment. We think that there is a good chance that it has been covered, but nevertheless we felt that our Amendment was a little more detailed, and we should be pleased to hear what the noble and learned Lord has to say. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: I wonder whether I can deal with this by saying that I shall be glad to look at the explanation which the noble Lord has given of this Amendment, and perhaps we can return to a consideration of it at a later stage.
Lord LYELL: I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, and, of course,
478
given that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 105, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 106 [Information about patents applications and patents, and inspection of documents]:
7.22 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 346A:
Page 80, line 25, at end insert ("nor shall that subsection prevent the Secretary of State from inspecting or authorising the inspection of an application for a patent or any connected documents under section 19(6)(a) above").
The noble and learned Lord said: Clause 106(2) provides that the comptroller shall not publish documents or information about a patent application, without the applicant's consent, until that application has been published. Clause 106(3) makes exceptions to the generality of subsection (2), but it has failed to include the right of the Secretary of State to authorise the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority to inspect at any time applications containing information relating to atomic energy, as provided for in Clause 19(6)(a). That apparent inconsistency between the provisions of Clause 19, which the Committee has approved, and Clause 106 is removed by the Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 106, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 107 [Loss or destruction of certificate of grant of patent]:
On Question, Whether Clause 107 shall stand part of the Bill?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: As noble Lords will know, a patent under the 1949 Act is defined as Letters Patent for an invention. These Letters Patent are granted under the Royal prerogative; they are themselves evidence of the grant of a patent, and that is why Section 80 of the 1949 Act provides that the comptroller may cause a duplicate of the patent to be sealed if he is satisfied that the original has been lost or destroyed or cannot be

479
produced. A patent certificate under this Bill is not a document of title. Evidence of the grant of patent will in future be a certified extract from the Register of Patents, and therefore the issue by the comptroller of a duplicate certificate that a patent has been granted is a purely administrative matter. This clause is therefore unnecessary, and should be deleted.
Clause 107 disagreed to.
Clauses 108 to 110 agreed to.
Lord ORAM: I think this may be considered a useful point at which to change your Lordships' business, and I beg to move that the House be now resumed.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

SHEFFIELD AND SOUTH YORKSHIRE NAVIGATION
7.25 p.m.
Lord HARVINGTON Lord HARVINGTON rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will review the case of the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation in the light of their policy for commercial waterways and the duties laid down by the Transport Act 1968. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I should like to bring to your Lordships' notice this evening a matter of considerable importance in the transport field which I think is being and has been seriously neglected by successive Governments. I refer to the asset available to the country which consists of those inland waterways which have been under-utilised for freight purposes for many years. It is appreciated that, in the overall aspect of transport policy, freight carrying on inland waterways constitutes a very small percentage of the total transport resources. However, where such facilities exist they make a beneficial contribution to the area which they serve.
I would remind your Lordships, if I may, that in the Transport Act 1968 the inland waterways owned and managed by the British Waterways Board were divided into
480
three categories; namely, commercial, cruising and remainder waterways. The Board were obliged to maintain each class of waterway to suitable standards for purposes commercial, recreational and amenity use. Unfortunately, the will of Parliament has been frustrated owing to the failure of successive Governments to provide the necessary finance, not only for ongoing maintenance of the system but for investing in its facilities. The result is that, over the years, growing arrears of maintenance have accumulated which, in 1970, the Board's engineers estimated at a sum of no less than £22½ The Administration previous to this present Government called in consulting engineers to give them a report on the accuracy of these figures. The Fraenkel Report has been prepared, but has not yet been published, and I am wondering whether the noble Baroness, when she comes to reply, will perhaps tell us why it has not been published, and when it will be published.
It is difficult to imagine how the Government can develop a national transport policy without taking into account the inland waterways' commercial use. The commercial waterways constitute important communication arteries leading to substantial river estuaries. In the North-East, these waterways are the Aire and Calder Navigation; the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation, with which we are particularly concerned tonight; and the River Trent Navigation. They connect Leeds, Sheffield, Nottingham, Doncaster, Gainsborough and Rotherham with the Humber Estuary and the ports of Goole, Hull, Immingham and Grimsby. In the North-West, there is the Weaver Navigation connecting Northwich with Weston Point to the Manchester Ship Canal.
In the South-West, there are the Gloucester and Sharpness Canal and the River Severn Navigation linking Worcester and Gloucester with Sharpness Docks to the estuary of the River Severn. In London, the River Lee Navigation links Enfield with the Thames at Bow Creek. Brentford has an important depot near the junction of the Grand Union Canal with the River Thames. All these towns and cities are within a short distance of the motorway system. The present tonnage capacities of these waterways is broadly speaking as follows. The Gloucester to Sharpness capacity is for

481
vessels of about 1,000 tonnes. The navigation with which we are concerned this evening, the South Yorkshire Navigation, has a capacity of from 500 to 700 tonnes. Most of the other waterways are that or rather below it; except for the part we are particularly concerned with this evening; that is, Doncaster to Rotherham, where only 90-tonnes vessels are possible. It is about this that we are really here tonight.
The total tonnage handled by the British Waterways Board in 1976 amounted to 6¼ million tonnes. Of this, 4·6 million tonnes was moved on the Board's waterways. Traffic actually moved on these waterways during the last two years has increased by over 600,000 tonnes, or 16 per cent. But this is not the whole story. It has been assessed that 50 million tonnes per annum are now being moved on all the inland waterways of the country. The Board also have important commercial depots at strategic points throughout the system. Their organisation provides for a freight service division which, despite the country's economic difficulties, has consistently turned in a profit on its operations.
The Board were encouraged by the Transport Act 1968 to think that a new era had dawned for inland waterways and have been keen to develop the system for the functions which Parliament has given them. However, despite many projects submitted to the Department of the Environment designed to improve the Board's commercial performance, very little attention has been given to the Board's request for that essential requirement, capital money. Indeed, the Government's attitude is summed up in the White Paper, The Government's Expenditure Plans, where it is indicated that provision for maintenance is kept at previous levels, pending the outcome of a joint review of long-term policy which the Board are conducting with the Department of the Environment as set out on page 56 of the White Paper. Under the chapter dealing with capital investment, it is stated (in page 119) that the long-term future of the Board is being considered as part of this over-all review of the water industry. Capital investment is confined to a figure of £2 million for 1976/77. This is the total amount of capital investment which appears in previous White Papers and is utterly insufficient to cover important commercial developments.
All White Papers on public expenditure indicate that no further investment or grant can be made available pending the review of the Board's future policy. These statements have been continually made since 1973 when the Board's undertaking was omitted from the Water Act of that year; and no such review has yet taken place. Instead, their undertaking is under constant threat of legislation or merger with another authority. The latest example is the Green Paper, A Review of the Water Industry in England and Wales—A Consultative Document, which your Lordships will remember came out just a year ago. This document advocated the merger of the British Waterways Board with a new body to be known as the National Water Authority.
My Lords, it is difficult to understand how the Government can contemplate the water industry being responsible for freight activities. One might as well expect the British Navy to bring commercial goods from Cape Town to London. It can only be concluded that the Government's intention is to let freight transport on inland waterways die by neglect; so that the Board's waterways will remain available only for recreational and land drainage purposes. How foolish it is to throw away the only paying means of nationalised transport in this country. What one is forced to believe is that the Government hope that if only nothing is done, this problem will go away. I can assure your Lordships and the Government that it will not go away because there are many resolute Members of this House and of the other place who are utterly determined to see that it never goes away.
I have expressed a little harshly about the Government. Perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me now to give a little "Thank you" to the Government for what they have done so recently in providing the money to repair those Lagan Locks on the Caledonian Canal which mean so much to our beloved Scottish brothers—and I say that with all the feeling in my heart—to the fishermen and to the numerous fleets of pleasure boats which operate on that waterway.
My Lords, when one considers the Government policy with regard to roads, an entirely different situation appears. The Department of the Environment were themselves, until recently, responsible

483
for the construction of motorways. They had a vested interest in ensuring that motorways were built and maintained. To justify investment in a new road, only a 10 per cent. return was required, based on figures provided, until recently, by the same Department who produced the calculations for the waterways. The figures for the road relate only to past trends on all roads. No attempt is made to assess the likely utilisation of a proposed new road on a factual basis. Investment in waterways requires a 15 per cent. return supported by firm guarantees from future users of the system. This is what they say in Paper 5, Transport Policy—A Consultation Document, to which I referred a moment ago.
With regard to investment in British Rail, all infrastructure costs are written off to revenue account and grant aid. A Bill at present being considered in another place provides for increases in grant aid to British Rail. The British Waterways Board, therefore, feel that their position with regard to capital investment is most disadvantageous to them. They have to compete unfairly with a Government Department which has a direct interest in the project for which capital investment is required and with another nationalised industry which has favourable investment terms. In addition, the British Railways Act 1974 enables 50 per cent. grants to be made to industrialists to encourage them to make siding connections to the railways. No such facility is available to the British Waterways Board, the one nationalised authority on whose commercial undertakings a profit is shown. I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I seek to emphasise this point; but I think it is something that the House will appreciate.
My Lords, despite these severe disadvantages, the British Waterways Board is still in business and has increased its tonnage for traffic moving by waterways in the last two years by 600,000 tonnes, or by 16 per cent. This has been done without investment. How much more could have been achieved if successive Governments had shown any vestige of interest! "Oh ye of little faith!" I can only assume that it is their intention to allow waterway commercial assets to die by default. If this is so, then I hope
484
that the noble Baroness will be courageous and stand up and tell us so this evening.
The improvement scheme for the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation is a very good example of the kind of investment which the Board consider will bring more traffic to the major inland waterways of the country, and which could eventually develop into a very profitable enterprise. It is fully supported by local authorities. I have in my hand a large sheaf of letters which have been sent to me by the county clerks of South Yorkshire from the chambers of commerce throughout the whole length of this waterway begging that the money be made available for this waterway to be improved. The improvement scheme is designed to provide a new trunk transport route for South Yorkshire, to link the industrial areas of Sheffield and Rotherham with the Humber ports. It will provide an attractive economic transport route for freight moving from between 400 and 700 tonne loads. Congestion will be reduced on existing roads, and it would be environmentally attractive, with low noise and low fume levels. My noble friend Lord Kinnoull will say something about what happens to these loads when they reach the estuarial waters, in explanation of how economic the whole project is bound to be.
Before submitting the scheme for approval, I am informed that the Board carried out their own marketing studies and engaged the services of international business consultants. I will not be guilty of naming them, for obvious reasons, my Lords. The consultants concluded that the additional traffic potential ranged from 1·5 million tonnes—that was their lower limit—to 2·4 million tonnes, which was the upper limit. The Board's submission is based on additional tonnage of the lower limit, 1·5 million tonnes only. Notwithstanding the passage of time, I understand that they remain confident that traffic of that order can be developed.
The additional annual cost of improving the waterway beyond the present standard would amount to £850,000, representing interest and depreciation on the investment. The maintenance costs would not increase. If no traffic was secured for the improved waterway, this would be the additional loss and is therefore the annual cost of the risk. It is only fair

485
that I should state that. No one gets anywhere in this life unless they take at any rate some risk. When it is a calculated risk such as this, which is bound to produce a good result, I have no hesitation in standing up here and stating the matter quite fairly.
What is proposed is an improvement of the size of the locks and navigable channel between Doncaster and Rotherham, a distance of about 11 miles. The capital cost was originally assessed at £2 million in 1966. Oh would that the decision had been taken then! But with inflation, the cost is now near £8 million, still not a large sum when one considers the benefits which would accrue.
Nevertheless, although Parliament approved the work, the necessary money has not been made available because the percentage return shown by a discounted cash flow calculation is a few points below the level arbitrarily set for such an investment by Government. I understand that these calculations do produce, however, a return on the money rather better than that required to justify a new major road. I have already referred very briefly to the differing methods of assessing this sort of investment which cannot be regarded by anyone as sensible or acceptable. Why should investment in roads and railways infrastructure attract no interest when the British Waterways Board have to pay? Why is the decision criterion for roads so favourably different?
Because of such obtuse calculations, the nation is apparently to be denied the benefits which would accrue from greater use of our major inland waterways and rivers for commercial navigation. Of the options available, only improvement makes any sense. Note this carefully, my Lords: it provides an opportunity to eliminate the current financial loss, and from the market intelligence there is every prospect of that. Continuation without improvement necessitates expenditure of £2·5 million without any prospect of improving the earnings; indeed, the loss would be greater because all the commercial traffic would cease in a short time. Downgrading this waterway to a cruising length is only marginally better than the former due to the important fact that the estimated unavoidable cost of the waterways is only £47,000 perannum less.
The waterways cannot be eliminated —we have got them, like sex! The cheapest option will cost a great deal of money initially and annually thereafter. For a little extra the nation can have a commercial route with real prospects, which will play an important part in the transport scene as well as add a new dimension to the infrastructure in the area, which needs new industry and greater job opportunity. We are very dependent upon import and export trade, most of which travels by water at some stage. We are members of the EEC Community, and other member countries have for years been developing their inland navigation systems. Arising from that attitude, there has developed new shipping techniques which allow for differing sizes of navigations. All of this because transport of goods by water is invariably cheaper, less damaging to the environment, more saving in energy used per tonne moved, more economic as the volume of traffic moved increases and more able to cope with increased volumes without damaging valuable agricultural land. Underlying all these advantages is the fact that the major navigations are based on natural rivers, the containment of which calls for appreciable expenditure on bank protection and flood relief schemes which cannot be avoided. Surely, it must he sensible to seek to earn money by way of tolls charged on traffic moved to offset the underlying unavoidable costs.
My Lords, I have the greatest respect for those in the professions of accountancy or economics. Their advice is valuable, but they are not infallible. Indeed, the tasks of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be easy if the advice he received was always correct. Is it not odd, therefore, that when Ministers receive advice on development proposals such as that for the improvement of the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation, such advice should have to be considered absolutely precise? Is there in today's complex society no place for common sense, for judgment and perhaps a little faith? To turn down this improvement scheme for the sake of a few percentage points displays to me a lack of common sense, judgment and faith. Our forefathers made this country great by faith and by investment in matters to do with water and the seas. It is time that we again

487
invested in improving our natural assets. The risk is not great: in fact it is a few percentage points in an economist's calculation. Ministers and Government should reconsider their present attitude and, by foregoing a few miles of motorway or the equivalent thereof, give the waterways the chance to prove their continuing worth in the years that lie ahead.
7.51 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, we are all, I think, and particularly myself as a part-time Yorkshire-man, most grateful to my noble friend for introducing this very detailed and well-reasoned Question concerning this waterway system. The Question he has asked in the most moderate way, and he has put his case in a well-reasoned and detailed way. Your Lordships may not know that he is one of the most experienced users of rivers and canals in this country and in Europe. So your Lordships could not hope to have a more knowledgeable person putting this case tonight than the noble Lord, Lord Harvington. The noble Lord said he hoped that the noble Baroness would not find him too harsh in his statements. I think that the noble Baroness, sitting there robust and happy as always, knows that our personal affection for her does not stop our using harsh words about her Government's actions. I am sure she knows that no personal malice is involved.
Although this country's waterways account for only 0·1 per cent. of inland freight transport, we must not conclude that the subject of our discussion today is in the least bit insignificant. In the first place, given our present economic circumstances, we cannot disregard even the smallest percentage points when it comes to measurement of economic activity. We must hoard and cherish them the more. Secondly, waterways on the Continent of Europe play a very important role in freight transport. We must not neglect opportunities for future collaboration in this sector. Thirdly, given the world's energy outlook, it would be foolish to put all our eggs into one energy basket. Freight transport by water is highly economical in energy terms, and this is not a factor which we can afford to neglect.
Fourthly, whatever the national figures may or may not be, it would be wholly
488
wrong to overlook the importance of the waterways we are considering today in the economic life of Yorkshire and the surrounding region. That importance is fully acknowledged by the South Yorkshire County Council. As I am sure the noble Baroness will agree, the transport policies which have been followed of late in South Yorkshire leave much to be desired. Indeed, the present South Yorkshire County Council have made a single-handed attempt to defy not only the exhortations of the Government but economic reality itself. They have persisted in a policy of wholly unrealistic revenue support levels against all advice from every quarter, in the midst of the worst economic crisis in our peacetime history. That is the more regrettable, in that had South Yorkshire used their available resources intelligently they would perhaps have been able to find the money for precisely the type of project we are considering today. But I have praise at least for the South Yorkshire council officers over their efforts on behalf of these waterways. They have produced a whole series of papers and reports which set out their case in clear and effective terms.
The 1968 Transport Act is the whole basis of transport policy, possibly, at the moment. Many of your Lordships will remember the lengthy and contentious debates which accompanied the passage of that Bill through this House, and the proceedings in another place were prolonged still further. Nearly a decade later, what is left to show for all that effort? What practical benefits does the user of transport today derive from those tremendous legislative efforts, supposedly undertaken on his behalf? I am not sure whether the noble Baroness might not secretly be only too grateful if the Government should founder in the next few days, in that it would release her from the necessity of venturing into the rather arid desert of her Party's transport legislation, and adding her bones to the whitening remains of her ministerial predecessors who have fallen while chasing the chimera of an integrated transport policy.
We on this side of the House are more than sceptical of the whole notion of an integrated transport policy. We suspect that the practical consequences of integration would be to remove decisions as regards transport planning even further

489
from the user in the market place and put them even more into the control of rigid and monolithic bureaucracies. It is clearly desirable to achieve the optimum use of resources but, to this end, we much prefer a policy of co-ordination, as the noble Baroness will be aware, implying the intelligent and unbiased planning of transport priorities based on consumer choice.
It is my contention that in such planning we must not overlook the contribution which our waterways can make. It is too easy to fall into the habit of assuming that canals went out with the stagecoach and that their only value now is as a recreational facility. That assumption, my Lords, is regrettably widespread in this country, but it is certainly not shared by our major industrial competitors in the EEC. Measured by tonne kilometres, 5 per cent. of French freight transport travels by water and 8·5 per cent. of West German freight, as opposed, as I said earlier, to 0·l per cent. of freight in this country. Obviously, no one is suggesting that even the maximum conceivable development of these South Yorkshire waterways could enable the River Aire or the Selby Canal to rival the Rhine or the Rhone; but, especially in our present economic circumstances, we should be foolish to ignore their potential contribution—or indeed any potential contribution—to the efficient movement of freight transport.
A regrettable feature of the public expenditure cutbacks under this Government is that in the transport sector they have concentrated almost exclusively on investment and capital programmes, while Government subsidies to everyday expenditure have gone on increasing. We shall have to live with the consequences of those cutbacks, I fear, for quite some years to come—poor roads, overcrowded roads and run-down rail services. The quality of our vital transport infrastructure could make a major contribution to our economic recovery, but is lagging behind that of our EEC partners. In particular, our roads are already the most crowded in Europe.
Given that is so, can we really afford to neglect any part of the transport infrastructure which we do possess? That is especially true in the South Yorkshire region, which I know so well, where the whole industrial life of the area may well
490
be revolutionised very shortly by the development of the Selby coalfield. That makes it even more important to secure efficient transport. Also, we have to remember that, although, as I have said, our rivers and canals cannot rival those on the Continent, the very existence of the latter has led to the development of large-scale barge traffic, much of which is potentially cross-North Sea and cross-Channel. We have the BACAT transport, by means of which one can put barges on catamarans and get them across the North Sea or the Channel. It is very important that we do not cut ourselves off from this traffic. This could be a significant factor in enabling us to maximise the economic opportunities which Community membership offers.
One point seemed to emerge from the papers—a point which was made very strongly by my noble friend Lord Harvington. It will cost almost £2 million a year just to keep these waterways going at all. In view of that, and in view of the anticipated increase in traffic, the arguments in favour of a modicum of additional expenditure become rather more important and make more sense than Government policy has been allowed to show so far. I shall look forward to hearing the Minister's reply to the factors which were so fully set out by my noble friend.
South Yorkshire County Council and the British Waterways Board have produced detailed papers setting out the case. I am sure that the noble Baroness and the Department have looked at copies of these papers, and have studied them very carefully. It is not for me to pass judgment on the detailed facts and figurings in these documents, but I found them very impressive and they seem to present a very serious case for increased Government investment in the South Yorkshire waterway network. In particular, the Waterways Board seemed to me to make out a very strong case for the project in terms of the projected rate of return which it might earn, which was mentioned by my noble friend with great persuasion. They also make great sense in terms of discounted cash flow, although obviously there are variable factors such as future traffic levels, or even the possibility of our EEC grant which, I suppose, has to remain speculative.

491
What I hope the noble Baroness will do is to recognise the concern which exists in this House, and in Yorkshire, about the future of these waterways, and publish a full reply to the studies which have been produced by the Waterways Board and the county council. Of course, the noble Baroness may find certain problems in doing this. My information—and I shall be delighted if the noble Baroness can correct me on this—is that at present no one in the Ministry of Transport has responsibility for inland waterways. I referred earlier to my doubts about an integrated transport policy, and I really think that we have reached the height of absurdity when a Government, nationally committed to such a policy of integration of transport, leaves all responsibility for inland waterways to the Ministry of Sport.
The British Waterways Board are intent on making a contribution to the nation's freight transport resources. Surely they should be encouraged in this, and not wholly assimilated to pleasure craft and sailing schools. It may well be that these latter activities are, indeed, the most important aspect of our waterways today, but that is no reason for wholly disregarding the freight operations. I hope that the noble Baroness will find it possible in her speech to reassure this House, and the interested parties in this debate, that she has taken their case fully on board and that she will give her personal attention to the future of the South Yorkshire waterways and their urgent needs.
8.5 p.m.
Lord FEVERSHAM: My Lords, it is not my intention at this late hour to detain the House for long, but I should like to take this opportunity not only of congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Harvington, on raising this Question, but also of supporting him in his desire to press the Government to review the case of the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation. I am also delighted to have heard the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, from the Opposition Front Benches. Who knows? After tomorrow night's vote in another place, those of us in this House who are interested in the commercial possibilities of inland waterways may be addressing our questions to the noble Lord, and we will all be very encouraged by the speech which he has
492
just made. It would be a pleasurable business to address this Question to the noble Lord.
However, we have to concern ourselves tonight with the Government that we have, although if you look at the record of successive Governments of every shape and colour, practically throughout this century, you will not find one which has produced a constructive policy towards the commercial use of our inland waterways. Therefore, I cannot really anticipate with any great excitement the reply which the noble Baroness will be making on behalf of the Government at the end of this short debate.
I have great sympathy for the noble Baroness. As has been pointed out, the country is in a desperate economic plight and it is essential to curb public expenditure. The Government are bound to ask whether at this time they can afford to finance improvements on the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation. They will perhaps be tempted to push the matter on one side and say that a project of this nature should be put on ice until we have a better financial climate. Unfortunately, I think there is some urgency in this matter, because if no action is taken to develop the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation along the lines recommended by the British Waterways Board, then even that commercial traffic which is operating on the canal at present will be lost. This is an important point, because one of the last chances open to us in this country to develop our navigable waterways for commercial use will then have gone.
No doubt there are those who regard our canals as dead to the possibilities of development for commercial carrying, and perhaps they would be delighted to see the last nails driven home into the coffin containing the corpse of what they regard as an outmoded transport system. One can only stress to such people the point that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, that every other country in the European Economic Community has invested considerable efforts in the development of inland water transport. It is precisely because successive Governments in this country have not done the same that our commercial waterways are in such a derelict state, and why they do not present to some people an attractive

493
alternative for inclusion in any transport policy in this country.
In Yorkshire, there exist exciting possibilities for water transport to play an important role in the transport infrastructure of the region, as the noble Lord, Lord Harvington, pointed out. It is not so many years ago that the broad canals in that region contributed valuable profits to the British Waterways Board. Unless some investment is made to update these waterways, we shall lose for ever the possibility of profitability in the region, with a consequent growing burden on public funds. We have a situation where the important industrial communities of South Yorkshire and West Yorkshire are served by waterways with great commercial potential. If that potential is not recognised, and the necessary investment made, then I believe that we will fail in taking an important step which needs to be taken in the regeneration of our great industrial centres, and upon such regeneration depends the future prosperity of our country.
In connection with the Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Harvington—and I think it is taking up a point also made by the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray—may I ask the Government what system exists in the Department of the Environment to advise the Government on matter concerning commercial navigation on our inland waterways? I know that the Transport Committee of the Inland Waterways Association, in their excellent report Barges to Juggernauts, recommended the setting up within the Department of a small division concerned with the development and planning of commercial waterways, along the lines of, but much smaller than, the commercial highways division. I believe that this excellent suggestion has not been adopted by the Government, and no doubt the noble Baroness will be able to enlighten us as to why not.
Finally, may I express the hope that the Government can give us at least some hope that they are prepared to look again at the matter of the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation so that we do not lose this important asset. I am a Yorkshireman and I know that in Rotherham, Doncaster, Sheffield and throughout the South Yorkshire coalfield, people are expressing the same hope. We in Yorkshire hope that tonight the noble Baroness
494
will not be in the business of driving nails into coffin lids.
8.10 p.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend this evening on his Question on the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation and to congratulate him, as have others, on his most eloquent and powerful advocacy in setting the scene for this debate. As my noble friend on the Front Bench has said, it is no accident that my noble friend Lord Harvington should make such a distinguished speech on the subject for, if I may be so rude as to say so to him, I think he caught the bug over 25 years ago. Ever since then he has been a loyal Parliamentary friend of inland waterways, as well as an active and not undistinguished handler of boats. Indeed, I notice tonight that the noble Lord is flying a phantom bargee on his tiepin to cheer us all up, in the guise of the ex-Commodore of the Parliamentary Yacht Club.
As my noble friend and other noble Lords have said, the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation Improvement Scheme is no new issue to the Government. It has been knocking around the corridors of successive Governments for almost 10 years, and with almost monotonous regularity it has been argued and shelved and reargued and reshelved. However, it has one unfortunate habit. As my noble friend has said, it simply does not go away. You cannot bury this canal. Indeed, the scheme which was thought up, I believe 10 years ago, at the then cost of £2 million, is now estimated to cost £8 million. Therefore we see that the cost of this scheme is growing bigger and bigger. To many people, and I suspect to the whole of the British Waterways Board, which has been tireless in its efforts to promote this scheme, it is a major test of whether the Government really value our 350 miles of commercial waterways. Do they see them as a relief for our congested roads? Do they see them as a help to employment in certain areas, particularly at present? Do they recognise that transport by barges can save our precious energy? Do they accept that a greater use of commercial waterways can have a dramatic effect on the environment of an area? All these points, as my noble friend has so ably

495
put it, apply, in my opinion, to the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation Scheme.
If the Government value the commercial waterways, the case for granting the £8 million—which one must remember is to be spread over three years—to this particular navigation is as gainful as any Government expenditure on transport is ever likely to be. As other noble Lords have said, one of the most impressive features of this issue is that to anyone who has sought information on the subject it is immediately noticeable that there is total unanimous support in the area for the scheme—besides, of course, the very strong case which the British Waterways Board has put forward.
We see the South Yorkshire County Council, who have included it in their draft structure plan and who stress the planning benefits to employment, industry and transport in their area. We see the Rotherham Borough Council who have in draft a most imaginative Rotherport scheme: a large terminal complex connecting water, rail and road. And we see the Doncaster Borough Council who have set aside 50 acres of land as a potential industrial estate immediately alongside the canal, and who have emphasised the present high unemployment in their area. We see local industry—the Chamber of Commerce—who have been examining very seriously ways and means of trying to raise £8 million. We see the carriers and the boatbuilders, who see this scheme as the advent of bringing back confidence and expanding business—not only home business but also exports. The carriers particularly see the BACAT system of barges as the new generation of waterborne commercial transport.
After the unhappy experience over one carrier who introduced this system about 18 months ago when it was blacked by unofficial union action, it would encourage carriers if tonight the noble Baroness could say whether the Government see a potential in the BACAT system for use on commercial waterways. I hope that in her reply the noble Baroness will be able to include something to that effect.
Beyond all this support we see unanimous local support; we see also the British Waterways Board recommending that the
496
scheme should go ahead. What do we see as the latest Government answer to the scheme? As I understand it, the brief of the noble Baroness may well be an almost classical Whitehall stonewall answer: that the Government are investigating absorbing the British Waterways Board's responsibilities into an even mightier authority—a National Water Authority. From that we must presume that the Government wish not to tie the hands of this authority so that they can decide the issue. However, this reorganisation is, as I am sure the noble Baroness will admit, at least two years away; indeed, after tomorrow it may be even further away. What possible new evidence would this new authority—in fact, it is an existing authority—require to convince them of this case? Why waste another three years and allow the cost to escalate to perhaps £12 million or £15 million?
It has been a flavour of the debate so far that history has shown that when it comes to money all Governments are suspect in supporting inland waterways. I am delighted to have listened this evening with great care to my noble friend speaking from the Front Bench and giving the view of my Party. Nobody today, though, would be so unchivalrous as not to recognise that the Government are faced with a great dilemma in deciding what is urgent and what has priority in terms of the precious, limited funds which are available to the public sector. Equally, the Government would not be unchivalrous if they did not accept, from the various cost-effective studies made of this scheme by both their experts and outside experts, that this investment has a good chance of showing not only a dividend for transport and employment in the area, but also of resulting in a commercial operation.
My fear tonight is that, however hard the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, tries —she does indeed try, and I have great faith in her sympathy—her brief will restrict her to saying that the Government have just voted £8 million this year towards the maintenance of inland waterways, and that at present any improvement in investment simply is not possible. If that is the case, may I ask the noble Baroness whether the Government have seriously considered a joint scheme with local authorities, local business and perhaps even an EEC loan to promote this

497
scheme, and whether they would welcome an approach of that nature from the area. If the noble Baroness could say that tonight, at least it would be a positive contribution.
My noble friend's Question on this Navigation is extremely pertinent. It is particularly pertinent to the apathy shown by successive Governments to commercial waterways. It is interesting to note that on 14th October 1968, in col. 1154, the then noble and learned Lord Chancellor, Lord Gardiner, when replying, as the Minister responsible in this House, to the Third Reading debate on the Transport Bill, said:
"If I may humbly say so, I feel that all we waterways enthusiasts have done extremely well by this Bill".
I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord could not be present tonight, as I am sure he would have wished to be here. However, I hope that in her reply the noble Baroness will show that the hopes expressed then by the noble and learned Lord have not been thwarted, and that she will have an encouraging answer to make to my noble friend.
8.20 p.m.
Lady KINLOSS: My Lords, I see part of this waterway every time I come by train to your Lordships' House; just after leaving Selby I find myself looking out of the window waiting to cross it. Two weeks or so ago the sun was shining and a barge was gliding along. It was a lovely sight. Some little time later one sees the ALM with heavy lorries belching stinking smoke, and one remembers that there are only relatively few years' supply of oil left whereas the water in this navigation was there even before this part of Yorkshire was populated.
I know that in the debate this evening we are not concerned with aesthetic or purely environmental matters, but I cannot say how great a pleasure the British Waterways Board gives me by the way it keeps this navigation—a pleasure which I feel certain is shared by countless others. It is quite fortuitous that I live in Yorkshire. I have no monetary interests in any business connected with the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation, but it is absurd to allow a good national asset to go to waste when it could provide much needed employment and at the
498
same time lower the cost of transporting goods, once the initial outlay has been made. This may seem a small affair, but we are facing the twin evils of inflation and unemployment and every small action that we can take to alleviate them is surely worth the doing. There can be no universal remedy for these evils; we can only reduce them by chipping away bit by bit.
Seven years ago the British Waterways Board pioneered a new push-tow system which was a most exciting breakthrough. One push-tow barge can carry as much freight as seven lorries and up to three craft can be pushed at any one time. So, unless I have misunderstood, very roughly speaking—less the oil consumed by one specially designed tug—one has saved the fuel consumption of most of 21 lorries. If I could cut my household expenses to this degree—namely, by 21 times—I should be delighted and so, I venture to think, would quite a number of other noble Lords. I am not saying that the British Waterways Board is able to cut our domestic expenditure by 21 times, but it is quite evident that if it is allowed to carry out the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation Improvement Scheme it will surely make some contribution towards it.
Both Government and Opposition know that they are guilty of having neglected this waterway. I should like to see both sides dressed in hair shirts. The Government are asking for quite impossible guarantees in the conditions for providing a grant to improve different sections of the navigation and to enlarge certain locks. The question that the Government are asking is the old, old question of the chicken and the egg—which came first? The Government are asking for guarantees of certain traffic, but firms can provide guarantees only if they can assure their clients that the waterway is capable of carrying the tonnage that they require. Surely, it is perfectly plain that it is impossible for the carriers of freight to give guarantees to their clients until they receive firm undertakings from the Government.
All I would ask from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, is that she should be willing to sit down and negotiate with interested parties. One company alone has already had firm inquiries for 250,000

499
tonnes of carriage per annum on the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation, conditional upon it being improved. But as sensible, cautious Yorkshiremen, they naturally have some uncertainty in their minds. It is a fact that they have not yet discussed the possibility of carriage on this section with their other major customers, and I am informed that unless something can be done the firm will eventually have to close with a loss of 250 jobs in an already depressed area. I need hardly say that I most warmly support the noble Lord, Lord Harvington, and hope that the Government will give the British Waterways Board all the support for which it hopes.
8.25 p.m.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, at this time of night I am certainly not going to waste much time repeating what has been said by other noble Lords, and said probably a great deal better; but there are one or two points that I should like to emphasise. Your Lordships have heard of course that the waterways in this particular area form a very important system of commercial transport. However, like all other means of transport they need maintenance and, of course, that costs money; but on the whole it costs a great deal less than it does to maintain a major motorway.
Your Lordships have also heard that the cost of leaving the canal which we are discussing tonight in its present state will be £2·5 million; to put it into proper working order will cost £7·7 million. That is not a very great increase when we consider what the enormous returns will be. In fact, to my mind it will be an extremely good investment because a great many things can be transported much more cheaply by water than by road. For instance, liquid fuel can be transported by water for about a quarter of its transport cost by road.
Another important point that I think has not been mentioned tonight is the tremendous desirability of getting as much traffic off the roads as we can. I have tried it in the past by trying to upgrade the railways, without success. Now surely here is a chance to do so with real profit. There is another point. The traffic, as we have heard, which is con-
500
veyed—or which could be conveyed—on this waterway, if it were put into proper working order, would be very largely for export and import, and the barges can easily cross the North Sea and make use of the excellent waterway systems in Europe. Surely that is an excellent way of making use of the assets which we have. We have these waterways. All that needs to be done to them is to put them in proper order and to spend a little money on them and get a great deal more money in return. My Lords, I really should not have spoken tonight. I apologise for not having put my name on the list. I forgot until it was too late. Therefore I shall not take up any more time.
8.29 p.m.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, I must apologise to the House, which, in its assiduity, has followed this debate. Due to the fact that the discussion on the Patents Bill finished earlier than I expected, I was 20 minutes adrift in coming in to what I considered to be an important debate. My second error—and I apologise to my noble Leader—was that I did not put down my name; but I have contributed to the commercial transport magazine on the canals for many years, and in the Stoke-on-Trent and the Potteries areas the canals are now being used commercially. The constructive and dynamic point put forward by the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, about the work of 21 lorries being dragged along by one tug should make anyone who is a student of economics understand—although I am losing my faith in economists, especially at Brussels. I think we had better send psychiatrists there rather than economists.
We have reached an age in the history of transport where—forget the words "public ownership" or "nationalisation"—we should have a co-ordination of the whole of transport, rail, road, canal. This ridiculous system of accountancy, having fictitious competition between road and rail transport, is landing this country in one of the greatest economic puzzles it has ever had to face. Instead of growing more intelligent and using the artefacts of our forefathers, we are destroying them. If you are a fisherman—there are 3 million of them in this country, and I protect the beauty of their art and their craft—this would not interfere with

501
you. There are stretches of canal that are quiescent, that are delightful and that enrich the soul of mankind. So I do not want the fishermen and the beauty-seekers to feel that the environment is destroyed by the gentle flowing along the canal of a commercial barge, beautifully described by the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss. I shall not speak for more than four minutes, so do not get worried.
There are three things I should like to spike down. First, we should reorganise our investment in transport. It is no excuse to say that, for this first-class Sheffield project, we could not, by a reorganisation of investment in transport, co-ordinate and find this small sum. Secondly, it is wicked of us to destroy the artefacts of centuries of canal engineering. I had the joy to represent a constituency in which Brindley was born. He could hardly read and write, and yet he was one of the finest canal engineers. We are throwing away efforts greater than the pyramids in workmanship, the wheelbarrow, sweat, muscle and blood of the navvies who built them. We throw it away as though it is useless. These new affiliates are now running modern society; they are a shock to mankind.
Finally, this needs an intelligent and constructive approach to the trades unions. It was sad to see the trade union question arising over that valuable, cheap transport of goods from across the North Sea. But I am quite certain that an intelligent British trades union movement would come to terms with, and an understanding of, canal transport if we make a point of approaching them. Last, but not least, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Harvington—under whose chairmanship I failed many times to get called in the other place—for not being in at the beginning of his speech, but may I say that I have done my best to support him this evening.
8.33 p.m.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, as one who came in to listen to this debate with as near as possible to a completely open mind, I must confess I have been enormously impressed by the weight of argument put forward. I speak not with any intention of trying to contribute to the arguments, but I simply list the arguments we have heard. The total cost of £8 mil
502
lion is equivalent to the construction of perhaps five or six miles of motorway, a motorway that will absorb possibly valuable agricultural land; the possibility of tolls on the traffic through the canals; the enormous potentialities of the Selby coalfield; the saving of fuel costs by the far more economical means of using canal transport; the diminution of the pollution of the environment, to which Lady Kinloss referred so admirably.
I would from these Benches plead with the noble Baroness not to dismiss this matter out of hand. We know what a strong case can be made from the Government Bench against the pleas so admirably advanced by Lord Harvington. It is easy to make a case against them. But if we believe in an integrated transport policy, as I am sure we all do from all sides of this House, how can we defend not an integrated policy but a monopolised transport policy, at the cost of our railway traffic, at the cost of our canals, and concentrate only on the development of road transport, with all the inherent disadvantages of which we are all of us so aware? I would from these Benches ask the noble Baroness to give this matter the earnest consideration which it deserves. If she is a free agent in this matter, as I profoundly hope she will be, I would ask her to give in to the pleas so eloquently urged on her from every side of this House.
Baroness WHITE: My Lords, owing to the rules laid down by the late Lord Addison, the constitutional validity of which I entirely appreciate, I am obliged to sit here in frustrated silence as I am a member of the British Waterways Board. But I think it is my duty to make it quite clear to my noble friend that, apart from the major matter of the accumulated neglect of maintenance on the entire canal system, there is really no subject about which the Board is more urgently concerned and more united than this question of the Sheffield and South Yorkshire canal.
8.36 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Harvington, for drawing our attention to the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation this evening, and to pay tribute to his special knowledge and to his extremely good advocacy, and that of the other noble

503
Lords who have spoken with such obvious depth of feeling about the proposals which the British Waterways Board has put forward. Indeed, I feel that I must echo the words of my right honourable friend in another place, during a debate on the adjournment last May, when he spoke of the passion which this canal arouses and has aroused for more than a decade since the British Waterways Board first put its scheme forward in 1966.
My Lords, despite of listening to my noble friend Lord Davies' description of the quiescent and quiet canals he knows, I have a feeling that I am going to be in somewhat stormy and rough water this evening, and I have some difficult locks to get through on the way, both in front of me and behind me. I believe that I should start this evening by reminding your Lordships of the two important factors which were in the forefront of my right honourable friend's mind when he considered the British Waterways Board's scheme last year and which are still of prime importance today.
The first is the Government's general policy on the commercial use of inland waterways for the carriage of freight. This has been stated on a number of occasions, the most recent being in the Consultation Document on Transport Policy published in April of last year. The Government's policy is to encourage the transfer of freight from road to waterways wherever it is economically, socially and environmentally sensible and possible to do so. But the fact is that most of our inland waterways reflect their age in that today they are far too narrow to take the sort of large barges which now use the Rhine and comparable European waterways. We have in any event the great advantage of being an island, which means that coastal shipping fulfils for us much of the function that is performed by inland waterways on the Continent.
The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, and the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, also mentioned the value of BACAT, and I must say that I regret that the service did not have sufficient time in which to try to demonstrate its worth. But again the BACAT barges are small, they are about 180 tonnes, and although they might be attractive in terms of the comparatively narrow and shallow United Kingdom
504
waterways they are really out of scale with the European system of inland waterways, where the trend is towards barges of 1,300 tonnes or more. When my right honourable friend was appraising the British Waterways Board's scheme he was very concerned at the level of new traffic which it was expected that an improved waterway would attract. The financial return, which is so very important and to which I will come back, does depend upon this new traffic. The scheme for the Navigation must be viewed against the steady decline in commercial traffic on inland waterways.
The Earl of KINNOULL: My Lords, is the noble Baroness saying that the system which was withdrawn 18 months ago really was not viable because of its size?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, it was not viable in the sense that it was expected that we might be able to take these barges or that they might come to us from the continental rivers which are so much wider and take much larger traffic than we are able to handle on our canals. When my right honourable friend was appraising the scheme, he was concerned at the level of new traffic which it was expected that an improved waterway would attract and the financial return, which depends on this new traffic. The scheme for the Navigation must be viewed against the steady decline in commercial traffic on inland waterways. Between 1969 and 1974 traffic fell by almost half. Twenty years ago it was five times as great as it is now. The reasons are clear. To some extent inland waterways face the same major difficulties which face the railways—that of inflexibility and lack of speed. They just cannot compete with road traffic's door-to-door service. There must be great uncertainty about the amount of traffic that would be attracted to an improved waterway.
My Lords, it is argued that if the improvements were carried out, new traffic would be attracted, and it is also argued that commercial undertakings will not all commit themselves in advance of seeing what facilities will be offered and at what price. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Harvington, referred to the letters of support from the chambers of commerce. However, one cannot always act on letters

505
of support. They, being Yorkshiremen, obviously want to know what they will get for their money when the facilities are there. But the Government can only make a value judgment, and that is as true today as it was last year. My Department's officials made direct inquiries of major users as recently as last May to try to assess how much traffic might use this waterway. The result of these inquiries—and it remains our best estimate—was that new traffic would build up over five years to 1·15 million tonnes.
Before considering the implications of this estimate, I will turn to the other factor which my right honourable friend had in his mind when considering the scheme, and that, my Lords, as I am afraid it is so often at the present time, is finance. In spite of the glowing tributes which have been paid to the British Waterways Board, in 1975 it made a loss of £116,000 on freight services—that is, warehouses and terminal services, docks and freight carrying fleets—and the loss on maintaining and operating the commercial waterways was £2·2 million. The 1976 figures are not yet to hand, but we have no reason to believe that they are very much more optimistic than the ones we had in 1975. The total cost at 1975 prices of the British Waterways Board's scheme is £5·4 million and this includes a substantial amount for arrears of maintenance, most of which will be necessary even if there is no improvement to the waterway. So the net additional cost of the improvement scheme is likely to be £4·3 million.
A basic requirement of all public investment—and this scheme would require public investment as it would be financed by borrowing from the Exchequer—is that it should show a rate of return in excess of 10 per cent. in real terms for low risk projects and a higher rate of return for those projects with a greater element of risk. The uncertainty about the level of traffic on the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation makes it a very high risk project, so the Government would have to look for a return of something above 10 per cent. So we were being asked to sanction expenditure of £4·3 million to finance an improvement programme which would see 1·15 million tonnes of new traffic on the Navigation after five years.
506
My Lords, 1·15 million tonnes of new traffic over five years is not enough—even assuming very much higher toll charges than there are now—to produce an adequate return on an investment of £4·3 million. Even though allowance was made for the possible loss of existing traffic, if there is no improvement in the Navigation, even though allowance was made for environmental benefits, even though allowance was made for the possibility of additional benefits to users, it still proved impossible to anticipate a level of return above 10 per cent.
In the face of all this the Government's conclusion—and I assure noble Lords that it was a reluctant conclusion—was that it would not be right to commit resources to this scheme at a time when there were severe constraints on public expenditure and the pressure on limited resources was so acute.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Baroness, but I do not know what computer computed that or who fed in the programme, because the social value of this has not been taken into account at all. If I were computing the programme I would have programmed the saving from 21 lorries which over the years are using millions of pounds worth of petrol and causing wear and tear to our roads and villages. I should have had that recomputed. To me that is absolute rubbishy accountancy.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, if we take account of those 21 lorries, we must also take account of all the lorries that have to bring the freight to the 11 miles of the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Canal and then take it off at the other end. We looked at the environmental position, and I am sure that within that position we also looked at the social benefits of it. The decision made by the Government was not only about whether the scheme was feasible, but about the level of British Waterways Board's borrowing—if the scheme had been seen to be a sure-fire winner, then finance could have been forthcoming.
The noble Lord, Lord Harvington, referred to the Fraenkel Report and asked when it was likely to be published and see the light of day. The Fraenkel Report

507
is now in the Department. Their overall estimates on maintenance at present-day prices are likely to be considerably in excess of the £22½ million which was quoted earlier by the noble Lord. Action on the Fraenkel Report and on the general question of financing the waterways is now being taken forward in the context of the discussions that we have in hand on the British Waterways Board's future. Ministers intend to make public the conclusions of the Fraenkel Report at about the same time as they publish the White Paper on the Review of the Water Industry. Tonight I am advised that that will be in the not too distant future and I take that to mean within a month or so.
However desirable it may be to put all the maintenance work in hand immediately—and the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation's share of that on maintenance alone is £1·5 million—the current constraints on public spending are likely to make it difficult or even impossible to provide the money. The expenditure on maintenance of the waterways is met largely by Exchequer grant. The Exchequer grant for 1977 has already been agreed at £12 million. This includes an additional £600,000 found by Ministers to carry out the essential repairs on the Caledonian Canal and on the road bridges over the Weaver Navigation at Northwich in Cheshire. The Caledonian Canal project was mentioned by the noble Lord in passing. Therefore, there is no likelihood in our present condition of any additional grant being made at this time.
Several noble Lords have mentioned the possibility of alternative sources of finance. These include a partnership with local authorities, but no local authority has yet put its money where its suggestions have been. They include a partnership with industry and commerce; a loan from the European Investment Bank or a grant from the EEC Regional Development Fund. However, the question of the EEC grant is complicated and the essential point is that the competition for EEC grants, if anything, is even fiercer than for grants for projects within our own country. There are always far more applications than can be accepted. To stand a chance of getting accepted, the scheme, first, has to generate new employment; secondly, be in an area of high unemployment and, thirdly, be viable
508
without taking such a grant into account. On the present facts the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation is a doubtful starter on all three grounds. These suggestions, although they are important, anticipate agreement that the improvement scheme would be viable. Regrettably, that is not our opinion. We have still to be convinced that more traffic would be won. Without this, I suspect that hard-nosed councillors, businessmen, bankers and EEC Commissioners are unlikely "to be persuaded" to part with any hard cash.
Noble Lords have mentioned the Transport Act 1968 and the duty that it imposes on the British Waterways Board to maintain this "commercial waterway" at the standards necessary to permit the passage of craft which customarily used it before the Act was passed. So far as I am aware, the British Waterways Board is not in breach of its obligation, and although the Government are aware that standards of maintenance are poor, once again I am afraid that, however desirable it may be to improve standards quickly, the current constraints on public spending have made it impossible to provide the money. The British Waterways Board has the very difficult task of using its limited resources to the best advantage, and this may mean that essential, let alone desirable, works cannot be carried out as quickly as we would like; and the emphasis has to be on safety.
The noble Lord, Lord Harvington, has asked us to review the decision on the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation. We can review the situation, and we shall do so if new factors can be presented to us. But restraint on public expenditure is still tight, and maybe even tighter than last year. We cannot do everything we should like to do; indeed, schemes which show a much more hopeful return than this have already had to be shelved. Therefore, to make such a review worthwhile any new evidence or new proposals must be of a really substantial nature.
The noble Lord, Lord Feversham, was good enough to advise me of the inquiries he was going to make about how and from whom we in the Department got our advice. The Government are advised by the Water Directorate, and they report direct to my right honourable friend on the

509
commercial and the leisure use of waterways. This is normal Civil Service procedure. However, there is also an Inland Waterways Amenity Advisory Council which advises on cruising. They are a statutory body consisting of some 20 members and were set up under the Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, wondered why the British Waterways Board's freight activities were under my right honourable friend the Minister of State at the Department of the Environment rather than my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport. I think that we must acknowledge that save on a handful of river navigations the traditional transport role of waterways has gone for good. But, given the increasing amenity role and the interface with the water industry as regards land drainage, water supply, effluent disposal, the waterways "fit" better into Environment than into Transport. I think critics of my right honourable friend's responsibility for British Waterways Board forget his wider responsibility for the whole of the water industry.
I will not rise to the good natured jibes from the noble Lord opposite about my Party's future, except to say that I am reasonably confident that in some 25 hours from now this Government will still be the Government of this country and we will still be grappling with our financial situation, and, I guess, still being exhorted by noble Lords opposite who want to spend millions tonight and then to cut public expenditure. Noble Lords opposite, in or out of office, have to face facts, and they must decide whether they want to cut public expenditure or whether they want a Government to spend freely on all these desirable schemes.
In spite of my rather high feelings on that note, I assure noble Lords that if the merger of the British Waterways Board
510
with the new National Water Authority goes ahead, then my right honourable friend the Minister of State has already said that he will specifically ask the National Water Authority to review the case of the Sheffield and South Yorkshire Navigation in the light of their own resources and priorities. If, in the meantime, noble Lords can produce in evidence something more substantial in regard to this being made a workable proposition, then we shall do what we can to review it and see whether it is possible.