Lords Sitting of 25 January 1978

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester.
The Lord Vaux of Harrowden—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.

THE ORDNANCE SURVEY STUDY
Lord HUNT: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are now in a position to announce the establishment of a study of the Ordnance Survey, and whether representative bodies and individuals have been invited to serve on the committee which will undertake this study.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, my right honourable friend announced on 17th January that he had asked Sir David Serpell to chair a committee reviewing the Ordnance Survey and that he would be announcing the names of committee members very shortly.
Lord HUNT: My Lords, could the noble Baroness have surmised that I was aware of the Answer that she has just given and that I had kept my Question on the Order Paper in the light of its second part? By fixing a date or asking the committee which is to be set up to report early in 1979, is she aware that that inference of urgency will give great satisfaction to everyone who has been concerned about the future of the Ordnance Survey and who has been anxiously awaiting that decision? Will the Minister not agree that, with barely a year before the committee is expected to report, the complexity and thoroughness of the investigation with which that committee will be faced makes it imperative that the names of the committee
336
members should be announced not merely soon—as was stated in the Written Answer to a Question of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton—but in the very immediate future? Is the noble Baroness prepared to give us a date for that announcement?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I accept the need for urgency in establishing the committee, and we hope that it will be able to present its report as we plan within the 12 months. Some of the formal invitations have already gone out; the remainder are expected to go out shortly. I regret that I cannot put a date on the word "shortly," but I hope that the noble Lord will accept my assurance that it will be very shortly, and we hope that the committee will soon get down to work. My hope then is that all noble Lords who have expressed concern about the Ordnance Survey will make sure that the committee knows their views.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, irrespective of the necessity for this committee, does the noble Baroness agree that many people in this country—among whom I include myself—are very impressed by the excellence of the one-inch Ordnance Survey and of the 1:50,000 which has taken its place?
Baroness STEDMAN: Yes, my Lords, I share the noble and learned Lord's concern about this and his appreciation of what the Ordnance Survey are doing at the moment.

FIRE FIGHTING: SERVICEMEN'S TRAINING
2.41 p.m.
Lord ORR-EWING: 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 consultations they have had with the Ministry of Defence concerning the number of hours needed to train Servicemen to use fire fighting equipment in general and breathing apparatus in particular.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government carefully

337
studied the question of Servicemen using breathing apparatus and other specialist fire fighting equipment normally used by civilian firemen. Any specialist equipment requires not only training in its operation but also considerable experience—in the case of breathing apparatus, several months—before it can be used effectively and without endangering the operator.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, will the noble Lord bear in mind that the Question asks whether, not Her Majesty's Government, but the Ministry of Defence, had been consulted; and, if so, to what extent? Will he also bear in mind that there is evidence that well-trained and well-disciplined soldiers could have learnt to operate this breathing equipment not in a matter of months but in a matter of hours? Is the Minister receiving the best possible advice in the interests of the public?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, the noble Lord must be well aware that Her Majesty's Government and the Ministry of Defence are one and the same organisation. However, consultations did take place and the decision was that the timescale did not permit training in fire fighting apparatus for the ordinary soldier who was not already a specialist.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware, or is the Ministry of Defence aware, that the whole of the Submarine Service was already trained in the use of oxygen equipment? Does that not point to two facts: first, that our Services are so small that we cannot take anything off to deal with these other crises; and, secondly, that the biggest mistake ever made by the present Prime Minister when he was Home Secretary was in abolishing the Civil Defence Corps, because that would have provided us with up-to-date fire fighting and other equipment?
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is it not enough that the men in the Services have done a first-class job in most difficult circumstances?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I am certain that the whole House is grateful to my noble friend for putting his finger on a very key point.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, would the noble Lord be prepared to put before us figures of the number of fires and incidents attended by the Services during the strike period, and comparable figures for the normal fire brigade in the previous year?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that is another question, but I am certain that, if put down, it could be answered.
Lord LOVAT: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether the Government have actually thanked the Army for the work they have done over a period of several weeks? I think that this would be a good opportunity to see that this is done.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: Certainly, my Lords. But I think that the views of your Lordships' House will be much appreciated.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, would the noble Lord consider the point put by my noble friend here, that as we have now had experience of the volunteers of the Army manning the fire brigade over a long period, would it not be worthwhile comparing the degree of manning, and the number of calls made on their time, to make sure that we have got the very best experience and results of this crisis? We then might be able to judge how we might better and more efficiently construct the fire brigade in the future.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, that is an interesting point, but I think it is wider than something to be raised at Question Time.

THE FALKLAND ISLANDS
2.45 p.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE: 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 clarify the present position regarding the Falkland Islands.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, the position is clear. With the agreement of the

339
Falkland Islands Council, we are conducting negotiations with Argentina covering political relations, including sovereignty and economic co-operation. As the terms of reference state, a major objective of the negotiations is to achieve a stable, prosperous and politically durable future for the Falkland Islands. The Islanders are being fully informed and consulted as the negotiations proceed.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. Would he not agree that the rumours which appeared in the Press immediately before Christmas, that there was some sort of serious thinking in Whitehall that the Falkland Islanders should be pressurised into accepting a reduction in their sovereignty, were most undesirable? If he agrees with that, can he give an assurance to the House that the Government themselves are not supporting such thinking in any way whatsoever?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord and the House that those rumours were groundless. I hasten to repeat once more the categorical assurance given by my right honourable friend in the other place, and by myself in this House. The Government have given full assurances to the Islanders that no proposals affecting the future status of the Falkland Islands will be brought before Parliament unless they are acceptable to the Islanders themselves.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord has just said, would he tell us what Her Majesty's Government intend to do to develop the Falkland Islands, which is really the crying question of the time?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, these discussions are mainly, in our view, aimed at ensuring the right sort of climate and opportunity for such developments not just in the Falkland Islands but in the South-West Atlantic generally. We feel that we, Argentina and the Falklands could very profitably engage in consortial action to develop the undoubted riches of this area with benefit to all three peoples.
As to our immediate programme, I am glad to tell the House that, while certain long term and massive proposals which
340
have great virtue—such as those proposed in sections of the admirable report produced by my noble friend Lord Shackleton—are not immediately practicable, there are nevertheless a number of schemes of development within the Islands themselves which are now making progress. I have a long list here. Perhaps on a more appropriate occasion I might give more detail, or in answer to further Questions—perhaps a Question for Written Answer.
We have agreed to assist in the development of agriculture and its diversification and in the diversification of the industrial activity of the Islands generally, much of it springing from an improved agriculture. I know the noble Lord himself is particularly interested in this subject, about which he made an extremely helpful speech on one occasion when we debated this matter a few months ago. We have agreed to help in developing the road system—the communications of the Islands—and also to set up a new tertiary school hostel so that secondary school children can be more effectively taught at the somewhat advanced level up to the age of about 17. There are other, not proposals, but projects on which my right honourable friend the Minister for Overseas Development, in concert with my own Department, is actively engaged now.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, while it is possible to formulate proposals for a change in the political relationship between the Falkland Islands and Argentina which would be acceptable to the people of the Islands, will the noble Lord consider very carefully before going any further with these negotiations, whether, so long as the régime in Argentina continues to detain people without trial, to use torture as an instrument of policy, and to murder its own citizens in broad daylight on the streets, as well as detaining a United Kingdom citizen within the last three months, it is likely that any progress will be made on the restoration of freedom in Argentina?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, of course, we would strongly encourage any such progress within Argentina. Argentina is a country with which this country has enjoyed a very long and close friendship based on a wide and mutually profitable trade, which I am

341
glad to see from the latest returns is again reviving. We should not, therefore, consistently take a pejorative attitude towards the Argentinian Government, but should constantly call to mind the good feeling and good co-operation of the past and use that to solve present and future problems. We have made it absolutely clear to that Government how we view certain practices which are an abuse of human rights, but, in so doing, we also hope to build on the positive relationships of the past.
Lord HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, while not in any way dissenting from what the noble Lord said about our long relations with Argentina, is it not a fact that these Islands of English-speaking people in or near the South American continent are not simply relics of colonialism, but small peoples whose rights and culture and right to self-determination should be accepted, irrespective of the character of the regimes to which they are neighbours? Will Her Majesty's Government—I am sure they will—constantly bear in mind that British people all over the world are not for sale?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: The noble and learned Lord puts it so well, my Lords. I enthusiastically join him in the sentiments he expressed and I would only add, as a non-legal Member of this House, that we are bound by Resolution 1514 of the United Nations General Assembly to do precisely that.

UN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL AFFAIRS
2.52 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how the British delegation at the United Nations General Assembly voted on the proposal to appoint a Director General for United Nations economic affairs and what was the voting.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, on 20th December, 1977, the General Assembly adopted by consensus
342
its Resolution No. 32/197 taking note of the report of the Ad Hoc Committee on the restructuring of the economic and social sectors of the United Nations system. Among other things, this report invited the UN Secretary-General to appoint a Director General for Development and International Economic Co-operation. The United Kingdom delegation, which had played an active part in the work of the committee on restructuring, joined in this consensus.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while appreciating the attitude of Her Majesty's Government, may I ask whether this is not a development of momentous significance? Does it not mean that there will be an economic arm of the United Nations to complement the political arm, that it will co-ordinate the Unites Nations agencies, 80 per cent. of its activity, and be able to put forward proposals for a new world economic order to replace the economic mess which there is in the world today?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: I very much hope so, my Lords. I join my noble friend entirely in his hopes, and arising from these reforms I think there is fair ground for expecting improved capability by the United Nations in the economic and social fields. The encouraging feature of this Resolution is not only its contents but the fact, as I have said, that it was adopted by consensus.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I supplement that point by asking my noble friend whether Her Majesty's Government will follow their support of this proposal in the United Nations by seeking to implement its possibilities; by dealing with the hunger of half the world, by dealing with the unemployment of 30 million people in the work and by dealing with the problem of the growth of world population by seeking to fertilise the deserts and other non-arable areas?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Certainly, my Lords, and I think I am within the agreement of the entire House when I say that this country has bilaterally performed, and is performing, a very worthy part in helping to solve the problems to which my noble friend referred. Multilaterally, through the United Nations, I repeat that

343
in the preparations for this very useful and significant Resolution the United Kingdom delegates played a very prominent part indeed.

THERMAL REACTOR POLICY
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord Kirkhill will repeat a Statement on thermal reactor policy.

TANKER SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION
2.55 p.m.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER Lord RITCHIE-CALDER rose to call attention to the forthcoming International Conference on Tanker Safety and Pollution Prevention (6th-14th February 1978); and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful that we are able to have this debate today. I would remind the House that it is a short debate and therefore I recommend all my colleagues who will be taking part to keep their speeches short, and I hope to set a good example.
It is a bit embarrassing, if not unfair, for the Government to be asked in advance of a diplomatic conference to disclose the cards in their hand or maybe up their sleeve, but I am sure I will not abash my noble friend Lord Oram, who knows that my intentions are of the best. If the moment is awkward, it is because some of us in your Lordships' House want to see that Her Majesty's Government do not find themselves in a fortnight's time out on a limb from which they cannot crawl back or, worse still, which is cut off behind them.
There are really two main concerns in this debate and both are crucially important. The first is the question of tanker loading and the second is that of the Hydrographic Service, about which your Lordships have already expressed your alarm and which, in terms of tanker safety, is the subject of the conference and is desperately important. I shall confine myself to tankers and rely on my noble friend Lord Kennet to deploy, much better than I could, the arguments which I would have put for the Hydrographic Service, about which I feel very strongly.
Perhaps I should declare an interest. I am the chairman of the Advisory Committee on Oil Pollution of the Seas, ACOPS. Our credentials are impeccable; the president is my right honourable friend the Prime Minister, and the very active vice-president, as noble Lords will see today, is the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. Your Lordships' House has provided my predecessors as chairmen in the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, my noble friends Lord Shackleton, Lord Kennet and Lady White. I will not recite the list of 23 authorities, important organisations, which are represented on our Committee. That Committee is profoundly concerned about the outcome of the international conference which we are discussing. We are a disinterested body committed to preventing pollution of the seas and the defilement of our shores, with which our local authority members are all too familiar.
I do not have to make a case against pollution; I need only mention the "Torrey Canyon", the "Santa Barbara" oil spill, Ekofisk or any of the dozens of cases of tanker damage and wrecks and of deliberate discharges. Governments, oil companies and shipping companies have acknowledged their responsibilities. The Inter-governmental Maritime Consultative Committee has been explicit in defining those responsibilities, but unfortunately its assembly resolutions, like those of NATO and the Stockholm Conference on the Human Environment, are not legally binding because the rules of jurisdiction are hung up in the protracted Law of the Sea Conference.
In 1973 the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships was adopted, but has so far received only three ratifications. However, the United States Government, as a result of pollution incidents off the North American coasts, tabled a set of comprehensive proposals at IMCO, backed by an emphatic policy statement by President Carter. This has precipitated the diplomatic conference which will take place on 9th February and which we are discussing today.
At the conference there will be discussions of improved crew standards and that, I imagine, will raise very little controversy; it is like being for motherhood or against sin. Anyway, there will be in June an International Conference

345
on the Training of Seafarers. There will be proposals before the conference to tighten up the frequency and quality of the inspection by which vessels are certified fit to operate. All maritime States support those proposals. Then there are construction and equipment standards—and I want to stress this—on which the outcome of the conference will depend. The items include improved radar and collision-avoidance aids for all tankers; improvement of emergency steering in narrow waters, and so forth, an indispensable provision from our point of view, particularly in places like the English Channel; improvement in the inert gas system for all tankers, to reduce the risk of explosions, of which we have heard quite frequently; double bottoms for all new tankers, to reduce oil pollution resulting from grounding accidents; and, lastly, segregated ballast tanks for all tankers, to reduce pollution from operational practices.
My understanding is that the arguments for ships being double-bottomed will not be effectively sustained. Therefore, the highly controversial issue is segregated ballast. Segregated ballast is, quite simply, the use of separate tanks and piping systems for oil and for water. Some of your Lordships may be surprised that that does not apply now, or some with more insight may think, as every schoolboy (or perhaps I ought to say "every schoolperson") knows, that oil and water do not mix. But they do when it comes to discharging ballast. Anyway, at the 1973 IMCO conference it was agreed that segregated ballast tanks were to be the preferred method of reducing pollution from tankers, and it was laid down that all new tankers must be built with segregated tanks. Now it is being proposed that the system should be fitted to existing tankers.
Apart from the increasing awareness of pollution hazards, identified by the local authorities who are members of our ACOPS Committee as the defiled beaches which their ratepayers have to pay to clean up, the past five years have seen a drastic reduction in the building of new tankers—those tankers which were to be compulsorily fitted with tank-provisions—and the prospect of the continuation in service for an indefinite future of tankers
346
without segregated ballast. A case can certainly be made for what is called "crude oil washing", which a system developed by certain oil companies, to their great credit. It derives its name from the fact that the cargo tanks of all crude oil ships must periodically be cleaned. During crude oil washing, no mixing of oil and water takes place—that is to say, in the system which is used—and the cargo tank residues are discharged with the cargo. I expect that other noble Lords who are to take part in the debate will explain and justify the system, so I will not dwell on it. Above all, I am not disputing the intrinsic merits of the system, but I respectfully suggest that it is a commendable (and, I would hope, eventually, imperative) supplement, but not an alternative, to segregated ballast.
It is no secret that the United Kingdom is opposed to segregated ballast tanks. That opposition means a straight confrontation with the United States, which is proposing that all existing tankers of 20,000 tons and above should be equipped with segregated ballast tanks. As an interim measure, clean ballast tanks would be specified. That means that, without structural change, certain tanks will be allocated to ballast water only, which of course means restriction on the carrying capacity of the oil tankers. New building will not replace the existing tankers—completely, that is—until about 1990, when the present fleet is scrapped through inevitable obsolescence.
The argument against conversion is, of course, cost. The main cost element of segregated ballast is the approximate 15 per cent. reduction in cargo capacity. For example, in a new, ultra-large tanker, that means an additional cost of about £2½ million for providing tacks which will not carry cargo. In addition to the loss of carrying capacity—that is to say, returns on the oil of about 16 per cent.—the cost of conversion of a super-tanker would be about £400,000. That is a movable figure, and I know that the United Kingdom Government put it much higher. The reduction of oil pollution is costly—OECD puts it at a 2 per cent. increase on the landed cost of crude oil—but immeasurably more so is the cost of the destruction of the environment at the expense of present and future generations.
The largest proportion of ship-generated pollution is due to operational practices. It was estimated that, in 1975, 1·8 million tons of oil were discharged from ships, and that accidents accounted for only 300,000 tons, the rest being deliberate. Environmental costs are difficult to estimate. OECD is trying to do so, but they are also highly debatable, under the circumstances. For example, we are told—and when I say "we" I mean ACOPS—by the Marine Division of the Department of Trade that the number of oil spills continues to decrease. That, my Lords, is certainly not borne out by the findings of our ACOPS committee. Our findings were based on questionnaires circulated to Her Majesty's Coastguard, local authorities in England, Wales and Scotland, sea fisheries committees, RSPCA inspectors, port authorities and the Scottish river purification boards. The result of that (I think your Lordships will admit) pretty thorough investigation, with proper loading against overlap or repetition, revealed that the number of incidents in 1976 was 20 per cent. higher than in 1975. The risks are manifestly going to increase.
The washing of ballast tanks takes place when tankers are about to enter loading ports. Britian, as an oil-exporting country of the future, is in that category, and polluted ballast water will be deposited on our doorstep. That can be reduced by proper oil-reception facilities, but not when oil is conveyed to single-buoy moorings, which may be a widespread practice. The provision of separate tanks for unpolluted ballast will significantly reduce the cost of expensive oil-reception facilities.
As I undertand it, segregated ballast tanks are supported by the United States, Sweden, Norway, Greece, Cyprus, France and all the Arab States, with the United States and Kuwait making it clear that they will be prepared to take unilateral measures if necessary. Counsellor Gunnar Boos of the Nordic Union, which is a body similar to ACOPS and affiliated to us, has today informed me that the Nordic Union for the Prevention of Oil Pollution of the Sea is reinforcing the attitudes of its Governments through its national committees. I would ask Her Majesty's Government to consider very seriously the
348
benefits of converting ships to segregated ballast.
I am sorry to say that I find muddled and inadequate the thinking behind the Departmental presentation now; and, if I may say so, there is an inconsistency in the Government's own position. The basic inconsistency is that the United Kingdom accepted segregated ballast for new tankers and are resisting it as a conversion measure when it seems to me that this is the most advantageous time to do it. There is a large tanker surplus. There is crisis in our own shipbuilding industry and, indeed, in the whole world shipbuilding industry. Our shipyards, if it came to this kind of conversion, would get a fair percentage of the United Kingdom fleet conversion—which is 11 per cent. of the world tonnage—and would also get, because they are very competitive, a considerable percentage from other flag States.
OECD have estimated that the conversion of the whole world fleet would mean 90 million man-hours. I say as a conservative estimate that the United Kingdom could pick up 10 per cent. of that world tanker fleet conversion; and that would mean 9 million man-hours or 4,500 man-years. It is also going to prove useful because it will, in the circumstances we are talking about, advance the time for ordering new tankers. I hope that the Department of Employment and the Department of Social Security have been apprised of these important facts. Whatever it costs, even if it comes to the question of subsidies, the fact that we are going over to this type of conversion can greatly help the economy of this country.
We ought also to recognise the political realities. I want to say that I do not regard the United States attitude as the "big clout" but as implementing President Carter's concern for the environment. If other countries—and particularly the ones I have mentioned—by national legislation close their ports to ships which are not equipped with segregated ballast, it will embarrass the United Kingdom as an oil exporter and the United Kingdom will also become the focus for those tankers without segregated ballast which are excluded from parts of the United States and elsewhere.
There are some specific questions that I should like the Minister to answer; and I have given him notice. If the segregated

349
ballast tankers became a requirement for existing tankers as a result of the diplomatic conference, have Her Majesty's Government considered what proportion of the conversions to British flag tankers and to other flag tankers could be done by British shipbuilders? At what price could the conversions be made, involving how many man-hours, and with what reduction of unemployment and savings in public expenditure on social security payments and in other ways? Which Departments and which interest groups were consulted in the formulation of British policy for the February conference? Have the Government considered the implications for the United Kingdom tanker fleet of the move announced by the United States and by the Arab oil exporting countries if they introduce segregated ballast tank regulations for existing ships unilaterally, if the conference fails to do so multilaterally? Have the cost benefits of segregated ballast tankers been considered in relation to the expensive oil-reception facilities which the United Kingdom will have to provide as an oil exporting State, to deal with waste disposal?
My Lords, I am finished. I hope that we are going to re-think, or to think again, or to think forward to that conference with a good deal of imagination and with a little less narrow-mindedness; and I hope that Her Majesty's Government are not going to throw the baby out with the bilge water. I beg to move for Papers.
3.13 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I think that we would all wish to thank and congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, for raising this subject today in this Motion and for the very clear introduction he has given to the debate in his speech. He is, as he has told us, the chairman of the Advisory Committee on Oil Pollution of the Sea, and in that capacity he brings great knowledge and profound concern for the protection of the environment. He has also raised this subject at an appropriate moment before the conference next month in London of the Inter-Governmental Maritime Consultative Organisation (IMCO). It will be concentrating, as he pointed out, on the question of the rules for tankers concerning the pollution of the sea in an operational sense; that is to say, deliberately. That will be the main
350
point although it will, no doubt, be considering other matters, which are less controversial, to avoid accidents and other ways of causing pollution which are not deliberate.
Britain will be greatly affected by whatever decisions are taken at that conference; first, because we have a coastline which is very vulnerable to oil pollution, with a great deal of traffic of tankers through waters near our coast and with a rapidly-developing, new offshore oil industry. But we should be concerned also because of the vital interests of our shipping industry which could be affected by these decisions.
I must again declare an interest as a part-time consultant to the oil industry; and there is another position to which the noble Lord has already referred and which I am proud to occupy and that is vice-president of the Advisory Committee on Oil Pollution of the Sea.
The proposals before the conference, as the noble Lord has reminded us, arise from an initiative taken by the United States. Because over the past two or three years they have had some serious pollution incidents around their shores, the U.S. Government have put these proposals to the world. They have been considered over the last nine months and now are coming to the international organisation which is appropriate to consider them. Everyone who is concerned with keeping the seas clean welcomes this conference and the consideration of the proposals. It is clear that most of them will be generally agreed. But there is this one very important issue which divides the countries who are attending in the attitudes that they hold at the moment. That is the question of new rules for tankers, affecting their construction and their methods of operation.
Oil pollution comes mainly from two sources: first, from accidents, collisions, wrecks or spills; and, secondly, from the operational discharges of oil where tanks are washed out or where, for some other reason connected with the duties of the tanker, oil is deliberately released into the sea. The operational source is a great deal more significant than the accidental source. Accidents are inclined to be sensational and also the pollution is concentrated at areas where they happen. But there is estimated to be about five

351
times more oil released into the sea through the operational methods of tankers than is normally found in slicks as a result of accidents.
The issue, therefore, before the conference is how the operational side can be controlled so as to reduce, and, if possible, eliminate, this pollution. I would remind your Lordships that sea water is used as ballast and that the ballast is usually emptied on approach to a port or terminal. The water discharged into the sea, unless special measures have been taken, usually contains oil residues from the last cargo carried. There are three systems which are under consideration, and in use in different degrees at present, to prevent or reduce operational pollution. They are—and I must burden the House with some initials—the load on top, LOT; crude oil washing, COW; and segregation of ballast tanks, SBT; which the noble Lord spoke of and described in some detail.
The load on top system operates on the principle of oil and water being separated during the course of a voyage. The oily water is collected in a slop tank and can be disposed of later and not emptied into the sea. I understand that the 1969 amendments to the relevant convention have very recently come into effect, and they require this method to be used in certain circumstances. But it cannot be effective on short voyages such as, for example, from one side of the North Sea to the other. Nor is it effective in rough weather.
The crude oil washing system—COW—requires special washing machines and the jets from their nozzles use the cargo itself—that is, the crude oil which is being carried—while it is being unloaded at its destination, to clear away sediment and impurities in the tanks. In this way water is not used at all. Of course the oil companies then have the task of separating off, if they want to, the impurities and sediments; but then the crude oil has to be processed and refined in any case by the companies. I should add that there is a safety requirement that this method must be carried out in an inert gas system to ensure that there is no explosive mixture present.
The noble Lord particularly advocated to us the segregated ballast tanks—SBT—system. Here oil and water are in
352
separate tanks throughout. This is indisputably the most effective system. The 1973 Convention provided that when that Convention enters into force all new tankers over 70,000 tons should have this system. So there has been agreement upon that already. The present American proposals are that all vessels, including ones already built and in use, over 20,000 tons should now be adapted to use this system. The difficulty is that it is exceedingly expensive to adapt vessels that are already built or in operation. In addition, 15 per cent. of the cargo capacity is lost so that the vessel is then operating with reduced cargoes.
We have to ask: Is it really necessary to go that far? Is the crude oil washing system almost as effective? If so, is it necessary to incur the dramatic costs which the SBT system would entail? I am told that the cost of adapting for the SBT system would be about eight times more than for conversion to the COW system. Have the Government an authoritative comparison? It of course makes a great difference if it is going to be eight times, or of that order, more expensive to adapt tankers to the SBT system than for conversion to the COW system.
Then of course there is the question of the extra costs of losing 15 per cent. of the cargo. I do not believe that at present that poses a quantity problem, because so many tankers are laid up, and some of them could be brought into use. But because the expense seems so prohibitive, I understand that the British shipping industry favour the COW system for tankers which are already built. They consider that there is little difference regarding the effect. But if there was very little difference in cost, those who were concerned primarily with guarding against pollution—and, I am sure, everyone else concerned with preventing pollution—would adopt the segregated ballast tanks system, as the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, has told us. There is no doubt about that. But there is here a real dilemma as to what decisions should be taken on these systems arising from the very high costs of the conversion to that system.
The United Kingdom shipping industry, as distinct from the shipbuilding industry, is a large and thriving one. I am very

353
glad to see that my noble friend Lord Inchcape and the noble Lord, Lord Inverforth, are to take part in this debate today, speaking as they do from great experience of the industry. I will simply say something about its size and value to this country. It can be measured of course in different ways. In the year 1976 the number of vessels registered as British made us third in the world league table. There are not many world industry league tables in which we are as high as that. I should mention that one of those ahead of us in that year was Liberia; and it can definitely be said that the United Kingdom is not a country with a flag of convenience.
Measured another way, I should point out that in the same year, 1976, the United Kingdom shipping industry earned a net surplus of about £1,000 million in invisible exports. The views of this large and successful British industry must be carefully considered, and its interests protected. There are negotiations ahead in which the Government will be engaged. I do not ask the noble Lord, Lord Oram, to display any cards today, beforehand, which the Government will need to have in reserve; but we would welcome the Government's assessment of the issue which has been outlined. In improving safeguards against oil pollution, is it really necessary to go so far or as expensively as the Americans are now suggesting?
Then there is the point that if the IMCO conference does not make SBT compulsory for vessels over 20,000 tons, the United States of America may, none the less, pass their own domestic legislation and so restrict the entry of tankers into their own waters to those which have the SBT system. No doubt the Government will consider that possibility as part of their preparation for the conference. It may be that they would not wish to say anything today about what they would do in those circumstances; but it certainly must be taken into account.
I should like to end by saying a few words on oil pollution arising from accidents and navigational hazards. Charting of sea routes round our own coasts is still incomplete. The hydro-graphic surveys needed are being held up by a lack of resources. This has been discussed in this House before now, and in order to obviate the dangers of large
354
tankers being holed it is important to press ahead with the programme. There are also opportunities abroad for similar services and the United Kingdom has been invited to provide the resources; and indeed can earn income from so doing.
This week I received a letter, in reply to one of mine, from the Secretary of State for Energy, Mr. Benn, in which he said that, although the Department has been contributing to the hydrographic surveys for the year 1977–78, they could not now go beyond that because they could not see further needs related to energy. I entirely understand that point. I would remind the Government that there are several other Departments involved and that it is an internal Government matter how the necessary money should be raised.
I hope that this kind of surveying will not go by default simply because of internal arguments about how the money should be raised. I know that other speakers are going to dwell on the question of hydrographic surveys, so I will not say more than that. I look forward to hearing a statement from the Government today which is being made possible at an appropriate moment before the IMCO conference, thanks to the initiative which has been taken by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder.
3.30 p.m.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, even in a short debate like this I hope I may be allowed to spend a minute in joining with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, in offering our thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, for bringing this very important matter to the notice of the House. The noble Lord has such a wide knowledge of the subject and such a deep interest in it that we always listen with great attention to anything he has to say. This is not, of course, a Party matter and I would not wish any noble Lord to think that, because I have been put down, in this position on the list and am speaking from these Benches, I am necessarily reflecting the views of my noble friends. We shall find out later on whether they agree with me.
Since the oceans cover more than half the surface of this planet, it is self-evident that any permanent damage to the marine environment, from whatever cause could

355
have catastrophic effects. I am sure that we all join in wanting to reduce, so far as is practicable, any pollution caused by the discharge of oil into the sea. I think I can safely start from that common ground. Of course, the Motion is rather wider because it refers to other forms of pollution from tankers, and that, I suppose, includes chemical tankers; but that is a very difficult question on which I would not venture to speak to your Lordships. It is certainly a much smaller problem at present than that relating to oil discharges.
The first point I want to make is simply this. If all the oil now released into the sea, which is estimated at 6 million tons a year, could be evenly spread over the whole of the ocean, no real problem would be created. Oil is biodegradable in sea water: indeed, if it were not, the oil from natural seepage, which is estimated at 600,000 tons a year and which has been going on probably for millions of years, would obviously by now have swamped the oceans. The real problem we have to face is that of large oil discharges in one place—at least, that is most of the problem we have to face—and I feel myself that what we want the conference to do is to look at how to protect the sea from these major discharges and how to mitigate such effects as arise. Such major discharges may arise in the course of operating under-sea oilfields, as a result of collisions or of the strandings of tankers. Indeed, some problems can arise from the collisions and strandings of non-tankers, which may release bunker fuel.
Such happenings, in the nature of things, occur relatively close to land and consequently their effects are much greater than would be the case if they happened in the middle of the ocean. So although the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, and I think also the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said that a far greater proportion of the incidents arose from tank washings and the like than from those major incidents, I would suspect that really far more damage is done from the major incidents than from tank washings. Indeed, we have been reminded that our friends across the Atlantic, the United States, have taken the initiative in the light of alarming incidents that have occurred in recent years; and I suspect that those alarming incidents were all related to strandings and collisions and
356
have nothing at all to do with tank washings. I shall come back to those later, but I want just to make the point that the most serious incidence of damage arising from the spillage of oil comes from these major spills, and it is to that field that I hope the conference will devote a great deal of time.
As regards safety measures on oil rigs, obviously it is of major importance that everything possible should be done. We are rather new in this field and are still learning—I am afraid we may be learning for some years—by experience. But I would hope that a tremendous amount of effort is being put by the Government into research into the various methods of protecting the oil rigs from the risks of blow-outs and the loss of a lot of oil into the sea.
So far as collisions are concerned, we know of traffic regulation schemes in narrow waters, and in particular the scheme now operating in the Strait of Dover. I wonder whether I might ask the noble Lord who is to reply whether that scheme has been running long enough for any estimate to be made of its effectiveness, because it seems to me that it should reduce substantially the risks of collisions and therefore, in due course, the happening of collisions. If that is borne out by the facts, there is a great deal to be said for making similar arrangements in other parts of the world where there is a concentration of shipping in narrow waters. Perhaps the noble Lord could also tell us whether anything of this kind is being done on the East Coast of the United States, where we know there have been some unfortunate accidents.
In addition, of course, we support strongly—and indeed, I am sure that everyone in this House would support strongly—the proposal that navigational aids in ships should be kept up to the best possible level, as also should the training of crews, to which the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, referred. The standards of navigation in the British Fleet are, I believe, as high as they have ever been and the Fleet generally is well supplied with navigational aids; but it is true that from time to time one hears of such aids which are not adequately utilised.
I do not think we can hope to avoid occasional major spills arising from these

357
conditions, and the next step is to contain as far as practicable the oil which is released into the sea. Here again a great deal has been done, but I believe there is much more still to be done. Your Lordships will remember that at the time of the "Torrey Canyon" accident it was thought that a lot could be done by dispersing the oil by means of certain chemicals, but it was later discovered that those dispersants did more harm to the environment than the oil they were meant to disperse. I am sure that a great deal of further research is needed in this field. I have heard tell of some experiments of chemicals being added to crude oil and, I think, to furnace oil as well, which have had the effect of solidifying the products. The solid matter is lighter than water, so that it floats upon the surface. I would have thought it would be worthwhile pursuing vigorously any idea of that kind because I cannot think of any more effective way of collecting together at any rate a moderate-sized oil spill.
I have said all this because it seems to me that reducing the likelihood of major spills and dealing with them when they arise is really much more important than any discussion about tank washings. But of course that does not mean that tank washings are unimportant. I shall leave it to the noble Lords who are familiar with the shipping industry to explain their attitudes about these matters, but I must say it does not seem to me altogether reasonable to require the fitting of segregated ballast systems in existing ships. After all, it is not so very long ago-1973, when the Convention was being negotiated—that it was agreed this provision should apply to new ships. I am not clear that anything has happened in the last four years to make us want to change that. Again, we hear about the experience in the United States, but we do not know—or at least I do not know—whether the experience in the United States has any relationship with tank washing. No doubt, the question whether crude oil washing is as good or nearly as good as the separate segregated ballast tanks is a technical matter on which I am not qualified to speak. But it seems that it must be nearly as good and, considering the enormous difference in cost, I should have thought that there was a case for studying this very carefully. Perhaps we shall hear from the noble Lord, Lord Oram, what view the Government take.
358
I think we can understand the impatience of the United States. International agreement is always slow to get and we ourselves are sometimes rather impatient. I would suggest to your Lordships that the more exacting the requirements the more difficult and the slower it is to get international agreement, so that I wonder whether it is wise, even from the point of view of the United States itself, to press for segregated ballast tanks to be fitted in existing ships.
I want to say just one word about the argument on unemployment. Of course it is attractive to think that one can do something which will give employment to the shipbuilding industry at this difficult time, but surely we ought not to decide our policy on what is just a short-term position. If I heard aright, the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, said that this might bring forward orders for new tankers. I confess I do not follow that. I should have thought that, if anybody had to pay £400,000 or £900,000 to put segregated ballast into an old tanker, he would not immediately start building a new one. He would want to get full value out of the old tanker. We must remember that very few ships with segregated ballast have yet been built and that if the others are going to be taken away we will have an acute shortage for a time.
With great diffidence I find myself not in full agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, whom I usually regard as my prophet in these matters. But we shall hear from the Government shortly what attitude they take and I look forward to that with keen anticipation.
3.43 p.m.
Lord INVERFORTH: My Lords, I am glad to participate in this debate and would compliment the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, on the expert way in which he has introduced this complex topic. I am afraid that I may not be able to agree with everything he said, but that may help to roll the debate along. I must declare a partial interest. I am chairman of the Bank Line. Although my company has no tankers in its fleet at the present moment, and is not directly affected by most of the issues to be discussed at the forthcoming IMCO Conference, developments in one sector

359
of the shipping industry inevitably have some effect on other sections, and in common with other non-tanker owner members of the General Council of British Shipping, I have been taking an active interest in the recent discussions at IMCO in preparation for the conference.
I should like first to comment about the nature of the shipping industry and the importance which British owners attach to the work of IMCO. It has often been said that shipping is international. Most ships need the flexibility to be able to trade freely wherever in the world there is a demand for them. This in turn means that regulations affecting the design and construction of vessels must be such that ships which meet accepted international standards are regarded as satisfactory wherever they trade. IMCO—the only United Nations agency based in London—is the body which determines these international standards. It is a most dedicated and efficient organisation.
In recent years, the United States has developed a tendency to adopt standards which exceed or differ from those agreed by IMCO, not only for its own ships but also for foreign vessels trading in its waters. There was very real concern that this trend would increase after the deplorable series of tanker accidents off the coast of the United States last winter. It was a source of considerable relief to the industry—and indeed to maritime Governments—when President Carter announced last March that he intended to put forward proposals for discussion at IMCO aimed at improving tanker safety and preventing pollution.

In presenting details of these proposals to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, the United States Secretary of Transportation, Mr. Brock Adams, specifically said:
"We will urge that IMCO move forward on these measures, so that the United States will not find it necessary to take independent action".
IMCO has certainly taken this request to heart. In the space of 11 months, a remarkably short time in the field of international negotiations, a whole series of preliminary meetings has been fitted into an already crowded schedule and the
360
conference opens in ten days' time with a view to adopting these regulations.
The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, has mentioned some of the United States proposals—carriage of second radar, et cetera—and I do not think I need dwell on those. But I must talk, if I may, about the most important and controversial one and the only one which I need deal with in detail. This is the proposal that all tankers of 20,000 deadweight tonnes and above should be fitted with segregated ballast. The purpose of this proposal is to ensure that, under normal circumstances, no ballast water—which tankers need to make them seaworthy—is put into dirty tanks which have previously been used for oil cargo. This is a sound environmental principle, and there are already regulations which are fully supported by British tanker owners to require new tankers to be so constructed. What is at issue, however, as we heard earlier, is whether the existing world tanker fleet should be converted to meet these same requirements.
Conversion of ships to segregated ballast is extremely expensive. There is no dispute about that. In the United Kingdom, we have calculated that the cost of converting our fleet of some 110 large tankers would be in the region of £150 million—an average of over £1 million per ship. Furthermore, one has to sacrifice a certain number of the tanks at present used for the carriage of oil. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said that it would be 15 per cent. My figures suggest that 15 to 18 per cent. would be needed for this. Segregated ballast is therefore a very expensive way of achieving an undoubtedly real but limited environmental advantage. In the United Kingdom we have already been gaining experience with a method of achieving the same environmental benefit at a much lower cost by crude oil washing. This is a technique developed by the oil companies whereby cargo tanks are cleaned of their residues by using the oil being discharged. This has the effect of cleaning tanks extremely efficiently and, coupled with the procedure already operated by the tanker industry for some years and known as "load-on-top" which has already been referred to, means that the possibility of oil discharge into the sea from tank cleansing operations is greatly minimised.

361
The British Government, with the full support of the tanker industry, have taken the lead in promoting the idea that, for existing tankers, crude oil washing should be regarded as a fully acceptable alternative to segregated ballast, in the firm belief that it will achieve equivalent environmental benefits at a fraction of the cost. I feel that we can all take justifiable pride in this highly practical and positive initiative, which our Government have proposed. It is estimated that to equip the entire British fleet for crude oil washing—and many British ships are already using this technique—would cost around £15 million to £20 million; in other words, perhaps one-tenth of the cost of conversion to segregated ballast.
It is tempting to assume that the cheaper something is, the more inferior it must be. Furthermore, there is a natural tendency to believe that measures which an industry has adopted of its own volition are deficient in some respects. All industries have interests to protect, and it is right that they should. In the case of crude oil washing, the British tanker fleet owners have a firm commitment to it, convinced that it is unnecessary and unwise to demand an expensive solution such as segregated ballast, when a much cheaper one will have an equivalent environmental effect. It is surely in the interest not only of the United Kingdom to avoid the waste of resources, but indeed, of all countries including, especially, the developing countries.
Yet despite the belief of British tanker owners in crude oil washing, perhaps our greatest concern is to achieve some international agreement which will really work. Whatever the outcome of the conference next month, we hope that Governments will be prepared to accept the majority view and will then return home intent on adopting the new measures as soon as practicable. The United States claim, with some justification, that the reason why they have so often introduced their own rules is that the internationally agreed rules take so long to come into effect. I would emphasise that such delays are in no way the fault of IMCO which achieves excellent results in securing international agreement to adopt approved standards. It is the very slow pace at which the necessary number of Member Governments—including, quite frequently,
362
the USA—ratify these agreements that causes the delay. We must all hope that there will be an improvement in this field, and I am sure that our own Government will not be found wanting in giving us their customary lead.
I would only add that United Kingdom owners are very conscious that, in taking measures to safefuard the environment and to increase the safe operation of ships, it is essential to take into account the human element. Ships must be manned by competent crews, operating under systems designed to avoid operational errors. I would draw your Lordships' attention to the Convention of Minimum Standards in Merchant Ships, unanimously adopted at the 1976 International Labour Organisation Maritime Conference, and the Convention on Standards of Training and Watchkeeping, to be formulated at a diplomatic conference in London in June or July 1978. United Kingdom owners have undertaken to comply with the former, and fully support the 1978 endeavour. I apologise for detaining your Lordships so long. Thank you very much for listening to my remarks.

THERMAL REACTOR POLICY
3.53 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy, about nuclear reactors for the British power programme.
The Statement is as follows:
"The House will recall that on 28th June 1976 I announced that I was taking stock of progress with the SGHWR programme at the suggestion of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority. Since then we have carried out a thorough review of thermal reactor policy. The National Nuclear Corporation have submitted their comparative assessment of thermal reactor systems, which has been made available to the House. The Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) have given their advice on the generic safety issues of the PWR, which has also been made available to the House. There has been extensive consultation with all the main

363
parties. It is the unanimous advice of all concerned that in the changed circumstances of today the SGHWR should not be adopted for the next power station orders. The Government have accordingly decided that it would be right to discontinue work on the SGHWR.
"The Government agree with the Electriciy Supply Boards that two early nuclear orders are needed and that these must be AGRs. The Government have therefore decided to authorise the CEGB and SSEB to begin work at once with a view to ordering one AGR station each as soon as possible. This decision will enable our nuclear industry to build on our extensive experience of gas-cooled technology. The generating boards have already begun to accumulate operating experience with the AGRs which have so far been commissioned. The completion of the remaining stations in the existing AGR programme and the successful construction of the next AGR orders will be the first priority in our thermal nuclear programme.
"The Government also consider, having regard to the importance of nuclear power and present knowledge of the different systems, that the United Kingdom's thermal reactor strategy should not at this stage be dependent upon an exclusive commitment to any one reactor system, and that in addition to the AGR we must develop the option of adopting the PWR system in the early 1980s. This view is also supported by the electricity supply industry.
"The electricity supply industry have indicated that, to establish the PWR as a valid option, they wish to declare an intention that, provided design work is satisfactorily completed and all necessary Government and other consents and safety clearances have been obtained, they will order a PWR station. They do not consider that a start on site could be made before 1982. This intention, which does not call for an immediate order or a Letter of Intent at the present time, is endorsed by the Government. All future orders beyond those which I have indicated today will be a matter for decision at the appropriate time. Our aim is to
364
establish a flexible strategy for the United Kingdom nuclear power programme in the light of developing circumstances. We believe that these decisions will do so".
3.56 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, we thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for having repeated the Statement made in another place, and from this Bench we welcome the fact that decisions are now being taken. Delays and uncertainty have not been helpful to the British nuclear industry, but, at the same time, I acknowledge that decisions in this field which prove to be wrong could be immensely expensive for the country.
As expected, the Government's choice lies between the British advanced gas-cooled reactor, the AGR, and the American designed pressurised water reactor, the PWR, and this Statement tells us that two more AGRs are now definitely authorised. As regards the PWR, the Statement seems carefully worded and, apparently, not a firm commitment to an order. There is an intention supported by the Government, but no formal document; and a start on a PWR is at least five years away —1982.
I have four short questions to put to the noble Lord. First, are the Government completely satisfied as regards safety after the nuclear inspectorate's advice has been given, and the improvements which they suggested considered? Secondly, are the Government sure that the British electricity supply industry will have full access to the Westinghouse technology which will be needed in preparations, if the commitment is no more than this formal statement of intention that we have heard today? Thirdly, can the British supply industry proceed now on their preparations for a PWR, on the assumption that this is a decision of policy by the Government, or are there significant stages later where Government consents—and this Statement refers to Government consents could have the effect of vetoing an order? Fourthly, do today's announcements have any effect on the choice of a further generation of reactors; that is to say, between the fast breeder reactor and an alternative?
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we also welcome

365
the Statement, although we do not agree with the criticism expressed by the noble Lord on the Conservative Front Bench that there has been undue delay and uncertainty. We believe that such delays as have occurred were the inevitable product of over-ordering in the early 1960s, about which the present Government could do nothing. Is the noble Lord aware that we indicated to the Secretary of State that we believed that an order for advanced gas-cooled reactors would become necessary, but we are anxious that there should be a full examination of this system, such as there has been with the pressurised water reactor? For the assurance of the public regarding the safety of the system, we believe that some kind of public examination ought to be conducted before these orders are put into effect.
One of the reasons why the advanced gas-cooled reactors turned out to be a relatively expensive system was that, in the previous series of orders, every single station was different. I am wondering whether or not it would be possible for the CEGB and the SSEB to get together to decide jointly on placing orders for the same design so that at least some benefits from replication could be obtained in this limited programme. Secondly, the Statement speaks about "extensive experience of gas-cooled technology". Would not the logical development, therefore, be to go from the advanced gas-cooled reactor to the high temperature reactor rather than to go backwards to a design which, originally at least, is 20 years old? Can the noble Lord say what is the policy of the Government regarding the further development of gas-cooled systems?
Finally, why is it necessary—here I should like to reinforce the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy—for the electricity supply industry to declare its intention of ordering a PWR station? Does this stated intention have any contractual implications for the generating board? If it does not, then what is the point of making this statement? Is it not possible that, as we gain further experience from operating the AGRs which are now being completed and constructing the two further stations now being ordered, we shall decide that it is commercially sensible to continue with
366
that line of development rather than to go for a totally new system which would be unfamiliar to the electricity supply organisations? Is this just a way of placating Sir Arnold Weinstock? Bearing in mind that the CEGB sought and obtained a subsidy for placing an order for Drax "B" prior to the date upon which it considered that it was commercially necessary, have the Government entered into any consultations with the CEGB and the SSEB regarding the possible compensation that they may seek for placing orders for two AGRs in the near future?
4.2 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, on behalf of the Government may I acknowledge the welcome which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, have given to the policy Statement which I have just read to your Lordships' House. If I may deal first with the four points which were put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, I can confirm, first, that the NII have indeed examined most carefully the safety aspects to which he alluded, and the Government are advised that the generic levels are acceptable. Secondly, I can confirm that access to Westinghouse-type technology will be available. Thirdly, I can confirm that the electricity supply industry is now in a position to consider further involvement in the new development. Fourthly, I can say that the policy intention of the Government is to develop a flexible strategy. I think that that can be taken into account as we continue to examine the choices open to us in the future.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, posed a number of points. If I may deal first with his third point, I shall have carefully to examine what he has said to me regarding contractual obligations. I shall do that with my advisers and will then communicate with the noble Lord. If I may return to the noble Lord's more general point, I can say that the PWR is now the most widely adopted system in the world—as, of course, he well knows. By keeping our options open, we avoid shutting ourselves off from the mainstream of world technology. As I have just said, it is, in the Government's view, a flexible strategy. None of the courses open to the Government is risk-free; there are inevitable uncertainties, given our present knowledge of the different systems. However,

367
it has been established additionally during consultations that a serious intent to order will be adequate to activate assistance from an overseas licensor. As regards the question which the noble Lord put to me on compensation, at this stage I consider this to be a commercial matter. I do not think I can go beyond affirming that statement.
The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, when I last intervened on a Statement of this kind I said that I thought that the choice of the SGHWR was the least bad that could be made in the circumstances. The AGR was having teething troubles while the PWR was under a cloud in relation to its safety. Now I should like to ask Her Majesty's Government the following points about the Statement that they have made. First, are the Government reconciled to the fact that if we have a PWR—I believe the Minister said in 1982 or 1983—it commits us to £35 million worth of imports for a high pressure vessel that we cannot manufacture in this country? As an alternative, would it not be possible to give the SGHWR a further lease of life? Would it not be possible to order an SGHWR for 1982 or 1983 and to postpone the PWR until later? We have put a tremendous amount of good development work into the SGHWR. It has many points in common with the CANDU system that the Canadians have developed. It seems to me to be a thousand pities to abandon it and then to commit ourselves to £35 million worth of imports.
I should also like to ask whether the Minister is reconciled to the dismissal of certain comments which have been made lately in the technical Press? I shall not take responsibility for their accuracy, and I repeat only what I have read: that the SGHWR and some other reactors, but not the PWR, offer the prospect of a slow breeder reactor, and that in abandoning everything and going on to the PWR we are abandoning that possible opportunity. Lastly, may I ask the Minister what Statement will be made, and when, regarding the decision about a commercial fast breeder reactor? That should be one of the most important points of all. If the Minister could answer those questions I should be grateful.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, the Government have acted on the basis of the unanimous advice that was given to them by the parties concerned and by the parties consulted. I can also say that the mode and level of consultation have been made quite open to Members of both Houses. As to when the Government will make a Statement about the fast breeder reactor, I will take advice and let the noble Earl know.
Lord HANKEY: My Lords, are the Government aware that a great many people in industry and outside will welcome the fact that the Government have at last begun to take effective decisions? May I ask the Government whether they can give an answer to the important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury; namely, that one of the reasons why our reactor programmes have run into trouble has been that we always have better ideas half-way through ordering a reactor, as a result of which changes are made in the specification, thus making everything more expensive and running us into technical difficulties? May we take it that the two AGRs now on order will be to a similar design and to precise specifications which will not be altered during the run-up to their complete production and going critical?
Further, will the Government kindly consider that a decision is now urgently needed on the fast breeder reactors? The more of these thermal reactors that we have, the more important it is that the by-product of Uranium 238 which they produce should be effectively used in fast breeder reactors. This would completely change the economic aspect of reactor power production. The more AGRs and thermal reactors that we have, the more important it is that a decision should be taken on the fast breeder reactor. If there are safety factors to be considered—and I willingly accept that there are—would it not be as well to put pressure immediately on the scientists who are working on the disposal of fast breeder by-products, to make sure that a safe and viable system is elaborated as soon as possible?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I can confirm that the two AGRs for the CEGB and the SSEB will be to the same design.

369
As to the other very relevant points which the noble Lord has just mentioned, some are of a technical nature. My competency to deal with them adequately is somewhat restricted, but I will certainly ensure that the noble Lord's words are passed on to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy.
Lord THOMAS: My Lords, as a modest energy-consuming taxpayer, I should like to say how much I welcome this discussion and the decisions that have been made. By keeping both the options open the technical development will be satisfied; and in relation to what the last speaker has said I am glad that it has been realised that the ideal is always the enemy of the good. If we start making changes in design midway in production, we shall get nowhere. The decision made by the Government is most welcome and should be good commercial practice.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, I should like to ask my noble friend whether he is aware that it fell to me as the then Minister to announce our acceptance of the AGR some 12 years ago. We then considered that we should have a greater safety margin and that also the economic performance of the AGR would be superior to the American reactor. Can my noble friend say that the suspicions about the safety factor of the American reactor have nevertheless not prohibited their success in the export markets? Can he say whether we are now likely—the decision having been taken—to put far greater and more successful effort into the export markets for our own techniques than has been the case in the past?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I can confirm that the decision just announced by the Government is based on as flexible a policy of competing options as possible. The question as to whether or not this will lead to an extra initiative in matters of export, I would have to consider with some discretion. Certainly on that point I will seek advice from experts and will let my noble friend have an opinion.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, while congratulating the Government on the decision they have reached in this restricted field of the nuclear reactor, I should like to ask my noble friend
370
whether this decision rules out the possibility of any fresh coal-fired station being built within the next 10 years?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, that is a point which. I will examine carefully and I will reply in writing to my noble friend.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I think we have had a very good run on this question, if I may say so with respect, and I think my noble friend has been generous with his answers on a very technical subject. It may be the wish of the House that after 20 minutes we should return to the debate.

TANKER SAFETY AND POLLUTION PREVENTION
4.13 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, if it is your wish that we should go back to sea, I will not take up your Lordships' time by saying anything more at all about the methods of tanker loading and tank washing. The case has been put with unexampled clarity and differing degrees of force by my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder and by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, and the Government will let us know at the end of the debate as much as they can about what they intend to do. I will confine myself to the question of accidents because it is obvious that however well-built a ship is or however well-managed, if that ship runs aground in a serious manner there will be an oil spill.
What is the world picture at the moment? I should like to start by telling your Lordships a story. Indeed I Want to give several examples. On 26th October last year the Russian tanker "Tsesis" grounded in the Stockholm archipelago and spilled 1,600 tons of oil. When the Swedish authorities said that they would demand compensation for pollution damage the owners of the vessel—that is, the Soviet State—said that, on the contrary, they would claim damages from Sweden since the tanker had run aground because they were using incorrect or out-of-date Swedish charts. That is worth thinking about, is it not? If this can happen in Sweden, it can happen in Britain or in any country of the world.

371
It is a fact that less than 25 per cent. of the British Continental Shelf has been surveyed by what were regarded as modern methods in 1974. Methods have been improved even since 1974, so that figure would now be lower. The reason for this is quite easy to understand; it is that, until the other day, in terms of marine history, ships drew 30ft. and that was the maximum. Consequently, whenever you did not get a sounding at about 40ft. you did not bother; it was deep enough for everybody, and so you went on quickly to the next place where you were getting soundings of less than 40 feet. That is the old fashioned method. But now as we all know the super-tankers have draughts of anything up to 75ft., and for safety's sake one should call that 85 ft. for a laden ship. That old 40ft. rule will not work and one needs to have a 100 ft. rule. This has not been applied except in a few special areas. Moreover, we are towing platforms around the seas which draw up to 250ft. Yet another floor comes in. We ought to know depths down to this. We know that even less than we know the 80ft. floor.
Moreover, the places of disposal of toxic waste, including nuclear waste, are not marked on the charts. I will tell another little story. In a recent survey undertaken by H.M.S. "Bulldog" of 200 square miles between Dungeness and Dover—a well travelled area if ever there was one—it was thought that there were 180 wrecks, but they found 550 sea bed contacts which were probably wrecks; of that 550, 60 were definitely proved to be hitherto unknown wrecks, many of them with less than 70ft. of water over them. That was in a tiny area. There are 14,000 known wrecks on the United Kingdom Continental Shelf. In the case of 12,500 of them the least depth is not known and the exact position of 11,000 is not known. If the "Bulldog" survey is a statistically valid sample—I do not know whether or not it is—in order to get the probable total number of wrecks on the United Kingdom Continental Shelf we must multiply 14,000 by about three to get the proportion of 550 to 180. As one can immediately see, this will bring us to between 40,000 and 45,000 wrecks.
The other day in the St. George's Channel H.M.S. "Fawn" found a bank more
372
than half a mile across with depths of 69 feet (that is within the danger area for very large tankers) where the chart indicated a smooth sea bed of a depth of 165 feet. This was because the chart was based on a survey carried out in 1843 by a sailing ship taking hand-lead soundings along tracks one mile apart. Already recently a draft traffic separation scheme for keeping shipping lanes apart in opposite directions off Norfolk was withdrawn when a proper survey of the sea bottom was made because it was found that it would have taken big ships into places where they would have grounded.
In June 1977 a merchant ship approaching the Humber with a draught of 40 feet passed over a bank with only 45 feet, whereas the 1911 survey had found 57 feet. Very little of this area, if indeed any, has been surveyed since the beginning of the First World War. Moreover, the Admiralty charts themselves by standard practice do not take account of what is known as "negative surge"; that is, in the Southern North Sea if you get a continued south-westerly gale at low spring tides the water goes to 4 feet below the theoretical lowest level it can go, and in extraordinary circumstances it may go as low below the lowest possible theoretical level as 7 feet. Some of the big ships are used to playing around with a margin of only seven feet under their hulls, even when they know where they are. Of course, when there is a catastrophic situation like a 7 foot negative surge a warning is given, but I think we all know that there are cases when warnings are not heard or are not heeded; it would be better to have everything set out on the chart correctly.
The Government are not unaware of these dangers. In 1975 they set up a Hydrographic Study Group, of mixed Government and industry people, which assessed the national task of surveying the highest priority areas around the United Kingdom; and it found it was going to take 36 ship-years to do what was reasonable, and right up to 1982, and 34 ship-years to do overseas interests, that is outside the United Kingdom shelf, which are of great interest to our shipping, by 1985. For that task it recommended a certain force of ships, with which I will not burden the House. That money was not

373
forthcoming. On the contrary, the Hydrographer, the head of the hydrographic department of the Royal Navy, was instructed—and I quote the Governments' words—
"to pay particular attention to the commercial potential of his service".
He therefore accepted a contract to survey the waters of the Iranian Government, which took away a lot of his ships for quite a large number of years. There is now talk of another Middle Eastern contract which the Hydrographer might be forced to accept because he has to "pay attention to his commercial potential". Therefore, there is no chance of reaching the target set down by the Hydrographic Study Group in 1975.
I think what has happend is probably this. The Navy itself, which is historically responsible for the Hydrographer, contrary to the general trend of shipping, uses smaller and smaller ships. They get less and less interested in the details of deep water, while the merchant shipping, and tankers especially, get more and more interested. Consequently it becomes harder and harder, with successive defence cuts, to defend the spending of defence money on charting. The main point I want to put to the Government is, should not other Departments contribute far more than they do? For one year only the Departments of Energy and Overseas Development contributed towards the running costs of ships identified in the Defence Review as surplus to strict defence requirements. That year is over and they are not going to do it again, and so the burden apparently falls back on the Navy and on no one else, on the Defence Vote. It seems to me that, unless a big change is made, things are going to go dangerously slowly in getting their charting up to date.
However you look at it, the situation is disquieting. There was a meeting at the United Nations of something called the Group of Experts on Hydrographic Surveying and Nautical Charting only last month, and this group took the trouble to tabulate the training given by different countries to their hydrographers and marine surveyors. The results are quite startling. The training provided in this country for our people, and indeed for others who wish to come and undergo it, is less than the training provided in the following countries: Argentina, Brazil, Canada, France, India, Japan, Turkey and
374
the United States. That is to say, it is less measured in the time of the courses available. We come at the bottom of that league table. This, for the country which more or less invented, in the 19th century, the healthy custom of having marine charts at all—reliable ones—is a startling figure.
There are certain questions I should like to put to my noble friend who is going to round off the debate, of which I have given him notice, and about which I hope, if good answers are not available now, they soon will be, so that we can get out of the very dangerous situation in which we now stand. This is the first question. When the Hydrographer is "paying particular attention to his commercial potential" he earns money, of course. He earns it in Iran, and he is earning some in Ghana. Whore does this money go? Is it ploughed back into his own department or is it just lost in the Consolidated Fund? The I ran contract was said to be worth £11 million. When calculating the income from that did the Government make any offset against that for the cost of delay in charting our own waters? The cost is the cost in groundings, temporary, standings, severe groundings, wrecks, pollutions.
Does the Department of Trade pay anything to the Hydrographer? The Department of Trade is the protolor and patron of all shipping, and it seems a natural channel for public money to go to this service. Recently Mr. Judd, in the House of Commons, reeled off a very long list of civilian Government Departments who use the services of the Hydrographer; it is just about all the Departments in Whitehall. Why should not they pay their bit?
I have some particular questions about what is surveyed and what is not. The Government are considering permitting the building of a gas gathering line in the North Sea; the total cost of the scheme is £3,000 million. Is the probable line of that gas gathering system properly surveyed, and, if not, would the cost of doing so be more than the smallest drop in the budget of £3,000 million? Does the 76 per cent. of our Continental Shelf which is not properly surveyed include designated shipping lanes, and, if so, how many of them? What is their length? Does it include traffic separation schemes? To put it another way, are areas where

375
shipping lanes are designated and traffic separation schemes set up getting the benefit of a special survey so as to put them ahead of the surrounding bits of the seabed? If not, I think they should.
Finally, I would say, as a general observation, that there has been some discussion in this country about what to do with the North Sea oil money. Can I put it to the Government, with all the force that I think the remark justifies, that the very first thing we should do with the North Sea oil money is to make the North Sea safe for oil?
4.28 p.m.
The Earl of INCHCAPE: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, for having initiated this important debate, and I welcome the opportunity of contributing briefly to it. First, I must declare an interest, as I am the chairman of a shipping company which owns and operates a number of tankers. My industry colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Inverforth, has spoken with eloquence and conviction on the problem of tanker safety and pollution, and I can support wholeheartedly every word he has said. The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has referred to hydrography and indeed has made many points which I also had intended to make, some of which I will repeat. Noble Lords may recall that the House was kind enough to give a fair hearing to my maiden speech on the subject of hydrography, which I had the honour to make on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, in December 1975.
During that debate a remarkable unanimity of opinion emerged regarding the need to ensure the continued provision of an adequate hydrographic service for implementing the recommendations of the Hydrographic Study Group which reported in March 1975. Unfortunately, the Government were unable to accept the study group's recommendation that they should, if possible, make the necessary finance available to enable the survey fleet to be expanded. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has said, Mr. Patrick Duffy, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Navy, made an announcement in another place on 12th October 1976 which included the following passage:
376
"It has been decided that the Royal Navy hydrographic fleet should be retained at its present size for the time being. During 1977–78, the Department of Energy and the Ministry of Overseas Development will contribute towards the running costs of the ships identified in the defence review as surplus to strict minimum defence requirements".
That statement, taking into account the financial difficulties at that time, went a considerable way towards meeting the wishes of those of us who had pressed the Government in debate. It would be ungracious of me if I failed to acknowledge that and express my appreciation.
In considering this important issue I had hoped to avoid being controversial. I am sure that all noble Lords, whatever their persuasion, would agree with me about this for what we are trying to achieve is the important objective of enhancing safety at sea. It has, therefore, been somewhat disappointing to learn, as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy has stated, that the Department of Energy is to make no contribution towards the cost of hydrographic work in the financial year 1978–79 and that, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has said, about a quarter of our existing hydro-graphic fleet has been deployed to carry out contract work in the Gulf for the Iranian Government.
I am well aware of the importance of the Gulf, and the need to ensure that ships can navigate with safety in that difficult area. I appreciate that the Department of Energy would not wish to pay for work in home waters which is not being done. Even so, the result has been to leave what must, I am sure, be generally agreed to be an inadequate survey force to continue the vital "non-defence" work still to be accomplished in our home waters. It may be recalled that there was an enormous backlog of "top-priority" work on our own doorstep as identified in the Hydro-graphic Study Group's report, whose recommendation reads as follows:
"The remaining ships of the Survey Fleet should be concentrated from 1st April 1976 on the programme of high-priority defence, neergy and shipping requirements in home waters".
The Department of Energy's requirement for "priority work" needed to survey the oilfield area east of the Shetlands was reflected in Paragraph 20 of the study group's report. However, that work, had, I understand, barely started when lack of resources caused it to stop.

377
The noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has referred to two recent and worrying cases which I shall not repeat but which have also been brought to my notice. However, I should like to say that I appreciate that these are two isolated cases, and, certainly as far as I am aware, there have been no recent occasions in home waters when a ship has struck an inaccurately charted obstacle. Moreover modern ships, by the proper and sensible use of their navigational instruments, especially the devices for measurement of depth of water, can usually navigate safely even in badly charted areas. However, the risk remains, and I am sure that all will agree that those two events which have been publicised are, to say the least, disquieting.
I am confident that shipowners, worldwide, will co-operate willingly in implementing any sensible and reasonable measures that the International Conference on Tanker Safety and Pollution Prevention may decide. However, first could we ask that all Governments discharge their prime responsibility to provide accurate and up-to-date charts necessary for the safe passage of our ships at sea?
Having said that, I fully recognise that Government funds are stretched and that the provision of the necessary resources for even such a worthwhile process could present difficulties. But I understand that an Ordnance Survey "once and for all" exercise to resurvey the land area of the United Kingdom, and to produce a new series of modern maps is, after 20 years, almost complete. Could not a similar project be considered by Her Majesty's Government in respect of the adjacent waters of the United Kingdom? That would serve to get matters up to date, apart from the continuing need for "check" surveys in unstable areas.
The provision of the necessary funds even for this could prove a difficulty, and I warmly support the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that the Government should consider using a small part of our oil revenues for this purpose. In that way we could support, in a most practical fashion, the requirements of our vital offshore and merchant shipping interests, and at the same time contribute significantly to measures to prevent pollution caused by the stranding of ships on uncharted obstacles.
378
In conclusion, I should like to quote from the draft Report of the United Nations Group of Experts on Hydro-graphic Surveying and Nautical Charting which met during December 1977 in New York. It says:
"Those responsible at the highest levels in Government should recognise that in the Marine environment, there can be no exploitation of resources without exploration and there can be no exploration without hydrography".
4.35 p.m.
The Earl of HA LSBURY: My Lords, in common with other noble Lords who have spoken I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder for giving me an opportunity to say something on this subject which I have wanted to say for a very long time. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy—I am sorry he is not in his place to correct me if I misquote him—as I understood it, said that four out of five of either "the incidents" or "volume of oil spilt" (I am rot quite sure which it was) were concerned with operation and the fifth with accidents. The noble Viscount, Lord Simon took up that point and said that, of course, the accidents tend to spill a very large amount of oil in a highly concentrated area.
I should like to give noble Lords some idea of the sort of hazards that we run in this connection. There is a very high traffic in tankers going in an out of Milford Haven Harbour to the oil refineries. Immediately outside Milford Haven harbour there are the two enchanting little islands of Skokholm and Skomer, which are a focus of concentration for some of our more important seabirds, some of which are quite unique. Entrance to and exit from Milford Haven harbour—I have done it running in on a ebb-tide in a south-westerly gale—is quite a tricky business, because one has to make a very sharp turn to starboard as one goes in. Accidents can happen.
I do not know whether any noble Lords have seen, as I have, what is called a time-lapse radar scan over a 24 hour period of the air traffic over London and the Home Counties. It looks exactly like a number of interpenetrating swarms of bees all mixing in. It is quite incredible that there could be so much movement taking place. One only has to look at it for a moment to see the necessity for air traffic control. I

379
believe that, if one could see a time lapse radar scan of the traffic in the English Channel, one would get an immediate appreciation of the need to have some kind of narrow seaways traffic control. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Oram, will indicate in his reply whether or not this is being contemplated.
What struck me very much when considering alternatives to the Channel Tunnel—and this is in confirmation of some of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet—was that there was a large patch of the English Channel which had only 10 feet of water at low water springs. There is a region where there are very high tides and where there is a liability to fog. Vessels can get off their course. I can remember a rather rare sight. I was crossing the Atlantic in the "Normandy" in, I think, 1939, and I saw an ice-patrol boat watching a large iceberg. The ice-patrol boat looked exactly like a rather small boy in charge of a very large white St. Bernard dog which he was taking for a walk. It was, in fact, communicating with all shipping in the area notifying the position of the iceberg.
I cannot help feeling that these mammoth tankers—we are talking of 600,000 tons and some people are even talking in terms of million-ton tankers—these monsters, cannot be allowed to float around unaccompanied in fogs. They themselves may have the most perfect navigational equipment aboard, but what about other people who could run into them and who do not have this perfect navigational equipment? For that reason I believe that our grandchildren will not tolerate a situation in which unrestricted traffic is moving around in the Channel like motorcars round a roundabout, each vessel obeying what it thinks to be the rules and regulations and, possibly, off-course while it is doing so, not able to turn, not able to stop and spilling millions of tons of oil all over the place. I believe it is the job that you do not start that takes longest to finish. I believe that we should make a start on sea lane traffic control for these purposes. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Oram, will be able to tell me something about this in his reply.
4.40 p.m.
Lord PARRY: My Lords, it is two
380
days short of two years since I first rose to speak in this House. Your Lordships have no reason to remember, though I do, that on that occasion I spoke on the use, or indeed the misuse, of the sea. This evening, in doing so again, I am grateful to two sources in particular, one of which complements the other, and one of which compliments the other source.
First, I want to speak on the impact of oil on the marine environment and, secondly, I want to speak on the design features of tankers to reduce oil pollution. The sources to which I go are, in fact, the specialist ones—those people who in the port of Milford Haven, which has just been mentioned, are actually coming to grips hour by hour with some of the problems which noble Lords have already mentioned.
Before I do that I should like to refer to some quotations from the Joint Group of Experts on Scientific Aspects of Marine Pollution, and particularly to a Summary of that very massive fundamental report which was prepared by Mr. Richard Sandbrook. As noble Lords who have studied the report will know, it deals with three major items, one of which is the chemical and physical effects of oil discharges on marine life forms and on human health. I do not propose to say anything in this debate about the effect of pollution on human health, but I should like to introduce the known effects of oil pollution on marine life forms. The major report said:
"A great number of factors, acting both individually and in combination, govern the effects that an oil discharge may have on marine life. In general, the biological damage is more severe if the discharge occurs in a coastal or estuarine environment, especially if the intertidal zone is affected, than if it occurs in the open ocean".
The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, has already referred to the fact that accidents can happen; and your Lordships will know that accidents have, indeed, happened in the tidal estuary of Milford Haven and they have had their effects on the offshore islands. As the report points out, these effects may be:
"lethal or sublethal, acute or chronic with different organisms reacting in different ways".
I shall not go into the detail of all that. I simply say that sea birds are the only known group of marine organisms that have so far been affected by oil pollution to an extent sufficient to jeopardise the

381
entire local population, which in some cases constitutes the total world population; that there have been few instances in which extensive mortality of marine mammals from oil pollution has been reported; and that crude and heavy fuel oils seldom appear to cause extensive mortalities of adult fish. I merely sketch here some of the points that have been made in relation to the difficulties which occur when accidents happen in the marine environment, and particularly in landlocked estuaries.
That brings me to the point which was made in the report about Milford Haven itself. We are extremely fortunate that we have working in the Milford Haven area the Milford Haven Conservancy Board which was intelligent enough and well-advised enough to seek powers to itself which are, in fact, the envy of the marine world.
In the report from which I have already quoted extensively I find this on page 76:
"The only satisfactory approach to the conservation of the sea birds is to reduce the number of spills and the amount of oil on the surface of the ocean. Clark (1973) strongly favours the use of chemical dispersants to remove spilled oil drom the surface as soon as possible and considers this the only technique presently available that offers any hope for the future of sea birds".
I do not want to lake this House at this stage of the evening into the arguments about the use or the non-use of this type of dispersant, but I want to fix its attention on the success of the Milford Haven Conservancy Board's policies, which are being followed around the world. The report goes on to say:
"As an illustration he cites the successes at Milford Haven where the use of dispersants has virtually eliminated sea bird casualties without damaging the rich marine fauna and flora of the area and, by way of contrast, the unnecessary kill of 900 birds, mostly scoters, from a spill of 80 to 100 tons of oil from the 'Delian Apollon' in Tampa Bay".
This evening I am not here to talk specifically about the effects of oil pollution on sea birds. I have chosen that only as an illustration that an effective and active policy, clearly worked out and clearly followed through, can, in fact—even when accidents occur—prevent the ravages from doing the great damage which they sometimes do elsewhere. If, in fact, the Milford Haven Conservancy Board and its policies have been singled out for attention and praise in a particular aspect
382
worldwide, it is important that What they say there about the control of that major area of oil pollution—the overboard spilling of oil from tankers at terminals or tankers off-loading or taking on oil—should be properly said in this debate.
In fact, I went to the Milford Haven Conservancy Board and met its managing director, Colonel Sulivan, and its harbour master, Captain Guildford Dudley; I asked them whether they would consider some of the problems that might be raised in your Lordships' House. They had some words to offer on the question of the double bottoming of ships. At one stage the Americans were pushing for this. However, I have been reassured by my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder, to whom I pay the usual tributes for having initiated this debate, that the Americans are no longer pushing for this modification. I hope that this is so.
Although double bottoms are normal in dry cargo ships and the space between the bottoms is divided into tanks which are used for ballast water or fuel, I think that the British Government, and I believe the great majority of the maritime nations in the world, are against the installation of double bottoms on tankers for two major reasons. One is that it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to ensure the integrity of the inner bottom between the cargo tanks and thye double bottom, with the result that a non gas-free atmosphere would exist within the double bottom which would constitute a considerable fire and explosion risk.
The second of these arguments is that although pollution by reason of bottom damage might be reduced if double bottoms were fitted, this would be the case only where the grounding resulted in damage to the outer skin. Your Lordships do not need to be told by me that in major groundings, such as the "Torrey Canyon" —and I understand that that ship suffered major bottom damage along more than 50 per cent. of its keel—it is almost certain that both the outer and the inner bottoms would be damaged. Furthermore, most major pollutions are the result of side damage or the break-up of a ship, neither of which would be helped, so I am advised, by the fitting of double bottoms.
Bottom damage in isolation is not such a serious cause of pollution, as the only

383
oil that will escape from the tank in this case is that laying between the top of the oil in the tanks and the ship's waterline—about 10 per cent. of the total volume of the content. In other words, although double bottom tanks might reduce pollution from minor damage, their presence may constitute an even greater danger, as an explosion in these tanks would probably lead to severe rupture of the hull itself. I have deliberately said that because sometimes assurances that are given are not maintained.
I want to move to the point that has already clearly been made in the debate both by my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder and by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. By far the greater number of pollution incidents, in fact, arise from operational practices, and these operational practices occur chiefly within the ports themselves. Therefore, I was interested in what my friends at the Conservancy Board told me about methods of containing pollution on the decks of ships when spillages on those ships occurred.
The majority of our pollutions, again within this figure of which we have talked, consists of relatively small quantities of oil spilt on the deck, and many of these could be prevented from entering the sea if certain relatively minor feature alterations were made. I am sure that this will take us into considerable argument among sailors as to whether you could carry out this modification, but it is to the sailors that I have gone for advice.
Deeper scupper bars should be fitted, it is maintained, at the ship's side to retain oil. This creates problems in tanker design. Objections to this proposal have been voiced by the classification societies on the grounds that they would seriously affect the stability of the ship if large quantities of sea water were retained on deck at sea. That is a fairly elementary point. But I contend that adequate freeing ports—and this is my advice—could be provided which were left open at sea but were closed in port while cargo was being handled. The height of the scupper bars would, of course, be dedendent on the size of the ship and would only need to be considerable at the after-end. Although there are probably many uninitiated who might not know, those
384
who know the system of unloading will realise that all vessels working cargo trim by the stern and any oil spilt on deck accumulates aft.
The second point in this connection is that it should be possible to fit tankers with a drain turning across the after end of the ships into which oil off deck would automatically flow. The oil could then be drained off into slop tanks. One of the objections raised to this is the problem of static electricity being generated by oil and water mixtures dropping into a tank. This is obviously a matter which the Government and their advisers will have to study carefully indeed, and it could be, I am advised, modified by careful design.
There is the question of loading warning devices. It seems again elementary to the uninitiated, people such as I, that if there were a high level alarm system—and they do exist—which could be fitted to all tanks giving an audible or visible warning when the tanks are nearing full capacity, all those operating would be alerted and would be able to avoid some of the errors that have occurred in various ports of the world. This should help to reduce accidental overflows of tanks during loading. But there are experienced operators in my home area who tell me that there is a possibility that such techniques could provide a false sense of security and in fact lead to less efficient watch-keeping than is kept at the present time. Obviously the answer then is a combination of both efficient operatives and efficient warning devices to make those operatives even more efficient than they presently are.
Finally, I come in this particular context to the overboard discharges and inlets. When the ship is taking on or discharging major accidents occur. We were unfortunate in Milford Haven, as some of you will know, in the fact that our first ship ever to take on oil or discharge cargo at the port was involved in such an override spill through the breakdown of a mechanical arm. Leaks from valves on these discharges are a frequent source of small pollutions. I am advised that this problem could be overcome if positive blanking systems were incorporated in all overboard valves. It would be necessary to make it obligatory for them to be used in ports. Classification societies do not permit positive blanking devices on main

385
sea valves for the best of reasons, but a number of the better companies are fitting double valves on all overboard discharges.
In Milford Haven they seal all those valves on arrival. However, it is necessary to open the valves in order to take in ballast. If there is any oil lying between the valves and the pumps there is a risk of this oil running out before suction has been achieved. They advocate then a bleed system between the pumps and the overboard discharges with warning devices which indicate the presence of oil in these lines. The fitting of double valves with warning devices and bleed systems has greatly reduced the numbers of these pollutions. The Department of Trade "M" Notice published in November 1974 supports the desirability of these precautions.
Finally, the type of valves themselves comes into question. Gate valves are the most positive type but they are slow and difficult to operate if they are of large size. Some years ago it was common practice to fit butterfly or ball valves which are much quicker in operation, but it has been found that they suffer from the defect that the rubber seal can become detached from the body of the valve allowing oil to pass. It is most undesirable, therefore, that butterfly or ball valves should be used in overboard sea suctions. The major companies have either replaced these valves or have fitted secondary valves on these lines.
In summary of the points I have made, it is the considered view of those active in these operations that occasional minor escapes of oil in ports are inevitable, mainly owing to human error or mechanical failure. But the number and severity of sea pollutions caused thereby could be reduced by altering the design of tankers in quite modest ways, either by retaining oil spilt on deck or by better sea valve systems. The major oil companies have gone some way to overcome some of these problems, but this is not always true in the case of chartered tonnage. Major pollutions normally result from side damage or massive hull damage caused by collisions or from serious groundings, none of which would be significantly helped by the fitting of the double bottom tanks. Pollution from minor bottom damage which might be overcome by the
386
fitting of double bottom tanks only results in a relatively small portion of oil in the affected tanks escaping, even when no double bottoms are fitted.
I speak for no particular interest. I speak from derived experience, but I speak as one who lives on the foreshore of one of the most beautiful parts of Britain and on a harbour which has become essential as a lifeline to the economy of this country. We, probably more than anyone who visits casually some seaside resort somewhere, would want to urge upon the Government at this time the necessity of their giving maximum support and maximum urgency to the prevention of any oil spillage which is likely to have a dangerous effect either upon the wild life; or the human enjoyment of the environment.
4.58 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Morris was particularly eager to take part in this debate because he has made a detailed study of the problem that is being debated, and he wished to have his views on the record if possible. Unfortunately for him, he was committed to attend the General Assembly of the Council of Europe and so could not be here in person. He asked if I would convey some of his views to your Lordships. I accepted the task of doing that with some trepidation, because I feel very much like an unrehearsed understudy in a very technical production indeed. Having heard the debate, I do not apologise for vicariously putting the views of my noble friend Lord Morris, because if there is one thing the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, is to be congratulated on it is his timing. This debate today is clearly a well worthwhile curtain raiser to the important international conference to be held in London next month.
If it is to be a worthwhile curtain raiser it is a good thing that all the points of view that are sincerely held by people who understand these matters should be in front of our delegates when they go to represent the point of view that is in the best interests of this country. While one ought to approach this in a manner that is disinterested, and wanting perfection to come out of the result, on all these matters of international discussion national

387
elegates ought never completely to disregard the self-interest as it affects the nation which they represent. In many ways we must be grateful to the United States who initiated this forthcoming conference, and we congratulate them on having avoided the temptation of taking unilateral action to deal with their own problems. Yet, having said that, there is an irony in their having initiated the conference, for the United States have played a greater part than almost any other country in establishing and building up flags of convenience. In addition, the United States ports do not for the most part have the deep dredged channels suitable for modern tankers and as a result, older and smaller tankers have been used there to deal with the ever-increasing American imports of oil.
The tanker casualties, which no doubt inspired the special American interest, which occurred last winter off the United States coasts were all with one exception from United States flags or from flag of convenience vessels. That of course would create their interest. However, the proposals which they seem to be sponsoring are directed to the shipping of all flags, not those which can be separately identified as being the more dangerous ones. Nevertheless, as I said, they are to be congratulated for not taking unilateral action because their problem has been a special one, particularly in the last year. It is a good thing that IMCO should try quickly to work out something that will be acceptable overall and which, if it will not produce perfection, will produce results to minimise the many dangers and effects we have heard described in this debate.
On many of the items proposed last March by President Carter to Congress there has been general agreement. The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, made this point, but it is worth repeating. There is no dispute about the need for second radars and collision avoidance systems. There is no dispute about emergency steering gear. There is no dispute on inert gas systems or on the construction of new tankers and having all the modern thoughts one can have when building new tankers. There is no dispute about the need for more frequent inspection and enforcement of the items
388
which have been generally agreed. There is no dispute about the need for training and certification to achieve the standards we want.
However, the one item on which there is dispute—this has been reflected in today's debate—and on which there has been a substantial difference of view among experts in this field is whether or not the retrofitting of segregated ballast tanks in existing tankers should form part of the directive which could flow from the conference next month. In the view of my noble friend Lord Morris, three points must be stressed in regard to this proposal. The first is that the only previous case when agreement was reached at IMCO on retrospective structural requirements—that was for structural fire protection in passenger ships—that proposal, the retrospective one, proved to be a heavy burden on the shipping industry at a time when passenger ships were going out of fashion. It could well be that pushing on with that retrospective structural requirement helped to speed putting into oblivion the passenger shipping about which we all used to be so proud.
The second point is that retrofitting would be very costly indeed. The noble Lord, Lord Inverforth, estimated it at £150 million, whereas my noble friend Lord Morris has estimated it at £170 million for the United Kingdom fleet alone. In addition, my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy pointed out how it would affect the capacity of the refitted ships themselves. Thus, in doing it we would be committing ourselves to terrific expenditure which would produce a lower income in terms of what would flow from it after the alterations were made.
The third point which my noble friend thought it right to keep very much in mind is the positive one; if it were just a matter of criticising the new ballast tanks and leaving it at that, one could be accused of being little-minded in one's approach. But he argues, as many noble Lords do, that there is an alternative technique which may go almost all the way to securing the benefits that would flow from this retrospective structural requirement but which would be better in economic terms and would produce most of the results for which we have called. That is the use of crude oil to wash out cargo tanks. If this alternative were not

389
available, it might be that the necessity, expensive and difficult though it would be, of the retrospective structural requirement would have to be accepted. But with this alternative being available, certainly for existing vessels, there is a very strong argument indeed for our delegates to the conference to bear in mind that they are going far enough to meet the needs of today—the new vessels will meet the needs of the future—by producing an alternative which would minimise the risks which have shown themselves so far.
It might be said that surely everybody would be against the retrospective structural requirements if what I have said were accepted in its entirely; but I do not think we should presume that that would be the case because there are other considerations. We are living in a world in which practical considerations and human reactions have to be taken into account. Many of the countries which will be at the conference have a much larger tanker surplus than we and some others have, and it could be that, because of their great surplus, which is a complete waste to them now, they see in the retrofitting a means of taking other countries' tankers out of commission. It could be that they have in mind that reducing of cargo-carrying capacity of their competitors would make it easier for some of their surpluses to be used. It could be that increasing freight rates that would to some extent flow from such a step would give them a chance to get a better return on the fleets they have to carry, and of course they—this is an argument which would apply to us too—may think very strongly in terms of benefiting their shipbuilding and ship repairing industries.
But all of those things are not good arguments for pressing on with something which is not in itself economic, which is not a process which could be speedily carried out and when there is an alternative which, it is argued by those who understand these matters, could go a long way towards overcoming the problems we have in mind. Fortunately, the United Kingdom—this is what one would expect our delegates to keep in mind—has a much smaller tanker surplus than the world average, and, because of that, the considerations which I have suggested may be in others' minds should make us extremely reluctant to accept solutions which are in effect designed primarily to
390
benefit the shipping industries of other countries at a considerable cost to ourselves.
It would seem unlikely that the requirement to fit segregated ballast tanks to existing tankers would come into force in time to have an effect on the current tanker surplus or shipbuilding or ship repairing capacity. I was interested a short while ago, when we were listening to the nuclear Statement, to hear one of my noble friends say that the best might well become the enemy of the good. There are times when absolute perfection, which cannot be gainsaid, is not the right thing to do if the result one wants is needed reasonably early, and I believe that the whole of the argument which my noble friend Lord Morris has asked me to present to the House fits into that.
I appreciate that some, if they wanted to, could think that the arguments which I have adduced have championed sin over virtue, but in my view these things have to be looked at in a practical and sensible way. As for the things that can be agreed, get on with those and put them into effect. But on the one item where there is a genuine difference of view and which could be very much to the detriment of this country, our delegates should keep that very much in mind. I think I could sum up the views of my noble friend Lord Morris by saying to the delegates that there are plenty of good things to get on with which can be agreed and speedily put into action now, and there is an effective alternative to the one point which may be difficult to agree—an alternative which can be speedily and more economically put into action.
5.10 p.m.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I should like to join the other speakers in this debate who have congratulated my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder on his initiative in bringing this particular subject to your Lordships' attention. In his opening he rather seemed to wonder whether, from the Government's point of view, it was not perhaps awkwardly timed. I assure him that I certainly do not take that view. Indeed, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, who has just spoken, that it is timely that we should have this debate and that the Government should have the benefit of your Lordships views

391
at this point, when we are preparing for this highly important conference to be held in London.
I was most relieved to hear my noble friend announce early in his speech that he did not propose to "bash" me personally, because he sits in a particularly good strategic place to do so if he wishes; and, as we all know, his mental equipment on this and cognate subjects is so impressive that he could "bash" me verbally as well if he chose to do so. He put before your Lordships a most fascinating and clear statement of his point of view; and I am glad that he referred to the work of the committee of which he has recently become the chairman, the Advisory Committee on Pollution of the Sea, because that enables me to take this opportunity to assure him and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, the vice-president of that committee, that the Department of Trade and the Government regard the advice from that committee as highly constructive and valuable. That does not mean that we always accept it, of course, but we do regard it as most welcome.
Before I deal with the main question of tanker safety and pollution, I should like to refer to the speech made by my noble friend Lord Kennet, backed up as he was by the noble Earl, Lord Inchcape, and to thank my noble friend Lord Kennet for having given me notice that he was proposing to raise the different but related subject of hydrography. He kindly gave me notice of the questions he proposed to ask; and, indeed, he wrote to me on a number of aspects which he did not include in his speech this afternoon. Having communicated with me as he did, I have had the opportunity to obtain detailed information on the points he has in mind. Much of it, I am sure he will recognise, cannot appropriately be conveyed in a winding-up speech in a short debate of this kind, but I shall certainly send the information to my noble friend, and if he wishes it to have a wider circulation, I am quite sure that the procedure of Written Answers might be usefully taken up.
Meantime, I would tell my noble friend that the proceeds from the Hydrographer's revenue-earning activities are paid into Defence Votes as appropriations in aid; and, as far as surveying activities are concerned, it was decided in 1976 that the
392
hydrographer's potential to undertake commercially-funded work should be exploited, since not all the existing survey fleet was required for defence purposes, The costs of the hydrographic services are borne on the Defence Votes; but I have certainly noted the impressive points that he and the noble Earl, Lord Inchcape, have made this afternoon about the urgency of further and much more extensive modern surveys, and the point that other Departments should appropriately make contributions to this work. I am quite sure that the points made by those two noble Lords will be noted by those whose duty it is to reach decisions on these matters.
The debate has, understandably, ranged rather wider than the conference itself, covering the question of safety at sea and pollution in more general terms than perhaps it will be under the agenda of the specific conference. For that reason, I should like to start with some general remarks on the position of Her Majesty's Government on these important matters. Indeed, I think I can say "the position of successive Governments", because, as has emerged from the debate this afternoon, I detect no Party lines on this particular subject. The United Kingdom has a merchant fleet of some 32 million gross registered tons, and lies third in the league table, behind Liberia and Japan. Under this figure, tanker tonnage comprises some 17 million gross registered tons—again, the third largest in the world and representing some 10 per cent. of world tonnage. Our tanker fleet is relatively modern.
The United Kingdom safety record over the last 10 years has consistently been one of the best, with a low rate of total losses, both in terms of tonnage at risk and in terms of numbers of ships at risk; and the Government have played their part in creating high safety standards by regulations, codes of practice, certification of crews and ships, surveys of ships, general inspections and advice to masters of ships, and by personal co-operation at every level with the shipping industry. But a great deal of credit should go to the industry itself for the great strides that it has made in improving the quality of its ships and their crews. Of course accidents happen, and we should never be complacent. There have been some bad examples; but, on the whole, the British fleet is well managed, safe and efficient.

393
If we were in a world of our own we might be prepared to rest it there, but, as has been emphasised this afternoon, shipping in its very character is international. For example, the Dover Strait is the busiest seaway in the world, with some 350 lateral movements per day, mostly of foreign flag. In this connection, I noticed the point that the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, was making; and he asked me about the results of the traffic separation scheme. I can tell him that there has been a significant reduction in the number of collisions in the Dover Strait since the traffic separation scheme came into effect, particularly in conditions of fog; and the scheme should be even more effective since the international collision regulations came into effect last July. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, entered into the discussion on this point, and he would wish to know that, in addition to the traffic separation scheme in the Channel, to which I have just referred, the British and French have jointly set up the Channel navigation information service, based on the United Kingdom side at St. Margaret's Bay, which monitors traffic, both lateral and cross, in the Channel.
The safety of foreign as well as United Kingdom vessels is important to us, not only, obviously, on grounds of common humanity but because our own interests are involved, whether by threat of collision with our own vessels, the need to give assistance or the threat of pollution after a casualty. Secondly, our own merchant fleet depends upon maintaining freedom of movement across the globe; and this includes the freedom from different countries imposing, different and confusing sets of safety and pollution regulations. Thus I suggest that it is in our self-interest, as it is of other countries, to achieve internationally-agreed regulations and, so far as possible, internationally-agreed criteria for enforcing them.
It is fair to say that the United Kingdom traditionally played the leading role in the past in achieving this kind of international agreement. Before IMCO was set up in 1959, we convened international conferences in London such as the 1932 Load Line Conference, the 1948 Safety of Life at Sea Conference, the 1954 Pollution Conference; and we were the depositories of the resulting conventions.
394
After IMCO was set up, these conventions were superseded by the 1966 Loadlines Convention, the 1960 and 1974 Safety of Life at Sea Conventions and the 1973 Pollution Convention, all of which represented major international steps forward in safety and pollution control.
As I have said, we played a leading part in these conferences and the United Kingdom continues to play a lending role in IMCO, and many of the new requirements in these conventions and other instruments have sprung from this country's initiatives. When the "Torrey Canyon" disaster hit us in 1967 our reaction and that of France was to press for emergency action through IMCO. Much has been achieved in the decade since then. When the United States, as has been referred to, faced a series of tanker accidents last winter, their reaction was, similarly, to press for emergency action through IMCO. We applaud such action and we see no merit, indeed much harm, in pursuing the route of unilateral action.
My noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder made reference to the possibility of unilateral action in these matters by the USA and by the Arab States. I believe it is true to say that no such announcement has been made and, therefore, the point raised is somewhat hypothetical. Indeed, President Carter has stressed repeatedly the desire to reach a global solution on the whole area of safety and pollution covered by the conference. The United Kingdom has played a leading part over the years in building up international regulations and we believe that any resort to unilateralism would undermine that and the maintenance of safety and pollution standards.
I was glad to note that the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, indicated his strong support for this point of view. Her Majesty's Government have consistently supported the United States in its call for the conference and, like the United States, certainly, we aim for a successful conclusion; that is, a generally accepted agreement. The United Kingdom delegation will do its best to contribute towards this objective. Like all decisions on safety and the environment—indeed, like most decisions—there will have to be a balancing of cost and benefit and a balancing of the

395
needs of IMCO Member-Governments of which there are over 100. We need to gauge the attitudes of other countries as we are doing now and as we shall do at the conference, and I am sure that noble Lords will not expect me to spell out in detail our precise negotiating position. Indeed, I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for specifically saying that they did not expect that I should be able to reveal our cards.
However, I can describe our broad approach and this I am sure is what the House would expect me to do. First, as I have said, we will aim for a successful conclusion—as we shall, in the summer, at the complementary Conference on Training and Certification of Seafarers. Secondly, we shall try to get speedy agreement on the many points on which there has already appeared in preparatory meetings to be a broad measure of agreement. I have in mind, for example, the proposals relating to the more effective implementation of conventions, more frequent inspections and intermediate surveys for older tankers. These proposals are much in line with the initiative which the United Kingdom has taken in IMCO over the last three years to improve the enforcement of conventions against ships which are substandard.
The United Kingdom has put forward its own proposal of setting up a marine safety corps under IMCO which would assist countries whose maritime administrations needed to be developed and be given the capacity to exercise their obligations under the conventions. There are encouraging signs of agreement on other proposals before the conference; so that, although attention this afternoon has been focussed on one particular aspect of the conference, I think that we should take note that there is a broad agenda on which there is a vast degree of agreement and we can, therefore, look forward to constructive decisions in those areas.
A major issue which will have to be decided, as has been pointed out by many speakers, concerns the question of the provision of segregated ballast on tankers. This is already a requirement in the 1973 Convention for new tankers over 70,000 tons; but one of the proposals before the conference is that the limit for new tankers
396
should be reduced and that the requirement should apply to existing tankers as well. The advocates of the application to existing tankers argue on the grounds that it would have benefits for the environment; that it would, by spreading the load between more tankers, help to alleviate the current tanker surplus; and that it would provide work in the shipyards. But I would suggest that the proposal has little, in itself, to do with safety or with accidental pollution.
The United Kingdom has argued against this measure on the grounds that the environmental benefits would be very small when measured against the cost, a cost comprising capital cost of about £150 million for the United Kingdom fleet plus additional costs arising from lower carrying capacity which would lead to an increase in the price of oil to the consumer; or as an alternative, that it would add additional costs to the taxpayer. This assertion of mine, that the environmental benefit would be very small, is hacked up by a similar conclusion which was recently reached in an independent consultant's report which was commissioned by the OECD, which said:
"SBT affords some saving in oil pollution, a saving which, in relation to the cost of the measure as a whole must be regarded as relatively insignificant."
OECD also commissioned three case studies on the environmental benefits, in economic terms, of SBT. They were the New York Bight area, the fishing industry in North-East Scotland, and tourism in the South-West Wales area. The conclusions—which are subject to various caveats—are:
"that in the particular areas investigated there are no demonstrable economic benefits from environmental improvements arising from SBT retrofit of tankers operating in these areas".
Those are important points of view of which to take note. My noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder included in his speech some matters relating to this question of costs to which I referred earlier, particularly in relation to employment in British shipyards and possible savings in public expenditure on social security. I can assure him that studies have been undertaken in these matters using a number of different assumptions, hearing in mind a number of uncertainties. These studies have come to the clear conclusion that, as a means of bringing work to

397
British shipyards, RSBT would be extremely expensive as an indirect subsidy compared with any form of direct subsidy.
Secondly in this area of costs, he asks whether the cost benefit of RSBT has been considered in relation to the expensive oil reception facilities which the United Kingdom will have to provide as an oil-exporting State to deal with waste disposal. I am grateful to him for having given me notice of these specific questions that he was proposing to ask. In answer to the point that I have just recalled, it has not been possible to quantify this item but it is difficult, I suggest, to see why the United Kingdom alternative of crude oil washing would require more reception facilities than RSBT in areas which are not special areas.
In the case of repair ports, perhaps fewer reception facilities would be required for COW—crude oil washing—since no sludge disposal would be required. In terms of the shipping industry, we doubt whether the measure would come into force early enough to alleviate the tanker surplus which has affected some other countries more than the United Kingdom. In considering this proposal, the Government have taken into account therefore all the wider aspects, though the main objective of the conference to which we are directing our attention concerns the question of safety and the environment.
My noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder asked which department and which interest groups have been consulted in the formulation of British policy for the conference. We have for some time taken into account the views of the committee to which I have referred and of which he is chairman. In formulating policy for the conference, the Department of Trade have consulted directly with the tanker safety group, which includes the General Council for British Shipping, the seafarers' union, Lloyd's Register, oil companies and the Ship Pollution Advisory Group, which includes shipping interests and departments concerned. Government departments which have been consulted include the Department of Industry, the Northern Ireland Office, the Departments of Environment, Employment and Energy and, as always, the Treasury and the FCO. I assure him not only that we have taken all the wider aspects of this question
398
very much into account but that we have sought advice from all the interests concerned.
This is because we have been anxious to put forward a constructive alternative to RSBT, and we believe a requirement to make mandatory the relatively new technique of washing tanks with the cargo instead of with sea water—the technique referred to as crude oil washing—would have at least an equivalent environmental effect. It would not have the same capital cost; indeed, one-ninth in the case of the United Kingdom fleet, which accords very nearly with the estimate that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, was asking about. That relates; to ship of over 70,000 tons. I would make the point of course that other countries make other estimates which differ from ours. The noble Lord was right regarding our estimate.
We believe that this method would not bring forward higher freight costs. It would have energy saving implications since it would increase the payload of a carrier, thus reducing the consumption of tanker fuel and of disposal residues from tanks. We believe that these are very strong arguments which we will deploy, and we hope that these arguments will convince some countries which previously have seen attractions in retrofitting segregated ballast tanks. Indeed my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder read out a list of countries which favour RSBT, but I should inform him that in fact the count is something like two to one in favour of COW at the moment. As I said, we are hoping that our arguments will convince others. Acceptance of the crude oil washing alternative might form the basis of a package which will be acceptable to the great majority of countries.
In concluding—and I am sorry to have spoken for so long—whatever the differences between my noble friend and myself on this matter, I am sure that all of us agree that we have listened to a series of very well-informed speeches, and we owe our thanks to my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder for having made this debate possible. It is a very timely debate and we believe that it will in general help the Government to state the point of view which is in this country's interest and the interest of shipping world wide.

399
In conclusion, I should like to thank the other noble Lords who have made such notable contributions to our debate.
5.39 p.m.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I want to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in what I think has been a very effective debate. I have noted every one of the points and arguments raised and deployed, including those of Lord Oram. I want to say to my noble—and, I was going to say, "dear"—friend Lord Oram that I did not say that I was going to bash him. I said that I was not going to abash him. That just shows your Lordships how articulation breaks down. I appreciate what my noble friend said at great length on behalf of the Government. I still feel intransigent on some points; but, on the other hand, we have heard a full and frank disclosure of the Government's position and what our arguments will be.
The only thing I want to see coming out of this conference is an effective and long-term agreement which in fact will take the form of international law. I agree entirely with my noble friend when he says that we ought to aim for multinational agreements and not be intimidated by unilateral claims. We have in the past learnt to recognise that countries are quite capable of taking unilateral action which eventually acquires the force of international law. I refer in particular to my bête noire— which may not be the bête noire of a lot of other people—which is the position of the Continental Shelf. That arose originally out of a unilateral declaration by the United States.
Therefore, I am not going to argue again about the merits of the separated ballast tanks at this point, except to say that I am not yet—and I repeat this quite seriously—I am not yet convinced that the arguments against separated ballast tanks are operationally valid. I said during my speech that I had no reservations in accepting COW, or crude oil washing, as a very important contribution to this whole problem. I would be prepared, in a longer and more investigatory debate, to dispute a great many of the figures which have been canvassed today; and therefore I am not entirely reconciled to what is
400
likely to be the British position, simply not promoting crude oil washing but, on the contrary, using that as an alternative to separate ballast tanks.
I hope that out of this debate today we have given the Minister and the Government some insight into our thinking, and that we shall find the delegates to this Conference going there in the spirit in which I always hope that members of my Government will go—that is, being responsive to the thinking and the wishes of others and not merely taking up an intransigent position. We are asking at this Conference for flexibility of thinking and I am sure that something very constructive will come out of it. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

TOURISM AND THE ECONOMY
5.42 p.m.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE rose to call attention to the contribution made to the economy by tourism; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to call attention to the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, and to move for Papers. I am grateful for this opportunity to open this short debate on the contribution of tourism to the economy. It is indeed some time since the House last had the opportunity of discussing an industry which now ranks as our largest invisible export, having overtaken insurance and shipping for the first time last year. It is an industry which produced estimated foreign currency earnings of £3,000 million in 1977–50 per cent. greater than the estimated contributions made by North Sea oil to the balance of payments in 1977. It is also, my Lords, an industry which provides some 1¾ million jobs.
As chairman of a regional tourist board, a non-statutory body, I am not bound by the restrictions on speaking which apply to the chairmen of statutory boards. However, I should like to declare my involvement in the work of the London Tourist Board. I am particularly pleased to see that a number of noble Lords who are members of regional tourist boards have put down their names to speak in the

401
debate this afternoon. I am also particularly pleased to see that my noble friend Lady Birk is going to reply to this debate, as I know that she and her Department, although not responsible for tourism, have done much to improve the amenities which are enjoyed by tourists.
In my view, the health of the British tourist industry depends to a large extent on the continuing vitality of London as a tourist attraction. Because we just have experienced a bumper inflow of tourists, we must not be lulled into a false sense of security about the future health of the tourist industry. We must remember that constant efforts are needed if we are to remain an attractive venue for overseas visitors.
I should like to deal with a number of problems which face the tourist industry at the present time. First, I should like to raise the question of the degree of priority which the Government gives to tourism. Within government itself, tourism is the responsibility of the Department of Trade, and within that Department it is a junior Minister who is responsible for tourism. He also has a number of other responsibilities, such as export credits, newspapers, film publicity and distribution service trades. No Minister is solely responsible for tourism. I think that positive consideration must be given to the appointment of a Minister for Tourism. Whether such a Minister is one who is appointed in the same way as a Minister for Sport in the Department of the Environment or whether he will be a Minister with a separate Department is a matter for discussion. In either case it would serve to illustrate the Government's concern about tourism.
What would also underline the Government's concern is for the Civil Service Department to refrain from continually promoting or transferring the principal civil servants who are responsible for tourism. At the top level, the industry has had to deal with seven civil servants in the past seven years. No sooner does each new holder of the office become conversant with the needs of the industry than he is whisked away. The creation of a Ministry for Tourism would mean that tourism would be dealt with at a higher level within the Civil Service. I know this suggestion has been made before: I do not hesitate to make it again, although
402
I know there are some who feel such a course would just increase the bureaucracy within the tourist industry, adding yet another layer of authority, and a complication, above that of the national boards. However, I do not see it in that way. Government machinery is already there for dealing with the national boards, and such a move would primarily serve to demonstrate to the industry, and not just to the tourist boards, the Government's concern and desire to understand the needs of all facets of tourism, upon whose continuing health so many sections of the community depend.
Last year, in opening the Brighton Conference Centre, the Prime Minister looked to the new jobs which tourism could provide, in the absence of new jobs in manufacturing industry. Of course, we all welcome the fact that tourism is providing an expanding number of jobs, but I am sorry that all too often these jobs are seen as "second-class" jobs, not to be compared with jobs in manufacturing industry. This, I fear, is one of our national faults. We regard service jobs as inferior jobs, unlike many European countries, where hoteliers and restauranteurs enjoy the highest standard. I should like to remind your Lordships that, during the past five years, employment in the hotels and catering sector has increased by almost 25 per cent., whereas employment in the manufacturing sector has decreased by 10 per cent.
It is almost 10 years since the Development of Tourism Act reached the Statute Book, and it is time to consider how well it has worked. In many ways it has worked remarkably well, but the establishment of a hierarchy involving the British Tourist Authority and the national and regional boards has inevitably led to conflicts and overlapping responsibilities between the different organisations. The British Hotels, Restaurants and Caterers' Association argued in their tourism policy document in 1976 that the British Tourist Authority should have a full-time chairman. That, in fact, has almost happened now with the appointment last year of Sir Henry Marking as a four-day-a-week chairman in place of a two-day-a-week chairman.
The British Hotels Restaurants and Caterers' Association also argued for national board status for the London

403
Tourist Board because of its strategic importance as a tourist centre. That has not happened and I am very doubtful if it ever will happen, as all Governments find it extremely difficult to accept arguments for special treatment for London. However, that does not detract in any way from the strategic importance of London to the tourist industry. London is the gateway to Britain for the vast majority of inter-continental and European visitors. In fact, 92 per cent. of all overseas visitors arrive in Britain at one of London's five airports or at one of the seaports in the South-East corner of England. Only if London can continue to attract overseas visitors will the tourist trade in the rest of Britain flourish.
For this reason, we have to be very concerned about London's ability to compete in overseas markets. Already we know that a recent survey of top hotels showed that London's hotels were only marginally less expensive than the hotels of Geneva and Paris. Any strengthening of sterling would further reduce that price advantage. Added to that, the shortage of hotel rooms in the summer months can act as a further disincentive to visitors. The Government must consider whether the time is ripe to re-introduce the Hotel Development Incentive Scheme as an encouragement to additional hotel building. However, if past experience is anything to go by, I would consider that to be the wrong way to tackle this problem, as it would lead to indiscriminate hotel building. The Government should give serious consideration to speedily agreeing to the classing of hotels as industrial buildings, thereby enabling capital allowances to be granted for tax purposes. If we accept that tourism is an industry on a par with manufacturing industry, there should be no difficulty in coming to that decision. I know that the Government are held back from it for financial reasons but, in equity, it is a decision which should and must be made.
Besides being the gateway for holiday visitors, London is Britain's number one convention centre. Based on the number of international conventions held, London vies with Paris for the European accolade. But we do not, as Paris has, have a purpose-built, centrally-situated convention centre capable of seating up to 5,000 delegates. The organisers of international
404
conventions are not tied to any city; they want the best deal for their members. We can offer numerous hotel venues for conventions of a few hundred—Grosvenor House and the West Centre Hotel, for example, are there for conventions up to 2,000. Already, the Wembley conference centre, and soon the Barbican Centre, will be able to offer facilities as good as any in the world for conventions of between 2,000 and 2,700 persons. Some other halls, such as the Royal Albert Hall, can house larger numbers but not in a purpose-built conference facility.
London's conference business is important to Britain. This is a field where London competes for Britain with other European and American centres in a very competitive international market. It is wrong to think that many other British towns can be promoted in competition with attractive and popular resorts in Europe such as Monte Carlo, which will shortly open a superb new convention centre. We must not forget that London is the magnet which brings people to Britain and therefore we must make certain that London can compete on equal terms.
The fact that we have not got a large 3,000-plus, centrally-situated convention centre means that this is an area in which we cannot compete. Such a centre may well lose money for its owner and consequently private enterprise is unlikely to embark on the project, but it would certainly make money for the city and the country in which it was situated. That is why there have been large injections of public money into the centres established by our competitors in so many towns in Europe, America and Asia. In the past there have been proposals for such a centre in London. This is an issue which obviously merits continued investigation. In my view, the ideal place for a centre of this kind would be at Hyde Park Corner, in the heart of hotel land. When Government come to decide what it is going to do about St. George's Hospital in the mid-1980s when it is no longer needed for National Health Service purposes, they ought to decide that this is the right site for such a centre. In the 1990s we shall certainly be needing such a centre.
May I now come to an area where I should like to see more practical assistance

405
being provided by Government for our effort to win international conventions for Britain. By this, I mean the annual congresses of international associations. In order to succeed, it is usually necessary to persuade the local British association affiliated to whatever may be the international body in question to act as host, to shoulder the burden of organisation, and, usually, to provide some of the finance, at any rate in the early days. Knowing how valuable to our economy, directly and indirectly, such international conferences are, many British associations would like to do this. However, while they have the enthusiasm, they often lack the finance. What is needed is the availability of bridging finance to get such meetings established until the income from delegate registration starts to flow. This may take a period of up to three years or more.
I would ask that the Government consider a method of underwriting this preliminary investment. If a float of, say, £100,000 were maintained for the purpose, all repayable in due course, I am sure we should win far more international conferences than we do and bring many millions of pounds of foreign currency into the country, to say nothing of the valuable gain when professional people such as doctors and scientists and trade unionists from all over the world come to Britain's capital to meet and share experiences with their British counterparts. There are probably few instances where such a moderate investment could bring such magnificent returns and I believe that the idea deserves close consideration. After all, many of the countries with which we are competing offer far more than this in incentives and inducements.
I have spent some time in talking about the convention scene. I make no excuse for doing so because convention business is particularly valuable business which may not otherwise occur. A large convention such as the Sweet Adelines, which came to the Royal Albert Hall last November, is worth something of the order of 3 million dollars.
Last year we were debating the Berrill Report. If I had had the opportunity of taking part in that debate, I should have asked that overseas embassies and consulates should be more aware of the potentialities of London as a convention
406
centre. The British Tourist Authority maintains representation in 22 cities overseas, of which four are in the USA. Wherever there is BTA representation there is a good working relationship and awareness of the situation but in many other overseas locations there is little awareness of the convention potential of London. This is a task which the diplomatic service should take on in a more systematic way. Obviously, it would be more satisfactory if the British Tourist Authority was able to increase the level of its overseas representation instead of continually having, for financial reasons, to cut the number of people employed in its overseas offices.
Despite the increasing revenues enjoyed nationally from tourist earrings, the British Tourist Authority has had to cope with rapidly expanding business on a frozen income. For two years, there has been no real increase in the Government grant for this vital work. Some of its leading overseas counterparts have received greatly increased grants; for example, the figure is up 30 per cent. in Denmark and 12 per cent. in Germany in real terms. Action on this is essential, if we are to realise the future potential for travel to Britain. The British Tourist Authority estimates that by 1985 tourism can generate some £9,000 million expenditure per annum. The implications of this growth are important, particularly in job terms, creating perhaps another half a million jobs, many of them in small industry.
However, this is not a mater solely for central Government. There is a need to secure the full commitment of local authorities to the development of the country's tourism potential, not only in a financial sense but also in a planning sense. For example, an adequate transport infrastructure is just as important to the resident as to the tourist. As our economy improves, we must expect a larger movement of British people abroad which will make more room for overseas visitors to Britain. Indeed, accommodation, transport and other travel establishments will need the extra foreign business to make up for the lost home business.
However, we should not take all of this for granted. International competition could well increase. We could lose more of our competitive edge, if the pound continues to go up and not down. We must ensure that world travellers get the

407
standards of service they expect. They want value for money on standards judged internationally and not by what is acceptable domestically. Surely, in the light of the high level of unemployment, Government will wish to take special action to encourage the recruitment and training of staff in the service trades, especially tourism.
Another matter which I have not mentioned so far, and which I shall mention only in passing as I know that a number of other noble Lords intend to deal with it, is the role of tourism in conserving the heritage, contributing to the environment and, potentially, to urban renewal. It is quite wrong to consider tourism as a destroyer. Thirty per cent. of the audiences in London's 50 theatres, and at concerts by London's five symphony orchestras, two ballet companies and three opera houses are international visitors. Twenty per cent. of all visitors to historic houses are foreign. Without this support, the heritage would certainly be out of business.
I have already referred to London's role as a magnet in attracting visitors to London. London needs the business, and visitor spending keeps many amenities going, as well as having an important side effect on manufacturing. London is now an international shopping centre. Tourist spending on textiles, for example, is equivalent to one-third of the value of all direct textile exports from Britain. How many firms are now dependent on visitor spending and on London's retailing skills? One does not know, but it would certainly be unwise if Government guidelines discriminated against London.
In conclusion, let me say that if we want to keep the substantial benefits of international tourism business, then the tourist trade must be given a major place in our priorities. We must take it seriously. In recent years, cool, cultural Britain has done better than many hot, sunny, beach resort areas, which have suffered seriously. Our share of world tourism has increased from 3 per cent. to 5 per cent. over the past decade. The position can be reversed. The tide can go out. But the job cannot be done by Government alone. All aspects of the tourist trade have their part to play. One of London's greatest dangers is that the image may be tarnished,
408
not by realities but by the cries of critics condemning London, its facilities and, worst of all, the tourists themselves. Such people are ready to pocket the visitors' money, but they do not wish to be bothered to act as friendly hosts.
I look forward to hearing the contributions to the debate this afternoon and, particularly, to hearing any plans which the Government have for the future of the industry. My only regret is that this is a short debate, and that the contributions which follow mine will inevitably have to be limited, as I know that the Minister who is to reply will require some time to answer all the points. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
6.5 p.m.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, the whole House is very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, who has just sat down, and who has made such an excellent and expert speech on a subject which has brought no fewer than 12 expert speakers to your Lordships' House. As the noble Lord has pointed out, tourism and the industry associated with it deserve such a list containing so many experts who can give the House the benefit of their practical experience.
I wonder whether any of your Lordships can disclaim an interest in the tourist industry, when all of us in this House spend so much time in the warmer months of the year dodging visitors from all over the world who throng to see us and to listen to our proceedings. Indeed, the noble Duke, the Duke of Marlborough, who I am happy to see will be speaking later in the debate, may recall that one morning when I turned up at your Lordships' House at 9 o'clock I found a group of Americans waiting at the Peers' entrance. They had flown the Atlantic the night before, but they were so keen and resilient, both young and old, that they listened to a debate in your Lordships' House on, I believe, cruelty to dogs, and then went on a tour of the House conducted by myself. As I said, they had just flown the Atlantic, and any of your Lordships who have done that will know that one is not then in a very fit state to do a lengthy tour of both this House and the sights of London.
I think the House will wonder what it is that attracts so many visitors to Britain

409
and, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said, to London. Is it merely our hospitality, is it the quality of our life, is it our historic buildings and traditions, or is it indeed the Royal Family? Surveys cannot give much more than relatively fleeting impressions of what is good or bad in what we have to offer to our visitors, yet none of us can doubt that tourism is more and more a part of our lives, both nationally and individually, as well as being an enormous source of earnings to us.
Tourism provides approximately 16 per cent. of our invisible exports year by year, and even the projected figures for both the number of overseas visitors and what they spend here have been swept aside during 1976 and 1977. Various estimates that I have managed to glean show that over 11 million visitors arrived in the United Kingdom during 1977, and they spent approximately £2,500 million. That is a very large sum. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, pointed out that it is comparable with, or indeed superior to, the benefits from North Sea oil. The surplus on this account rose from approximately £240 million in 1975 to over £1,000 million in 1977. We should not forget that, in addition to this very large figure, the United Kingdom earned over £600 million in transporting these foreign visitors to our shores and back home again. Thus, it is absolutely right that the Government should heed the words of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and of all the experts who are to take part in this debate, and I hope that the Government will be able to give encouragement to the tourist industry when necessary.
Everybody is aware of the marvellous work done by the British Tourist Authority and the other bodies mentioned by the noble Lord. The British Tourist Authority receives over £9 million in funds from the Government, but what is interesting is that it is able to call on no less than £3 million from other sectors of the trade; for example, British Rail and British Airways. I do not think anybody could seek a better form of co-operation, when the British Tourist Authority receives such a large amount, voluntarily, for promotion and advertising from its fellow members of the industry.
We must remember—indeed, we can scarcely fail to notice—that tourism is
410
not all good. The centralisation of the tourist industry means that almost all of the visitors to the United Kingdom wish to spend at least some part of their time in London. This fact has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede. It is in this city that most of our historic buildings and traditional sites lie. One of the surveys which I looked at during my research showed that overseas visitors in 1977 spent approximately 32 per cent. of their holiday funds on bed and breakfast accommodation and over 45 per cent. on shopping Those Members of your Lordships' House who travel far and wide in the United Kingdom, as I do every week, cannot envisage the existence of enormous shopping precincts in, say, the Western Highlands of Scotland or in Snowdonia. Therefore, it appears that most of the shopping takes place in and around London. I believe that it is this aspect, just as much as the historic sites, which is responsible for the wish of almost all visitors from overseas to spend at least part of their time in or around London.
Nobody who spends the summer in London can fail to be aware of the problems as well as the benefits which result from what I can only term the masochistic wish of overseas visitors to join millions of their fellow compatriots and others in and around our capital city. It seemed that the great hotel building boom which followed the Development of Tourism Act 1969 would lead to overcapacity in London hotel accommodation. This view was expressed in 1972, 1973 and 1974. However, visitors who wish to come to London have to stay as far away as Brighton and Oxford because London hotels are overflowing. Therefore, all of us must admit that the development of hotels in London was a very wise course of action, especially when we consider the huge amounts of money which are spent by visitors in and around London.
London in high summer presents, I regret to say, the ugly face of tourism, with huge crowds in the stores and at the historic building sites. Public transport in and around London is barely adequate. The theatres, cinemas and what I may call eating houses are all full, yet our visitors are almost entirely happy, so far as we can understand, with what London has to offer them.

411
The benefits to London are enormous, despite these very large disadvantages. It seems that 7½ million visitors spent £900 million in London during 1976. The nearest estimates we can obtain for 1977 show that 8½ million visitors came to London and spent over £1,200 million. This represents a very large proportion of the total expenditure by tourists. While staying in London these visitors would be paying on average over £2 per night in the form of rates. So, it is interesting to note that the public good also benefits from this influx of tourists. London Transport have informed me that they believe that in 1977 visitors put over £50 million into the ticket machines. It seems that London's contribution to our total national tourist industry is out of all proportion, yet the British Tourist Authority wishes to enables those of us who live or work here to benefit, albeit slightly, from this influx of tourism.
Intensive advertising over the past five years or so has been successful in pointing out that Britain is unique. I am afraid that the United Kingdom cannot compete on equal terms, or indeed at all, with Spain or Italy when it comes to what may be called the sand and the sun league. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, pointed to that fact very clearly. But there are many other interesting things to see and to do in both the spring and the autumn. First, I believe it to be important that the tourist authorities have spent a great deal of time upon advertising the fact that the season for visiting Britain is very wide. The tourist season does not cover just the summer; the spring and the autumn are also very good times for visiting Britain. The advertising carried out by the tourist authorities has done much to increase the spread of visitors and to ensure that their spending throughout the country over the year is far wider.
Secondly, the advertising carried out by the tourist authorities has been successful in encouraging visitors to see all that they wish to see in London but also to see other parts of Britain. Visitors pour into Stratford-upon-Avon, which is one of the other ugly faces of tourism in the United Kingdom. Very large numbers of visitors also go to Scotland. The proof of the success of this project
412
is evident from reports that foreign visitors spend under half of their time in or around London, yet, as the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, mentioned, 92 per cent. of the visitors who come to London arrive at either the South-Eastern seaports or the airports. This proves that they want to spend at least part of their time in London.
I believe that both the "spread" of tourists and their spending is one of the major successes of the many tourist boards and authorities in opening up Britain to tourists who otherwise might well not have considered visiting other parts of our country. As we have heard, the 1969 Act encouraged spending on tourism, especially in the development areas and in areas of high unemployment. I am given to understand that tourism employs 1½ million people nationwide, both full-time and part-time. We have also heard that tourism is a labour-intensive industry. For this reason, any Government aid which might be forthcoming—we look forward to hearing what the noble Baroness has to say—will be both welcome and beneficial. Tourism makes a tremendous difference to the lives of us all, both individually and collectively.
In the short time available I have touched upon only some of the details and examples which illustrate how tourism works. Many noble Lords who are to follow me in this debate have specialised knowledge and a very great deal of practical experience of coping with, encouraging and entertaining tourists. We look forward to hearing their contributions, and we await the reply of the noble Baroness.
I believe that all noble Lords wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, for raising this subject. The House has found his speech most informative and relevant. I believe that in moving for Papers this afternoon he has done the House a service, especially in giving it the opportunity to discuss this massive export industry—because that is what tourism is. If tourism is given the kind of judicious and farsighted aid that it was given in 1969, I believe it is capable of growing during the 1980s as swiftly as it has grown during this decade.
6.18 p.m.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, I share with the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, a feeling of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, for having introduced this very important topic this afternoon. I must begin by declaring an interest. In a minor way I have the same kind of interest as that of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede. I am the chairman of my district Area Tourist Organisation and am a representative of that organisation on the Highland Tourism Council and on the Scottish Tourist Consultative Committee. In a small way I am also a hotelier. Furthermore, I have a son who works in the tourist industry in London. Therefore, I have an interest in and some knowledge of the subject.
I feel that I ought to be able to help noble Lords by at least telling them something about what happens in the Highlands of Scotland. We have already heard of the indeniable importance of tourism: of the £4,000 million or so which are turned over in the economy and of the £3,000 million of foreign currency which is earned. We have heard that 1½ million people are directly employed, and 2 million or so indirectly employed, in the industry. We have also heard that tourism is an intensive employer of labour. If we improve tourism—make it better and give it a greater capacity—we do not necessarily need to reduce the rate of employment of people within the industry. At this time of high unemployment this is a very valuable point.
These facts are reflected in even greater magnitude in remote parts of Britain such as the Highlands of Scotland, In the Highlands we entertain 2 million visitors every year with a population of about a quarter of a million. About £100 million goes into the local economy. This works out at roughly £300 per head of the population—men, women, children and babies—and if we extrapolated that on to the national scale it would mean that the United Kingdom was earning something like £16,500 million out of tourism.
So your Lordships can see that we go in for tourism in a fairly big way in the remoter areas. Tourism employs some 10 per cent, of the working population in the Highlands of Scotland and like elsewhere it gives a great deal of part-time
414
employment and is an important source of part-time income to people who otherwise might find it difficult to make ends meet in their chosen professions and occupations. Bed-and-breakfast, farmhouse accommodation, crofting accommodation and so on, all add to the income available to people living in these remote parts. Indeed 20 per cent. of the income of people living in rural areas of Scotland comes from tourism, and of course we get the spin-offs. These have been mentioned—museums, theatres, music, the arts, festivals. The Edinburgh Festival would not exist if it were not for tourism. Then there are the sports: we have golf courses and swimming pools in the remoter parts of the country which are there for the local inhabitants to enjoy and which would not exist if the tourists were not there to make use of them in the season.
We also get basic services: we get road, rail, air and ferry services. We get shops, and so on. In fact I am told that Caledonian-MacBrayne, who run many of the ferry services to the outer islands of Scotland, get 70 per cent. of their turnover from tourists. We get other development spin-off in the Highland area as well. Many of our craft industries depend directly upon tourism and they give full-time jobs for the people who work in them. We have potteries, we have glass factories—to mention something in which I also have an interest. We have all sorts of craft industries and other industries that are helped by the tourist trade. In the Highland area, in the remoter parts of Britain, tourism is still a growth industry, and it could grow more if we were to do the right things for it. That is why it is so valuable to have this debate today. As has been pointed out, if we can get growth in the outlying areas and the rural areas of Britain, we can get growth in the total tourist industry of Britain without necessarily overloading London.
How then do we suggest that we should develop this priceless asset? I suggest the first thing we must do is to improve our transport, making it better, cleaner, faster, cheaper and not London-orientated. It is a fact that it would cost me more—and does, in fact, cost the taxpayer more whenever I come down here—to fly from Wick to London than it would to take Freddy Laker's flight to New York. That is a journey within Britain. It is a fact that on the Highland line we are traveling

415
in carriages which I knew as a boy. I have no doubt that if I looked hard enough I should probably find my initials carved on a seat somewhere. They look as though they are that old, too; they feel as though they are that old, and if we are to get visitors to move around the country we must give them decent transport to move in and we must give them good, fast services at a reasonable price. Unless we do that, we shall simply not be able to bring the tourists out to the outlying areas. Indeed we cannot be complacent about tourism in the remote areas because last year Scottish tourism fell in value by some 8 to 10 per cent., and in Scotland we are convinced that this was due largely to the high cost of transport and, particularly, to the high cost of petrol. Petrol is zoned from the South outwards and in the remoter areas we are paying something like 6p a gallon more than is paid in Aberdeen and probably a great deal more than people are paying in the environs of London. So, if we can do these things to reduce the cost of transport and to reduce the high cost of petrol in the remoter areas, we shall in fact be doing things immediately to help tourism in those areas.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, mentioned this very important point of treating hotels as though they were commercial premises—manufacturing premises, one might say. I feel that we should seriously consider the derating of hotels and allowing hoteliers to amortise the expenditure which they put into the development of their businesses in the form of expansion of hotel rooms, and so on. People ought to be able to write off the high cost of providing this accommodation, because it is extremely expensive. Only this morning I was speaking to the secretary of the club where I stay in London and where they are about to refurbish the bedrooms. Simply to refurbish the bedrooms in London will cost £3,000 a room. One can imagine what it would cost to add a wing to an hotel or to build a new hotel. The prices are rising every day. So if we are to give hoteliers a chance of recouping their money, of keeping down their prices and giving service at the same price in improved accommodation, then we must treat the hotel trade on the same footing as a business which manufactures something and which brings in the sort of foreign currency that has been mentioned.
416
As the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, pointed out, we must give proper support and a proper degree of priority to the industry. Indeed, this was mentioned also by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. We must give more money to the BTA, which is the body responsible for selling abroad. That is the only body responsible for selling abroad, and it is ridiculous that when we are trying to increase the amount of tourism that we attract to this country we are not increasing the money which it has to spend. We must give proper support to tourist-orientated projects. We really should look at this in a regional sense and ensure that, if there are projects which are not exactly tourist in themselves but which have a tourist element in them—such as the provision of golf courses or swimming pools—these are properly looked at from the point of view of the value that they bring to the tourist industry. The Government should lean towards them and give them proper financial support if they can really show that they are tourist orientated.
We must see also that it pays to work in the industry, whether people are employers or employees. There is still a good deal of underpayment of people within the tourist industry. There are people being paid wages which no other industry would consider adequate for somebody to live on. We must see not only that the rates of pay for people working in the industry are adequate but also that the employer of these people should be able to earn the money to pay them.
As I have said, there is no room for complacency. I have already mentioned that Scottish tourism fell last year: we must try to bring tourism back to the level which it had reached previously, and indeed we must try to exceed it. For that reason we must tackle travel problems and petrol costs. We must overcome people's inability to afford to holiday in the remoter areas. We must sell harder, especially abroad, and we must think of the possibility of internal packaging because we save a great deal of foreign currency by giving people holidays at home. We must use all of our ingenuity, and to this end I would certainly support what the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said; we must give a degree of priority to tourism as an industry.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Phillips and I have changed places. I hope that that is acceptable. I should like to thank Lord Ponsonby for this debate, and, if I may say so, for the most excellent speech with which he opened it. He raised many different questions that we should all like to pursue, and I hope he will realise that it is not lack of enthusiasm but lack of time which makes it impossible to do so at the present moment.
Over 1½ million people in Britain depend for their jobs, directly or indirectly, on our travel movements, and, unlike many other trades in Britain today, the tourist services urgently need more people. Last year, there was a record number of some 12 million tourists and overseas visitors to this country. They spent over £3,000 million in Britain and on fares on British carriers. The Prime Minister recently said:
"Tourism is a world phenomenon and Britain is now placed among the countries of the world to attract international tourism".
This is an internationally competitive business, and I want to suggest that Lord Ponsonby has given us this debate at exactly the right time. It will come as a most useful curtain-raiser to 1st March, when the British Airports Authority is to give a presentation on Heathrow to members of the British Tourist Authority and others with a particular interest. I think that this presentation may well not be confined to Heathrow. Sir Henry Marking, Chairman of the British Tourist Authority, says that from the point of view of the Authority the welcome that a visitor from overseas arriving by air in London receives is of immense importance because it colours his whole attitude towards Britain. Indeed, he went on to say that airlines, Her Majesty's Customs, the Immigration Service, taxi-cab drivers, all have their part to play. I want to add one more—the new underground link between Heathrow and Central London, and I should like to spend the remainder of my remarks on this subject.
This link should be a golden opporttunity to welcome visitors to Britain and an equally golden one to speed them on their return journey. It is not. It has one considerable drawback. It is not meant to service all passengers but only
418
those with hand luggage. Almost five years ago, on 2nd April 1973, I raised this matter in your Lordships' House. At that time, most people had imagined that this new rail link would be for the benefit of all travellers. Not so, we were told; this had never been envisaged. There would be no porters anywhere, nor any access for that section of the community going out to the airport, although this was not stressed at the time. If anyone who is sufficiently interested can obtain a copy of Hansard for 2nd April 1973 and read the comments on the proposed rail link made at col. 107 by Lord Kinnoull, I think our joint anxiety will be clear.
I think it fair comment today, and true, to say that this rail link is excellent for business travellers, for the staff at Heathrow and for passengers with hand baggage. Unfortunately, no consideration has been given to those with baggage going on holiday or returning, not forgetting our foreign visitors. It does seem quite extraordinary that a new link to Heathrow airport, constructed at considerable public cost, should expressly exclude use by air travellers with luggage. After ail, this is a normal condition for people who are going away. I believe that foreign visitors—the tourists whom we are talking about today—with luggage, as well as we ourselves with luggage, who have helped to pay for the rail link, should be able to use it.
Having said that, I should like to put forward a suggestion. Gloucester Road underground station is on the Piccadilly line—the Heathrow link—and it has a lift. I am asking London Transport to make this lift available from street level to Piccadilly line level, to have porters also available, to site a taxi rank outside, and to publicise such arrangements. From this debate, backed, I would hope, by the influence of Lord Ponsonby in the world of tourism, and by the words of the Prime Minister himself, there should go out a demand for an attempt to be made to rectify this omission. I should like an immediate inquiry into which station or stations on this rail link can offer entry from ground level outside to platform level below for travellers with luggage who are unable to cope with escalators. Surely we could appeal here to London Transport, to the British Tourist Authority and to the Airport

419
Authority. Also what about the interests of all the airlines? After all, people going on holiday do pay air fares. They are entitled to some consideration. They, too, would like to use this new link.
One final query and I shall have finished. London Transport tell me that it is an essential part of the scheme that the coach service should be retained. When I made inquiries some years ago, London Transport told me the position was that these buses were operated by London Transport on a cost-plus basis under contract to BEA. I wonder if the same arrangement is operating today with British Airways. Speaking for all those who so enjoyed using this bus service up to the early 1970's, and who cannot afford private transport, I must tell London Transport and British Airways that it is not enjoyable today. Until there is access to the rail link from street level for travellers with luggage, may we take it that the coach service will not only be retained and not reduced but that the frequency will be increased if necessary?
So I am asking only two questions today, and the Minister has had notice of both. First, may we have an inquiry into which station on the Heathrow/London rail link could best accommodate travellers with luggage, and have this treated as a matter of urgency? Secondly, will the coach service be retained and, if necessary, increased until a station is made available? After all, looked at purely on an economic level, if our visitors brought in £3,000 million last year alone, we could afford to do what I am asking in order to give them a better welcome. Let us not throw away any golden opportunity that Lord Ponsonby and our own tourist economy has given us.
6.38 p.m.
The Duke of MARLBOROUGH: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank Lord Ponsonby for initiating this interesting debate on this important subject. As an owner of an historic house which is visited by many tourists and as President of the Thames and Chiltern Tourist Board, I feel that I can claim to have a little knowledge of the tourist industry. Your Lordships have already heard how important tourism is to our economy. I should like to put forward some proposals for improving the facilities for our visiting tourists.
420
Let us start when an overseas visitor arrives in this country. While I do not have first-hand experience of many of the airports, I know Heathrow well enough to say that I think the facilities and overall impression the traveller gets leaves much to be desired. I believe that the first impression one gets is always very important. I have often seen long queues of visitors awaiting immigration clearance, and if any of your Lordships were fortunate enough to be going on holiday last year, but were, unfortunately, using No. 2 terminal, you will recall the chaos and confusion caused by the rebuilding work. I must point out that this was before the air traffic controllers problems; it was even worse after that. The airport employees were working under appalling difficulties, and the cooperation and help they gave was much admired and appreciated by the travellers. But why cannot we plan ahead for these eventualities. Is the British Airports Authority too large? Does it control too many airports? I believe we need an airport policy document to enlighten us on this important question.
I now come to four specific points which I believe would assist the development of our tourist industry which, as has already been pointed out, is one of the few growth industries which contribute enormously to our balance of payments. First, reform of the Shops Act 1950. That Act was passed before the growth of inland resorts and touring areas. Although it would seem to have relatively little effect on trading in traditional seaside resorts, there is substantial evidence that it is seriously hampering the development of tourism in inland areas. While the Government's position on this Act is that any inland area can obtain a designation as being a resort and therefore be entitled to open on 18 Sundays a year, this is unsatisfactory since, from a retailing point of view, consistent opening ail year round is necessary.
The inland areas of England do not have the heavily seasonal pattern of visitors which is characteristic of the seaside resorts. Moreoever, the limitations imposed on what can be sold, by the Seventh Schedule relating to Section 51 of the 1950 Act, are such as to make Sunday opening for most shops very difficult. The Government's policy is to

421
support tourism in the parts of England which have not hitherto benefited from it. If that policy is to become a reality then the number of permitted Sundays a year must be increased from 18 and the Seventh Schedule must be greatly broadened.
My second point is the reform of the licensing laws. The Committee of my noble friend Lord Erroll of Hale came up with a series of well thought out recommendations for reforming the licensing laws which were widely accepted among the hotel trade and others in the tourist industry as good, commonsense recommendations. It is ridiculous that someone having a holiday on the Thames should be forced to buy drinks at different hours depending on whether he ties up on the left bank or the right. In the Thames and Chiltern Tourist Board leaflet Eating and Drinking Along the Thames we have had to explain at what point on the river Berkshire ends and Oxfordshire begins. I believe that there will be widespread support for the introduction of some of the recommendations of the Committee of my noble friend Lord Erroll of Hale, yet the Government have simply shelved this issue.
My third point concerns a Government loans scheme for hotel extensions. This varies slightly from the suggestion put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede. At present, there are virtually no new hotels under construction anywhere in Britain. Building and land costs are so high that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to obtain a room rate which gave a realistic return on investment. If our tourist industry is to expand and continue to grow, more rooms will be needed. The best way to achieve that is through the extension of existing hotels where the owners already have the land and already know their market. A very great difficulty arises in borrowing money over a reasonably long period of time. The clearing banks will generally lend for only five years, sometimes seven years. While in practice they will often extend the loan well beyond the initial agreed time—perhaps in the form of an overdraft facility—it is vital that the small businessman or independent hotelier knows at the time of borrowing that he can rely on a 12, 15 or perhaps even 20 year repayment programme.
422
We have heard that the Government wish to help small businesses. I think that we shall hear more in the future about them wanting to help small businesses. Therefore, I believe that a fixed interest loan scheme would in fact cost the Government very little and the pay-off in terms of assisting new hotel extensions would be substantial.
My fourth point concerns a low level grant scheme for tourist projects outside the development areas. Under section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act 1969 the Government are empowered to make grants and loans for tourist projects inside the development areas. In recent years the grant element for these schemes has been as high as 50 per cent. The Minister has consistently refused to extend this scheme outside the development areas.
I believe that if there were a Section 4 scheme available in, for instance, the Thames and Chiltern Region with grant assistance as low as 15 or 10 per cent. of the total capital cost, then a substantial number of new projects would be forth-coming. Again, the cost to the Government would be very little and the pay-off would be very much higher than is possible in the present development areas. Both of those last two proposals would help the unemployment problem.
During the debate attention has been drawn to the social and economic importance of tourism and to its contribution to the economy. However, the importance of tourism is not recognised at Government level in terms of ministerial responsibility. As noble Lords have heard, the secretary of State for Trade and Industry is responsible for tourism at Cabinet level, but within the Department of Trade and Industry, a Parliamentary Under-Secretary is responsible for many subjects. Jostling with such matters for the attentions of a Minister with comparatively junior status represents a completely inadequate provision for the needs of tourism policy and the complexities of the industry. That situation is also reflected in the level of Civil Service responsibility for tourism.
What happens elsewhere? In Australia, Canada, Spain, France, New Zealand and Turkey there are now Ministers solely responsible for tourism and related matters. It therefore seems essential that the Government should consider appointing

423
a Minister of State within the Department of Trade with special responsibility for tourism trades and policies. Such an appointment would confirm that the Government recognise the importance and complexity of tourism matters, and would give greater impetus to the development of a national tourism policy and to the resolution of policy problems in dealings with other Government Departments involved in tourism.
Let us be proud of our thriving tourist industries. Let us praise and thank all those who have helped to make this a real success story—especially, the British Tourist Authority—but, at the same time, let us not be complacent. We must remember that tourist competition is growing very fast. It is, therefore, essential to ensure that we continue to develop new ideas and improve existing facilities.
6.47 p.m.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, for introducing this debate, I should like to offer him congratulations for the wonderful work that he has done both as chairman of the Tourist Board and for London generally in the many activities that he has pursued.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, I, too, love tourists, except when they are on my bus, on my pavements or in my shops. However, when one sees them around Buckingham Palace or outside the Houses of Parliament and listens to their admiring remarks, one realises that, in fact, here are people who have actually come to like us. Indeed, it is worth recalling, what the tourists say to me about the British. They say that we are cheerful—one may wonder about that on a Monday morning—that we are civilised and courteous and they always compliment us on our theatres and taxi drivers. They say that our taxi drivers are honest and courteous.
My particular interest in this subject is that I am President of the Institute of Travel and Tourism. That Institute is concerned with the people who work in this very exciting industry. I noted that one noble Lord referred to the fact that for all too long this has been found to be a second-class job. Indeed, those who sell either travel overseas or tourism here need to very fully trained and of a very high calibre.
424
In 1955 the Association of British Travel Agents set up the Institute. It was at that time called the Institute of Travel. The idea was that it would have a national training programme and pre-school link courses. I found that that was a great way of inspiring enthusiastic youngsters to enter this profession. There were also day-release schemes and the issuing of diplomas.
Over the years that idea has gradually grown. I should like to place on record that this is, in fact, an industry which has attempted to set its own house in order and which I believe deserves commendation for that fact. We now have among our members the promotion and information officers of tourism; the people who act as carriers, the tour operators; anybody who provides amenities for tourists; travel and tourist retailers and some 1,500 students in different centres; a whole mass of correspondence courses are provided and there is a general movement towards uplifting people towards professionalism. What does the Institute ultimately hope for? It hopes that qualifications will be required by more and more people within the industry and that the Government will eventually recognise that a travel agent or any component part of the industry—any worker in the industry—must have fully-trained staff qualified to the highest possible standard of professionalism. There is no need to say that they need be any different from the professional who is a solicitor, doctor or dentist. They are in a highly-skilled business.
We have heard reference to the fact that so many of our overseas visitors come to London. As a Londoner I rejoice in that, particularly as they always say that they like our city. I understand that half a million of those visitors flock down Oxford Street for shopping. There is little doubt that we have the best shops in the Western World. That is why people come here to buy.
What do they buy? Clothing and footwear account for 86 per cent. of what they buy. Frequently, one sees gentlemen—Arab gentlemen in particular—wheeling out whole racks of clothing—one wonders whether it is for their wives or whether they have some shops at home. China, glass, silver and leather account for 10 per cent. There is a distaff side to this.

425
There are a few people who do not buy, but who actually take goods without paying for them. In my work in the prevention of theft, I have learnt that unfortunately there is a very bad Press in their countries, which seems to suggest that the British do something to these people which causes them to act differently here from how they would act abroad.
I appeal to the tourist boards to have some kind of colourful and attractive leaflet—and I should be happy to collaborate with them in its preparation—explaining the joys and snags of buying in Britain. It is an exciting operation, but no doubt it can be confusing. It would be a pity if anyone was to be involved in something that could be embarrassing because he or she did not really understand the process. I believe that we, the British, who carried our skills and talents in previous days all over the world, now welcome the travellers to our shores and show them that we can still lead the world in what we have to offer.
6.52 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, first, I should like to declare a family interest in a small group of hotels in the Provinces. Tonight I particularly want to base what I have to say on my experience as the President of the Association of Conference Executives, which is abbreviated to the attractive title of ACE, which makes it easier to comment.
Although ACE specialises in giving advice on conferences and exhibitions, the officers have found that almost as a by-product their normal work leads them to play an increasing part in extending British tourism. Indeed, that is particularly evident when one realises that delegates to conferences are spending something like five or six times as much as the average tourist who comes here purely for a holiday.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, who leads the London Bureau, is a member of ACE. I should like to support all that he said about the great work that has been done in London to make London such an attractive venue for world tourism. But, of course, London is not the whole of Britain. There are attractions and inducements outside
426
London, although one would not want in any way to depreciate the great part that the magnetism of London itself plays in bringing both tourism and conferences to the city.
However, outside London we have the new National Exhibition Centre at Birmingham, the new Brighton Conference Centre and the Harrogate idea will come on stream very shortly. It should be on the record that since the Birmingham Centre was completed some two years ago it has attracted 63 exhibitions which have brought in about 3 million visitors, and that during the 12 months ending September 1977, at a conservative estimate £25 million of revenue has been brought to the Midlands as a result of its activities. So it is justifying its existence in a very real way. For example, there were 14,000 overseas visitors at the recent INTERPLAS exhibition and that was 34 per cent. of the total attendance at the exhibition. So the part that that is playing in bringing people from other parts of the world to this as a conference and a tourist centre is a very real one. The Birmingham National Exhibition Centre is very optimistic that by 1980 it will double the business that it is at present doing, which will bring it pretty much up to its capacity.
Having said that about the big conference halls and exhibitions that hit the headlines, it is worthy of note that about 80 per cent. of the conferences and meetings held in the United Kingdom are of a size which often do not exceed 200 in number. So in addition to the major venues, there are many hotels, small conference centres and, indeed, country houses, which can accommodate such meetings and exhibitions. That is a great help in the height of the tourist season when it is so difficult to get bedrooms in London for the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, outlined.
The conference business itself is now running at an annual expenditure of about £300 million in the United Kingdom alone. I believe that this is a contribution to tourism which is not inconsiderable. But it could be greatly improved upon if more companies and hotels became more professional in seeking out the great and growing potential of business in this conference field. That is the special contribution that ACE is trying to make.

427
ACE arranges training courses designed to extend such professionalism among its own members and among the British Tourist authorities, the tourist boards and the tourist-conscious local authorities. If they can give us their support and backing, I am convinced that the returns which they will receive from the experience that we are able to share with them will be very worth while indeed. For instance, ACE has helped local authorities by bringing this professionalism to them, by arranging exhibitions and meetings and by arranging visits of inspection. As a result of one such recent visit of inspection, some 30 senior organisers went to Bournemouth and £450,000 of conference money will now be spent there over the next two years. That is what professionalism and really getting down to it, instead of merely talking in headline language the whole time, can bring about.
I submit that Government Departments and Parliament should find ways of seeking to encourage such private enterprise endeavours as the work of ACE is proving to be. If they could give their help to bring people along to our workshops and to fit in with the plans that we are making to give them training and to share expertise, it would pay very good dividends indeed.
In France, a similar organisation known as ACCER has clear Government support. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, is very eager that I in particular and others in general should not speak at any great length tonight. In return, perhaps she would undertake to use her influence at the Departments of Trade and Industry to meet me and my officers to see whether we cannot tell them ways in which they could help us, so that we could help to bring conferences to this country and encourage tourism. If she could give me that undertaking, it would be a very good reason for me to cut down my two-hour speech to the eight minutes which I know she has in mind.
There is some competition here. About a year ago the Association of Conference Executives was established in Australia. We are doing our best to bring it to Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Italy and the Scandinavian countries, because they are getting this expertise, because
428
they want to share this world tourism, and this world conference business which very clearly exists. The special attraction which ACE has for me as a business man, if I can claim to be that, is that its guidance and advice come mainly from active business executives. Their members are usually senior executives of companies and businesses; men who have their ordinary businesses and responsibilities apart from arranging conferences and exhibitions. Therefore, their approach is a practical one based on experience rather than being merely a theoretical textbook approach, which is so often the case when one has these seminars.
For such people to work in close cooperation with the tourist authorities in Britain, we have to get a partnership both with them and with the Government involved. That is why I call upon the appropriate Government Departments to encourage them. No time should be lost, for I venture to add my words to the warnings that have already been given. We are not the only nation which recognises the potential in this field. Many other national tourist offices are bidding hard to attract conference business away from the United Kingdom. This is very much evidenced by those who have enrolled to come to some of the ACE courses to get the training and expertise in order to do that.
My one plea to the noble Baroness is this. Could she use her influence to get Government action as regards the theatres? We remain absolutely supreme in only two fields. We are supreme in the world with our Queen and monarchy system; we are supreme in the world of the theatre. In most other things we are still high up, but not supreme. In those two we are. So far as the theatre is concerned, Government action which is crying out for a quick move is to relieve the theatre industry of VAT, particularly as regards the commercial theatre. The commercial theatre does not have the subsidies which go to the civic and State theatres, but it is still the main line of production for theatrical talent, and we shall let it die at our peril.
My final words are not mine at all. The noble Lord, Lord Somers, in a quick word to me a minute or two ago, said, "I don't want to take up time in debate, but try and emphasise that, apart from

429
buildings, apart from conferences, apart from stately homes, one thing which can make a place an attractive tourist venue is if the local population show good manners and helpfulness." There is just a possibility that in some fields we have seen a deterioration in what used to be the traditional good manners of the people of this country. If we can get some return to the normal courtesies which are inherent in us, together with all the mechanical ideas, that will help us to keep at the forefront of perhaps the most promising of the growth industries in the world today.
7.3 p.m.
Lord PARRY: My Lords, with the natural modesty and reticence that is native to the Welsh, I rise at this time to present to you the arguments that are relevant to Wales in the context of tourism's contribution to the economy. I would begin, if he would allow me and forgive me, by taking up a point made by the noble Duke, the Duke of Marlborough, who found that the Government failed to understand the complexities of the tourist industry; that they did not properly relate at ministerial level to those problems; and that they were wanting in some regard in their attitude to the tourist industry generally. I want only to say that in the excellent publication which I hold in my hand of the Wales Tourist Board, Bwrdd Croeso Cymru, he will find a statement that seems to show other experience. The chairman of that tourist authority, Mr. Ednyfed Hudson Davies, while expressing thanks to his own staff in the area for the excellent level of work that has gone on there, also says that he appreciates
"the help which we get from our colleagues in the British Tourist Authority and in the Welsh office. Since taking office, I have had frequent contact with the Secretary of State for Wales, Mr. John Morris, and the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Mr. Barry Jones. I have been greatly encouraged by their interest in tourism and their appreciation of its contribution to the economy of Wales and I want to thank them most sincerely for the courtesy, advice and kindness which I have personally received from them".
I do not make that as a political point; I put it in the balance in this debate in the short time available.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Wales recently asked the Welsh Tourist Board to carry out surveys into the possibilities for new developments
430
in what he described as "fragile areas", which could absorb more visitors without damage to their environment, and where there was a potential to promote features with tourist appeal. It is really reporting on that which is the basis of this report of the Welsh Tourist Board.
In common with other noble Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord ponsonby, for his contribution. I apologise for missing it, but I have read his speech and have made my apologies to him. The revenue from tourism in Wales is estimated to have grown by an average of 10 per cent. a year in the past decade. In 1973 tourism earned some £170million for Wales and in 1974 £200 million was reached for the first time. This figure had increased to £300 million by 1976, and when the 1977 figures are available it is anticipated that a further increase to about £350 million will have been recorded. In 1976 a record 5.6 million holidays of 4 nights or more were taken in Wales making it—this surprises me—the second most popular tourist destination in Britain. The Wales Tourist Board is concerned about the effects on family hotels—which subject has been mentioned—of the recession in the domestic market during the 1977 season, and is currently engaged in a promotional campaign aimed at restoring the image of family holidays in Wales. However, the overseas market continued to expand in 1977. We have a phenomenon in Wales of a very greatly increased interest in our particular area, and our areas of beauty, from the Continent and our partners in the EEC, who seem to be discovering us in large numbers. The overseas market continued to expand in 1977 and it is hoped that this position will be maintained in 1978.
The growth in tourism in Wales is supported by the Government through the grant-in-aid to the Wales Tourist Board. The Board has the responsibility of encouraging people to visit Wales and to take their holidays there and to encourage the provision and improvement of amenities and facilities for tourists in Wales. The total amount of Government funds directed towards the promotion of tourism in Wales in 1977–78 is £2,388,000. The Board's operating expenditure, which includes the cost of its excellent publicity, promotional campaigns and general administration, amounts to £1,395 000 and the sum of £993,000 is allocates to the

431
Board to enable it to make grants available for projects qualifying for assistance under Section 4 of the Development of Tourism Act. These projects are designed to provide and improve tourist amenities and facilities of all kinds in the development area and it has long been the Board's policy to give special consideration to those parts of Wales where the contribution which tourism can make towards strengthening the economy is most needed. It is probably a phenomenon of the whole of Britain that those most beautiful areas, the most attractive, the ones which are most remote, in fact suffer most from unemployment.
Following a review of tourism policy by an inter-departmental working party, the emphasis of Government support for tourism is being geared less to the generalised promotion of places which need no advertising and concentrated instead on areas with under-utilised tourism potential which remain relatively unknown to visitors. There are still such places, thank God! in Wales.
Particular attention will be given to developing the untapped tourism potential of certain parts of the development areas with the capacity to benefit from an increase in the number of visitors.
One area which has been selected in Wales for this purpose is Blaenau Ffestiniog. The Wales Tourist Board is building on the success of two projects which they have already assisted, Llechwedd Quarry Tours and Gloddfa Ganol—if I am flagellated a little for being half a second over my time, might I point out that words have more syllables in Welsh than in English. The completion of the restoration of the Ffestiniog narrow gauge railway back to Blaenau Ffestiniog will complement these developments and help to encourage visitors to spend more time in Blaenau Ffestiniog itself. As part of this exercise the board has organised local discussions to determine how the tourism potential of the town can be more fully realised.
During 1977 the board also held tourism presentations in Milford Haven, which we have mentioned before this evening, and Anglesey. I would tell the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, that 1st March is a rather important date for presentations in Wales
432
as well as at airports in London. The object of the presentations in Milford Haven and Anglesey were to increase employment through tourism, and the Board considers that the capacity exists to expand tourism in both these areas, and much could be achieved if the local authorities and the local tourist operators responded to its initiatives. I thank noble Lords for having listened to what is frankly a "commercial" for the beauties of my country; and I hope you will come and stay with us.
7.10 p.m.
Lord MONTAGU of BEAULIEU: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I welcome the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, in this debate and I should perhaps begin by declaring my interest, having been involved in tourism for almost a lifetime. I am president of the Southern Tourist Board, president of the Historic Houses Association, 400 houses of which are open to the public, and I am the owner of one of Britain's largest tourist attractions.
It was 25 years ago that I was embarking on my first lecture tour in America on behalf of tourism and stately homes. It was certainly not clear then—it is now an historical fact—that, as sunshine has been a winner for Spain and Italy over the years, so our heritage would prove a winner for Great Britain. Consider the extraordinary figures: in 1952 there were 200 houses both private and Government-owned, open to the public—in fact only about one-quarter of them were private and they attracted only 1½ million visitors. Last year we had 800 buildings open to the public and attracting 50 million visitors—quite a success story.
It has been a double blessing, for, as the heritage makes an important contribution to the success of attracting tourists to Great Britain, so tourism makes a vital contribution to the conservation of the heritage itself. All over the world conservation costs money and there is no building or work of art that can be relied on to preserve itself. It is also clear that our ability to keep them in good order and to prevent them from being exported will depend primarily on political and fiscal decisions. I pay tribute to the Government for all they have done to help in the last few years and we await

433
the forthcoming Budget with great interest.
I also wish to pay tribute to the part played by the living arts and the museums. It is indeed sad to see the plight of some of our great museums. For example, the Victoria and Albert is giving an ever-decreasing public service; noble Lords may have been following the correspondence in The Times. I could not help but give a wry smile at the irony that many of the people signing the letters were the people who, in 1974, were vociferously leading the campaign against museum charges. Personally, I deplored the decision that was taken to cancel them when the present Government came to power. We now have a situation in which the national museums, which have so much to offer to tourism, contributing nothing, unlike the DOE properties which make a very significant contribution to the Treasury. Hence, the museums have lost their ace card when they are arguing for larger grants, and thus our tourist facilities are diminished, particularly for overseas visitors who are willing and able to pay.
Looking forward, I think it can be argued with some force that at least some of our North Sea oil revenue should be invested in making our heritage more attractive and accessible, and I hope that the Government will tonight accept at any rate the principle of such thinking. It will indeed be money well spent. It will certainly have public support and the Government should have no difficulty in persuading themselves that there are good economic reasons for doing this.
Looking back over the past 25 years, it is right that we should remember the remarkable success story of the British Tourist Authority which, with little resources, has done a superb job the world over, selling tourism to Britain against stiff competition. I pay tribute to Sir Alexander Glen, the recently retired chairman, whose energy and foresight have done much to lay sound foundations for the future, and all those concerned with tourism welcome the appointment of Sir Henry Marking; for once, exactly the right man has been appointed for this really important post.
I do not entirely agree with Lord Ponsonby on the question of a Ministry of Tourism, though as the success of tourism depends on so many organisations,
434
we need more co-ordination. However, I think it has been a good thing that we have not had a Ministry of Tourism because, if we had had such a Department, I do not think we should have achieved the success we have. This industry should not be subjected to the somewhat stifling effect of Whitehall and the political whims of different Ministers.
However, more co-operation is certainly necessary and whoever is appointed should have his job properly defined. We should welcome the fact that civil servants today appreciate the benefits of tourism, which so much affect our invisible earrings and which so often represent the difference between profit and loss on our monthly account, far more than they did 25 years ago. As has been said, tourism buys many jobs for men and women of all ages and—and this has not so Far been mentioned—it provides jobs for many school-leavers.
Lord Ponsonby was bound to say a good deal about London and I shall not disagree with him about that, but it is also important to get people out of London. Tourism makes an important contribution to regional prosperity and especially to small businesses. We must not forget that, outside London, the tourist industry is largely dependent on the domestic market. For example, in the Southern Tourist Board area, £225 million is spent every year, but 82 per cent. of that is spent by British tourists. At the other end of the country, in Northumbria, £75 million is spent, 84 per cent. of which is spent by the domestic market. We should, therefore, pay credit tonight to the regional tourist boards which, in spite of an economic situation which has left their market largely static, are nevertheless still responsible for 32 million domestic tourists. Comforting it is to feel that so many of our own people still appreciate the beauties of the British Isles. However, the tourist boards can and should contribute more to expand this market and local government should be urged to take tourism rather more seriously.
What can be done? First, I support noble Lords who have asked the Government to give the BTA a real increase in grant in the next, vital years. Other countries are doing it and it will be money far better spent than expenditure on propping up any ailing nationalised

435
industry—better to invest in success than in failure. Many BTA offices overseas are starved of funds to do their job properly, and that even includes money to get their leaflets translated into foreign languages.
Secondly, the Government are always calling for new investment. Why should the tourist industry and services to tourism be discriminated against? Hotels and other tourist amenities do not get industrial building allowances and even the modest grants for tourism are largely allocated to areas which many people do not wish to visit. Key resorts are neglected and will in due course fall behind internationally and be unable to compete. The regional tourist boards are keenly awaiting the Government's White Paper on airports. As the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, said, successful tourism depends on good communications and internal airflights in Great Britain are deplorably bad and expensive compared with the United States.
Cannot the Government and their Ministers proclaim loudly and clearly their faith in tourism as being greatly beneficial to Great Britain? It is indeed of permanent and lasting value, and will be there when the oil runs out. Will they not perhaps stand up against the current little Englander attitude of some vocal groups who greedily seize the benefits of tourism but deplore the source?
We are all tourists now and we should perhaps all deplore the attitude of those people who visit Switzerland and the South of France in the winter and return home to complain in the summer about the Swiss and French coming here. It is because we have a balance of £1,000 million on our travel account that they are able to travel so freely. Nor can we turn the clock back to the time when travel was the privilege of the favoured few. We in this country are blessed with the fact that millions wish to visit us. Let us welcome them and let the Government formulate constructive and long-term policies which will give us all the confidence to provide the ways and means for the country's benefit and for the benefit of our visitors.
7.20 p.m.
Lord AUCKLAND: My Lords, although this debate, so admirably moved
436
by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, is a short debate, it is nevertheless a very important one. I should first like to say a word about Scotland, where I have spent a good deal of my life. Yesterday's issue of The Scotsman quoted figures by the Scottish Tourist Board showing the increase in tourism in Scotland in 1977. It was 15 per cent. above the previous year, and £150 million was spent in 1977. I particularly commend the marvellous efforts made by that wonderful theatre at Pitlochry, in Perthshire, which has had a great success in helping the tourist industry there.
I have no financial interest in tourism to declare, but I have three close relatives in various stages of seniority in the hotel and catering industry, and I should like to make a very special plea for more help to be given to the smaller hotels, particularly those on our very lovely coastline. There are many hotels which, quite rightly, have had to spend substantial sums of money on improving their fire precautions because of the recent Act, and this has inevitably put some in financial difficulty. This is perhaps only temporary, but, although I believe that there are certain allowances under the local employment Acts and other statutes, I wonder whether enough is being done here, particularly for these hotels on the coast and in areas of great beauty.
Reference has already been made to training in the hotel industry. I believe that tourists visiting this country like to see hotels which have British-born managers and British-born staff attending to their needs, because, although it is a popular conception that some of our European colleagues are more efficient at running hotels, I do not think that that is always the case. I wonder, therefore, whether enough is being done by the Government to assist the Hotel Training Board to encourage more, so to speak, home-grown youngsters to come into this industry, which has a great potential for helping tourism.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, mentioned the insurance industry, with which I have been connected since 1948, and the fact that tourism is now bringing in more money than the insurance industry. This is very true. Lloyd's of London attracts many thousands of overseas visitors every year. Some come on business, some are

437
students, others are on holiday. I have personally taken round a number of groups, and I am sure that what they see is an enormous help towards getting more of their friends or relations over to see this great industry, among others. Here, I should like to pay tribute to the information office in Lloyd's, which has been of substantial help to me and others who work in that sphere, encouraging overseas visitors to come.
I think it should also be remembered that it is not only the Americans and those from the Middle East who visit this country as tourists. Many come from New Zealand, where I have strong family connections; from Australia; and from Scandinavia, notably Finland—a country which has sent an increasing number of tourists over here, some of whom I have had the pleasure of taking round your Lordships' House and also round the insurance industry. Finland is a country which has an enormous potential in this field.
Also, not every tourist coming over has an unlimited budget, and here it should be remembered that our smaller hotels have a great part to play. It has to be remembered, of course, that hotels have tremendous overheads these days—higher rates, more costs in electricity and so on. This is not the time to make special pleading on any scale, but it is to be hoped that the smaller hotels, many of which belong to the great chains—Rank, Trust House Forte and so on—may be recognised as places where help is needed; because there is no doubt at all that, whatever the future fortunes of this country may be in years to come, tourism is something which has to be actively encouraged.
7.26 p.m.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, I want to speak about something which has so far hardly been touched on in the debate this evening, and that is the question of the costs of tourism to the community. Let me preface this by saying, please do not misunderstand me; I am not "knocking" tourism. I agree with every single other person who has spoken that the tourist trade is a fine thing for the country. It is civilised, it brings in money, and I am all for it; but I think we should look at the costs. My life has recently taken
438
me, perhaps more so than in the case of most of your Lordships, into countries in Southern Europe where there is even more tourism than there is here—and there is a limit. I do not know if it is generally known in this country that, if you want to climb the Matterhorn in summer, you are allotted a 10-minute time slot, party by party, to get to the rock faces—there is that degree of crowding—and that, for one or two days every summer, the local authority has to close the mountain (can you imagine it, my Lords?—they have to close the Matterhorn altogether to climbers) in order that parties of guides may go up to the top with spades, buckets and pickaxes to bury the human excrement on the summit. We know that the top of Snowdon will have to be physically replaced because it has been worn away by people's feet—and this, of course, is just the beginning of it.
It is not really the environmental cost which exercises me so much as economic cost. I have been looking at the documents put out by the tourist authorities, statutory and otherwise. There is a useful one called Tourism in Context, put out by the British Tourist Authority in November 1976. It says that it has been
"produced to challenge some of the myths and misconceptions which have been at attached to tourism activities in recent years by a wide range of critics".
It
"refutes the often canvassed view that tourism is a major source of environmental congestion, pollution and damage."
This is a document extolling the benefits of tourism, and does not touch upon the costs except to point out from time to time in rather curious language that the residents of our cities and towns themselves create social and economic costs simply by living there. Perhaps I can give your Lordships an example:
"Any increment in the numbers of visitors and of cars in an area conspicuously adds to the existing pressures created by its residents."
Poor old residents; they ought not to be creating pressures at all! Again:
"if there were no holiday staying visitors in Inner London at all, the problems of congestion, litter and so on would hardly be lessened."
So much for Londoners! Then, in this marvellous sentence, speaking of tourists, it says:
"their use of the transport system is doubly welcome".

439
Try saying that to a Central London bus queue at any time between 1st March and 31st November and see how it is received!
There is another document, Tourism in Britain, the Broad Perspective. Once again, I expected an objective, balanced view of the benefits and costs. It is published by—well, everybody: the British Travel Association and the English, Scottish and Welsh Travel Boards; but it is not dated. The thinking may be out of date. There is one small paragraph called "Costs" in this 24-page document. It says:
"Every industry operates at some cost to the environment."
It expands that a little—and I quote textually:
"While the argument of congestion gains a hearing there is little appreciation of the benefits of tourism in combating loneliness in remote areas. It is also said that the foreign exchange earnings of tourism are exaggerated since they arise as a result of large-scale importing to cater for the tourist influx. In fact the import ration of tourism (46 per cent.) is considerably lower than that of manufacturing industry (60 per Cent.)."
So somebody had done one sum somewhere. That is the end of the treatment of the costs of tourism in this document.
Last April, I asked the Government by Questions in this House how many foreign immigrants were working in the tourist trade, in the hotel and catering trades; what was the total number of their dependants; how many of those dependants were of school age; what was the cost arising from all that to the Health Service and the Education Service in this country—that is, what was the cost of the foreign workers in the catering and hotel trade? I asked what sums were repatriated by hotel and catering trade workers, with the permission of the Bank of England. Nobody could answer about sums repatriated without permission. I also asked what social costs of tourism had been identified by the British Tourist Authority or the Government; what was the cost to the taxpayer of the burden laid on the Police and the Immigration Services by the arrival and departure of tourists; and what calculations had been done? I ended up with the provocative question: why, if no calculations of costs have been done, does the British Tourist Authority assume that the arrival, sojourn and departure of 10 million tourists in 1976 will benefit the country more than
440
the 9 million who came in 1975? My point was not that I doubted but to ask why there was the assumption that it was so, if, as I suspected, no calculations had been done.
In a series of courteous Answers, my noble friend Lord Oram replied that none of the facts asked for was obtainable by the Government; that they did not know and neither did anybody else; that the cost benefit analysis I called for was impossible and that it was not worth the Government's while to obtain the facts so as to form some judgment of the cost and benefit. He afterwards wrote me a long and helpful letter about the difficulty of obtaining facts of this kind. Of course, they are considerable. Nobody would dispute that. He ended by saying that the facts could not be ascertained and, therefore, it would be wrong to make any effort to do so.
I wrote to him saying that I understood the difficulties that one is always up against in trying to obtain estimates of the cost of things whose benefits were easily estimated, and I suggested that he might think of setting up a working party of statisticians and laymen to look into the difficulty. I suggested that it might be better to do it now than to do so after being forced into it by a Press campaign—and pointed out that this might happen—and that the first sign of difficulties on the economic front in tourism can be seen in the form of the resource rationing by purse which is being introduced by the Cambridge colleges. You are not allowed to visit a Cambridge college now unless as an organised party below a certain size and you pay to get in. That will spread.
My point in bringing up all this now is not to cast doubt on the desirability of a rational expansion of tourism. It is merely to ask another Minister—with perhaps, greater hope of success—would it not be possible to call together trained minds to tackle this particular example of the quite familiar difficulties of a situation where all the good things about it are readily calculable and all the bad things are not? Or it could be the other way round: all the bad things are calculable and the good things are not. Society has time and time again faced such issues and, by the application of ingenuity and determination, has come to a way of

441
getting some sort of cost benefit analysis, some balance going. I urge the Government to try to do that in the case of the tourist trade and I repeat for the third and last time that I am not against it, that I love it as do you all.
7.35 p.m.
The Marquess of HERTFORD: My Lords, I must declare an interest as I am deeply involved in the tourist trade myself and I am President of the Heart of England Tourist Board. I should explain that the Heart of England area consists of the six counties always previously known as the West Midlands until somebody came along and created a new county and called that West Midlands. Although it is our duty as a regional tourist board to attract tourists away from London, I want to endorse every single word said by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, with regard particularly to the importance of developing and looking after the attractions in London. It is clear that London is where most people want to go. Our job in the regions is to get people to come out of London after they have been to London. We are "as well as" and not "instead of". I would not grudge a single penny spent on improving London's tourist amenities.
On the subject of finance generally, I think that the financing of tourist regional hoards is not entirely satisfactory. I should like to quote a comment made by my own regional director, Mr. John Brown. He said:
"The regional tourist boards (I hope you will agree!) do a good job; yet much of the time and resources at their disposal are spent in having to raise revenue within their own region, from the private sector and from local authorities. While there are undoubtedly desirable side benefits from these activities, such as improving the knowledge of tourism among those approached, this does mean that people in my job are much less effective than they might otherwise be in the work of selling and developing their own regions."
Apart from what may seem a waste of valuable and expensive time, it has always seemed to me extremely unfair that certain local authorities can decline to support their regional tourist hoards while continuing, inevitably, to receive a good deal of benefit from our activities. I should have thought that by now the widespread advantages of the great golden flood of dollars which comes sweeping
442
across the Atlantic every summer are too obvious to need stressing; but far too many local authorities place tourism under the general heading of "recreation" and then decide to cut down on it, as though it were just another expense with no corresponding source of income. I appreciate and, indeed, share the Government's reluctance to make anything compulsory, but I do think that the Government could at least encourage local authorities to play their part and to pay their fair share of the relatively small cost of developing the tourist industry.
I have always envied the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, his ability to speak without notes. I feel that to answer any of the points he raised—although I long to do so—would take a long time. But there is one small point about London Transport. Those of us who have anything to sell, such as a seat on a bus or a ticket to an historic house, are very anxious to have more customers rather than fewer. We like to be crowded.
Lord KENNET: My Lords, the noble Marquess will agree that those who need to buy something, for instance, a seat on a bus, may need to do so in order to get to work and in order to get their children to school. They cannot do so daring the rush hour in London.
The Marquess of HERTFORD: My Lords, I think that with fewer customers, the price of the seat may have to be increased yet more.
I should like briefly to take up one point made by the noble Duke, the Duke of Marlborough, about our licensing laws, which are a frequent source of annoyance to a large number of people, including me. I should like to ask two brief questions without making a major speech. First, am I right in thinking that this is in fact the only country in Europe in which, if a man is feeling thirsty at five o'clock in the afternoon, he cannot buy himself a drink unless he is a member of a club or possibly a Member of this House? Secondly, is this the only country in which during opening hours a man cannot buy a glass of Coca-Cola, or whatever, for his children in a public bar? I should like to suggest that Parliament might consider extending to other people the privileges that we ourselves enjoy in this building.
7.40 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, may I first join with other speakers who have taken part in this debate to say how grateful I am to my noble friend Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede for giving the House the opportunity to discuss the contribution which tourism makes to the economy. It is clear from the calibre of the speeches and from the number of people who wanted to speak and who have, if I may say so, exercised the most enormous self-restraint in the length of their remarks, that the whole subject deserved a far longer debate. It was also particularly interesting that, in addition to my noble friend who opened the debate, we have heard the Scots and Welsh "commercials" very well put over and seductively put forward.
My noble friend Lord Ponsonby spelled out very fully the facts and figures, and I shall not take up time in repeating them. What I will say in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, loudly and clearly, is that the Government recognise the value of the tourist industry. They are concerned and value the industry's contribution to the balance of payments, to employment—both directly and indirectly—and to our commercial and industrial vitality.
Tourism is the second largest invisible earner of foreign currency. I am aware my noble friend Lord Ponsonby said it was the first; I am not going to argue about statistics, otherwise I shall also get into a tangle with my noble friend Lord Kennet. I am obviously backing the horse each way; my noble friend backed it to win. Nevertheless, whether it is first or second, tourism is a large invisible earner. The importance of United Kingdom residents who take their holidays at home must not be overlooked. Those who do so by choice are indirectly helping our balance of payments problem, as are those who take an occasional trip to stately homes, museums or visit the country. I am going to emphasise the point that both the people who visit Britain and their motivations are extremely varied. This is not surprising, since our magnetism lies in the diversity of attractions we can provide. Like a
444
supermarket, every country has its shelves of tourist goodies and also temptations for the impulse buyer. Some have a short shelf life, others longer, and Britain's shelves are no less beguiling than those of our competitors. First and foremost is London, Edinburgh, Chester, Oxford, then the West Coast of Scotland, the Cotswolds, Yorkshire Dales, our marvellously beautiful countryside everywhere and, in case I omit it, of course the whole of Wales. All have their particular magic.
We have the most superb theatre. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, about this. Although the matter rests with my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, I will certainly point out to my noble friend the Minister for the Arts once again this vexed question of VAT on theatres. I know he is sympathetic. We have good music, very good ballet; outstanding museums and lovely old houses. We are able to offer sports facilities, both for participants and spectators. There are few other countries that can offer more—except the sun.
Tourism not only feeds on but contributes to this country's quality of life. This has been pointed out by most of the speakers in this debate. London's theatres could probably not survive—certainly at present standards—were it not for overseas visitors. Most of our ancient monuments, historic buildings and stately homes rely, as the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, pointed out, to a substantial extent on foreign tourists. Our catering industries and shops also benefit.
However, it is also true that many people have a double-edged attitude. My noble friend Lady Phillips and the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, also pointed this out. They like the economic benefits from the invisible exports emanating from tourism but wish the tourists would remain invisible too. Of course, large influxes of human bodies, however friendly, bring problems in terms of overcrowding, congestion and wear and tear. But the social cost umbrella often covers tendencies which are more "little Englander", I agree, than genuinely social. And since one of the reasons foreign visitors give for coming here is their appreciation of our way of life—which we as masochists are often too ready to knock—we must

445
approach the social cost with a welcoming smile on our faces while doing something about it.
My noble friend Lord Kennet asked me a number of what I can only describe as post-graduate questions on the social and economic costs. I shall, with great pleasure, pass them on to somebody who can answer them far better than I can: the chairman of the British Tourist Authority. I shall ask him if he will write to my noble friend direct. There is a fine balance to be struck. This was something that my noble friend Lord Kennet touched on as well. Wearing my environmental hat, I am constantly having to bear in mind this fine balance between giving people, whether from home or abroad, access to our heritage and, at the same time, protecting it from overcrowding, erosion and even destruction.
There are a number of ways in which we are trying to cope with this. For example, take that most famous and most visited ancient monument, the Tower of London. We have over 3 million visitors a year there. I recently had to raise charges there. It has been done in a way which I hope will encourage home visitors to go out of season so that visitors from abroad—and I am afraid we are having to do this by price—will be left with more opportunity to visit the Tower during the height of the season.
Another example is the gradual erosion and damage to Stonehenge. This is a particular headache for me at this moment. This is a matter of balancing the wish of people to have as near access as they can get to an ancient monument with the need to protect it not only for posterity but even during our own lifetime.
The same applies to the countryside; for example, the preservation of our national parks may conflict with some opportunities for people to enjoy them. We must give priority to conserving natural beauty where the two purposes are irreconcilable. While tourism brings benefits to local communities in terms of jobs and spending—and I very much take the point made by the noble Marquess regarding the variation in different local areas—more visitors mean demands for car parking, caravan and camp sites, congested country lanes and village streets.
446
For the most part, local authorities resourcefully meet the planning challenge that tourism creates. One of the problems is to ask them to spend more at a time when cuts are made in public expenditure. I agree that, when the tide turns economically, it is something that they should be encouraged to do.
Even so, much of Britain's beautiful countryside sees only a handful of visitors—and these concentrated in a very short period—and would benefit, as many speakers have pointed out, from more visitors or a more even spread. The ideal is not to stern the flow but to endeavour to spread it out in space and time. This has been Government policy since 974, but it cannot be taken to perfectionist ends. Of course everyone wants to come to London, and it would be a sad day for our capital city if tourists did not. I believe people who come to Britain, especially for a second or third time, should, for their own sakes as well as London's, be encouraged to explore less well known but very rewarding places. The British Tourist Authority and tourist boards are energetically and imaginatively promoting the variety of what Britain has to offer.
I listened very carefully to everything my noble friend Lord Ponsonhy, the dedicated chairman of the London Tourist Board, said in his speech. One of his main points concerned a new, large convention centre in London, and he mentioned Wembley, the Barbican and the dear old Albert Hall I think, frankly, it is difficult at this time to justify another centre in London as a high priority. In any case, before my noble friend casts his acquisitive eye on St. George's Hospital, I would remind him that it is a listed building and he would have to get my permission to knock it down.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, made a very good point when he stressed the need for exhibition and convention centres, even outside London. I have visited the Birmingham Exhibition Centre and believe that there is a great deal of potential, though there has not yet been the opportunity for it to be realised. As part of a deal I made with him across the Floor, I will certainly try to arrange a meeting with my opposite number at the Department of Trade.
Now I turn to the Government's role which is mainly promotional. Sixteen

447
million of the 20 million a year spent by the Government directly on tourism goes to the statutory tourist boards, mainly for marketing and publicity. Four million goes on encouraging selective tourism investment, improving tourist amenities and facilities in those parts of the country where they cannot be left to the market. Of course the tourist industry would like a heavier Government grant. I only wish I were in a position to offer it and hand it over this evening, but, being a healthy thriving industry, I am afraid it is not at the head of the queue, especially in times when cash is scarce. One hopes that the future will bring an easing of some kind.
My noble friend made an eloquent plea for capital allowances to be introduced for hotels, and that was followed up by other speakers. The Government recognise that there are strong arguments for such a step. As your Lordships are aware, this is a matter for the Chancellor and was discussed not long ago during the Committee stage of the Finance Bill. However, I will bring it to the attention of my right honourable friend again. But I would remind my noble friend, and others who have pressed this point, that for several years now hotel plant and machinery has qualified for capital allowances. Also, the help that was given for small businesses in the last Budget assists the tourist industry.
The question of getting staff for hotels was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, and others. That is not so much a Government problem as a question for the industry itself. One point which occurs to me is that the split-shift system which is used in this country but not, for example, in the United States, as I understand, probably makes it more difficult to get staff. I think that is something which the industry itself should probably look at.
The noble Lord, Lord Montagu, spoke about the contribution made by the heritage, and particularly by country houses, which are a great attraction to the tourist. I thought that the noble Lord was restrained on this occasion and did not refer to the financial difficulties with which the owners of country houses usually face me, and of which I am well aware. It has been, and remains, Government policy to encourage the owners to live in and maintain
448
the houses and to make them available for visitors. The fiscal measures taken by this Government have gone a great way to helping in that. I realise they have not gone as far as is wanted, or indeed, is needed. I hope and expect that we shall be able to do more as financial conditions allow. In return, owners will of course continue to live in their houses, to maintain them and provide adequate access to them. Those noble Lords who are concerned about this know that they have my support here.
My noble friend Lord Ponsonby, supported by the noble Duke, the Duke of Marlborough, argued that there should be a Minister solely responsible for tourism. That is a matter for the Prime Minister, of course, although I must say that I am not personally taken with the idea and would need a considerable amount of persuasion. Frankly, I cannot see its being of any great advantage: in fact, it could even be counter-productive. In this country we do not in general have a separate Minister for a particular part of an industry, which is what was being advocated here. The present arrangement, where the Secretary of State for Trade, assisted by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, has ministerial responsibility for tourism, and where other Government Departments bear tourist interests strongly in mind, seems to work well. Obviously it can work only if it is done, as it is at the moment, in conjunction with a responsibility for tourism discharged by the British Tourist Authority and the National and Regional Boards, including, of course, the London Tourist Board through relevant agencies.
Since the chairman of the BTA has direct access to the Secretary of State for Trade and to the Chancellor, I think that fact rather balances out some of the other arguments. Although this is not the moment to launch into a long discourse on Government and the Constitution, I do not always think that the health and prosperity of the industry would necessarily benefit by employing more civil servants and hanging a plate on the door of another Minister.
My noble friend Lady Burton, who was kind enough to warn me of the question she was going to raise, mentioned passengers with heavy luggage travelling between Central London and Heathrow.

449
I am very sorry but I have been into this matter carefully and find myself unable to agree with her on this, since the new Underground rail link is really meant to be for the lightly-laden as far as luggage is concerned and for business people, or people going on a short trip, who can get out and in to Central London very quickly. It is an extension of the Underground system to carry large numbers of passengers quickly. Lengthy stops at any station, if luggage was being carried, would disrupt the whole service.
My noble friend also asked about the coach service. There is no question of cutting down the coach service: if it is necessary to increase it to meet demand, that will be done. I shall also be at the presentation at Heathrow which my noble friend will attend, and all this can be thrashed out then with the people directly concerned: the chairman of the British Airports Authority and also the BTA.
In answer to the noble Duke, the Duke of Marlborough, the White Paper on Airports Policy will be published very shortly. He will be delighted to hear that the major redevelopment of Terminal 2—and I entirely agree with him that it is absolutely appalling there—is nearing completion and should be ready before the beginning of the tourist season, although more work will need to be done after the summer is over.
I am not despondent in case the fact that the pound is recovering its strength may be bad for tourism. I am pleased that the pound is recovering its strength and I do not think we need to be concerned that tourism will suffer. If we can maintain standards and avoid the dangers of overpricing; if we can improve quality in some areas like catering where our reputation, though improved, is certainly not excellent by international standards; if we can get the balance right between conservation and enjoyment; if the tourist authorities and the boards continue with their same enthusiasm, and if we can keep to the different and interesting environment that people come here to see—receiving from us the civil manner that they expect, and frankly do not always get (I think they are sometimes very long-suffering unless, fortunately, they may not always understand what we are saying)—then we can face the future with optimism.
450
I am quite aware that I have not been able to answer every point that was raised, nor have I been able to give any financial help or even future hope of it in the short run. But I do hope I have said enough to show that interest in tourism spreads right across the Government, that their concern is very great and that the efforts of everybody who is working in tourism in any form are very much appreciated.
7.59 p.m.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: My Lords, I should like to thank my noble friend Lady Birk very much for her reply. I cannot say that I agree with everything she said, but this is not the opportunity or the time to enter into a long discourse. I should also like to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. A great number of most useful and interesting points have been made. I think every noble Lord who took part managed to raise a new point and not to repeat points which had been made earlier. With those words, my Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.