Lords Sitting of 27 July 1978

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Southward):
The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

NHS: DISCUSSIONS ON INDUSTRIAL ACTION
Lord CARR of HADLEY: 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 progress has been made in the discussions initiated by the Secretary of State for Social Services between representatives of the trade unions, the British Medical Association, and the Royal Colleges involved in the Health Service with the objective of agreeing on a procedure to reduce the risk of industrial action liable to endanger the life and health of patients in the Health Service.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the discussions are continuing. As I stated in reply to my noble friend Lord Leatherland on 22nd June, one of the purposes of these discussions is to seek ways of ensuring that there are agreed procedures for settling disagreements quickly, before there is resort to industrial action. As a result of these discussions, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services wrote to the chairmen of Health Authorities on 9th June requesting their views on proposals for an improved disputes procedure in the National Health Service.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, I think that we all agree that this is an extremely important matter. The noble Lord says that discussions are continuing. I am not quite clear what is the nature of these discussions. Are all the parties involved in this matter taking part in the discussions? I have in mind the various Royal colleges, the trade unions, and the other people involved. Have they yet
936
met together, or is it at the moment simply a matter of the Secretary of State writing to them all and asking for reactions? A month seems rather a long time just to have reached that stage.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me an opportunity of speaking more fully on this matter; I try to keep the Answers as brief as I can. The Secretary of State saw a number of people representing the various groups that make up the National Health Service. Since then he has charged the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Services to chair a committee which is made up of representatives of the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives, and the four trade unions involved; namely, COHSE, NUPE. NALGO, and ASTMS. They have met, and they are meeting again tonight.
This meeting is not as a result of the noble Lord's Question; it was arranged two or three weeks ago. They are trying to arrive at a formula which would improve the procedures for dealing with disputes, and which would cover all the disputes which are likely to arise. This approach is being based on past disputes in the National Health Service. If they can come to some agreement on what the procedures should be, recommendations will be made to the Whitley Council. As the noble Lord will know better than I know, the Whitley Council has certain responsibilities in some fields and none in the others. If the Whitley Council agree to the procedures they will be adopted by the Area Health Authorities; that is to say, by the employing authority in each district.
Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for those further details. As I understand it, a committee of the various representatives is now formed under the chairmanship of the Under-Secretary. I believe that that is the right way to proceed, and I should like to ask the noble Lord to do all he can to ensure that progress is as urgent and as speedy as possible.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, this is the whole purpose of what is being done. We hope that eventually, when the procedures have been agreed,

937
if there is a dispute it can be dealt with at local level within, say, about 14 days.
Lord ROCHESTER: My Lords, would the Government consider whether, apart from the Health Service, the pay of people employed in certain other occupations that are vital to the immediate support of life should be determined by a single independent body, rather than by the various ad hoc committees that have been recently used for this purpose? Would not the establishment of such a body provide that continuity of policy which has, under successive Governments—first with the abolition of the Prices and Incomes Board, and then with the rejection of the Relativities Board—been recently so sadly lacking?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if I have understood the noble Lord correctly, he is concentrating on the question of the pay structure. There are established panels and groups which are already dealing with that matter. There is the Doctors' and Dentists' Review Body and, with regard to the ordinary employees in the National Health Service, there is the Whitley Council. The whole object of the committee which I have already mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord Carr of Hadley, and to the House, is to deal with all those matters which are rather "non-Whitley", and not those which are to do with pay structure, which applies overall.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the crucial issue in these discussions centres on the right of hospital staffs to strike? Can he say whether, in the midst of these discussions, any conclusion has yet been reached on that aspect of the problem?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, to the best of my knowledge there has not been any discussion at all at this stage on whether it is right that people in the public service—and this is what it comes down to—should have the right to strike. I believe that the country as a whole has accepted that people have the right to withdraw their labour if they wish. However, in reply to my noble friend, so far as I know the point he raises has not been considered. I do not know
938
whether it will be considered, but I shall certainly convey to my right honourable friend the remarks that have been made.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, I fully support the Question asked by my noble friend Lord Carr of Hadley, and I received some satisfaction from the Answer given by the noble Lord opposite. Can the noble Lord kindly say how, with all these very important inquiries going on, we in the House will know what is to happen? Can we be given some information while we are in Recess?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I have had two questions on this matter in less than a month, and I do not think that your Lordships would allow my Department not to report on this matter in one form or another. With regard to the question of giving information to your Lordships during the Recess, I think that we must face the fact that the matter under discussion will take some time. There are many points to be considered. It is important that the formula arrived at should be the right formula. Many interests are involved, and so we must bear in mind that it may take longer than the period of the Summer Recess to arrive at the right kind of formula. I should be very glad if, upon our return after the Recess, a noble Lord tables a Question for me to answer.
Lord PORRITT: My Lords, would the Minister be able to say, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, that in such a dispute the doctors, without taking any part in the actual dispute, should, with the representatives of the unions and others concerned, immediately form a local committee to safeguard patients?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, as I pointed out, the whole purpose of this exercise is to bring in everybody who is engaged in the National Health Service. I am tempted to say—and I think I must say it—that it is all very well to talk about the doctors safeguarding the position of patients, but the consultants worked to rule for eight months in 1976 and the junior hospital doctors worked to rule for five months. There was not so much bother then about the needs of patients.

AIR TRANSPORT USERS' COMMITTEE: STATUS
3.11 p.m.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the further discussion that has taken place, they are willing to reconsider the anomaly whereby, while recognising the Air Transport Users' Committee as the consumer body specifically promoting the interests of all air travellers, the Committee at present remains the only committee thus recognised to which the Government intend to refuse statutory status with the corrollary right of advance information and consultation on the relevant consumer aspects affecting air travellers by the industry concerned; and whether they will make a Statement.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the Government have noted the new terms of reference which have been given to the Air Transport Users' Committee as well as the changes in its chairmanship and structure. We are following the implementation of these new arrangements with interest, and will be glad to learn what consequences have flowed from them. However, I can assure my noble friend that we are well aware of her reservations about the AUC's lack of statutory status, and we shall pay particular attention to this in our considerations.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I am very sorry that she had to say what she did in the first half of her Answer, because that is very old stuff which goes back a long way and really has no validity at all? With regard to the rest of her Answer, is my noble friend aware that I am glad to have seen both the Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State concerned and that they will consider what I have said on this matter? Is she also aware that I hope that, when we return after the Recess, we shall at last have reached some conclusion whereby air travellers are not discriminated against in comparison with all other sections of the community?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am aware that my noble friend has seen both my honourable friends in the Department of Trade and in the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection. As to any progress which is being made, I am much too modest to claim any credit for it—I put it all at the door of the doggedness of my noble friend in pursuing this subject—but I hope that when we get back after the Recess we might have something more firm to report to the House.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, is it not possible for the Government Departments to realise that they really are discriminating against the Air Transport Users' Committee? All the other consumer committees which were started some years ago—and I was responsible, when I was chairman of the Consumer Council, for some of them—have real position and status in their various interests. This one does not. Surely it is most unfair that the air transport users should be discriminated against in this matter. I really think it is time that the Government took this matter seriously and tried to do more about it than just giving charming and very nice answers, but not saying, "We intend to do something".
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I must rebut the charge that the Government are not trying to do anything about this, but there are differences. We accept that there is an anomaly in so far as the Air Transport Users' Committee is concerned, but there are differences between the public service nationalised industries, such as gas and electricity, and the air travel industry which is marked by the existence of a number of separate airlines, both British and foreign. That is where we have the problems because we are not dealing solely with the British airlines. In the past, the AUC has been treated differently from the nationalised industry consumer councils. For the future, as I said, my noble friend has been making personal representations to both the Departments concerned, and we shall continue to look at ways of strengthening the consumer representation, including whether it would be beneficial to give the AUC the same sort of responsibilities and position as the other consumer councils.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, in view of the number of exchanges on this particular subject which have taken place over the past two years owing to the diligence of my noble friend, (which will be within the recollection of noble Lords), will my noble friend confirm that her right honourable friend, as a Minister, still retains the final power of direction over the public authorities concerned?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the CAA are not in the same position as an ordinary nationalised industry, in that they are responsible for all the airlines; and, as I have said, there are difficulties and there are differences between the Air Transport Users' Committee and the other consumer committees. What we are doing at the moment is getting together the Department of Trade and the Department of Prices and Consumer Protection to see whether there is a justifiable way around this situation which will be to everyone's satisfaction, as a result of which we might perhaps be able to make the Air Transport Users' Committee a statutory committee with exactly the same terms and responsibilities as all the others. But the negotiations are only just starting. Perhaps after the Recess I shall be able to give better news.

INTERNATIONAL YEAR OF THE CHILD
3.16 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, as the General Assembly of the United Nations Resolution 31/169 of 21st December 1976 proclaimed 1979 as the International Year of the Child, what action is to be taken in regard to Resolution 20 (XXXIV) adopted by the Commission on Human Rights at its 1472 Meeting on 8th March 1978.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, the Secretary-General of the United Nations has requested Governments to communicate
942
to him by 31st October 1978 their views on Resolution 20 (Session XXXIV) of the Commission on Human Rights, concerning the question of a Convention on the Rights of the Child. Her Majesty's Government are at present preparing their reply.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. May I ask him whether he does not think it is essential to consider having an International Year of the Child in view of the fact that, in the other place the other day, it was stated in reply to a Question that there were 24 children in prison with their mothers and 16 babies in prison and borstal? Does he not think that this is very unfortunate, and that we should look into this matter to see whether we cannot make other arrangements?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, indeed, my Lords. It is that kind of incidence of bad treatment of little children and their mothers which will figure very largely, I hope, in the national and the international activities which the International Year of the Child is designed to promote.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that the British Government must take the initiative in this? We have too many battered children in this country and too many children whose rights are not considered, and this is our opportunity to do something that will show the world that Britain does love its children.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I very strongly agree, and I am very glad that these points are being ventilated as a result of the initiative of the noble Baroness in asking this Question. We are making substantial sums and accommodation available to the United Kingdom association which is co-ordinating the work of the non-Governmental organisations—the voluntary organisations—which have a splendid record of fine work in this country, as the House knows. I am looking forward to the International Year of the Child in 1979 achieving substantial results, not least in the directions mentioned by the two noble Baronesses who have spoken.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, in view of his earlier reply, can the Minister say whether the Government are supporting the idea that there should be a Convention, as a change from a Declaration, and that the Government would therefore be obliged to ensure that legislation in this country was in conformity with the terms of the Convention?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, certainly, my Lords. There is a draft Convention, as the noble Baroness knows, and the Secretary-General has invited the views of all countries on it. We are now collating the views of the various Whitehall Departments—my own is not the only one involved in this, of course—so that, in good time for 31st October, which the Secretary-General has laid down, we shall be putting forward an answer to the Secretary-General which I am absolutely confident will be positive.
Lord NOEL-BAKER: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Mr. Macnamara, the President of the International Bank, has asserted that there are 290 million children in the world who have no schools to go to? In view of this lamentable fact, will the Government urge Mr. Macnamara to make larger loans to developing countries during the International Year of the Child for the provision of schools, and will they consult Mr. Macnamara about the provision of the necessary funds?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, it is very probable that there are that number of children in the world who are not in receipt of, or in prospect of receiving, basic education. This House yesterday debated via the European orders which we took through the House certain provisions whereby soft loans throught the IDA will, we hope, be made available in very substantial quantities for purposes of advance in such countries. I would not for a moment rule out educational, and child educational, projects from the ambit of the proposals that we discussed yesterday. I welcome what my noble friend has said.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, the year 1979 being the Year of the Child, will my noble friend use his influence with Her Majesty's Government to stop the vulgar publicity and the
944
network of cash that has surrounded the magic of the creative of a child through a wonderful breakthrough of gynaecologists that may help women who are childless? Rather than that it should be vulgarised, will he see that the publicity is stopped?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, my noble friend has asked me at least two questions of tremendous import. I must resist the temptation to discuss with him the merits of any scientific breakthrough, as he called it. I have my views on this which may not be very much at variance with those of my noble friend; but I do not think that this is the place, and certainly it is not the time, to go into this adequately.
As to the question of publicity, there again, I think we all broadly share the concern and reservation which my noble friend has indicated. I hope that our hearing this concern expressed may lead those responsible themselves to attain a decent reserve in regard to certain matters from time to time.

RHODESIA: NON-RECOGNITION OF ADMINISTRATION
3.23 p.m.
Lord BARNBY: 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 plans they now have for recognition of the de facto Administration of Rhodesia.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the Government have no plans for recognition of any Administration in Rhodesia until there has been a return to legality following a genuine transfer of power under a settlement that is acceptable to the people of Rhodesia as a whole.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that that reply is disappointing? I had looked forward, in pursuit of the exchange of views in this House two weeks ago, to his being able today to give some new information. Is it not plain that the British Government

945
policy is every weakening the position of the black majority de facto Administration of Rhodesia; and that, secondly, it also weakens and encourages confrontation which will generate carnage such as we have seen elsewhere in Africa? Mr. Nkomo declines invitation to join his internal compatriots.
May I ask three points. First, does it not seem that the Government agencies which they encourage externally are financed by Russia and that the Russian resources for disruption are unlimited? Secondly, are not the five points in the Kissinger agreement already confirmed? Thirdly, do all individuals, black or white, in Rhodesia who are entitled to British passports have unrestricted entry into the United Kingdom?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord would be advised to put his last point as a separate question because it would take some time and detail to reply to it. As to the second point, I am sure his disappointment will not supersede our friendship. It is my fate to disappoint him ideologically, but I hope that he will agree that we may politically deplore and personally rejoice. As to the question of how far the Salisbury agreement meets the Five, or possible Six, Principles, I have already said (as my right honourable friend said in another place) that they are seriously deficient. We have constantly said that if they substantially met the requirements of the Anglo-US proposals—that is, the Five, possibly Six, Principles—then indeed we would join the noble Lord in welcoming them. But that is not the position.
As to the attitude of the Patriotic Front, what we know is that the Patriotic Front have accepted the principle of free and fair elections and have said that they will attend a round table conference, with far fewer reservations than, I fear, the Salisbury régime through Mr. Smith has already stated. As to the point whether Russia is financing or promoting disturbances in Rhodesia, all I would say is that Africa is not the opportunity for self-interested disturbances by any Power in Europe. We have constantly warned that external intervention in any part of Africa is a very dangerous thing indeed.
946
The noble Lord's point relating to the Salisbury agreement I covered when replying to his second point.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, in view of the time which has elapsed—and it seems that the noble Lord's right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary made optimistic statements about progress—is there any assurance at all that Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Mugabe are likely to come to some agreement with any members of the Rhodesian Administration? Is the noble Lord aware that those of us who perhaps are not so well conversant with the nature of this problem and are merely interested spectators, but anxious nevertheless for a settlement, are beginning to think—I would not rate it higher than a thought—that we might have to rely on a de facto or alleged de facto Administration rather than wait for a long period of time before the substance of a reasonable agreement is realised?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I have, of course, very great respect indeed for my noble friend's views. I would ask him to reconsider the last point he made: whether we could, without serious risk, recognise a de facto Administration. We should be operating against the unanimous view of the continent of Africa and, indeed, the pretty unanimous view on the rest of the world, and in an adverse sense, if we took that step. I merely ask him to think over that one. As to the question of progress, I believe that since the Graham-Low Mission began its tour of capitals and persons there has been perceptible, if small, progress towards bringing the parties closer together. Mr. Graham has returned and we are talking to him. It is possible that Mr. Graham and Ambassador Low will return to South Africa to continue their task of bringing the various parties together.
As to my noble friend's suggestion about Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Mugabe, they have understandably so far said that they will not join the Salisbury régime. They have also made—and this is of importance—two points: that they are both in favour of fair and free elections and, indeed, in favour of a transitional period presided over by an administrator. It may be a resident commissioner, as

947
we have suggested. Finally, they have said that they will attend a round table conference, and, as I see it, with far fewer reservations at this stage than the Salisbury régime, through Mr. Smith, have stated.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, is it not a fact that, whatever the reasons, recognition of the de facto régime in Salisbury would necessarily imply the immediate unilateral lifting of sanctions by this country, which is surely something that, in view of our international obligations, we would be unable to do?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the noble Lord spells out the second part of the observation that I made in regard to the dangers of launching into such a policy. I said that it would be against the background not only of opinion in Africa but also world wide opinion which is pretty unanimous on this. By that means, as he rightly said, decisions of the United Nations are binding on this country as on others.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I wonder whether I might follow something which the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, said. On a number of occasions now over the past few weeks the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, has said that progress is being made over the Anglo-American agreement. Would he not agree that the situation in Rhodesia is deteriorating very rapidly, and something is needed now more than vague promises of progress? Could he give us an indication of when some concrete proposals are going to be made?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, nobody is making promises of progress. This is a desperately dangerous and difficult situation. What we have said is that there is a slow, perceptible progress as a result of the dual mission of Ambassador Low and Mr. Graham. It is my duty to measure my words and I have tried to do so. It is very slow but perceptible, and added that they may well return. Nobody can guarantee progress. If we could have done so, then we would have done it in the past 11 years where so many opportunities of doing a little of the right thing were thrown away by Smith and his régime.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, relating to the first reply of the Minister when he referred to elections, since we are, as my noble Leader has just said, galloping towards the dangerous confrontation, cannot something be done—and I was hoping my noble Leader would say it—o regarding the excellent recommendation of the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, recently that the Government should do something to assist the holding of elections and counter the inevitable intimidation which is endemic to Africa?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, there will be no complaints about any appeal or abjuration to the British Government so long as an equally strong appeal is made to the Smith Government.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, would my noble friend accept that this whole House—indeed, the whole of our nation—is facing a terrible and horrific prospect during the next few weeks while we are in Recess? Whatever policy is followed, there will be hundreds—maybe thousands—of British citizens, black and white, who will be murdered in the most terrible way. Would he agree that one mitigating attempt could be made to assist the British Government in this terrible responsibility? That would be if the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues were to agree with their official Conservative spokesman on foreign affairs that the internal settlement in Rhodesia is no longer credible to the Rhodesian people, rather than misleading their friends in Rhodesia that there may be some other way out; that is, to give their full support on a bipartisan basis to the proposals that Her Majesty's Government have made for a joint conference.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I hope and believe that nobody is trying to mislead anybody. I hope that the substantially bipartisan approach which has characterised the attitude of both Houses of Parliament and the people of this country to this very dangerous situation for many years now will be maintained. I hope that in any criticism that arises about the shortcoming of the British Government we will cast our minds back over 11 years over the not inconsiderable deficiencies of the illegal régime which is the one that is responsible for the situation which we now are in.
The Marquess of SALISBURY: My Lords, is the noble Lord now aware that this very serious process of intimidation, being carried out by the followers of Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Mugabe, is directed to preventing progress towards majority rule for their own reasons? In view of what he said about their acceptance of a free election, can he also say what prospects he sees of having a free election so long as they are carrying out this process of intimidation?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: The present situation, my Lords, I fear may continue until all parties are equally prepared to come to a round table conference to arrange free elections and a proper transitional stage. I repeat that the Patriotic Front have said that they are willing to do this. Let the rest of us, including the Salisbury régime, take them at their word and come together in such a meeting to arrange precisely what the noble Marquess has been asking about; that is, free and fair elections.

SUMMER RECESS
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I announce that, subject to progress of business, the House will adjourn for the Summer Recess next Wednesday, 2nd August, until Tuesday, 24th October.

HOUSE OF LORDS' OFFICES
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Fourth Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
The Report was as follows:
1. SECURITY
The Committee were informed of a recommendation to increase the complement of Security Officers and approved provision to meet the additional cost.
2. PARLIAMENT OFFICE AND LIBRARY
The Committee approved the appointment of an additional Executive Officer for the Information Office and an additional Personal Secretary
950
for the Library. The Committee also agreed to the regrading of the following posts in the Overseas Office:

1 Personal Secretary to Senior Personal Secretary

1 Clerical Officer (shared duties with Hansard) to Hansard Typists' Supervisor, and

1 Attendant to Clerical Officer.

The Committee authorised the consequential revision of scales of pay for these posts and the payment of a Responsibility Allowance to one Clerical Officer in the Parliament Office.
3. REVISED SCALES OF PAY AND ALLOWANCES
The Committee confirmed the application of the following Civil Service memoranda:

CM/302—Scales of Pay

CM/311—Responsibility Allowances

CM/313—Proficiency Payments

GM/147—Fees to Academic Consultants

giving revised rates of pay and allowances to applicable permanent and temporary staff.
4. UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
The Committee approved an increase in the initial allowance paid to Clerks appointed to the Table and the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod.
5. SUPERANNUATION
The Committee were notified of the following awards:—

(a) Pension and lump sum to Mr. L. T. George, BEM, Principal Doorkeeper, who retired on 28th June 1978.

(b) Pension and lump sum to Mrs. M. I. Haynes, Clerical Officer, who retired on 1st June 1978.

6. COMPUTER DEVELOPMENTS
A Report from the Sub-Committee on Computers was made.
The Committee agreed in principle a recommendation that a Computer Officer, with technical knowledge and experience in the use of computers, should be appointed jointly by the two Houses.
The Earl of LISTOWEL: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees will thank the Offices Committee for their proposal to increase the staff of the Library which, if I may say so, was a commendably quick response to a request made from all quarters of the House in the debate on the report of the Library.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES: My Lords, I am most grateful for what the noble Earl has said. I shall convey what he said to the chairman of the Library Sub-Committee and to the Librarian.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SCOTLAND BILL
3.38 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reason and Amendment be considered forthwith.
Moved, That the Commons Reason and Amendment be considered forthwith.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS REASON FOR DISAGREEING TO LORDS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU OF LORDS AMENDMENTS DISAGREED TO BY THE COMMONS AND A COMMONS AMENDMENT IN LIEU OF A LORDS AMENDMENT IN LIEU
[References are to Bill (82) as first printed for the Lords]

LORDS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU
1 Clause 20, page 9, line 31, leave out "A Scottish" and insert "The First"
2 Clause 20, page 9, line 34, leave out "him" and insert "a Scottish Secretary"
3 at end insert—
"Provided that he has obtained the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service as to the number of officers and servants in each grade."
The Commons disagreed to the above Amendments for the following Reason:
4 Because the appointment of the officers and servants of Scottish Secretaries should be the concern of Scottish Secretaries.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey): My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on Amendments in lieu Nos. 1 to 3 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 4. When the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, pressed these Amendments he said that he did so because he believed that the other place should be given the opportunity to discuss the matter, which they had not been able to do at the previous stage. The other place have now had the opportunity as a result of what this House did at the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. They have clearly expressed their support for the Government's view. Your Lordships may know that the matter was debated for some two hours in the other place and the Government's view was supported by a majority of 33 in a substantial vote.
Briefly, on the merits we believe that the requirement for the consent of the
952
Minister for the Civil Service as to the numbers and grades of staff of the Scottish Executive would provide for unnecessary intervention by a United Kingdom Minister in the affairs of the Assembly. We have always sought to exclude unnecessary intervention and we still do. The other place have now considered this matter and they have decided that they cannot agree to these Amendments. I trust therefore that noble Lords opposite, and the House, will be content to let the matter rest there. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on Amendments in lieu Nos. 1 to 3, to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 4.—(Lord McCluskey.)
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble and learned Lord for having briefly restated the Government's case. Last Thursday, this House referred to another place three of the issues remaining between the Government and these Benches. Only one has returned, and it is this group of Amendments. On the subjects of what is known as the "West Lothian question" and forestry, the Commons yesterday agreed with our Amendments.
It is gratifying that the variations of previous Amendments, which were devised and voted upon by your Lordships, have now found favour with a majority in another place. It is a vindication of the revising and redrafting skills of your Lordships. We still think, as regards this group of Amendments, that the Bill would have been improved if the manner in which an unknown number of new Departments are to be established in Edinburgh had been accepted, too; but I will say at the outset that I am not recommending to the House that we should insist on this group of Amendments. After all, two out of three is not a bad score! I suggest we should now be content, for these Amendments have achieved part of their purpose.
First, they have been discussed in another place. On the previous occasion there was no discussion of the variations of the Amendments because of the guillotine. Secondly—and I think this is more important—they have elicited at least one important assurance from the

953
Government. The Minister has said that the United Kingdom Government will determine the initial staff levels. That meets most of what is required by our Amendments. Indeed, it goes further than our Amendments would have done at the initial stage, because the United Kingdom Government are "to determine" rather than merely "consenting". We cannot see why on earth this should not have been put into the Bill; but once the new Scottish Executive has taken over there is nothing in the Bill to stop them expanding, doubling or trebling the establishment, if they think fit. In that way the initial level set by the United Kingdom Government could be nullified unless some control is retained through the Civil Service Department. My own reading between the lines of the Government's statement is that this control will in fact be retained, for if the Minister's statement about initial staff levels is to have any real meaning, subsequent staff levels are bound to be a matter of continuing dialogue between Edinburgh and London. It seems, therefore, that the Government intend to carry out by administrative means very much what we intended in these Amendments.
The number of Scottish Secretaries is still unknown. This was debated on probing Amendments during earlier stages in this House. We then agreed that there was some strength in the argument not to put a maximum number into the Bill, because that maximum might then become the target and more Scottish Secretaries might be brought into existence than was necessary. Again, it is reassuring that the United Kingdom Government will determine the initial establishments: whether there are to be 20 new Departments with 20 Scottish Secretaries, or five, and the numbers and grades of civil servants will no doubt be set out accordingly.
We agree with the Reason numbered 4 which the other place have sent to us. The appointments should be the concern of Scottish Secretaries: there has been no argument about that. What we have said is that in addition it should be of concern to the first Secretary, as head of the Scottish Executive. It should also be a matter of interest, to put it no higher than that, to the Minister for the Civil
954
Service. He is in charge of the whole Civil Service, from whose ranks the appointments are to be filled. In recent years he has been a Member of your Lordships' House, and he is now. He must be concerned, and I am sure that he and his predecessors have been concerned, with the welfare of the home Civil Service, with their careers and with standards. We believe it would have been better to acknowledge his position in the text of the Bill.
I have only two more points to make. The first arises from the debate yesterday evening in another place on this group of Amendments. The second concerns the effect of our Parliamentary debates on the public in Scotland. On the first point, a Labour Member of Parliament suggested—and I shall, of course, paraphrase and summarise what he said in order to observe the convention that exists between the two Houses—that this House should restrict itself to subjects within its expertise in dealing with this group of Amendments. For his enlightenment and for the enlightenment of those who may have been misled, I am sure unwittingly, by what he said, I should like to say that this House is singularly well equipped and supplied with expertise on the subject. As I pointed out on an earlier occasion, it includes former Ministers for the Civil Service on both sides. There are distinguished Cross-Benchers, who have spent their working lives in the home Civil Service until retirement, and who supported these Amendments here in the Division Lobbies.
I cannot compare myself with them but I am not a novice in these matters and I moved these Amendments. In all modesty I can say that I have some credentials, because I was myself a professional civil servant before entering Parliament, and although I was in what was then called "the Foreign Service" and worked in Foreign Office posts abroad, I was for a period assigned to the home Civil Service to be the private secretary of the late Lord Normanbrook when he was Secretary of the Cabinet. I worked personally for him and also for the late Lord Bridges, both of whom I regard as among the greatest of our heads of the Civil Service. I could not have failed to learn something from them about the system and the Service.

955
My second point is that I must dispel some false impressions which are being given currency in Scotland about our proceedings in Parliament upon this Bill. Many letters have appeared in the Press, and there have been comments elsewhere in Scotland, to the effect that the Lords have "mutilated" or "mangled" this Bill. It is important to get the facts straight. We do not, as I have said, intend to insist on this group of Amendments. As a result, there will have been 11 subjects on which the Government disagreed with us, causing Divisions in which they lost in this House but on which the Amendments have found their way into the Bill: they are now in the Bill. I will not enumerate many other Amendments made by the Government, or the points which they have conceded, because I know that my noble friend Lord Ferrers intends to say some words about that; but on all these 11 subjects— among them doctors' and dentists' pay and conditions, betting and gaming and the six weeks' minimum period for the referendum campaign—the Amendments were accepted or made by Divisions in another place. On every single one of the 11, the Lords' view was endorsed by the other place. So when the word "mangling" is used, it cannot be attributed to this House.
Several noble Lords:Hear, hear!
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY:My Lords, there are some on all sides of this House and, I understand, also in another place, who would have liked to apply "a ringer" to this Bill and consider that the Bill would have benefited from it. But in the interests of truth and accuracy, it must clearly be stated that that was not done by this House. We provided the other place with opportunities to discuss subjects, particularly those which had not been discussed as a result of the guillotine. We also enabled them to have second thoughts and to take some of these decisions. They took those final decisions, which have led to the Amendments which are now incorporated in the Bill.
I believe that we have carried out the traditional role of this House, as I have always understood it, as a revising Chamber, which has enabled another place to think again. I trust that the media in Scotland will now point out, when necessary, to those members of the
956
public who aspire to have letters published about these Parliamentary proceedings, or to pontificate in broadcasts, that any statement that the Lords have wrecked or mutilated this Bill would be no longer in the category of a simple mistake, but would be a thoroughly misleading and inexcusable mischief.
3.51 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY:My Lords, I had not quite expected the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, to broaden the matter as much as he has done and I shall not follow him entirely. But he mentioned the "West Lothian Amendment", as it is known, as if this were a matter for pride and self-congratulation. My Lords, it is not. Every one knows that this Amendment is misconceived, offensive in principle and probably unworkable in practice. No one believes that it will ever work and few believe that the Resolution which is necessary to bring that clause into effect will ever be passed by the other place.
May I just say this, in relation to the note of self-congratulation that entered the words of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy: We know why the SNP and Plaid Cymru voted for that clause last night. They have made it plain that they see that clause as a possible step to separate Scotland and Wales, and to provide separate Parliaments for those countries. That is a proposition which, from them, we can understand. What we fail to understand is how it could be that the official Opposition, the Party to which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, belongs, followed the nationalist Parties into the Lobbies in order to vote for that destructive clause. However, they will no doubt explain that in their own way on another occasion.
As to the role of the House of Lords, I had expected that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, would make some observations about that. I did not expect a trailer from the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. I do not suggest, and will not suggest, that this House has mangled or mutilated the Bill, and, indeed, when I come to reply to the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, on that matter I may say that in some detail.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT
5 Schedule 14, page 77, line 10, after "Scotland" insert "(whether or not it also concerns directly or indirectly any other part of the United Kingdom)."
The Commons disagreed to the above Amendment but proposed the following Amendment in lieu thereof:
6 Page 77, line 10, leave out (" concerning Scotland") and insert (" which concerns Scotland (whether or not it also concerns any' other part of the United Kingdom) but").
3.53 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY:My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 5, to which the Commons have disagreed, and agree with the Commons in their Amendment numbered 6 proposed in lieu thereof. Amendment No. 5 was moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, in order to bring the wording of the planning intervention provisions in Schedule 14 more closely into line with that for the general intervention provisions of Clause 36. The Government accepted the Amendment in principle, but subject to later adjustment as to its drafting. This adjustment is achieved by the Amendment in lieu proposed by the Commons, and I hope that your Lordships will accept it. I believe that the noble Viscount would certainly do so.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 5, to which the Commons have disagreed, and agree with the Commons in their Amendment numbered 6 proposed in lieu thereof.—(Lord McCluskey.)
Earl FERRERS:My Lords, the Commons Amendment which the noble and learned Lord has just moved, and invited us to agree with, is in lieu of one which, as he said, my noble friend Lord Colville moved earlier, and which the Government accepted in principle. My noble friend, who is unable to be here today, nevertheless knew that his drafting might not be wholly perfect and it therefore comes as no surprise to learn that the Government wish to alter it a little. We are grateful to the Government for having considered that Amendment, and for having altered it in the way in which they have, and we are of course happy to accept the Amendment in lieu.
With that last Amendment, or last Commons Reason, the Bill comes to the
958
end of its passage through Parliament. It will soon become an Act, and will then be presented to the people of Scotland for a referendum before it becomes operative. As this is the Bill's last debatable occasion, perhaps I may be permitted to make one or two observations—which, happily, the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, seemed to wish for—and also to ask him a question. Perhaps he did not wish for that, but at least he anticipated it. I hope that I shall not "needle" him, because that is the last thing I would wish to do on an occasion like this, although I thought I detected a sense of "needle" when he replied to my noble friend. So I hope that that will be absent.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has always done his best to be helpful, despite his understandable ministerial constraints, and I should like to ask him one last question. It is one which is of huge interest to all of us, and particularly to the people of Scotland to whom this Bill is directed, and it becomes even more important as the first shots appear to have been fired in the run-up to a General Election. The question is simply this. When do the Government intend to hold the referendum? Will it be this autumn or will it be in the spring, and will it be before the General Election? If there is to be a General Election in the autumn, will the referendum be held before it or after it?
I realise that much depends on the date of the General Election. If the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, could give us that information, too, I am sure that it would be very helpful. But I doubt whether even the noble and learned Lord's magnaminity would extend so far, even if his knowledge did; and, if it did, it would doubtless cost him his ministerial office. But that would merely be preempting what will be to him, and indeed to us, a disagreeable experience anyhow. As the next stage of implementing this considerable constitutional upheaval is a referendum, obviously everyone wants to know what the Government have in mind. Clearly, the Government must have an opinion and, if the noble and learned Lord is coy about giving firm dates, then an indication of an anticipated time, allowing for certain eventualities, might be helpful.
We all of us have our own views as to the merits of this Bill and I do not propose

959
to rehearse mine again, other than to say that I doubt whether historians will invite future generations to glory in the day when the Bill received the Royal Assent. There are still too many flaws in the Bill, too many omissions and too many innovations which will allow the future course of events to unroll in ways which many of us would not wish, in ways which we cannot at present begin to visualise and, which, if we could so visualise them, we would wish to prevent. But that is past.
We have done our best in Parliament, and your Lordships' House, as I venture to suggest, carried out its role and its duty—and it is a duty—as a revising Chamber, properly and constitutionally, and the Bill has emerged as an infinitely better Bill because of your Lordships' work. We have considered all the clauses of the Bill, and amended the Bill where we thought it appropriate. Those Amendments we have sent to another place for their consideration. They have approved some and rejected others. There has been no confrontation between the two Houses. When another place has not felt minded to agree to your Lordships' views, then your Lordships have not exercised your right to insist.
Therefore, if some people are tempted to say that it is the unelected House of Lords which has altered the Bill, let them reflect that what is in the Bill is nothing more and nothing less than that which has had the approval of the House of Commons. They might also reflect that had it not been for a second Chamber making suggestions to which the Commons have agreed, the Bill might be very different from what it now is. The mere existence of your Lordships' House, irrespective of powers or composition, has given time for the Government and others to reflect and think again, and even to change their mind. That is good and that is our purpose.
Not everyone would realise that of the 239 Amendments made to the Bill in your Lordships' House, no less than 170 were agreed to by another place; of the 239 Amendments made by your Lordships, 96 were made by the Government to their own Bill in this House, and a further 46 I Amendments were Government concessions to arguments and representations which were made by your Lordships.
960
How would that have been possible without a second Chamber? The remaining 97 Amendments were put forward from other parts of your Lordships' House.
So much for the Amendments. If we consider the issues to which the Amendments referred, we find that the Government made 23 substantive concessions when the Bill was in your Lordships' House. In addition, your Lordships decided by vote—admittedly against Government advice—to send a further 29 issues of substance to another place to consider. Of those 29 issues, the Government accepted eight in another place which they had rejected here. While we all appreciate the wisdom of an open mind and the ability to change it, we cannot help but reflect that it would have been so much easier and might have saved a lot of time if the Government had been prepared to make such a change of mind earlier. However, we are happy that the Government made the change of mind when they did.
In addition to those eight issues which the Government accepted in another place, another place decided to accept a further change which your Lordships suggested—
against Government advice—and this was on abortion. Yesterday, another place accepted by vote—but not by a free vote and against Government advice—a further two Amendments on forestry and the "West Lothian question". Therefore, of the 29 issues which your Lordships sent to another place, another place accepted 11.
No one can say—and here I agree with my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy—that your Lordships' time and effort have been wasted and that your Lordships have not carried out your role and duty as a revising Chamber. May I re-emphasise what my noble friend said: that not one change to this Bill was made against Government advice which was not a decision of the House of Commons.
The most significant of all the changes which another place accepted was on the "West Lothian question", to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has already cursorily referred. If it had not been for the mere fact of the existence of your Lordships' House, with its different rules and procedures, such an Amendment—which another place showed that they wanted to be made, even though I

961
accept that the Government did not, for reasons which they have frequently explained—could not have been made, because the rules of scope in another place prevented them from putting down such an Amendment when the Bill was with them. Yet our rules of procedure permitted us to do so and, having done so, enabled another place to discuss the problem and, as they did yesterday, to accept the Amendment.
As the Bill concludes its Parliamentary passage, I hope that it will not he considered immodest to recognise and record the fact that your Lordships' House has played a significant part in shaping and improving it. Yet there are those who perpetually castigate your Lordships' House. Of course, we all accept that your Lordships' House has always been a good whipping boy, but there are now those—and they are an influential lot—who are hoping to get the abolition of the House of Lords accepted as part of the Labour Party's Manifesto in the forthcoming General Election.
Of course, the Party opposite must seek to do what they think best to secure their return to Government, and I would hesitate to comment on their domestic issues. However, being a helpful sort of fellow, I wonder whether I might be permitted to give a little bit of advice to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey—or, perhaps, to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, because he carries even more weight than the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey; and his is considerable. If I do this, I do so, as it were, on my knees—in a stance not of supplication but of humility.
It is that the setting up of Assemblies in Scotland and Wales is constitutional upheaval enough for the body politic to assimilate at any one time. To follow this, hotfoot, with the permanent abolition of one of our two Chambers of Parliament at Westminster will commend itself to very, very few people indeed. There are not many votes there. Although the House of Lords does not always find itself in the forefront of news, the public as a whole are pretty discriminating in realising that the work of the House of Lords is today, probably more than ever before, a valuable contribution to our Parliamentary
962
processes and that it has never worked harder, more conscientiously, or more effectively than it does now. It probably stands higher now in the public's esteem than it did at any time in history.
My respectful and humble advice to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is that, when discussing with his colleagues whether to put the abolition of the House of Lords into the Labour Party's Manifesto, he should say, "Don't touch it with a barge pole. It won't do you any good".
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE:My Lords, may I be forgiven for saying just a word or two, in a sense reinforcing the words of my noble friend but from a rather different point of view. When the autumn comes, I shall have been a Member of Parliament, in one House or the other, continuously for 40 years. In the nature of things, obviously I cannot look forward to very many more years of useful life, but I have become increasingly disturbed and worried about the whole legislative process in this country. I am not making a Party point and I am not really discussing, although there are implications, the relative roles of the two Houses of Parliament. However, every Government of which I have been a Member, or which I have seen from the Opposition Benches, has made use of the guillotine to an increasing degree.
The whole system of legislation which the Government—and before it Great Britain, and before it England—have depended upon over so many centuries has been predicated upon the supposition that every line and every section of every Bill should receive some discussion and opportunity for amendment in each of the two Houses of Parliament. That is the supposition upon which we act today. We have had the Scotland Bill, which we are now discussing. We have had the Wales Bill, which was discussed on Second Reading to some extent from this point of view by my noble friend Lord Elton. We had the Industrial Relations Bill when we were in Office. We had the European Communities Bill when we were in Office. They were all very important Bills.
I could go on enumerating the Bills which I have played some part in or listened to the discussions on during the

963
last 40 years. Nearly all of the most important Bills have been guillotined, which means that to an increasing extent their details have never been discussed line by line or section by section in both !louses of Parliament. If we were to create a situation in this country in which we had a unicameral Legislature, whether it was elected or non-elected, the effect would be not less work for that Legislature; the effect would be more work for that unicameral Legislature. The use of the guillotine would not be less; it would be more. The whole idea upon which our legislation has succeeded in establishing a free Legislature in this country for over 700 years would, in fact, be destroyed if that were done. I do beg Members of another place and, indeed, of this place, to remember that you cannot abolish this House without replacing it, unless you destroy the system upon which the freedom of England, of Great Britain and of the United Kingdom has been founded for 700 years.
4.9 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL:My Lords, I was not aware that it was the intention, in what might be regarded as the concluding chapter of this controversy, to embark upon a discussion about what should or should not appear in the Labour Party's Election Manifesto. If I had known that this was the intention, I should have asked my speech writer to prepare a rational analysis of the situation and, of course, offer some conclusion. But my speech writer was not available; every summer he goes to the Riviera, while I have to content myself with a modest visit to Southend. However, I must say that in what is the concluding or the twilight performance—who can tell?—before next Wednesday when we rise for the Recess, somebody from another place, or somebody in your Lordships' House, may find some rational reason why reference should be made to the Scottish devolution Bill, and we shall then be back again to square one.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, usually indulges—and I enjoy it every time—in a philosophical treatise. I am bound to say, though I do not want to make too much of it, that I am inclined to follow him in his philosophical views. What he
964
has said about his disappointment with the legislative process is welcome to my ears. I go perhaps a little further than he does. I was in another place before he made his entry. He was rather more successful than I was. But in fact whenever I arrived and listened, particularly to the products of the high scholastic institutions, I was convinced that the legislative process was doomed to disappointment; that in the long run it would be discovered that it required substantial emendation, and indeed that much of' it should be thrown into the dustbin anyhow. That was my opinion, because, after all—I content myself with what seems to be the most reasonable argument in support of my contention—look at the results; vast unemployment, inflation to the highest possible degree and no likelihood of an early solution, all kinds of problems; every day we hear about them in your Lordships' House. We get the same type of questions and the same type of answers. There we are. So I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, was justified in expressing some disappointment—I would not say disgust; I would not take it as far as that—with the legislative process. Sooner or later it has got to be reconstructed, restructured; let that he understood.
Let us dismiss the Election Manifesto for the time being. We will come to it in due course and we shall have our say. There will be no consensus; there will he adequate confrontation, and let the best man win. Perhaps I ought not to confine it to one sex, but I was using a familiar phrase: let the best man win. Let us leave it at that. I hope it is not regarded as a political allusion, and if it is so regarded by Mrs. Thatcher I offer my apology at once; that was not my intention.
I want to come now to what I think is the proper course towards the end of the performance. The principal actors have bowed their acknowledgments—the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, who has played a very active part in the course of the play; the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has rendered noble assistance, and there have been many others. But I want to convey my congratulations, strange as it may seem, to my noble and learned friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland—and I mean what I say—who has piloted this Bill with remarkable skill;

965
there can be no question about it. Sometimes I have thought—perhaps it was a misunderstanding on my part—that he was a little too ministerial, particularly when I ventured to intervene in the course of the debates. But he always adopted the right course for a Minister: that is, in replying to a discussion in which several Members have played their part always to leave out the name of the one you dislike; mention everybody else, the noble Lord, Lord So-and-;So, the noble Earl, Lord So-and-So, the noble Viscount, Lord So-and-So, but do not mention the name of the other one, because that is how to snub him. I used to play that game myself, so therefore I know what is done. But leaving that aside, there can be no question about it that the skill deployed by my noble and learned friend is worthy of our acknowledgments.
He was assisted by a somewhat less ministerial but capable colleague, my noble friend Lord Kirkhill. There was a difference. The Solicitor-General was a little too legalistic—anyway, of course, I could not understand the language very often; I am a Doctor of Laws but that does not mean I know anything about the subject. My noble friend Lord Kirkhill I could understand clearly; there was clarity in what he said, although I frequently disagreed with him. Anyway, I offer my acknowledgments.
Now I go even further still before I sit down. There can be no question that the Members of the House of Lords have played their part in this performance and have done their duty. Their actions have been justified. It is not a question of how many Amendments have been accepted by another place. But as long as your Lordships' House exists the Members are entitled to justify their existence by intervening in debates, by initiating debates on various topics of the utmost national and international importance. As to when this place is going to be abolished, I wonder. I have held the view for many long years that the Labour Party—of which I have been a Member since the year 1903; and that is a long time ago—always must have a grievance. What better grievance than the House of Lords?
What they are going to replace it with, I do not know. I want it to go on; I
966
want the House of Lords to go on. There might be some reduction in the numbers on the other side of the House. I think even my noble friend Lord Carrington—I say that because in private we are quite friendly; we agree rather than disagree about some things—has declared in your Lordships' House that there might be a reduction in the number of Members on the Conservative side, in order to escape from the imbalance that exists, which perhaps causes more trouble and more controversy than the existence of your Lordships' House itself. Anyway, it will not matter very much to me. Of course, if a Conservative Government comes in we have got to put up with this place—what can we do?—but perhaps with some restructuring. However, if a Labour Government should come in, I understand that they do not intend to implement what is to appear in the Manifesto about the abolition of the House of Lords until the 1980s. So I shall escape. I shall not he here. Those who have been siding with me all these years will discover their mistake. It simply cannot be done. In fact, I shall not resign. I shall disappear, as will most of the others. They will accompany me. Where we are going I am not sure. I wish I knew.
What are we trying to do? Are we trying to have another confrontation at the end of the day? I beg the Members of your Lordships' House to do nothing of the kind. Skill has been deployed on both sides of the House. Many Members of your Lordships' House have been rational in their observations. What has been done has been done in the best interests of a United Kingdom. After all, that is the primary consideration. Let us stand by that. Let us be proud that we were privileged to take part in this performance.
4.21 p.m.
Lord POLWARTH:My Lords, perhaps it would not be out of order for a Back-Bencher on this side of the House to say one word before the final question is put. May I, as a former occupant of the seat now held by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, opposite, simply associate probably most Back-Benchers on all sides of the House with what the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, said about the Government team's handling of this measure, and especially the

967
extraordinary skill and good humour of the noble Lord, Lord McCluskey, when faced with such complexity? If ever justification was needed for the proposition which I urged for long but did not succeed in bringing about—that the Government team should enjoy the presence of a noble and learned Scottish Lord to back up the humble efforts of lay Ministers of State such as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, and myself—surely the proof has been in the handling of this Bill. I hope that this innovation will be continued by Governments of any shade in this place.
Secondly, it would be unfair if we did not all recognise the assiduity, the stamina and the good humour with which my noble friend Lord Ferrers—good Englishman that he is—has carried the heat and burden of the day on this side of the House. I hope that the House will agree with those proportions.
4.24 p.m.
Lord BANKS:My Lords, in supporting acceptance of the Amendment in lieu, perhaps I may be allowed briefly to say on behalf of my noble friends that we made it clear at the outset that we supported this Bill, although we should have liked to see it go very much further. We wanted a federal solution. I do not know that we have come much nearer to the ideal which we have in the course of the debates in both Houses. Nevertheless, we recognise the important part played by this House in the consideration of this Bill.
We join fully in the tributes paid in particular to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, and to others who have been concerned with the explanation and advocacy of this measure in this House. Whatever reservations we may have about the Bill—wishing it had gone further than it has—we nevertheless hope that it will in due course receive the approval of the people of Scotland.
Lord MCLUSKEY:My Lords, it would be appropriate for me to mention by name at least one noble Lord, my noble friend Lord Shinwell. I hope that others will excuse me if I do not mention all the names. I acknowledge what my noble friend and others said about the role played by the Government Ministers, not just by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill and myself, but by the noble and learned
968
Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, without whom we would not have got where we did.
On the general matters that have been discussed—the Manifesto and the House of Lords—it would be inappropriate for me, as a Government Minister and a junior Member of this House, to enter into the wider debate. However, I should like to acknowledge the good humour, the kindness and the quality of the debate in the House which has made such an impact on the discussion of this Bill.
Let me turn to matters which are within my domain. First, I refer to the date of the General Election. I do not see why the House should be kept in suspense on this matter. I have this to say. There will certainly be a General Election in October 1979 or earlier. As to the date of the referendum, I have to be rather more circumspect. In relation to that, I have to say this. As the House knows, there have to be two orders made. They cannot be made before the Recess. It is not practicable to do so. Draft orders need to be considered by the Special Orders Committee and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which has to report on them. That cannot be initiated until after the Royal Assent has been received. The Government have constantly reiterated their intention of ensuring that both referendums are held as soon as practicable. The first practicable date would, I suppose, be in the autumn. But that is a matter for Parliament to decide. As to the intervening of a General Election, subject to what I have said before, that is a somewhat hypothetical question. Parliament may run until October 1979. I do not think that I should address myself further to that.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WALES BILL
4.26 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR:My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Reason and the Amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Moved, That the Commons Reason and the Amendments be now considered.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS REASON FOR DISAGREEING TO LORDS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU OF LORDS AMENDMENT DISAGREED TO BY THE COMMONS, AND COMMONS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU OF CERTAIN OTHER LORDS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU, AND A COMMONS AMENDMENT TO A LORDS AMENDMENT IN LIEU
[References are to Bill (158) as first printed for the Lords]

LORDS AMENDMENT
1 Clause 12, page 6, leave out lines 30 to 32 and insert—
"(1)The Assembly shall not, unless authorised to do so by order made by the Secretary of State, review the structure of local government in Wales.
(2) No such order shall be made unless a draft thereof has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament."
The Commons disagreed to the above Amendment for the following Reason:
2 Because the 4ssembly should he under a duty to review tic! structure of local government in Wales.
The LORD CHANCELLOR:My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for the reason numbered 2. This relates to Clause 12, with its requirement upon the Assembly to review the structure of local government in Wales. It has been debated on several occasions. If I may say so, the factor which perhaps influenced your Lordships' House in deciding that it should be considered again in another place was the fact that the Government's proposal to retain the provisions of Clause 12 was only sustained in another place by one vote. Since then the matter has again been considered and the other place has rejected the Lords Amendment by a margin of 21 votes. I hope that in these circumstances your Lordships may not think it necessary to recapitulate the matters which were so eloquently and fully debated on the previous occasion and will now bow to the view of the other place upon this matter.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I admire the succinctness of the approach of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to this question. I did take care to read in Hansard the account of the debate on this Amendment in another place, which was a matter of some difficulty because it was nowhere in print. There are only two photostat copies of the stenographers'
970
transcripts available in another place. I noticed that in that debate it was suggested that this House had sought to mutilate this Bill and that the other place had wisely restored most of the Amendments. I do not wish to try to tread again the ground which my noble friend Lord Ferrers trod so extremely effectively perhaps half an hour ago. This is the first time that we have considered stages of the Wales and Scotland Bills on the same day with a proportion of the same audiences, and I should not wish to be compared with him, although I endorse everything which he has said. However, I think that one must say something in the context of this Bill to debunk that myth and I shall satisfy myself by saying that, in fact, more than half of the 197 Amendments sent by the Lords to the Commons were Government Amendments, and had they all been excluded from the Bill it would have been unworkable. That seems to me a very cogent and completely nonpolitical argument in favour of our two Chamber system.
As to the Amendment itself, it relates to Clause 12 of the Bill which your Lordships will recall lays upon the Assembly the duty to review the organisation of local government and report on it to the Secretary of State, with the implication that it should be altered-—that is, the organisation should be altered—and that that alteration should be upon the lines set out by the Assembly. That may seem a pretty straightforward proposition and the clause may seem a pretty dull thing. In fact, it proves upon inspection to be something of a collector's specimen.
If it is to become part of the Bill it is important that I should spend three minutes explaining why that is so. First, we must note that there was never any intention under the White Paper or under the Scotland and Wales Bill to lay such a duty on the Assembly. Secondly, we must note that the power to carry out a review of local government already exists in the Bill without the inclusion of Clause 12. All that Clause 12 does is to convert that power to a duty. Thirdly, we must note that the power already exists under the Bill, without the inclusion again of Clause 12, to review a great many other areas of administrative organisation as well as that of local government. Yet it is only in this one

971
area that the Government will go to such great lengths to tell the Assembly not only what it may do, but what it must do.
Those three observations lead us to ask three obvious questions. First, if the need for local government review and reorganisation is so obvious and urgent, as Her Majesty's Government have incessantly told us that it is, why was it not recognised in the White Paper and incorporated in the Scotland and Wales Bill? Secondly, why, if it is not so obvious and urgent, do the Government not lay a similar duty on the Assembly to review all the other areas which it might review? Thirdly, if, as they assure us on the contrary, it is urgent and obvious, why do the Government not trust the Welsh Assembly to recognise it and get on with the job of its own accord instead of giving it a peremptory and some would say an insulting order to do so?
The answers are profoundly significant as an illustration of the kind of exercise in which the Party opposite is really indulging. What happened was as follows: As they were climbing out of the wreckage of the Scotland and Wales Bill and considering how best they might replace it with something else, they discovered that the very principle of devolution for Wales was itself the subject of a profound distrust and a natural dislike among a great many of the Welsh people. At about the same time, they also discovered that a sharp and recent rise in the level of rates, largely resulting from their own policies, had acted as a catalyst to the doubt and discontent about the recent reorganisation of local government in England and Wales. That was a pretty general phenomenon, and especially marked in Wales for local considerations at which we need not look.
Clause 12 is a clever device to harness one discontent to overcome the other. Mark my words, they will go to the Welsh in the referendum and say: "Are you fed up with your local government? Do you want it reorganised into something much better? In that case vote for the Welsh Assembly, because that is the only way that you will get it." That is what they will say, but what they will not say is that the Welsh could have had their local government review together with the English by another means, without devolution;
972
and what they will certainly not say is that the bill for local government reform by devolution is not just £12½ million once, but £12½ million and more, every year that the Assembly exists from now until the end of time or when it collapses. We shall not return this Amendment to the Commons but we are telling the Welsh that we have rumbled what the Government are up to. They are trying to get the Welsh people to buy devolution on a false prospectus and in my experience Welsh men and Welsh women are not so easily hoodwinked as the Government seem to hope.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN:My Lords, may I presume to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Elton, on foregoing confrontation on this matter in the twilight of the discussions on the Wales Bill His speech was brief and it was not so rhetorical as his other admirable speeches during the course of these debates. However, I congratulate him on the speech which he has made today because it is one of the best speeches on behalf of devolution and on behalf of the Welsh Assembly that I have heard from the Conservative Benches.
I also took the precaution of reading the speech of the Conservative spokesman in the other place yesterday. I did so because the Conservative spokesman is, at present—perhaps not for long—the Member of Parliament for Pembrokeshire in which county my father was born in the village of Kilgerran. I was surprised that when he talked about local government he did not remember that a vast number of his own constituents are anxious to preserve the name "Pembrokeshire". He dismissed that movement which is both liberal, with a small "I" and which takes the view, generally held in his constituency, that the name "Pembrokeshire" somehow should be kept going. That, in itself, does not matter. A name does not matter. But it shows that even in parts of Wales there is still great unhappiness about the local government structure which was forced upon it by the Conservative Government, before Kilbrandon, and against the wishes of many Welsh Members of the other place. I end as I began by saying how pleased I am that at this stage there is no confrontation and that I believe by the vote in the other place

973
last night, which I heard about on the news on the radio this morning, the other House has brought some more sanity and balance into Welsh affairs.
The LORD CHANCELLOR:My Lords, I, like the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, am grateful to be assured that there is no intention of confrontation in considering these last stages of the Wales Bill. However, there was certainly verbal confrontation of which the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has become a most distinguished exponent. If his speech was an example of foregoing confrontation, I do not think that I should like very much to meet him when he is undergoing confrontation.
The whole debate and discussion of the Wales Bill has been dealt with seriously and conscientiously by noble Lords. Although we have permitted cheerfulness to break in from time to time—as is indeed right for any civilised assembly of men and women—nevertheless I am second to none in acknowledging the great and notable part that your Lordships' House has played in this important piece of (I shall use the neutral phrase) "constitutional change". This is an important piece of constitutional change with inevitable consequences, I think, for local government.
It was inevitable that two factors should go in harness: consideration of the Assembly itself and a review of the consequences for local government. If I may say so, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, has misrepresented the motivation of the Government in linking those two factors together. I also—being myself again a "foregoer" of confrontation—believe that he has caricatured the attitude of the people of Wales to this Bill and whether he is right or I am right we shall learn when the referendum takes place. In the meantime, I am grateful for the forbearance of the noble Lord in not pressing further the opposition on this matter which has hitherto been sustained.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENTS IN LIEU
3 Clause 37, page 14, leave out lines 29 to 35.
4 Clause 37, page 14, leave out line 37.
5 Clause 37, page 14, leave out line 42.
6 Clause 48, page 19, leave out lines 29 and 30.
7 Schedule 2, page 52, leave out lines 20 to 49.
8 Schedule 2, Page 54, leave out lines 2 to 38.
9 Schedule 2, Page 63, leave out lines 35 to 38.
10 Schedule 6, page 64, leave out line 14.
11 Schedule 6, page 64, leave out line 16.
12 Schedule 10, page 71, leave out lines 35 to 45.
13 Schedule 11, page 84, leave out lines 13 to 28.
14 Schedule 11, Page 85, leave out lines 12 to 31.
The Commons disagreed with the above Amendments but propose the following Amendments in lieu thereof:
15 Page 52, leave out lines 20 and 21.
16 Page 52, leave out line 30 and insert—
'and 13.
The functions under section 14 except so far as exercisable in relation to property held by or on behalf of the Assembly or by a company all of whose shares are so held or by a wholly owned subsidiary of such a company.
The functions under section 19(7) and (8).'
17 Page 54, line 22, leave out 'paragraphs 16(3) and 48' and insert 'paragraph 16(3)'.
18 Page 54, line 22, leave out lines 26 to 31 and insert—
'The functions under paragraphs 46 to 50 of Schedule 3 so far as exercisable by virtue of representations made by excepted statutory undertakers.
The powers under paragraph 53 of Schedule 3 so far as their exercise is incidental to functions which remain exercisable by a Minister of the Crown.'
19 Transfer lines 22 on page 52 to 38 on page 54 to Part VIII of Schedule 2 to the Bill.
20 Page 84, line 28, at end insert—
'(3) The Welsh Assembly shall publish each report received by it under this paragraph.'
21 Page 85, line 13, leave out In section 3(1)(e)' and insert (1) In subsection (1)(e) of section 3'
22 Page 85, line 16, at end insert—
'(2) At the end of subsection (8) of that section there shall be added the words"; and the Welsh Assembly shall publish every report made to it under that provision." '.
4.40 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 3 to 14, to which the Commons have disagreed, and doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 15 to 22 in lieu thereof. These Amendments relate to the relationship between the Assembly, the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales. The proposals in the Bill that they should be devolved to the Assembly if the

975
Amendments that were moved by the Opposition were sustained, mean that responsibility would be reserved. If the Amendments to the Lords Amendments are now agreed, it would result in devolving responsibility for the Agency and the Board. There are also some minor technical changes to the original entries in the Bill constituted by the Government's Amendments.
The Government's view remains that responsibility should be devolved, but a very important change has been made in another place, and I concede that this is partly the result of views expressed in your Lordships' House. Amendments Nos. 24 to 28 to Clause 60 of the Bill mean that neither of those two bodies—the Welsh Development Agency or the Development Board for Rural Wales—may be "subsumed" (that seems to be a fashionable piece of jargon these days; "taken over" is perhaps as good a phrase as any) or "taken over" by the Assembly without both Houses of Parliament agreeing by Affirmative Resolution to that being done.
Therefore, I think that the major fear that influenced the minds of those who originally voted for reservation has been met by this change, to which I shall be returning formally when we consider the Amendments to Clause 60. In those circumstances, again I hope that the view that the Government have taken about this matter will satisfy your Lordships that this is a reasonable course to take. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 3 to 14, to which the Commons have disagreed, and doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 15 to 22 in lieu thereof.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, I should say straight away that there is no question of confrontation on this matter; nor even of being in total agreement with the Commons in what they have done. Nevertheless, from these Benches I think that we shall be prepared to accept their Amendments, which is putting it in a slightly different way. We shall have no conflict over the Amendments which the Commons have put forward. However, I join my noble friend Lord Elton in saying that it is quite impossible to debate
976
these particular Amendments with any sense. Today I went into the House of Lords Library only to find that there is not even a galley proof of the debate of last night in another place. I really do not see how we, on this side of the House, can be expected to do any reasonable work without even having a document on what was debated in another place.
In view of the general feeling of bonhomie and the fact that we are drawing to an end after having debated these somewhat unpalatable Bills, I did not want to introduce a note of sourness. But it is fair to say that when we were debating the Wales Bill very late into the night, we were most appreciative of the effort made personally by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, to ensure that a galley proof of our debates was available in the Library of the House of Lords early the following morning. We very much appreciated the personal effort that she made to ensure that we, on this side of the House, should know what had been said and be able to refer to it when we were considering our Amendments and the procedures. So I wish to make only a mild protest, but nevertheless a protest, that no effort was made to provide that even a galley copy of the debate in another place was laid in the Library of your Lordships' House. I should also point out, of course, that the Hansard of yesterday only goes up to the middle of the debate on Clause 12. So what we are now discussing, or having the possibility of discussing, has not been available in any form.
Having said all that, of course we realise that we have lost this Amendment, and perhaps before the noble and learned Lord puts the Question he might be kind enough to tell us what was the vote on this Amendment, because I am not aware of the results. There has been no publication of the voting on these particular Amendments which went from your Lordships' House to another place. We recognise the reasons why these Amendments have been rejected. After all, the arguments have been put forward, both in your Lordships' House several times and in another place, and we accept that a vote in another place has decided to reject our Amendments. Nevertheless, I think that there has been some slight improvement on their return from the

977
Commons, so it has not all been in vain; there has been the addition in Amendments Nos. 20 and 22 that reports shall be published by the Welsh Assembly on matters which have been dealt with by the Welsh Development Agency and the Development Board for Rural Wales, I think that this is a slight improvement which we recognise. Anyway, we are grateful for this slight modification of the original Bill.
I was not quite sure whether the noble and learned Lord was intending to speak again on Clause 60, or whether he said all that he was going to say on that.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am afraid that there is just a little to add. I simply want to refer also to the intervention of the Secretary of State, which is provided for in the provisions in regard to Clause 60. That is merely a further improvement, but it is not of great substance.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for that intervention. Clearly it is a matter which concerns these particular bodies. Like him, I would also just touch on this matter while I am dealing with the others. We are also grateful to another place for having put in this particular Amendment to Clause 60 which, to some extent, allays the fears of my Party in this place and in another place.
But at least no statutory body can be "taken over"—if I may use a more acceptable phrase than the word "subsumed" which I find thoroughly objectionable both as a literary term or in any other way—without the matter having been brought before Parliament. As they are statutory bodies, I think that that is the proper way in which to proceed. We are grateful for at least the modification again in Clause 60. With those words, from this side of the House I merely say that we shall not object to the Amendments put forward by the Commons.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, in the spirit of non-confrontation in which we find ourselves, may I at once agree with the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, in her mild protest about the unavailability of what was said in the other place as regards these matters.
978
In pursuing my studies and researches on the Wales Bill, I had no assistance whatever and, therefore, I also did not find the galley proof which I had expected to find and which had been provided in other circumstances by the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, in this matter.
In those circumstances my tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, is even higher than it would have been. I should like to say how much she has impressed the House, myself and these Benches by the vast amount of work that she has done in connection with the Amendments she has tabled. May I conclude by saying how much we value her contribution to the debate.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, from this side of the House, in one minute. may I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Elles. In those congratulations may I also include, as I did the other day, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and those on the other side of the House who have obviously improved this Bill by their labours.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, it may well be that the subsequent matters which we have to discuss will give an ultimate opportunity for the usual courtesies. Otherwise there will be an embarras de courloisie if we go on at this rate. There was a certain Bishop who went to some function on one occasion and he was so flattered by the observations that he said, "I have heard of the milk of human kindness, but this is the first time that I have met the cow." However, that is a very ungallant observation on my part.
I apologise for the fact that the galleys of the proceedings in another place where not available. The relevant part of the proceedings took place after midnight. Their absence is not due to any lack of concern or courtesy on my part. I am grateful to noble Lords who have struggled on—and this not for the first time—with consideration of these matters without the full assistance that would have been welcome.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her acknowledgement that, at any rate from her point of view, there has been improvement, and I think from the point of view of the Bill there has been improvement

979
in this part of it by reason of the changes made in another place, which I now invite your Lordships to accept.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT IN LIEU
23 Page 25, line 12, leave out "with the approval of the Secretary of State and".
The Commons disagree to the above Amendment but propose the following Amendments in lieu thereof:
24 Page 25, line 4, leave out from first 'Assembly' to 'provide' in line 5 and insert 'a Minister of the Crown may by order'.
25 Page 25, line 6, leave out 'it' and insert 'he'.
26 Page 25, line 10, leave out 'Assembly' and insert Minister making the order'.
27 Page 25, line 12, leave out from 'except' to end of line 13 and insert 'at the request of the Assembly and after the Assembly has consulted'.
28 Page 25, line 15, leave out subsection (4).
4.51 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 23 to which the Commons have disagreed, and doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 24 to 28 in lieu thereof. The previous Amendments, that an order made under Clause 60 should he subject to Parliamentary scrutiny—that is to say, Affirmative Resolution by both Houses—we have considered and agreed to. The Government, however, believe that if the Amendments as they then stood had remained, they would have resulted in the Assembly's order being put to Parliament, and the view that we have take is that it is desirable that the link between the Assembly and Parliament should be through the Secretary of State. I think that that is the common view in the House as a whole.
To achieve that result another place has proposed a modified procedure whereby the Assembly puts its proposals to the Secretary of State. If he agrees with the proposals he will lay an order before Parliament for approval by the Affirmative Resolution procedure. Your Lordships may think that that is a further improvement on giving effective Parliamentary and ministerial control in this clearly very important field. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 23 to which the
980
Commons have disagreed and doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 24 to 28 in lieu thereof. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LORDS AMENDMENT IN LIEU
29 Clause 15, page 7, line 18, at end insert—
"( ) The standing orders shall include provision for the admission of the public to meetings of the Assembly and of its committees."
The Commons agree to the above Amendment and propose the following Amendment thereto:
30 Line 1, leave out 'for the admission of the public' and insert 'as to the circumstances in which the public may be admitted'.
4.54 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 29 to which the Commons have disagreed, and doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 30 in lieu thereof. This related to the question of admission of the public to meetings of the Assembly. We indicated in earlier debates on this matter that we thought it unnecessary to make express provision in the Bill for the public to be admitted to meetings of the Welsh Assembly because we thought it was inconceivable that the Assembly would shut the public out other than in exceptional circumstances.
However, noble Lords took a different view and thought that there should he a statutory provision, and the effect of their intervention was the provision that standing orders shall include provision for the admission of the public to meetings of the Assembly and of its committees. That gave the impression that there could not be circumstances in which the public could be excluded, but it is conceded that there could be such occasions when there should be meetings in private. The Amendment which has been moved in another place reads:
"The standing orders shall include provision as to the circumstances in which the public may be admitted to meetings of the Assembly and of its committees."
It is really only a drafting Amendment to achieve a purpose which noble Lords on the opposite side really had in mind. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 29 to

981
which the Commons have disagreed, and doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 30 in lieu thereof.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord ELTON: My Lords, when I recall the vehemence with which the Government resisted the original introduction of this principle by my noble friend Lord Swansea, I am sure that he will agree with me that this is a significant concession on their part and we are glad to welcome it. When we recognise that this is the end of a quite impressive list of concessions by Her Majesty's Government, 28 in all, and when we consider also that on two occasions the other place has agreed on a Division to Amendments your Lordships put into the Bill in this House, it is clear that this House is in fact assisting the other place to carry out its functions.
Perhaps those honourable Members who—rather like train spotters—laboriously count the numbers of hereditary Peers who vote through the Lobbies on each occasion when the Government are beaten in a Division in this House will recall also that if those Peers had not so voted those self-same Members of another place would have been denied any opportunity to open their mouths at all in support of the interests of those who elected them on a whole range of important issues.
They may also reflect that on several occasions decisions arrived at in this House, by the means to which they object, were taken on subjects which they had themselves never discussed, and that the decisions that we then arrived at were such that they actually agreed to them, either individually and tacitly themselves by their support of Government concessions, or twice, as I said, on a vote. I do not want to make too much of this because my noble friend Lord Ferrers has already done it much better than I can. What I would say, since we are now at the end of this whole exercise, is that I do not know what other noble Lords think but I have protested frequently at the onset of exhaustion and the pre-occupation that drove everything else out of one's life but Wales, but I must say on reflection that I enjoyed it. I think that your Lordships probably have
982
done so as well. I think that we have achieved changes in the Bill that are worthwhile.
Since it is the end of term one has to say nice things about the prefects even if they have given us a lot of extra work, and many of us have been impressed by the efficiency with which noble Lords and noble Baronesses opposite have worked, especially the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, who has worked very hard: so hard, indeed, that she has become unwell. We do sympathise with her on this. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, saw the danger signs and left the country for a short time to recover. I thought that others had too, but I see that the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has rejoined us for the last phases of Speech Day. What we have done I think we have done in a spirit of good will not only towards each other but also towards the Welsh, and I hope that that is the note on which we can conclude.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, the last Amendment put forward by the Government indicates the advantage of having full discussions on a Bill in this House. The Amendment leaves to the Welsh Assembly the circumstances of admission of the public, and that seems to me to be the right and commonsense view. As I have said before, this Bill has one great merit above all others in spite of its imperfections: it gives the people of Wales the greatest opportunity they have had for centuries of having an elected body to speak for them.
Bearing in mind the fear of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that there may be an embarrass—if that is the correct pronunciation—of courtesies at the conclusion of this debate, may I presume to conclude by thanking all noble Lords who have participated in the debate on the Wales Bill, and who have in their own way put forward so sincerely, sometimes very resolutely, their contributions in the interest of the people of my country.
5 p.m.
Lord SKELMERSDALE: My Lords, I hope it will not be considered presumptious of me if I make a brief comment on the Bill before it leaves your Lordships' House and reaches the Statute Book. I

983
hold the unusual view on this side of the House that there will be a Welsh Assembly. I, with my very limited experience of matters in this House, have been deeply impressed by the very full answers the Government team gave to the various Amendments that were tabled. I would only express the hope that copies of our debates in the Official Reports of both Houses will be presented to every officer and Member of the Assembly, which I am sure will come into being.
5.1 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, this discussion now draws the final curtain on the debates on the Wales Bill. I do not suppose many bouquets will be thrown in our direction, but I am happy to thank all who have taken part in this important and difficult discussion. On my own side of the House, I am deeply grateful to my four colleagues. Unlike the debates on the Scotland Bill, there was a paucity of peers from the Principality, and indeed in the quintet I had the honour of being the only Welshman, which perhaps accounts for the fact that possibly I spoke more frequently than any of my team. However, I am grateful to them.
Indeed, I am grateful to noble Lords in all parts of the House—on the Back Benches, on the Government side, on the Opposition side and indeed on the Liberal side—and I hope the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, does not think I was meaning to affront him when he did not quite catch my eye the other night. I certainly did not mean that, and I am glad that, nevertheless, he made a contribution today. To the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, hwyl has been manifested by him from time to time, and it has been good to hear the stentorian celtic voice of my noble friend Lord Davies of Leek from time to time, as well at the voices of other noble Lords. Then, on the Government side, the noble Lord, Lord Elton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Elles—
A noble Lord: On the Government side?
Baroness ELLES: Yes, my Lords, in October.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: Na, na, no, no, my Lords. On the Opposition
984
side, I am second to none in my admiration of the contribution of the noble Baroness on some most technical and difficult matters, and of course of the leadership of Lord Elton and other colleagues of his. Lord Elton must have been an entertaining schoolmaster; the flood of pictorial language and prose that accumulated as the debates went on proved that. Alas, this has now come to an end.
The Cross-Benches should not be overlooked on this occasion, and in particular the noble and learned Lord and my friend and fellow countryman Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest: diolch yn fawl annwyl gyfaill; we speak to each other only in Welsh, though I am told that is out of order—we may need instantaneous interpretation in your Lordships' House, but not yet. My Lords, thank you.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CHRONICALLY SICK AND DISABLED PERSONS (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL
House in Committee; Bill reported without amendment; Report received; then, Standing Order No. 43 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution), Bill read 3a.
5.6 p.m.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. In moving this Motion, having been charged by my Front Bench not to make a speech, I must take this opportunity to thank noble Lords who have not tabled any Amendments in response to an appeal not do do so. Bearing in mind that I suggested that the Bill would not go through if Amendments were tabled, noble Lords have not tabled any, and I am greatly appreciative of that. I wish also to pay tribute to the Government, who have made it possible for the Bill to go through.
The Bill will make further provision with respect to the welfare of chronically sick and disabled persons in Northern Ireland, and while I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, that there are too many words like "practicable" and "reasonable" in the Bill for some of us to be happy, nevertheless we accept that the measure will bring great comfort and succour to people in Northern Ireland.

985
As we have had such a marvellous spate of oratory, I will only say that I am reminded of the lady who said that she ate with nice people, worked with nice people, and hoped she would have the opportunity of sleeping with nice people. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Phillips.)
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I feel I must respond to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips—
A noble Lord: Oh!
Lord SANDYS:—and congratulate her on piloting the Bill through with such skill and success. We have observed the remarks she made on Second Reading and accordingly have not tabled any Amendments, observing the caution that the Bill would not otherwise have reached the Statute Book. This is a shorter Bill than the one which applied to other parts of the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, we have had eight years in which to ensure that the practicalities of the Bill will prove satisfactory and we therefore believe that this measure will, as she said, give succour to people in Northern Ireland.
The MINISTER of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Melchett): My Lords, I wish briefly to thank the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, and without following the interesting remarks of my noble friend Lady Phillips, simply assure noble Lords that my Department in Northern Ireland will be anxiously waiting to implement the various provisions of the Bill. It will be widely welcomed by people in Northern Ireland, particularly the handicapped, and on their behalf I say "Thank you" to your Lordships for giving it such a speedy passage.
On Question, Bill passed.

MINISTERIAL AND OTHER SALARIES ORDER 1978
5.10 p.m.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart)The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart) rose to move, That the draft Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1978, laid before the House on 20th July, be approved
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the draft order now before the House is designed to increase the pay of Ministers and Office Holders in this House and in another place by 10 per cent., in accordance with the pay policy guidelines for this year. The order is made under the Ministerial and other Salaries Act 1975. The operative date of the increase will be the date on which the order is made, which is expected to be Monday next, 31st July.
The revised salaries set out in the order are the maximum amounts payable and not necessarily the actual rates in payment, which, in the case of Ministers in another place who received increases to their Parliamentary pay in earlier pay rounds, may be lower than the promulgated rates. The governing Act contains no power to differentiate between the rates paid to Members of this House and those paid to Members of another place, but it does permit a lesser amount to be paid than those authorised. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Ministerial and other Salaries Order 1978, laid before the House on 20th July, he approved. —(Lord Peart.)
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I suppose at the outset I should declare an interest, though a derisory interest, as the noble Lord will find some time after October. I rise to ask two questions and I apologise to the noble Lord for not having given him notice of them. I must confess that I had not done my homework soon enough. Can he explain why it is that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, if he is a member of the Cabinet, should get £228 more than his boss; why the Lord President of the Council gets paid a different sum of money from all the other Secretaries of State; and why a Minister of State, if he is in the Cabinet, gets £228 more than anybody else in the Cabinet except the Prime Minister? I draw the noble Lord's attention to Schedule 1 of the order. It may very well be a misprint but it seems extremely mysterious. No doubt there is a simple explanation which, if the noble Lord does not know now, will be sent to him from his advisers before I sit down.
The second question I should like to ask him is, supposing that the noble Lord is not the Lord Privy Seal, as he may very well not be—and indeed when I

987
was Leader of the House once I was not Lord Privy Seal but Minister without Portfolio—or Lord President of the Council or Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, how does he get paid at all under this order? Again it seems rather mysterious. I think reinforcements are coming and the noble Lord will be able to answer these questions.
While the noble Lord is assimilating the information that his noble friend is giving him, perhaps I may just add that, although of course we shall pass this order and we only ask these questions for elucidation, it seems to me that not only are all these salaries fairly derisory in modern terms but also that it is ridiculous, in the context of the amount of work that your Lordships' House now does, that the Chief Whip in this House, the noble Baroness the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms, should be paid rather less than half what the Chief Whip in the House of Commons gets paid, and that noble Lords opposite who are Lords in Waiting should be treated worse than almost anybody else. They cannot draw allowances, they cannot draw their attendance allowance and they are paid a pittance for the work they do. The time is very fast approaching when all of us on all sides of the House ought to march in to another place to say we are not going to put up with it any more.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I am grateful for the words of the noble Lord. I agree with him about salaries and especially about the salary of the Chief Whip and others who do such an important job in this House. But, as always, we tend to treat ourselves in a derisory way. I think this matter must be faced. We must have a change. That applies to all Governments and I am glad the noble Lord has raised it.
On the detailed questions, I have not done my homework either and I understand that the information is not yet available in the Box, so I shall have to write to the noble Lord. I am not trying to dodge this question. It is an important one and I very much appreciate what the noble Lord has said.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I wonder in point of fact whether it is a
988
misprint and, if that figure is a misprint, it ought to be corrected.
Lord PEART: Yes, I am grateful to the noble Lord.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, does the Minister not think that it would be appropriate if he withdrew the motion now so that we can wait to see what will be the Government's attitude on the Parliamentary Pensions Bill. If they accept the Amendment which this House has put down in order to do justice, then it will be a very strong argument indeed, for, having done justice to all the Members of the House of Commons, the Government should also have public opinion backing them in doing justice to Ministers.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I hope that the House will not oppose the Motion. As my noble friend knows, I have very strongly defended the position of Members who are in another place and have been affected by proposals. There was a debate the other night in another place which the noble Lord will probably read about. I should like to get this order through. If there is a mistake, then it will have to be corrected, but that can be done quite easily.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SHIPBUILDING (REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS SCHEME) (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1978
5.16 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT rose to move, That the draft Shipbuilding (Redundancy Payments Scheme) (Great Britain) Order 1978, laid before the House on 6th July, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to speak to both these orders together. They are virtually identical in wording, and have exactly the same effect. They will establish, under powers provided by Sections 1 and 2 of the Shipbuilding (Redundancy Payments) Act 1978, a scheme for the making of

989
payments to certain classes of employees of British Shipbuilders, Harland and Wolff Limited and specified subsidiaries of either, who are made redundant or transferred to less well paid employment as a result of closure or contraction of the undertaking employing them.
Your Lordships have considered the background to these orders both during the debates on the Act under which they are made, and earlier this month when the House considered the Select Committee's report on the European Commission's proposals for the reorganisation of the Community shipbuilding industry. An outline of the scheme brought into operation by these orders was given by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Industry in another place on 7th February. The orders fill in the precise details of the scheme, and I am afraid that they are necessarily rather complicated. Because of this, explanatory pamphlets are being produced which will explain to those who may be affected what they can expect to receive under the scheme. Given the detail contained in the orders, I intend simply to cover the main points in them in addressing your Lordships' House this evening.
The orders will come into effect the day after they are made, but they are partially retroactive since the effective commencing date of the two-year period of eligibility for payment will be 1st July last year. In fact, some 2,000 employees who have already been made redundant since that date are expected to benefit under the scheme. The details of the scheme are set out in the schedules to the orders. Eligibility for payment depends among other things upon being aged between 19 and normal retiring age and having at least one year's service with a qualifying company engaged in shipbuilding, ship repair, slow speed diesel marine engine building or ancillary activities. There is also a provision intended to ensure as far as possible that the payments are made in compensation for redundancies which are the result of permanent contraction: we do not intend these payments to be made for short-term lay-offs. If, in a rare and exceptional case, a person is re-employed in shipbuilding after a relatively short time, the
990
orders provide for him to repay some of his benefit.
The level of the payments made to an individual redundant worker depends on age, length of service and pay. Payment will be partly in the form of a lump sum on redundancy and partly as income support payments for a period of up to two years afterwards. There are special provisions covering redundant workers who find other employment in that period. The central part of the scheme is, of course, concerned with redundancy payments, because the scope for redeployment in shipbuilding is very limited given the depressed market for ships. But we have made some provision for payments to workers undergoing retraining as an alternative to redundancy. There is also some provision for payments towards the additional travelling or removal expenses of workers who can be transferred rather than made redundant.
It is impossible to forecast the total cost of the scheme because we do not know how many people will benefit under it. The best estimate I can give is that, if the average age and length of service of those receiving benefit is the same as the average for the industry as a whole, as estimated by British Shipbuilders, and taking account of the latest assessment of current wage rates, then the cost per 1,000 persons receiving benefit is likely to be of the order of £1·725 million. This is higher than the previous estimate mainly because average wage rates have risen, not only because of pay awards made under Phase 3, but also because of awards made by the Central Arbitration Committee under the Fair Wages Resolution 1946 or the Employment Protection Act 1975. Also, the estimate of average pay at September 1977 has been slightly revised in the light of some new data.
My Lords, the Government believe that this scheme is needed, given the very difficult problems faced by the shipbuilding industry throughout the world. It follows from the Act recently passed by Parliament, and I hope your Lordships will welcome it. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Shipbuilding (Redundancy Payments Scheme) (Great Britain) Order 1978, laid before the House on 6th July, be approved.—(Lord Melchett.)
5.19 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for explaining the two orders, one relating to Great Britain and the other to Northern Ireland, and I agree with him that it would be convenient that they be taken together. They arise from the Bill, now enacted, which we examined in your Lordships' House earlier this Session. Some of us have been waiting to see what the schemes would contain, because Ministers in both Houses were unable to give much indication until an outline scheme appeared in reply to a Question for Written Answer in another place. The noble Lord confirmed one's impression upon comparing the two schemes that they were similar, if not identical. I should like to know whether there is any difference in the payments; whether it will mean that a worker doing exactly the same kind of work as, and with the same qualifications as, another worker might receive a larger sum under one of the schemes than he would under the other—a larger sum in either Northern Ireland or in Great Britain.
It is very appropriate that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, should be introducing the schemes. He has been in the Northern Ireland Office for many months, and before that, when he was in the Department of Industry, he handled with great stamina the very long Bill we considered two years ago, which dealt with shipbuilding in particular.
I have been able to give the noble Lord some notice of my main points, and my second question is whether the schemes have been agreed by the trade unions concerned. We have been aware from a distance—not being party to the negotiations that have been going on—that the unions have not been prepared to accept the need for anything but voluntary redundancy. I wonder whether they have yet moved from that position, and whether they recognise, as, unfortunately, many of us have to, that there may well need to be more than voluntary redundancy, though one hopes that the reduction in the industry will be carried out as far as possible by normal wastage; that is to say, by way of people retiring voluntarily, or on grounds of age.
I must point out that the schemes do not cover the whole of the shipbuilding
992
and ship repairing industries. When the Bill was going through Parliament, we made clear that we thought it inequitable that 10 per cent. of the industries were not to be covered by the schemes. I refer here to the private sector. I do not propose to rehearse what was said then, but I wish to point out that the private sector exists as the result of a deliberate decision by the Government. When they introduced the Shipbuilding and Aircraft Industries Bill, which included nationalisation of the shipbuilding industry, they deliberately left out certain companies which they decided should remain as a private sector, rather in the same way as the nationalisation of the steel industry deliberately left a private sector which exists and continues today. We must once more reiterate that it is unfair that part of the industry, which through no fault of its own is in a different category as a result of the choice of the present Government, is not to benefit from the schemes. It means that some men in certain firms, doing exactly the same jobs as other workers in other firms, will not be eligible for the schemes simply because they are in the private sector; and neither they, nor their employers, had had any say in the matter.
We are grateful to the noble Lord for today giving us some information which has not previously been given to Parliament. I understand that the orders were considered in a Committee in another place this morning. The noble Lord has told us today that 2,000 men, who have already been made redundant, are likely to benefit from the scheme; and I think that this is the first time that this information has been forthcoming. The period of eligibility started in July of last year, and we are now already more than halfway through it. This brings me to my next question. Under the Act the period of eligibility is two years, and this is due to expire at the end of June 1979. Under the Act the Government can extend the period for another two years. As we are now more than halfway through the period which the orders cover, what is the latest view of the Government on this question? Are they contemplating the need to make the extension of another two years, which is possible under the parent Act?
The noble Lord drew attention to the complications in the formulae covering

993
the payments. Those noble Lords who have examined the orders in detail will have seen that the formulae include a considerable amount of algebra, and it will certainly not be easy for an individual becoming redundant to work out what his entitlement is likely to be. I do not believe that this matters greatly provided there is satisfaction that the scheme is fair taking into account, for example, the considerations of the time spent in the industries, moves to lesser paid work, or retraining. If it can be made quite clear that the schemes are fair, the complications of working out eligiblity will not be so important.
I should like to put to the noble Lord another question, which I believe may be helpful. There has been considerable working out of what the average payment is likely to be under the scheme. Can the noble Lord give an indication—I realise that it may be only an approximate figure—of what is the maximum for which an individual might qualify under the scheme? It would be helpful to know this; otherwise, the media may speculate and suggest that individuals could qualify for enormous sums when in fact that would not be so.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, attempted to give some information about the total cost of the scheme. The Government found it impossible to give this information when the Bill was before us. Today the noble Lord has improved upon the estimates which were made previously. He has given us the Government's estimate of the cost per 1,000 men made redundant, but we are still in ignorance both as to the Government's estimate of the number of men likely to be made redundant and the total cost of the scheme; I do not think the noble Lord told us anything about that today. If he can give an estimate of the total numbers, it will give an idea of the total cost. I appreciate that he has today given an estimate in relation to the cost per 1,000 men.
About three weeks ago the Secretary of State for Industry, in reply to a Question for Written Answer in another place, gave some very important information which he described as the financial discipline which he had issued to British Shipbuilders—the nationalised corporation. He had told British Shipbuilders
994
that it must not incur a loss of more than £45 million in the current financial year. That figure was the estimate given by British Shipbuilders itself of the loss it expected, and so I do not think it unfair for the figure to have been given to the corporation. However, if the total cost of the schemes is still completely unknown, how are the financial discipline and the loss of £45 million affected? Has some allowance been made in regard to the cost of the schemes?
In preparing the orders the Government's aim has clearly been to provide definitions about which there could be as little doubt as possible, and to a large extent they have been successful. However, [wish to draw attention to the definition of "qualifying activities", because this is vague, and yet it is one of the most important matters in the orders. It raises, for example, the whole question of diversification. Subsidiaries of British Shipbuilders may in the future be given work unconnected with shipbuilding or ship repairing, and it is not at all clear how that would affect men who are made redundant, because the subsidiaries employing them would not then be mainly occupied with shipbuilding and ship repairing. I should like some assurance that men in such a company would not fare worse under these schemes than their colleagues in another subsidiary which was not being diversified.
Here I would draw attention to a particular case, because the noble Lord will know that British Shipbuilders have announced recently that one of their companies, Barclay Curie, a marine diesel engine builder, is to become a subsidiary of the Vickers Shipbuilding Group. The new relationship, to use the words of their statement, is:
"To increase general engineering productive capacity, permitting additional work to be undertaken in both the defence and commercial equipment fields at each works. Moreover, when engineering concerns have in the past concentrated on the manufacture of marine engines and components, the current lack of new orders can be countered by turning to a wider range of highly-specialised engineering products".
If the diversification contemplated in that statement reaches the point where the company is not mainly engaged in activities relating to the shipbuilding industry, and if men who had worked in the firm before diversification are made redundant, will they be eligible for redundancy payments

995
under the scheme although the company is no longer engaged in a qualifying activity? That is another side of the same question.
Lastly, I come to the relationship with the EEC, and the views of the Commission. This came up in the debate that we had only a few days ago, on 10th July, on the report of your Lordships' Select Committee on Europe on the shipbuilding industry. It is clear that the Government have been discussing with the Commission whether the Commission accepts some of the United Kingdom schemes to help the industry. I think it is clear—and the Government confirmed it at the time—that the setting up of the intervention fund last year and the amount of money that was put into it was approved by the Commission. The Government have announced a further sum to be added to the fund for this year, but it is still not clear whether that is a matter which is still at issue with the Commission or whether the Commission have approved that, too. Then there are these schemes; and I should like to know whether the Commission have approved them as well, as further financial help for the industry. As there have been reports in the Press that the Government are still not in full agreement with the Commission on help for the industry, I would end by asking this: Are there any further proposals which the Government have put to the industry which are still a matter of argument with the Commission?
5.33 p.m.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for explaining these two orders, which, as he rightly says, are really identical except that one relates to British Shipbuilders and the other to the shipbuilders in Northern Ireland. I thought, if I may say so, that there was one aspect missing from his explanation—an aspect which perhaps led the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, astray. Because my recollection is that the Act under which these orders are made provided that in fact the Government would underwrite the payments under the orders; so that, although the orders in form provide for payments by the employers—that is, British Shipbuilders or the Northern Ireland employers—the amount is in fact paid by the Government because they have underwritten it. I think that probably
996
answers the question of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, perhaps I can just confirm that the noble Viscount is quite right; that is the answer to the noble Lord's question.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, I thought it as well to remind ourselves that what we are talking about is something which is paid by the general body of taxpayers. Apart from that, I really have only two minor points, and I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, that I did not find time to communicate them to him. I am afraid I saw these orders to study only a short time ago, so if he cannot reply to my points I shall well understand. My first question arises out of a paragraph on page 2. It is in Article 1(1), and it is in the fourth paragraph, defining "current earnings". It there says:
"'current earnings' … means the average amount of … weekly earnings in employment or as a self-employed person …"
But since, in order to qualify, the employee has to have been employed by the company for two years, I do not understand how any earnings as a self-employed person can arise. I was wondering whether, if not now then perhaps later, the noble Lord could tell me how self-employed persons got into this particular order.
The other point, I am afraid, is an even more esoteric one. When we turn to pages 4 and 5, where they work out what the lump sum payments will be, we find a very complicated piece of calculation. If we turn first to Article 3(2), which refers to an abatement—and this, I think, will illustrate my difficulty—we find that it says:
"The abatement … is the amount by which the aggregate of the employee's age amount, the amount equal to twice his adjusted previous earnings and the amount of any payments he is entitled to under … the Redundancy Payments Act"—
those three all added together—exceeds the product of two years' earnings. But what happens if it does not exceed the product of two years' earnings? To a mathematician, if the result is a minus quantity it would then be added, instead of being subtracted, as the abatement. I do not think that is what is intended, and I think the wording would have been happier if it had said,
"the amount (if any) by which it exceeds"

997
this or that. I leave those two points with the noble Lord, because I do not expect him to answer them today.
5.37 p.m.
Viscount ROCHDALE: My Lords, I should like to say a very few words on these two orders, and I shall be as brief as possible. When, the other day, we debated shipbuilding generally, the enormous imbalance in shipbuilding capacity worldwide was quite apparent; but at the end of the debate it was very obscure what practical steps any of the member countries could take. I therefore welcome these orders, because they show that the Government have taken a lead in introducing practical steps to help to mitigate the problem. The intervention fund, of course, was the first step they took in this direction, and this is the second one; and, like my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, I welcome the two orders.
There are just three points I should like to make on the orders themselves. The first has been mentioned, both by the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, and by my noble friend, and it concerns the complexity of the orders. I was very glad indeed to hear the noble Lord say that the Government were preparing explanatory pamphlets. I think this is much more important than it may appear to be on the surface. Naturally, one wants as few people as possible to be redundant within the terms of increased efficiency; but you cannot tell how many people are going to be made redundant, and it is really important that all who might be liable to redundancy should have the opportunity of seeing this pamphlet and of knowing where they stand. In industry these days we hear a great deal about good communications. I think this is an example, a very important example, of good communications. I hope the pamphlet to which the noble Lord referred will be disseminated as widely as possible throughout the industry. That is tremendously important, because these orders are complex. I have read them several times myself, and there are two questions that I am now coming to which show that I am not absolutely clear on them.
The first question I want to ask deals with Article 5. Article 5 deals with the
998
case of an employee who has been made redundant, who has received financial benefit under the order and who is then, perhaps, in due course, offered back by his old firm the same job that he was doing when he was made redundant. The Article says that "he shall be liable to repay" a certain proportion of the money. I do not know the significance of the words "liable to repay". It does not say "he shall repay"; it says "liable to repay". I hope the noble Lord will deal with that, because it seems to me that if he has to repay the money it may very well prohibit him, he having spent the money, from taking back his old job if it is offered to him. This could be harmful both to the industry and to the man. I hope that something will be said on that.
The other question that I wanted to raise is on Article 7. This deals with retraining. When somebody has been made redundant and undertakes retraining for some other skill, he can obtain certain periodic financial help. It may be rather a foolish question; but I want to he quite sure that if the other job is in the same company from which he was made redundant but in a different division, are the financial helps that he could get still available; or does he have to go to another company altogether? I suspect that they may be able to be paid to him, but let me give an example. A steelworker, because there are too many steelworkers, is made redundant. But it might happen, due to a change of demand, that the outfitting trades were short. Therefore, the man, in his own company, is retrained for an outfitting job. Can he still get financial help?
Those are the only questions that I want to ask. I am sorry that I did not give the noble Lord notice of the questions, but they are not very difficult ones and I hope that he will be able to answer them. Subject to that, I welcome the two orders.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, will know that the Statutory Instruments Committee interviewed the civil servants who drew up this draft. I hope that he has had the opportunity of reading the report. I am not going over the various questions we asked except for one on which we did not seem to get a clear answer. This is Question No. 2A, on page 4, the question

999
of age. It says that the relevant age is 19. We wondered why 19 and not 18; which I understand is now the age of consent. When we asked the question, we were told that it varied for different industries. I should like to know whether the noble Lord can give any information on why the basic ages in Question 2A have been put into the Bill.
I note that the Northern Ireland order says it is to be laid before Parliament—and it gives the date. But there is no date on the order for Great Britain. Are they both going to be brought in at the same time or not?
5.44 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I am grateful to all who have spoken for their welcome to the orders. I shall do my best to answer the various points that have been raised. I will start with what seems to me to be a neat answer to one of the points raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, about the excess amount and what would happen if there was not an excess amount. I am advised that if the excess amount is zero, it is zero and not negative; and, therefore, the problems which the noble Viscount foresaw in mathematical terms do not arise. While dealing with that perhaps I may do my best to answer another point that the noble Viscount raised about the definition of "current earnings" and the inclusion under that definition of somebody who is self-employed. As I understand it, this part of the order is concerned with what people earn after they have been made redundant rather than with what they earn before they have been made redundant. By then, the person, by definition, will have ceased to be an employee of British Shipbuilders and therefore might be in self-employment I hope that that answers the noble Viscount's point satisfactorily.
Turning now to a point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, he first went over ground on which I think it is fair to say this House and Parliament spent some time, about the inclusion or exclusion of private sector companies. I think that the noble Lord will forgive me if I do not traverse that ground myself again, and simply say that it is clear that these orders, as they are made under the provisions of the Act,
1000
cannot include things which are not included in the Act itself. Parliament decided in the end that the Act should include only the public sector companies.
The noble Lord also asked about whether there would be any difference in payment between Northern Ireland and Great Britain. Of course, the way the schemes are applied will be exactly the same. The only difference that will arise will occur if there are differences in length of service on average between those made redundant in Northern Ireland and those in Great Britain. That is a possibility. But, as the noble Lord knows, we will not know this until the orders are in operation and we can see what happens. The noble Lord asked also about the cost of the Scheme. He will know that, while I have been able to give him a more accurate and more up-to-date figure of the cost per thousand of those eligible under the scheme who are made redundant, the number of redundancies is quite impossible to foretell.
If I could give the noble Lord the benefit of my own brief experience in this, I have been staggered, since leaving the Department of Industry and going to Northern Ireland, at the success we have had, in an appallingly difficult world market, in attracting orders to Harland and Wolff, which is a specialist shipyard not necessarily well placed to benefit from some of the orders which British shipbuilders (and I am talking about the Polish orders) have been able to attract. Nevertheless, I think—and I take no credit for it for it was my right honourable friends who were responsible for this area of activity in Northern Ireland—that we have done exceptionally well and have done much better than could have been foreseen even two years ago. I think that that underlines the impossibility of making any estimate of the number of people who are likely to be affected by the scheme and, therefore, of what the total cost will be.
The noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale—and I am grateful for his welcome—mentioned the pamphlet. I would agree with him about the importance of this. From my personal experience of the questions that I have been asked this afternoon, a simple explanation is clearly badly needed for those introducing the orders, let alone those who will be

1001
affected by them. I agree with what the noble Viscount said about the importance of ensuring that all those concerned have this information made available to them in simple form. Those who are likely to be affected by the scheme are represented by trade unions and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, asked about their attitude to the scheme and said that negotiations had been going on for some time. That is the case. The Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions have consistently made plain their distate for redundancies, as such, and I do not think that that would surprise noble Lords on any side of the House. They agreed however to involve themselves fully with British Shipbuilders and Harland and Wolff in negotiating the outline of the scheme, and the detailed scheme now set out in the orders is based on proposals made jointly to the Government as a result of discussions between British Shipbuilders and the CSEU. Some features of the scheme, for example, the limitation of benefits to a maximum of two years of previous earnings—and I was going to come to that later—and other features, for example, the tapering down of lump sum payments for older workers which the Government thought it right to introduce, modified the agreed proposals which came from British Shipbuilders and the CSEU. It is fair to say that not all these meet with CSEU's full approval; nevertheless, although the scheme is not in all respects what they would like, I have no reason to suppose they do not recognise the scheme is fair to all those concerned; certainly it is as fair as is possible in what is an already complicated situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell, also asked about the possibility of extending the scheme. As he pointed out, the Act would empower my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to make orders varying the terms of the scheme and, in particular, the possibility of extending it for another two years. Given the current very gloomy outlook for shipbuilding demand, I am afraid that we may need to look for such an extension. However, the details of the scheme were the product of extensive consultation and the Government have no plans for altering it. Some amendment may prove desirable in due course, as a result of experience;
1002
but the Government hope that that will not be the case. Should there be any need for alteration, including extension, Parliament will have to be consulted because any alteration will be made by order subject to the Affirmative Resolution, as are these two orders that we are discussing this afternoon.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, also asked about the attitude of the EEC Commission to the scheme and, in particular, to the proposed second tranche of the intervention fund. If I am right, this is relevant to something which the noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, said about the international problems which the shipbuilding industry is facing and the general welcome to anyone who is taking the steps which the Government are taking in these orders. Indeed, the Commission have been kept in touch with the development of the Government's plans for redundancy payments schemes and have raised no objection to them. As I said, the scheme is consistent with the Commission's view that rationalisation of the industry in the Community is essential because of the very low demand for ships.
So far as the second tranche of the shipbuilding intervention fund is concerned, as I think the noble Lord himself said negotiations are still continuing with the Commission. The Government have no reason to think that the outcome will be other than satisfactory. The noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, asked about the age at which people are eligible. As I understand it and as the noble Baroness will know, for anybody to be eligible under the scheme they must have completed one year's service in the industry. In effect the age of 18 which the noble Baroness wanted is the one which has been chosen: but everybody must have done one year's service after that, so the age at which they are eligible for the scheme is 19. If I have understood the point correctly, we are at one with the noble Baroness and people will come into the scheme at 18 but will be eligible for payments once they have been in the industry for a year—in other words, when they are 19. I hope that answers the question.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, made a helpful suggestion, as he himself suggested it might be, that it would be useful to place on record the fact that there is an upper limit to the scheme. There is

1003
no question of people being given very large sums of money as a result of this. The upper limit is in fact £10,400. That is the aggregate of the payments any person may receive under this scheme and the Redundancy Payments Act 1965 taken together. I am grateful to the noble Lord for making the suggestion that we should put that on the record.
The noble Viscount, Lord Rochdale, asked about Article 5 and the use of the phrase "liable to pay". I am advised that on re-employment the amount of the refund is to be a debt due to British Shipbuilders. Payment will he enforceable as with ordinary debts. That is the effect of the phrase "liable to pay". I hope that meets the noble Viscount's point.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, can the noble Lord say anything about the dates? Are they both coming into operation on the same day?
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, so far as I know, that is the case. If I am wrong, perhaps the noble Baroness will allow me to write to her. Certainly everything I have heard from the Northern Ireland end, where I have been most concerned, shows that the two schemes are identical, and this has been something which those working in Harland and Wolff have been concerned about. The dates for the coming into operation of the two schemes are the same—in effect, the operative date already started earlier this year, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, pointed out.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for replying to the large number of questions which I raised. There is one matter he did not refer to—and I quite understand he may need notice. That is concerning diversification and the effect on men who may be moved into other work not connected with shipbuilding or ship repairing. There is also the question of the costs of redundancies. The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, answered part of the question because he reminded us that payments from these schemes were coming from the taxpayer: but the number of redundancies—which the noble Lord indicated is still a question mark—will affect employers, too, because my under-
1004
standing is that in any case they will have to pay the statutory employers' payments under the redundancy payments legislation. So the numbers of thousands of men who may become redundant will have an effect, not just on the monies under this scheme but on the monies that will have to be produced by British Shipbuilders. I was asking whether that had been taken into account in setting the financial discipline for British Shipbuilders for the current financial year. I recognise that this may not be a question to which the noble Lord can give an off-the-cuff answer.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, knowing the care with which my former Department organises these matters, I have absolutely no doubt that it has taken this into account. If I am wrong, I hope the noble Lord will allow me to write to him to put the matter straight. The noble Lord's intervention has given me the opportunity to receive some advice about the question of diversification. If a qualifying company diversifies and still remains a qualifying company, an employee who has been transferred and then is made redundant would still he eligible under the scheme notwithstanding the transfer. I hope that answer the point which the noble Lord raised. May I thank all those who asked me questions for putting them clearly enough to enable me to answer at least some of them. If there are any I have not answered, I will write to noble Lords.
Viscount ROCHDALE: My Lords, if the noble Lord cannot answer the other question on retraining perhaps he will write to me.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I will undertake to write to the noble Viscount. It has been a great pleasure for me to return to the subject of shipbuilding after a long absence. I hope that the fact that this scheme is unlikely to be nearly as widely used as many people thought at the time when we were debating the Bill—now the Act—which nationalised the Shipbuilding industry, to which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, referred, will convince any remaining sceptics in your Lordships' House that the Act was a thoroughly worthwhile measure, well worth putting on the Statute Book.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SHIPBUILDING (REDUNDANCY PAYMENTS SCHEME) (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1978
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Shipbuilding (Redundancy Payments Scheme) (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, laid before the House on 6th July, be approved.—(Lord Melchett.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

OIL POLLUTION: CONTROL AND COMPENSATION
5.57 p.m.
The Earl of KINNOULL The Earl of KINNOULL rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what national and international arrangements are being made for the better protection of our shares against oil pollution and tighter control of our shipping lanes; and what compensation is available to local authorities and individual businesses that have been affected. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I feel that my first duty is to apologise to the House, and to those who were due to take part on the last occasion when the debate was put down, for my unavoidable absence on that occasion. I should like to thank Her Majesty's Government and, in particular, the Deputy Chief Whip, for making it possible to hold this debate today in what is always a difficult period in the Session. My relief in being in my place on this occasion on time was only matched by the zealous attention that I had inadvertently attracted from the Opposition Chief Whip, whose enthusiasm for discipline among his Back-Benchers of course is renowned. May I also thank in advance all those noble friends and noble Lords who have indicated their intention to speak and who will add greatly to the value of the debate. I should like to mention particularly the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, whose very wide commercial experience in shipping and indeed running the port of London Docks for over 20 years gives great value to his words. Finally, I should like to welcome my noble friend Lord Buxton, who has chosen this occasion to make his maiden speech. My noble
1006
friend is serving on the Royal Commission on Pollution and has done so for the past five years. We are all looking forward to what he has to say.
The purpose of my Unstarred Question tonight is not to hold a post-mortem on the "Amoco Cadiz", which is still subject to an inquiry and indeed is sub iudice. It is to express yet again a growing anxiety and increasing impatience felt by many people at the apparent lack of positive Government control on oil pollution around our shores, and the lack of enforceable protective measures to minimise the possibility of further tanker collisions. The subject is wide ranging and I expect to cover less than 10 per cent., leaving plenty of room for other noble Lords to follow.
The control of sea pollution around our shores is a subject about which neither House of Parliament could be accused of complacency. In another place the Sub-Committee on Expenditure is at present taking evidence on the measures to prevent collisions around our coasts. In this House our last debate was initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, last January. The noble Lord's knowledge and work outside the House—he is chairman of the Advisory Committee on Pollution of the Sea—is well recognised. His debate was timed just before one of the now frequent international meetings and conferences called by IMCO: I think on that occasion it was demanded rather than called by America.
That debate covered the precise area of tanker safety and pollution prevention. It is perhaps tragic that that debate had almost a prophetic ring about it because since then our seas have suffered two major tanker collisions. First, there was the "Amoco Cadiz", which brought about the largest spillage of oil the world has seen, of over 220,000 tons of oil, which caused havoc on the Brittany coast and in parts of the Channel Islands. Then there was the "Eleni V", which caused havoc on over 50 miles of the coast of Suffolk. I do not think anyone would disagree, and certainly not the Government, that on the subject of sea collisions Britain has at its very front door a unique and special problem as regards the water round our Southern coasts: I refer, of course, to the Channel.
It is unique because the Channel has now become one of the busiest shipping straits in the world, and it is special in that it is now used by no fewer than six giant tankers a day, carrying oil, liquid gas or some other substance. Its record of accidents is unhappily bad, and I think it could he described as somewhat of a black spot for tanker collisions. I am told that traffic in the Channel is parallel to conditions, in motoring terms, in Piccadilly Circus during the rush-hour but, unlike Piccadilly Circus, there are no enforceable shipping lanes and no enforceable speed limits, although, as the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, pointed out to me before this debate, tankers take five miles to stop. There are no MOT tests on a ship's equipment and there are no enforceable standards of crew training. Of course, we know that 80 per cent. of accidents occur through human error and we know that IMCO and the various member countries have been discussing these points, but as things stand today there is no enforceable law. Despite the density of shipping in the Channel and the now daily danger of collision, the Government's policy sticks doggedly to the powers of protection and control afforded to them under international laws, while at the same time the Government are pursuing with the French voluntary controls which have been shown to have very brittle teeth.
What are the powers granted under international law to the Government, and what are these international powers of protection for the Channel? I think everyone—certainly everyone taking part in this debate—knows that the powers are very limited. IMCO has been struggling for years to strengthen them, and committee after committee has made recommendations. Regular conferences have been called and agreements have been reached on training and standards in regard to ships. But the vital stage of ratification by member States to put into effect the law, is slow and tortuous. I am told that it takes on average eight years for a law to be ratified from the stage of its being agreed by IMCO. By that time, events have very often overtaken the purpose behind a law. That is what we rely on principally: the enforcement of control of shipping around our coasts. Surely, with the bitter experience of the "Amoco Cadiz" and the "Eleni V" in one year, one must seriously question
1008
whether the slow process of up-dating international law through IMCO is any longer acceptable in conditions such as those which exist in the Channel.
What have other countries done about similar sensitive waters? Some years ago, Canada took unilateral action to protect her Arctic waters. Malaysia, Indonesia and Singapore are at present taking concerted action to protect the Malacca Straits, an area of water which is far less busy than the Channel. Both these precedents have neither called forth reprisals nor weakened international law, and both have been accepted as special cases, I suggest. Britain and France have a special case in connection with the Channel. They have tried voluntary schemes but are powerless to enforce them or to impose penalties on ships other than those which are registered in their own countries. I strongly believe that the Government should seriously examine the possibility of taking bilateral action with France in controlling the Channel. I do not believe anyone would argue that such action would do anything but strengthen the protection against another "Amoco Cadiz" disaster.
In saying that, I am not trying to minimise the voluntary steps which both Governments have attempted to take in the last few years—the separated lanes, for example, on which my noble friend Lord Greenway will be commenting, the monitoring of ship movements by the coastguards and their French opposite numbers; but this is merely scratching the surface of the problem. If the Government remain steadfast in their policy against taking unilateral action, I hope they will consider more positive stiffening of the voluntary steps. It would help, for intance, if a start could be made to take steps to increase the limit of territorial waters from three to six miles. The French already have this. It would also help to try to reach agreement with all tanker owners that when their ships are passing through the Channel they will accept French or British pilots. It would help if ships unloading in EEC ports had to carry double-banking on equipment and steerage. It would help if the Navy were perhaps to play a more active part in patrolling, and it would help if oil companies could be persuaded not to use sub-standard tankers.
But, my Lords, what of the emergency action which the Government can take in the event of collision—is that satisfactory? If one supposes that a tanker has collided 12 miles off our shores, surely one must assume that the Government can take immediate steps. What can they do? the initial stage, very little. They must wait until perhaps the Greek owner of a Panamanian-registered tanker has argued with a Dutch salvage company on the merits and the commercial viability of a contract. While that goes on, we just hope that the wind is in the right direction. It seems most inconsistent that we can claim 200 miles to conserve and protect out fishing, and yet we are powerless to act even for 12 miles off-shore to protect the same fish stocks, which could well be killed through oil pollution.
Tanker collisions are, of course, far more dramatic than the cases of deliberate oil spillage; yet, as the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, has pointed out on more than one occasion, the latter represents over 80 per cent. of oil pollution. Because of this, I find it very surprising that the Government were so deaf to the rich advocacy of the noble Lord on the vital need of retro-fitting segregated ballast tanks to existing tankers or imposing a compulsory fitting of such tanks on new tankers. I never saw, and I am not stile whether the Government ever published, their calculations and their crossed arguments. I suppose we should be grateful that IMCO recently agreed to the crude oil-washing technique as an alternative. I hope the noble Lord will be able to tell us when that will be introduced.
The second half of my Question deals with compensation. When one first looks at the compensation available to Government, local authorities or individuals, in the case of oil pollution, one is impressed that the industry, some years ago of its own accord, set up two schemes, one for the tanker operators and one for the oil companies. But like so many insurance policies, the small print has a peculiar sting in the tail, which is that you have to prove the origin of the source. To see how this works in practice, one can look at the figures published by the Advisory Committee on Pollution of the Sea in 1977. There were 432 cases of oil pollution—perhaps naturally, the heaviest
1010
were recorded on the South coast—and only a could identify the source and were eligible for an insurance claim. In other words, despite a legitimate claim for damage, the hope of success under these schemes is very small, and is at present running at only 25 per cent
One poses the question: what happens with the "Eleni V"? We know that there was a lot of heavy oil sunk on the seabed, which is bound to float up from time to time. For how many years will it be floating up, and how will this insurance scheme operate? I do not think many people can be very happy with the present compensation arrangements, except perhaps the insurance companies. I hope that the industry will look again at the current schemes and be prepared, to pay any reasonable claim from a central fund, whether or not the source is identified. Compensation is particularly important when one thinks of the "Amoco Cadiz", and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to tell us what support the Government have given over the past few months, both to local authorities and to any businesses that have been severely affected.
My last question concerns the safety of liquid natural gas tankers. Ever since the horrific accident in Spain, those who know about this problem have expressed increasing concern. We know that accidents involving these ships have been reported in America and in Japan. We know what happens when there is a leak below the water level; the water turns to ice. We know what happens when there is a leak above the water level; a gas cloud forms which can be ignited by one small spark. We know that the problem is lethal. At present, tankers go in and out of the Thames Estuary every week. They are of varying sizes and shapes. Apparently, they are built to withstand a collision at 8 knots, and yet there has been a report that a tanker was seen doing 11 knots in the Thames Estuary. If ever there was a case for licensing these ships, this is it. These ships could cause a catastrophe far greater than the Spanish tragedy. Control must surely now be paramount, and I hope that the noble Lord will have something to say.
The protection of our seas against dangers from increasing pollution is

1011
today a vitally important responsibility of any Government. As I have said, I do not believe that we have a sufficient degree of protection at the moment, either under international law or under voluntary schemes which have recently been introduced. The day has surely come when we need it. We have a special problem, the Government have a special responsibility and I hope that the noble Lord's reply will assure us that they do not intend to shirk it.
6.14 p.m.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, I feel sure that everyone in your Lordships' House is grateful to the noble Earl for asking this Question, so giving the Government the opportunity to report to your Lordships, both on the steps which have been taken or which are in contemplation to protect our shores from oil pollution, and on the present arrangements for compensation to those affected when pollution occurs; or perhaps to tell us what developments in that direction they have in mind. As the noble Earl has said, these are matters of very grave concern to the nation and to the whole population, particularly those who live near the coasts. In the case of an Unstarred Question, I always think it best for those who take part to concentrate on one or two points, and not to try to cover the whole field. I want to raise only three issues on which I hope the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, when he comes to reply, may be able to make some comment.
The first is this. On 10th July, when we debated the EEC shipbuilding proposals, the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, made a short but very powerful speech calling attention to the excessive number of sub-standard ships which are now sailing the seas; sub-standard not only in their equipment, but sub-standard in their manning. I am very sorry to see that the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, has had to withdraw from this debate, because I should have liked to hear what he had to say.
However, the question that I want to put to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, rather picks up something which the noble Earl said in his interesting introduction. We were warned that all sorts of plans were afoot and that conventions had been agreed upon, but that it takes such a
1012
long time to bring them into force. But is it really not possible for us in this case not to act unilaterally, nor even to act in concert with our French friends, but perhaps to act in concert with all the Members of the European Economic Community and, indeed, with our Scandinavian friends who are outside the Community, and to agree among ourselves that we will not accept tankers into our ports unless they satisfy the conditions of the conventions, even though the conventions have not yet been ratified? Practically all the tankers coming up the Channel come into ports of one of those countries that I have mentioned, so why could we not say that we will not accept such tankers?
I realise that in the past we have been very unwilling to take unilateral or separate action, partly, as the noble Earl hinted, for fear of retaliation, and I was glad to hear him point out that some action of a unilateral kind has been taken elsewhere without producing the retaliation that we seem to be so frightened of. In a rather similar field, I might remind your Lordships that a small country, Iceland, succeeded in acting unilaterally as regards its fishing industry. There was precious little that we could do about it, and, eventually, we had to negotiate an agreement with Iceland on the basis of what it had done.
This would be a very much easier proposition, because we are very large importers of oil and if the countries bordering on the Channel, the North Sea and the Baltic—perhaps not so far as the Soviet Union—were to say "From a date in the near future, we will not accept ships unless they satisfy the conditions of the conventions which are now awaiting ratification", we might well find a great improvement in the position. That is the first point I wanted to put to the Government.
My second point does not really arise from what the noble Earl said, because he did not say what I thought he might say. But we sometimes hear in your Lordships' House and outside that we should bar the arrival of these very large super-tankers. On that, I must say that if there is a given quantity of oil which has to come to our refineries here and on the Continent, then if we refuse to accept very large tankers the only answer is that we shall have more

1013
ships; and if, in fairly narrow seas like the Channel and the Strait of Dover, there are more ships, then the risk of accidents is increased. When an accident occurs, it does not make much difference whether you spill 200,000 tons of oil, 100,000 tons of oil or even 70,000 tons of oil. It is still a disaster and it has to be coped with. But, on balance, I should have thought that it would be unwise to follow the idea that we should refuse to receive these very large tankers.
The third point I want to make is this. We all agree that prevention is better than cure, and prevention is what most of us have been speaking about, but I just wonder whether enough consideration and research has been undertaken into the method of dealing with accidents when they occur. I am bound to say that if every ship bringing oil into this area were well found, well manned and in perfect, tip-top condition, we should still have accidents from time to time. The sea is a fairly cruel place in which to trade. I just wonder whether we are doing enough to work out schemes for dealing with accidents when they arise.
The noble Earl touched on one point which arose very obviously in the case of the "Eleni V" The problems seem to me to fall into two categories. There are legal and administrative problems and there are technical problems. The legal and administrative problems are undoubtedly very difficult when, as the noble Earl pointed out, one can have accidents which create a real risk to our coast and to the coasts of Europe but which are outside territorial waters. This is an issue which I feel ought to be followed up. It would have to be followed up, I take it, on an international basis, but the issue might be followed up successfully on a fairly narrow basis by the countries which are so deeply concerned with it, instead of trying to reach agreement with the enormous number of countries which are members of the United Nations.
Turning to the technical problems, I just wonder whether we have really discovered what is the best way of dealing with oil spillage, either in the sea or when it comes ashore. My suggestion is that there should be extensive further research into these matters so that we can find out how these accidents can best
1014
be dealt with, if and when they occur, because I very much doubt whether we can ever hope that we shall never have an accident of this kind.
Finally, may I say a few words about something which the noble Earl said. It seemed to me that the noble Earl painted a picture of entirely irresponsible shipowners sending their ships around improperly prepared and improperly manned. He appeared to underestimate the amount of self-discipline that has been achieved by all the principal shipping countries of the world in the International Chamber of Shipping and in other bodies of that kind. A tremendous amount has been achieved.
Although these disasters—which are not, after all, so very numerous—have been quite properly described as disasters, it is quite remarkable that, compared with the amount of oil which is successfully brought up through the Channel and through the Strait of Dover (I am told that today it runs at something like 1 million tons a day) they have succeeded, by means of shipping lanes and in other ways, to reduce the amount of pollution to the figure which now exists. I do not think, therefore, that we ought to take too gloomy a view. Nevertheless, I think that there is something that we can do here. If we could get together with all our friends on the Continent to bring into force within our own ports the terms of the conventions which we are waiting to be ratified, that in itself would surely be a spur to ratification.
6.25 p.m.
Lord BUXTON: My Lords, may I express my sincere appreciation of your Lordships' indulgence on this occasion. I should also like to thank my noble friend Lord Kinnoull for his kind remarks. I ought to explain that I was a founder member of the Royal Commission on Pollution and that I ceased to be a member four or five years ago when my term came to an end.
I wish to make two somewhat philosophical points, compared with the very practical and important matters which have been raised by the noble Earl and by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. While they may seem to be philosophical, I believe that they are of immense importance

1015
and that they lie at the back of all the other matters which they were considering.
Sometimes I worry and wonder whether the human race, or the individual, is really competent or at all capable of handling huge contraptions like supertankers, but since we cannot put back the clock it is as well to review the point and see what it means. While technology seems to have no bounds and races ahead of the competence of human beings to operate new contraptions, in my view what tends to be overlooked and not properly discussed and brought to the surface in the ultimate exploitation of technology at sea are the limitations of the individual.
Obviously, laws are vital, as has been described, but incidents can always happen through the limitations of the individual: whether it be through inexperience, ineptitude, preoccupation with private or vested interests, simply dozing off, too much drink or just losing one's head. These are characteristics which do not occur in the same way in the rest of nature but which have so often accounted for major failures and disasters.
The problem is, I believe, that technology is running ahead of biology, if that is the way to put it. Nature is reliable within certain limits, and all organisms respond to certain familiar signals and stimuli. But uncertainty, and even confusion, arises in any species in the face of the unusual, as soon as the familiar pattern is broken. The unreliability of man, compared with other forms of nature, probably emerged when he started to outstrip the rest of nature and to contend to an increasing degree with the unfamiliar. There are examples of this within living memory, even in this century. Motorists at the start of this century—one of my uncles was among them—used to wind up their cars at the front and promptly run themselves over. Another example which takes place today—there was one recently in East Africa—is that pilots of light aircraft tend to go to the front of the plane when the chocks are off, wind up their aircraft and mow themselves down.
This is simply evidence of science and technology getting ahead of biology, and it is evidence that this particular organism
1016
—man—is, like the rest of nature, unpredictable in the face of the unfamiliar. And if it can happen with cars and aircraft, it can, of course, happen, with infinitely more devastating consequences, with supertankers, oil rigs, power stations and so forth.
Today, far too much emphasis, to my mind, is placed on the need for further technology in order to protect us against disasters. That, of course, is vital; but equally, surely, we have to consider most carefully the selection, the training and the competence of the individuals involved. Our primitive ancestors were, in their daily lives, probably more reliable than we are because the demands on them were less complicated and less daunting. Two or 3 million years later, modern man is less reliable because he has not evolved and adapted with the same speed as science and technology, and all the time we are providing people, whose behaviour is uncertain, with technical developments which demand precision. Human individuals cannot guarantee precision.
It was not the "Torrey Canyon" which decided to run on to the reef. It was not the "Amoco Cadiz" that decided to float for 12 hours towards the French coast, and it was not the "Eleni V" which went out and decided to have a collision and break in two. These disasters prove that far higher international standards have got to be secured for the selection and training of people. A vital part of this should be the enforcement by international agreement of far higher standards, totally new conceptions of standards, for the training of look-outs, watch-keepers, pilots and the masters of all ships.
The whole question of safety at sea has always been far behind, and is falling further behind, the standards applied on land and in the air, because sailing the seas is enshrined and embedded in the history of mankind, whereas land and air traffic are newfangled devices for which legislation has not been resisted. The obstacles to adequate legislation are the cherished and outmoded traditions of the sea, one of which is the nations' obsession with freedom of the seas. So preoccupied are we, the human race, with the freedom of the seas, for very good reasons because of national security and survival, that the world still lives really today in a dream age

1017
of Vasco da Gama and Cortez. Whatever happens, however hideous the prospects of pollution, nothing must apparently interfere with the freedom of the seas.
My Lords, I served, as I said, for five years on the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, and I am not concerned only with tanker traffic and sea lanes, serious as these are, but with the danger of collision with oil rigs. I am bound to say that I have never heard anything yet which persuades me that a collision with a rig could not occur. In fact I remain convinced that in due course, one cannot possibly predict when or where or how, a disaster in the North Sea involving a rig seems almost inevitable as things stand at present, simply because of this human individual factor. We have got to reconcile nations' preoccupation with the freedom of the seas with the necessity for the same degree of control of sea traffic as applies on land and in the air. Until that is achieved, there is no way of ensuring that a vessel will not go blundering into a danger zone and ram a rig, with tragic consequences.
It is again because of this human factor, which as technology races ahead of us will become of continually mounting significance, that legislation and control must always be stricter than necessary or than seems necessary, and no discipline or precaution can possibly be excessive. Above all, we must resolve this question of the outmoded traditions, because over the next century the biology of man is not going to change to any discernible degree, but technology will continue to advance further and further ahead of the individual. It will take time, obviously, globally, but meanwhile, as the noble Earl and the noble Lord, have suggested, we should get together more locally, with our partners in Europe and do our best to control the Channel and the North Sea with the fiercest courage that we can muster. My Lords, I thank you once again for your kind indulgence.
6.34 p.m.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I am very pleased that I am able to express my own gratitude, and I am sure the gratitude of your Lordships, to the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, for that very thoughtful and thought-provoking speech, with
1018
which I have so much sympathy. I am very glad to welcome him also to the not very happy band but the band of people in this House who are concerned about these problems. I am quite sure that we will listen to him with great attention and appreciation in the future.
I am glad that the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, persisted with this Unstarred Question. The more this matter is brought to the attention of Parliament and people the better. We cannot have government by catastrophe. We cannot wait until disasters happen to learn how to prevent disasters. We cannot go on improvising measures to deal with "incidents" fraught with dangerous consequences of such magnitude, as has just been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, and others. I do not want to be a harbinger of doom, but I have all the encouragement I need from the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull. I would remind your Lordships of the horrors of the Spanish road tanker and the similar horror which happen in Mexico, when in both cases liquid gas exploded. I think what would happen in our congested Western Approaches—the ones that I hope we shall persuade the Government, by whatever measures, better to control—and in the Channel if a similar disaster were to happen to a liquid gas carrier. When liquid gas escapes at atmospheric pressure it vaporises and a spark can detonate it as a fireball which would envelop other ships in those highly congested waters. Francis Drake's fire-ships would seem like fire crackers by comparison.
If that should happen, and it is only an extreme version of what we are talking about tonight, no Government would he excused or should be excused by saying, "We have a committee sitting; we are co-ordinating departmental thinking; we are waiting for others to ratify this or that convention". The circumstances would be totally and completely unforgivable, and I am trying, as I hope we all are, to persuade the Government and those responsible that we have to anticipate because we know what is going to happen.
I would remind the House and my noble friend the Minister that we have had the "Torrey Canyon". We did not particularly learn the admirable lessons which the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, as

1019
Chief Scientific Adviser and his officers have tried to teach us. We have not really learned from that adequately. We have had Ekofisk and Bravo; we have had the "Amoco Cadiz"; we have had the "Eleni V". And now every day all over the world we have accidents and spills. If anyone asked me the date when the next serious accident is going to be I could tell them almost certainly that it is happening now somewhere in the world. It is no consolation, none whatever, to be told that really big disasters are infrequent. A "Torrey Canyon" or an "Amoco Cadiz" is enough for a whole generation.
It is clear that the two principal causes of accidents to ships are human error and design. The noble Lord, Lord Buxton, has just been illustrating—and I agree with him completely—how vulnerable we as human beings are to error and how in fact we do condone and have really condoned shockingly bad designs, including, if I may say so, the very super tankers themselves. The very concept of the super-tanker in terms of design seems to me to be quite intolerable. This is not just a question in human terms of poor training of the crews, with which the International Maritime Organisation, IMCO, is seeking to deal, but indeed of human stress and opportunities for error in the operation of the ships.
The "Amoco Cadiz", for example, was one of the most modern of the supertankers. It had a very highly qualified staff; in fact it was almost overmanned by officers. And we know what happened—a rudder failure, with no alternative means to correct it, and confusion, as pointed out by Lord Buxton, about who was calling whom, all the delays which again were human failure. We must insist on the highest safety standards for navigational and cargo transfer equipment for these ships. We must insist on the application of ergonomics, as necessary, trying somehow to reconcile Lord Buxton's difficulty about how we adapt man to technology.
We must have integration of man and machines, which I can tell your Lordships is quite inadequately expressed in the type of ships' equipment we have today. We want to see a hazard and safety audit to be conducted on all types of vessels carrying noxious cargo likely to traverse British coastal waters so that we can
1020
identify high risk areas and operation. If any of your Lordships have seen a radar scan of ships crowding into the Western approaches and into the bottleneck of the Channel, you will know the degree of traffic congestion which exists at any hour of the day and night. As the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, pointed out, something like 1 million tons of oil is going through that gullet of the Channel every day. We need proper traffic lanes and we are trying, the French and British between us, to install some kind of traffic lanes; and we have traffic lanes now which Trinity House themselves want to improve upon. We must have traffic lanes and proper policing of those traffic lanes. And we need compulsory identification of ships in those traffic lanes.
Another thing we need is the proper charting of the seas. It is tragic and pathetic that at this moment, when we are talking about all kinds of possibilities we see around us, we are neglecting the services of the hydrographer's department. Britain, which led the world in the charting of the world's oceans, is now deficient in survey ships even to survey the waters in which we are at hazard. I am not talking about our great contribution to charting the great wide open spaces. We are haggling about which Department should be financially responsible for maintaining this indispensable service.
I hope and believe that I am a good internationalist. I believe in, and respect, international law. I have for a long time been very closely involved in the Law of the Sea Conference, which drags on and on, as we all deplore, at this moment, because all the subjects raised are, we say, involved in the Law of the Sea Conference. I respect the efforts IMCO is making. I am heavily involved with IMCO in trying to secure international agreements on the measures which are manifestly necessary if we are going to avoid continuing and accumulating disasters. I want to underscore that the process of securing and implementing agreements is slow. Time is definitely not on our side. The 1969 amendment to the 1954 International Convention on the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil became operative in January 1978. The 1973 International Convention on the Prevention of Pollution from Ships

1021
—the deliberate discharging of waste—has so far been ratified by only three States. It had already become obsolete and was amended by Protocol in February this year.
Even that protocol, with its rules for ship design, is already, or soon will be, completely and totally inadequate, because it demonstrates what happened with the "Amoco Cadiz" disaster. The French Government submitted to IMCO amendment proposals which included, as a result of the "Amoco Cadiz" disaster, requirements for all new tankers to have complete duplication of steering gear, propulsion systems and electric power generating systems.
Conventions are binding only on those States which have become parties to them. Non-signatories need not comply with these rules. Let me point out what will happen. There will be a multiplication of ships of non-signatory-State flags using our waters. We are reminded sometimes of the high safety record of vessels flying the United Kingdom flag. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, that on paper we have, apparently, a very good record. Maybe. But what that record conceals is the common practice, for British and other ship owners wishing to use ships which have lower standards but which are cheaper to operate, to register their vessels in flags of convenience States. I suggest it is imperative that the British Government should prevent and prohibit British nationals and legal persons from registering sub-standard ships or employing sub-standard crews under other flags. Many sub-standard vessels have been on charter to oil companies of very high repute when accidents have occurred. I suggest—or at least the Advisory Committee on Oil Pollution at Sea would suggest—that Her Majesty's Government should impose on charterers of vessels the same obligations as are imposed on the owners of vessels.
Let me give you two pathetic figures. In 1976 the Department of Trade prosecuted only three ships for polluting our waters. In 1977 it prosecuted only two ships for intentional discharges of oil at sea. We and the local authorities, with their defiled beaches, know just how common those discharges are. We know that the example of "Eleni V" was taken
1022
and used as a cynical pretext by masters of tankers to discharge oil waste. We know that because we can identify the types of oil that came ashore in many places and which by their nature could not have come from the "Eleni V". This is cynicism. These were unidentified ships. However, if they had been identified and had been reported to their flag States, would those States have instituted proceedings? We do not know. We do not know how far our Government have pursued such matters. I strongly recommend—and here I support the noble Viscount, Lord Simon—Her Majesty's Government, along with the North-West European Governments, to legislate for the incorporation of port-State jurisdiction in regional agreements to ensure action against such ships passing through our territorial seas.
Apart from the departmental anomaly which we have, that the Department of the Environment is responsible for up to one mile of our shores and the Department of Trade, beyond, for up to three miles, it seems obvious that our regulative powers to prevent pollution should be extended at least to 12 miles. Her Majesty's Government should go further and see that in the law of the seas an internationally acceptable pollution control regime should be incorporated in the Exclusive Economic Zone of 200 miles.
I come to a point which was raised by the Question: ACOPS—the advisory committee—is concerned, on behalf of its local government members, with the cost of cleaning up oil pollution. It is possible to recover the cost if the source of pollution has been identified. As was pointed out, often it cannot be identified. I may say that we in the Advisory Committee have much better pollution figures than the Department of Trade has. Most of the oil deposited on our beaches cannot be identified.
Her Majesty's Government must surely provide the ways and means, the cleaning-up equipment, the policing, the pollution monitoring, and the cost of clean-up and of compensation. How they will finance it is another matter, but there must be provision. There should perhaps be a rate levy on all shipping entering British ports—similar to that which applies to the lighthouse levies—to compensate those who suffer from the oil industry's

1023
unavoidable and often unidentifiable accidents. At the moment we have complete and total cynicism. It is now possible for anyone to insure themselves against the fines they will be called upon to pay for their misdemeanours. At least we should ensure administratively that these fines are not insurable, and that it falls back on somebody somewhere to take the responsibility for seeing ultimately that those events do not happen.
6.49 p.m.
Lord DUNLEATH: My Lords, I also am grateful to the noble Earl for having given us the opportunity to discuss this extremely important and indeed worrying topic. I am also grateful to him for having given us the opportunity of hearing for the first time in your Lordships' House the noble Lord, Lord Buxton. I very much nope that there will be many more such occasions when we shall have that privilege.
So far, noble Lords have referred, and quite rightly, to the more major oil pollution disasters in our waters—disasters whereby there is an accident and suddenly at the time of the accident tens if not hundreds of thousands of tons of oil are released on to the surface of the sea. With your Lordships' permission, I should like to spend a few moments considering a different aspect of pollution. The major accident may be avoidable and, as noble Lords have said, every precaution should be taken to avoid such accidents, but they are not predictable. The type of pollution to which I wish to refer is, I submit, predictable.
I am referring to the case of a vessel which sinks with its oil tanks intact. In the case of such a vessel, it is not possible to predict exactly when pollution will occur, but in my view it is possible to predict that pollution will occur at some time. I quote the example—and it is a very small example compared with what your Lordships have been talking about—of the "Ella Hewitt", a trawler which sank some 13 years ago in Church Bay, Rathlin Island, which lies between the Mull of Kintyre in Scotland and the north-east coast of County Antrim, Northern Ireland. Most distressing was the fact that this is an extremely important area for the breeding of wild seabirds both resident and more important still, migratory. Also, it is an important area for shellfish.
1024
Briefly, the story was as follows. After something like 12 years and when the sunken vessel had virtually been forgotten, a small oil leak was observed during the winter of 1976–1977. It was not enough to do any damage but—with hindsight—I have no doubt that it ought to have been looked upon as being a warning, because the following winter, in November/December 1977, a serious leakage occurred from the fuel oil tanks of the sunken trawler. On 29th November, 25 dead birds were picked up on the shores of Rathlin Island. The leakage continued and the Department of the Environment was notified in early or mid-December 1977, but it disclaimed responsibility because the emission of oil was more than one mile off shore. However, it agreed to make itself responsible for trying to clean up the oil if it came ashore, though not for tackling the source of its emission.
Throughout January 1978 pressure was put on the Department of Trade to try to have some action taken. I personally tabled a Question in your Lordships' House as, indeed, did the Member who represents that part of the country in another place. It was at about that time —about February—that a regrettable delay occurred. In the meantime, on 28th January 1978, a Royal Naval salvage team arrived and subsequently reported—not until March, I am told—that private tenders should be invited to deal with this sunken vessel. When the tenders were received they were unacceptable and eventually it was decided that the Royal Navy could do the work. But, by that time, it was too late because the nesting season for the wild fowl starts in about mid-April and by then it was the end of March.
The interested bodies, such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, felt that the danger of trying to cope with the vessel after the nesting season had started was such that it would be better to postpone it until after the end of August when the migratory birds would have gone away again and the nesting season would have finished. However, there is still the danger that between now and then there could be another seepage. There was a slight one towards the end of June due to rough weather and that is why we consider it so regrettable that there was this delay and that the vessel could not be dealt with prior to the nesting season.

1025
To the best of my knowledge the damage to bird life, fish—especially shellfish—and fishing tackle has not yet been estimated, but it is certainly very considerable.
So, I venture to ask Her Majesty's Government why there was that unfortunate delay and why there was doubt as to whose responsibility it was to deal with the problem over the period between December 1977 and March/April 1978, especially when it is known that the considerable damage done was caused by only some 10 tons of oil leaving the vessel, while there were still another 170 tons on board. With respect, I should like to seek assurances from the noble Lord on the Front Bench that work will be put in hand without fail in the early autumn so that another winter will not pass in which inevitably the winter storms will break up the vessel further and release more oil.
So much for that particular case. I now turn to the generalities. It seems strange to me that there was no emergency drill for coping with this, as I say, predictable situation. No one knew as the vessel gradually deteriorated under water, when the oil would come out, but sooner or later it was bound to do so. And now it has started. Is there no procedure for this? Is no one responsible? Is there no way in which it can he dealt with without such delay and such lengthy negotiations with the further damage which is thus caused?
That raises a worrying thought: how many more vessels are there lying on the sea bed with oil in tanks which are gradually corroding and deteriorating and which will begin to emit oil sooner or later? After all, this is a comparatively modern problem as conversion to fuel oil as the general motive power for ships has really only taken place in the last 50 years. It is horrifying to think of the number of sunken vessels such as the "Princess Victoria", which went down in 1952, which are still lying on the sea bed and which could well emit oil at some time.
Therefore, if Her Majesty's Government can give us any indication of what plans they have in mind for dealing with this problem I should be extremely grateful and so indeed should those who have
1026
suffered from this rather less spectacular but, at the same time, distressing and worrying sort of damage through pollution.
6.58 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, first, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Buxton on the very interesting intervention which he made. He comes from an area with very beautiful countryside and a good sea line, and I am sure he is very concerned lest it may be damaged from time to time. I was very glad to know that on the last occasion no great disaster resulted. I should like to say how much we look forward to hearing from him again.
My reason for speaking is that regrettably I had the opportunity of seeing for myself the wreck of the "Torrey Canyon" and taking part in some of the meetings which were held to try to solve the problem of what should be done about it. The difficulty is that no two wrecks are quite the same so the plans that one may make for one do not fit the other. In my view, ships have grown far too large and, as several noble Lords have mentioned, the seas are too crowded. However, as the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, will know, an Inquiry is at present being held, concerning hydrography. I agree with the noble Viscount that it is absolutely essential to get some of the seas re-mapped because ships are drawing so much lower in the water and we want an idea of what will happen. The Inquiry was undertaken some years ago by the Royal Navy by two excellent ships called "HMS Fox" and "HMS Fawn". I hope that they will continue this work because it is not expensive, it is a job which they like doing, and they have done it very well in the past.
When I say that ships are too large I am talking in terms of the "Torrey Canyon" being two and a half times the length of a football pitch. Propped up beside the Eiffel Tower she would have been only 10 feet less than the Eiffel Tower itself. As the noble Lord. Lord Buxton, said, so much depends on individuals. However good one's steering gear and so on may be, it is bound to go wrong from time to time because even modern instruments are not infallible. Therefore, I think that it is unwise to have such large ships. Times have

1027
changed since the Reverend John Troutbeck, who was an 18th-century vicar in the Isles of Scilly is said to have prayed:
"We pray thee O Lord, not that wrecks should happen, but if wrecks do happen, Thou wilt guide them into the Scilly Isles for the benefit of the poor inhabitants."
In those days they were very good smugglers. At present they are poor in a different sense.
A committee, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, was set up to inquire into the circumstances of the "Torrey Canyon" disaster. I should like to pay tribute to the noble Lord for the stepping-stones he made in the guidance that he gave. He had a very difficult task to perform. There was then set up the Zuckerman Committee, which stated that the first course to be taken in attempting to save the standard tanker was to avoid large-scale pollution, and that the Government had to try in the light of the professional advice that they had been given. At that time there was very little professional advice and it came rather later.
However, I am very interested in the recent report—Cmnd. 7217, of May 1978 by the Department of Trade—entitled Action on Safety and Pollution at Sea: New Merchant Shipping Bill. I hope that the noble Lord. Lord Strabolgi, will be able to say that that Bill is now in draft form and ready to go on the stocks. I hope that whatever Government come to power after the next General Election, they will be able to get on with this very necessary Bill. It has five very useful Protocols. I should like to quote one:
"Taken together these instruments"—
these five Protocols
"Will both reduce the risk of tanker casualites and operational pollution from tank cleaning and improve the means of dealing with them, should they occur. In addition, the Bill would permit the ratification of "
a great many of the United Nation's suggestions; we could join with other countries on these. There is also a clause which suggests that there should be compulsory pilotage. I think that that would be a very great safeguard to many ships. Clause 17 deals with the prevention of pollution from the ships themselves.
Following the "Torrey Canyon" disaster the Marine Biological Association
1028
carried out a considerable amount of work into the way in which oil floats tend to travel. If they are fortunate enough to follow the prevailing wind, I gather that they travel at about 3·3 per cent. of the wind's velocity. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, would be kind enough to say how successful was the "Black Watch" exercise which, I gather, was held at Milford Haven on 9th June, and what has been learned from it and the two previous exercises at Belfast Lough and off Shetland.
As the United Kingdom ratified the Paris Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Land-based Sources in April 1978, we can now join with 13 States which have signed, six so far having ratified the Convention. Therefore, we shall be able to play a full part and attend the meetings of the Paris Commission. Contracting parties have agreed to adopt measures to combat and monitor marine pollution and to cooperate in scientific and technical research. Therefore, that should be helpful to our members now that we can attend.
Noble Lords have raised the question of the Department of Trade being given responsibility for dealing with oil spills in 1969. But what has it done and what action is now the responsibility of the local authorities? In 1975 the Standing Committee on Pollution Clearance at Sea was set up. What progress has it made? I understand that the Shell Company has invested £800,000 into a study to discover the fate of oil when it is left on the surface. I gather that this will include the effect it has on marine life, in which the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, is so interested. There has been a recent study of a "blowout" North-East of the Shetlands which shows that oil spills would drift away into the North Atlantic. Norway, however, is not in danger, and particularly its marine life. Perhaps the noble Lord would like to mention the reaction to that exercise.
Eight North Sea and Channel nations might, I suggest, begin to enforce the joint new regulations on training, which have been mentioned by several noble Lords, on equipment and construction standards for all ships of whatever nationality or origin which enter their ports—a matter which was particularly mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon.

1029
There really must be better search for the real owners of these different ships.
I should like to end by making two suggestions. First, I understand that the British and French have joined forces to call for a major intervention by the United Nations in order to straighten out the differences with regard to Spain. All the experts who have been kind enough to give me some information say that the great thing is to stop the oil from spreading and to destroy the ships involved as quickly as possible. One of the main difficulties arising from destroying the ships is that they always have different plans. I should like to suggest that we might ask the United Nations or some other organisation—perhaps IMCO—to insist that the plans of all ships should be deposited at, perhaps, Lloyd's Register. Therefore, when a ship is stranded, in trouble or on the rocks, those going to tackle the problem will have some ideas of its design. As I understand it, various methods are used for the storage of oil in ships. So perhaps we could have a library of ships' plans which might be kept at Lloyd's Register. As the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, mentioned, there could be better training for the people concerned. Regrettably, the captain of the "Torrey Canyon" was ruined for life; he had a very bad breakdown; but it was due to an error of judgment on his part that the ship went on to those rocks.
Finally, I suggest that there should be a team of trained men to go on to the ships as soon as possible and take action. I suggest that men of Her Majesty's Forces—in particular the Army and the Air Force—should be specially trained so that they are on alert and can be called in at once. They would have a knowledge of the type of ship; they would have the necessary training and would take action, as they do in such incidents as the detonation of bombs. I suggest that we could call for volunteers from the Services who would be interested in this work. Then we should have some trained teams always at hand for emergencies. I think that they would find it an interesting exercise. The Services do not have many very interesting exercises at present, so this is something which the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, might perhaps think about.
7.18 p.m.
Lord GREENWAY: My Lords, I should like to start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, on his excellent maiden speech. We certainly all look forward to hearing from him often in the future. I should also like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for raising this important subject yet again in your Lordships' House. I very much agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, said, that nothing must interfere with the freedom of the seas. Indeed, from the mariner's point of view it is important that there should be as few restrictions as possible to navigation.
We are dealing here with pollution, an emotive subject. I am inclined to go against what the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, have said as regards doing things in a hurry. I believe that it is much better that people—and preferably seamen, who are people with experience of going to sea—should sit down and carefully consider all aspects of these important questions before coming to any conclusions. Indeed, I think that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, said in your Lordships' House quite recently that any legislation adopted in a hurry was almost always bad legislation. I can see great dangers in rushing into all sorts of new legislation connected with this subject, as I believe our Gallic friends across the Channel would dearly like to do.
This brings me to the first question that I should like to ask the Government. The Anglo-French Accidents Technical Group and the Anglo-French Safety of Navigation Group have sponsored a joint Anglo-French contingency plan known as the "Manche Plan" to deal with all types of maritime disasters in the English Channel. This plan was exercised on the 10th and 11th June last year. Another exercise was planned for this year. Unfortunately, the "Amoco Cadiz" incident intervened, and I believe it was decided to use the "Amoco Cadiz" incident as an exercise. I should therefore like to ask the Government whether they are satisfied with the arrangements made under the Manche Plan agreement in the light of what happened in the "Amoco Cadiz" disaster.

1031
The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, mentioned in passing a speech made in your Lordships' House recently about sub-standard ships and flags of convenience. I believe that to ban flags of convenience has been mooted in certain circles. I should like to say something briefly about this. You have sub-standard ships under all flags and not necessarily under the Liberian and Monrovian flags, et cetera. In fact, our own flag is one of the most attractive flags of convenience at this moment in time. For instance, I believe it costs only about £63 to register a ship under the British flag, and there is no annual levy, whereas taking, for instance, Liberia—and I shall use as an example a 200,000-ton tanker—the annual tax per annum is 10,000 dollars, and if a Greek crew is used there is a further Greek levy of 95,000 dollars a year, thus making the cost of registering a Greek crewed ship under the Liberian flag about 100,000 dollars a year. This is something that is not generally realised.
May I just toss in an idea that I hope the Government will study with a view to the steps that are taken in dealing with major pollution after an accident has occurred. There is a new French idea, that has been brought out by a combination of French shipbuilding companies, of a large ship known, I think I am right in saying, as a de-polluting vessel, and which is described as a "peculiar oil tanker". This ship is based on a design that is in use commercially and with the Navy. Large ships carry landing craft or barges. These can be floated into the stern and then the doors can be shut and the parent ship lifts itself up and steams off.
This particular ship carries its own little fleet of ships which can go out and gather the oil and bring it into this large ship, which then has the capacity of separating the oil and the seawater on the spot. I think I am right in saying that the provisional cost of such a ship is £23 million. I just toss that idea in as something that the Government might like to look at, as I do not think that anything successful has been done so far with regard to cleaning up the mess once it has occurred.
I come now to the major matter that I want to talk about, and that is the business of ship routing. One noble Lord has already mentioned the number of tankers that pass through the Channel every day,
1032
and we have an even greater number of cargo ships, container ships, and what-have-you. Something that is probably not generally thought about when we are discussing these matters, and particularly disasters like the "Torrey Canyon" and the "Amoco Cadiz", is that between those two disasters over 21,000 VLCCs—very large crude carriers—safely traversed the Channel. The statistics look very good when looked at from that aspect.
Shipping lanes were brought in initially in the English Channel in, I think, 1967 when a voluntary scheme was adopted—the first of its kind in the world, I might add. This has evolved over the course of years and has come to what we have today in the Dover Straits Separation Scheme—undoubtedly the best example of a ship separation scheme in the world today. Our expertise here is something that could well be exported to other countries.
In case your Lordships do not know it, the basic idea is to send inward bound ships on the French side of the Channel and outward bound ships down our side of the Channel. This scheme is surveyed by the Dover Straits Information and Surveillance Service, which is run by the coastguard from St. Margaret's Bay. The French have a similar set-up on Cap Gris Nez on the other side of the Channel which I believe is manned, in the main, by French national servicemen.
From St. Margaret's Bay, which I have visited, they oversee all shipping going through the Channel and they report rogues, as they are known, or ships which are contravening the shipping lanes.
As from last year it was internationally agreed that these lanes should be observed, and that fines could be imposed—and certainly have been imposed by our country and also by countries such as Liberia. I think that the desired effect has been achieved to a certain extent. The number of collisions occurring in the Channel has fallen dramatically.
We are using at St. Margaret's Bay some of the most sophisticated radar in the world for this purpose of ship routing. I should like here to pay a tribute to the men who man the coastguard station and the Channel surveillance system at St. Margaret's Bay because they have done a very good job. The Dover Straits Scheme has been in existence for some

1033
time, as have various schemes in several parts of the world and also round our own coastline. Two other major schemes are the ones off Ushant, which is very relevant to the "Amoco Cadiz" question, and one off the Casquets and the Cotentin Peninsula.
Before I pass on to the new schemes to which IMCO have agreed, and which are coming into effect from 1st January next year, I should like to mention one final point in respect of these separation lanes, and that is several incidents which have occurred recently with regard to large, deep-draught tankers passing through the Dover Straits. That is described as a "RIAM", or "restriction inability to manoeuvre". The internationally agreed rule of the sea is that a ship should give way to a ship coming in from its starboard or right-hand side. I know personally that pilots in charge of some of these large tankers proceeding through the Channel will not necessarily give way to a ship coming in from the starboard side. I am not saying that that is entirely wrong in the circumstances, although it goes right against the internationally agreed "rule of the road" at sea. I, for one, would not like to put my helm over on a large super tanker 20 degrees when I am in the middle of the Dover Straits.
We must look at this carefully and perhaps we shall have to agree on some special local rule to use when going through the Dover Straits, as is used at present in certain harbour areas—Southampton is one, I believe. Somebody described this rather nicely recently as "blinkered navigation"; officers on super tankers enter a shipping lane, think they are on a motorway and think they are all right and can steam straight through without worrying about any other ship. That is a dangerous precedent to set. The noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, mentioned pilotage and compulsory pilotage. Pilots are available for all waters in northern Europe at the moment, and indeed the other day I heard of one pilot who held a Trinity House licence from Europa Point in Gibraltar to the north cape of Norway, so facilities exist for pilots.
I come now to the new IMCO-agreed scheme, which I believe is backed by the
1034
Government—I shall ask about that later—which will come into operation on 1st January 1979; I believe the new charts are about ready. This scheme provides a new lane for in-bound deep-draught tankers and other ships carrying hazardous cargoes between 27 and 33 miles off Ushant. Inside this lane, and separated from it by six miles, will be a new five-mile wide lane for outward bound ships, including tankers. Since these will normally be in ballast, the scheme says, there will not be so much danger from pollution if there is a breakdown.
Something that has not been mentioned before is that we are now an exporter of oil, so it will not necessarily be light ships going westbound down the English Channel. Inside these lanes is an eight-mile wide lane for other ships entering the Channel. There is a new scheme further up the Channel for the Casquets area which pushes the existing separation lanes further out to sea and gives a five-mile wide lane for westbound ships and a seven-mile wide lane for eastbound ships, separated by a three-mile zone. This is a scheme which has been agreed by IMCO and will come into effect—I think it will be mandatory—for any ship navigating in that area from 1st January next year.
This scheme has one grave defect. As it stands, the in-bound deep-draught tankers and ships carrying dangerous cargoes have to cross the out-bound lane about 30 miles south of Start Point and the ships will have to cross at a fairly fine angle; and there is nothing a seaman fears more than a head-on situation. It is probably only a matter of time before we witness a major collision in the area south of Start Point when the scheme comes into operation. Another drawback is that by pushing the lanes further out to sea in the Casquets area, those deep-draught tankers which at the moment steam up the middle of the Channel—and there is nothing to stop their doing that; as a yachtsman I see it every week-end—will now be forced to mix with other ships and use the separation scheme.
Trinity House have recently come up with a new routing proposal for the Channel, their argument being that in the course of time ships will get pushed further and further out into the middle of the Channel, so we might as well start by

1035
putting them down the middle straight away. Their scheme is basically a logical extension of the existing Dover Straits separation scheme. It has two through routes, east and west, to provide safe offshore channels at least six to eight miles wide for the main flow of traffic from the Atlantic to north European ports, routes which arc relatively straight for about 200 miles. All deep-draught and potentially hazardous cargoed ships—which, indidentally, are the ones which would be forced to use this scheme—would therefore be kept as far away from the shore as possible.
A major floating aid, or possibly a lightship, would be placed 20 miles south of Start Point to mark the centre line and provide a sophisticated navigational aid at mid-Channel point. Two further buoys would he placed west of that as reference entry points, and those would he fitted with sophisticated navigational aids for ships to home in on. The scheme would involve four cross-Channel gateways at crossing points down the Channel and these would be marked by a large buoy which would line the mid-Channel lane from the existing Greenwich buoy on the Greenwhich meridian, which notifies the start of the Dover scheme, and would be placed at approximately 50-mile intervals down the Channel. I apologise to the House for taking so long at this hour, but this is an important matter which has not arisen in your Lordships' House before.
The only cross-over point in the Trinity House scheme would be 40 miles south of Land's End, where shipping bound outwards for the south Atlantic would cross north Atlantic inbound traffic, and it is considered that the collision regulations as they exist would be sufficient in this open sea area, and if necessary ships could also be instructed to report their position at set times relative to the crossing point of the buoys along the Channel. This scheme is not perfect but it provides a useful discussion point and the Government should look at it. Are the Government satisfied that the IMCO-agreed scheme, which is shortly to be implemented, is, in their opinion, satisfactory?
As a matter of interest, I have with me two letters written in answer to a query raised in the Nautical Review, the journal
1036
of the Joint Nautical Institute, 70 per cent. of whose members are sea-going, and Lloyd's of London, and these letters show—in fact the majority of letters show—that seamen favour the Trinity House scheme. One letter is from the master of the Liberian tanker "Universe Kuwait" in which he writes:
"I favour the alternative scheme proposed by Trinity House because … the IMOC plan, where off the Casquets loaded tankers come into a crossing situation with other vessels, gives me an uneasy feeling … I feel that, should the IMOC scheme be adopted, another disaster of 'Amoco Cadiz' proportions off the Casquets will have become a very distinct possibility."
The other letter, from another master, referring to the IMCO scheme, says:
"I do not like this scheme. I believe it will create a very dangerous crossing area north-west of Casquets and a three-lane scheme off Ushant may be confusing."
I ask the Government to consider those views, which appear to be shared by the men who are steaming up and down the Channel every day.
My final comments are about communications—and communications problems exist. For example, there was recently an occasion when a tanker was seen to be steaming in loaded towards the Dorset coast. All the authorities were alerted and a helicopter was sent out. The helicopter flew round the tanker trying to turn her round, but eventually it transpired that the tanker had merely been going into anchor, which of course he was perfectly within his right to do. On the subject of communications and this business of ships reporting in—the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, referred to mandatory reporting—I believe there is a French proposal under which all deep-draught ships and ships with dangerous cargoes must report in when approaching Ushant. I believe it will be voluntary for a start. Ships would be required to report in quite a considerable amount of information—name, position, course, speed, general destination, cargo, draught—a lot of things which the man on the bridge of a large super tanker, who may well be busy plotting his position and watching the positions of other ships, will not necessarily have the time to run over to the radio telephone to report to a coastal station.
We also have the problem of which language to use if there is to be any reporting in. The French are very keen

1037
that French should be used as well as English. Indeed, there is nothing to stop anybody navigating the seas from speaking any language he likes. I can see enormous problems here. Finally, I would ask the Government whether they are in agreement with the French idea of ships reporting in? As a final word, my Lords, ship routing is basically done in the interests of safety and when the problem has been solved I think there will be less danger of pollution occurring in the English Channel.
7.31 p.m.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, this debate has confirmed what I very quickly found when I started to look at it, that this subject is rather more far-reaching than one might have imagined when one saw the noble Earl's Motion on the Order Paper. I hope that we shall have some opportunity to come back to have a full debate about it at some time, but this will act as an extremely useful trailer this evening and I am very grateful to the noble Earl. I am sure that we all accepted his handsome apology at the beginning. I have to tell him that there were two beneficial results of his little local difficulty, in that a lot of us benefited from the extra briefing that we were able to get upon the subject and in that it flushed out a very distinguished and thoughtful maiden speech from my noble friend behind me. I hope that in future speeches his philosophy is not going to get any deeper, because if it does I doubt that I shall be able to follow him. Nevetherless, it was a very valuable contribution.
Most noble Lords have referred to a number of accidents and I am very glad that we all followed the advice of the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and did not try to act as a court of inquiry into what happened to the "Amoco Cadiz". Curiously enough, nobody mentioned the other tanker—whose name escapes me—which went ashore on its maiden voyage, happily when it was empty, and not so far away from the same area either. What has happened in the three events we have been talking about—the sinking of the "Amoco Cadiz", the "Eleni V" and the "Torrey Canyon"—has shown us that tankers must be added to the list of ships which can be defined as carrying
1038
noxious cargoes which can inflict their blight, danger and damage hundreds of miles away from where the accident takes place. That was mentioned by a number of noble Lords in different ways and, as somebody who lives 30 miles down-wind from Rathlin Island, I view with some apprehension my forthcoming holiday in that area and hope that the fuel tank of the trawler in question remains intact for long enough or at least that the oil comes out slowly enough for natural forces to control it.
The other point that we have to recognise is that this is a problem which is not going to get better: it will get worse unless we learn the lessons and tackle them urgently. To that extent, I am bound to say that I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Greenway. We can say without much fear of contradiction that in none of these incidents is the sequence of events and reactions to them wholly beyond criticism. These accidents might be said to represent the tip of an iceberg lurking rather menacingly just below the surface. Having said that, it is also fair to say that I am told that there were something like 21,000 successful passages of tankers up the Channel between the "Torrey Canyon" and the "Amoco Cadiz" incidents, so we must keep a sense of proportion.
I am aware that IMCO and the General Council of British Shipping are considering these problems but I want to suggest that their time-scale may be too long. It is also fair to repeat here the old adage that the best may be the enemy of the good. At the end of my speech, I am going to make what I hope will be one or two constructive suggestions. I agree with most noble Lords, but, in particular, with the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, who emphasised that the best way to get at the problem of pollution is to try to prevent it happening at all. I had chosen Hyde Park Corner as my analogy but the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, used Piccadilly Circus at rush hour. What is beyond question, however, is that this area is a very busy one and that that concentration creates special dangers which may need special preventive measures, a special legal regime for minimising the resulting damage after an accident or an incident—whichever you care to call it—and also, special arrangements once an accident has taken place.

1039
The first curious feature is the strange legal situation to which a number of noble Lords have referred. For example, strictly speaking, Trinity House have authority only out to the territorial limits, but for many years they have operated lightships outside the territorial limits and nobody, so far as I am aware, has complained about that. Indeed, they have long since agreed a median line with the French when it comes to wreck clearance. Their record here is a remarkable example of practical good sense. I suggest, therefore, that it is not all that impossible to make the lawyers see sense. We have the precedent of the 200-mile exclusive economic zone and the 50-mile fishery limits, as the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, suggested.
Secondly, there is the question of the manning and the training. Here, I would specifically say that I am not trying to get at the operators of flags of convenience. I should like to suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, that countries operating flags of convenience are becoming increasingly responsible—if that is the right word—and are tightening the standards which they demand. But we have to recognise, as the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, pointed out, that there are tremendous pressures being put on crews these days. The commercial pressures are very great and, without saying so specifically, he indicated to us that the existence of radar in many ways puts an extra strain on the people on the bridge rather than reducing that strain.
The fact remains that some masters—and I am sure they are a tiny minority—have certificates which are either not of an acceptable standard or have been acquired in an improper manner. We ought to be satisfied that any master bringing a ship up the channel has a properly attested and authorised qualification. The pilot service could make a contribution here. I am quite sure that any pilot on boarding a ship is not aboard very long before he has a very clear impression as to whether or not the vessel is efficiently equipped, managed and manned. There might be something to be said for requesting all pilots to make a confidential report on every ship they visit, so that it would quite quickly become abundantly clear when a ship was inadequately run, in the broadest sense of that term.
1040
There is also the question of routing, and here I do not think that I should add anything to what my friend—if I may call him that—Lord Greenway told us about. From what I know—and I confess that I have been got at—I would support the Trinity House scheme in preference to the IMCO Scheme. I have details of it here, if the noble Lord would care to look at it before he answers the debate, though I dare say he has already seen it. Here a point arises which I think is worth making. I understand that the idea was once mooted of routing very large carriers around the north end of this island, and down in through the North Sea, but apparently, despite our inadequate hydrography, we know that there is not enough water for them there, so that simply is not an option that is open to us.
I also consider that the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, about transponders and communications is a good one. I cannot believe that it would be so difficult to have transponders on all ships coming into the Channel. I am a pure chauvinist about the matter of language of communications. I do not suppose that we shall ever get the French to agree, but the plain fact is that English is the nearest thing to an international maritime language, in much the same way as it is the international airline language. It seems to me that there would be a good case for saying that every ship that comes up the Channel should have on board someone who speaks either French or English, for starters; and I believe that it will end up by being English only before very long. I turn to another point which I think was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Buxton. We must recognise that seafarers have become—dare I say it?—conservative. They have been at it for over 7,000 years, whereas we have been flying for only 70 years, and aviators have had a rather fresh approach.
When it comes to construction standards, I again find that I would not go all the way with the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder. It seems to me that the classification societies and the insurers ought to address themselves to this matter. If they do not take care of their own interests as well as they might, it is high time that they looked to this. It seems to me that they are the people to do it. Two specific points have been suggested to me. One is the provision of bow thrusters for

1041
very large vessels. I know that these do not work once a ship is under way, but if there is a breakdown at least one can keep the ship pointing in the right direction. The other point that has been made is that a very large vessel might usefully provide itself with its own towing gear for use in an emergency, because one of the major problems is passing the towing equipment. My recollection, from 30 years ago, is that it is the practice in the Navy that the towed vessel always provides the tow.
On the question of salvage, surely it must be right that international arbitration should be compulsory. I gather that in many cases this occurs now. The concept of arguing over the money while a danger builds must be wrong. However, we should not get over-emotional about the issue. In an article the other day, a picture was painted of the salvage tugs as vultures hovering rather like Lady Vickers' Cornish pirates of yore, waiting for disasters to occur. If we are to have an alternative arrangement as regards disaster provision it will be exceedingly expensive unless the rewards for the curing of a disaster are very substantial.
A number of noble Lords have referred to the need for better techniques and better emergency services to deal with pollution once it has occurred. I feel that this, too, can to some extent be put back to the insurance companies. We know that there is the difficulty of establishing claims and obtaining compensation. Here I think I would again disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder. I am not trying to pick on him in any way. He said that he does not think that shipping companies should be indemnified by insurance companies. But it seems to me that it would be very much in the interests of an insurance company which is asked to indemnify a shipping company to make jolly sure that an indemnity is not called for—
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, objected to their being indemnified for fines.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: I quite accept that; and it is obviously objectionable that legal obligations arising from contravening the law should be insured against, although I
1042
suppose that there is no law against doing that. I should not disagree with the noble Lord if he would go along with me in the view that the insurers can quite properly pick up that kind of indemnification. The idea of the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, that plans should be made available within the limits of commercial confidentiality was very practical. because there must be a real problem here.
So much for the principles. We return to the question of what to do in order to get quick, practical action. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, that the Channel and the North Sea must be regarded as special situations. It is perfectly true that, historically, this country has always asserted the freedom of the seas, and that implies the right of innocent passage, which I think was originally meant to mean unwarlike passage. It seems to me doubtful whether innocence can be extended through naivety into irresponsibility. We now know the dangers that we face. As potential sufferers we surely have the right to demand special care and to impose special precautions on those who seek to carry noxious cargoes through the narrow waters. I believe that they must prove that they have taken all reasonable precautions before they do so.
So I am forced to the conclusion that the Channel and the North Sea should be declared a special control zone from, say, a line between Ushant and the Scillies, up to somewhere north of the Scheldt estuary. It seems to me that the quickest way to impose this—and I mean impose it—would be to seek an agreement between the riparian States, as was done under the spur of the discovery of the resources under the North Sea. It did not take very long for it to be decided how best to carve up that particular bonanza, and happily no one has challenged the right so to do. I suppose that that suggestion involves the United Kingdom, France, Belgium, Holland, and perhaps Ireland and Germany. The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, was on very much the same point when he talked about the EEC, though I should have thought that the riparian States constituted a marginally better proposal, but the general idea is the same.
We certainly ought to take IMCO along with us; and here I do not need to add very much to what the noble Lord,

1043
Lord Ritchie-Calder, said about the endless delays regarding the Law of the Sea Conference, and what the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, said about it having taken eight years for IMCO to achieve very much. It is a United Nations arm. That is not a body which is noted for enormously quick action. It is a big body; it is ponderous and slow-moving; it is subjected to political attitudinizing, if I may use that word; and sometimes, regrettably, those who are taking these attitudes are nations with only minimal maritime experience, whereas the nations I am talking about would be those most vitally concerned, all of whom have been at it for a very long time.
I should have thought that any ship entering this special zone should be deemed to be accepting certain special conditions and obligations—that is to say, the certification of the master, the acceptance of the routing, the notification of noxious cargoes (however one cares to define those), agreement on identification and communication, and the undertaking to notify any incident or potentially hazardous situation and acceptance of immediate salvage action subject to international arbitration.
It seems to me that it would not be awfully difficult for infringement of any of these accepted rules to lead the riparian States politely to decline to accept the ship the next time round unless its contempt had been discharged, which I believe is the legal expression for it. I hope I do not make this sound too simple, but I really believe that something on these lines would command the support of the shipping industry, the insurance interests, the pilots, Trinity House and I hope perhaps even the Government.
7.53 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Strathcona, has said, this has been a far-reaching debate. I agree with him and other noble Lords that it has been a very useful debate, and it is one that I welcome. I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, for putting down this Question. I appreciate all that he said, and, wearing my other hat of Deputy Chief Whip, I congratulate him on his insistence in ensuring that this debate took place before the Recess. Before replying to all the speeches, I should like to join with my
1044
noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder in congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, most warmly on his maiden speech. His family and my family are very old friends, and we are very glad to see him here. His speech, I think, has been a most notable contribution, and we look forward to hearing from him on many other occasions.
My Lords, the Government are determined that in the future, just as in the past, the United Kingdom should play a leading role in the search for effective measures to reduce oil pollution from ships. This involves the pursuit, not only of measures to reduce deliberate oil pollution as a result of routine ship operations—for example, tankers washing out their tanks, which has been referred to today—but also of measures to improve the safety of ships, particularly oil tankers, and thereby to reduce the number of shipping casualties which can result in this serious problem of oil pollution, with all its far-reaching consequences. As has been said, our coasts may be polluted by vessels of any nation. The problen can therefore be dealt with only on an international basis if we are to avoid the anarchy of conflicting national requirements. Consequently, we have directed our main efforts—I shall have something to say about our other efforts later on—towards action in IMCO, which is the United Nations specialised agency and which has its headquarters in London, in recognition of the traditional leading role of this country in maritime affairs.
But, my Lords, we must also recognise that there are no quick or straightforward solutions to the problem of oil pollution. We must progress step by step through unremitting efforts by all the nations concerned. I am glad to say that there have been a number of important advances so far this year. In January, the 1969 amendments to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil 1954 finally came into force internationally. The amended convention lays down discharge standards which, if universally adopted, should substantially eliminate oil pollution as a result of routine ships' operations. It is worth noting, I think, that the adoption of these standards was made possible by the development, largely at the initiative of the British oil industry, of the "load on top" system. Under this system,

1045
oily tank washings are pumped into a special slop tank. When the oil content of the washings has risen to the top of the tank, the sea water element is pumped off from below, and then the next cargo is loaded on top of the remaining oily residues.
In February, agreement was reached at the IMCO Conference on Tanker Safety and Pollution Prevention on protocols to the 1973 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships and to the 1974 International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea. These protocols should improve safety by requiring all tankers of 10,000 tons gross and above to have two separately-operable remote steering gear control systems, and to be fitted with at least two independent radars, as well as by requiring more frequent inspection of the equipment of older tankers. These protocols should also reduce the potential for operational oil pollution by adopting requirements for segregated ballast tanks and crude oil washings. Of course, safety depends very much on the human factor, as has been recognised today, and with this in mind IMCO has recently held a conference in London on the training and certification of seafarers. At this conference, a convention was concluded on minimum standards of training for certificates of competency, including special training requirements for the officers and crews of oil tankers and of other ships carrying noxious cargoes in bulk.
Conventions and protocols also have to be brought into effect. IMCO agreed a target date of mid-1979 for the 1974 Safety of Life at Sea Convention and its protocol, and a target date of mid-1981 for the 1973 Prevention of Pollution from Ships Convention and its protocol. The United Kingdom has also ratified the 1974 Safety of Life at Sea Convention. In May, the Government published a White Paper, which I was asked about earlier, which includes draft clauses of a new merchant shipping Bill. I should like to say in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, that the Bill will be introduced into Parliament as soon as possible, and it contains the powers necessary to implement the protocol to the 1974 Safety of Life at Sea Convention as well as the protocol to the 1973 Prevention of Pollution from Ships Convention.
1046
Conventions and protocols have to be enforced, of course, as the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, recognised. This is primarily a matter for the flag State of the ship concerned, but there is also a role for the State at whose port the ship sails. The marine administrations of eight North Sea States have recently signed a memorandum of understanding designed to concert control procedures over the standards of merchant ships visiting their ports. This memorandum came into force on 1st July this year, and covers both safety conventions agreed under the auspices of IMCO and a series of conventions dealing with crew matters agreed under the auspices of the International Labour Organisation.
My Lords, I should like to say a little more about enforcement in answer to the noble Viscount, who suggested that we might, with other like-minded States, enforce international conventions before they have been ratified. I am sure that noble Lords will accept the very strong arguments in favour of multilateral action in this area. If we were to enforce new conventions immediately, this would constitute a real deterrent in the way of reaching agreement on new conventions. This is particularly so because they frequently necessitate some preparation on the part of maritime States.
I should like now to say a few words about oil spillage. The central objective of our contingency arrangements for dealing with oil spills from ships is to minimise the pollution damage which may be done to seabirds, fisheries and ecologically sensitive areas and amenity beaches. These contingency arrangements fall into two parts. The Department of Trade are responsible for dealing with oil spills at sea and the coastal and local authorities are responsible for dealing with any oil that comes close inshore or actually comes ashore. The Department of Trade's action plan is to spray chemical dispersants from ships. So far, this is the only method proven to be generally reliable and effective in the often turbulent waters found around our coasts.
The Department have centralised responsibility to the principal officers of the nine survey districts which together cover the United Kingdom coastline. Within a framework of general guidelines, each principal officer has drawn up his

1047
own contingency plan which provides for close consultation with the local authorities, with local officials of the appropriate fisheries department and with local officials of the Nature Conservancy Council and other wild-life interests. This local co-ordination is a cardinal feature of the contingency arrangements. Stocks of spraying gear and dispersants are held at various points around the coast, and principal officers have made provisional arrangements to hire suitable vessels as and when the need arises. The local authorities have substantial resources of men, vehicles and mechanical equipment for their other functions which can also be used for beach clearance. They have also acquired necessary items of specialist beach-cleaning equipment. A number of systems for containing and then recovering oil mechanically from the sea surface, while generally ineffective in the open seas, can, of course, be useful in sheltered or inshore waters. Booms may also be useful in protecting particularly sensitive areas and entrances to harbours or small rivers.
An interdepartmental group of officials reviewed our contingency arrangements in 1975/76. Their report concerned the basic structure and recommended a number of more detailed changes and improvements. That report was published in September 1976 to provide an opportunity for debate and comment. It was subsequently broadly endorsed by the Government in July last year. Since that time, we have experienced the massive pollution of the Britanny coast, resulting from the tragedy of the stranding of the "Amoco Cadiz", and the serious pollution of our own East Anglian coast following the collision involving the "Eleni V" which has been mentioned by several noble Lords today.
I must emphasise that our contingency arrangements are geared to the generality of oil spills. They could not prevent coastal pollution following a spill of "Amoco Cadiz" dimensions. Indeed, in the present state of technology, no realistic at-sea organisation can give anything approaching a guarantee against coastal pollution following a major oil spillage. The "Eleni V" presented its own difficulties. Although the quantity of oil spilled was not particularly great, chemical dispersants and mechanical recovery systems were relatively ineffective
1048
when faced with heavy fuel oil. This particular viscous oil has to be heated for pumping and congeals, as your Lordships know, into a semi-solid state at sea temperatures.
My Lords, these incidents have underlined the need to learn from all available experience, as my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder said, and a comprehensive stocktaking of our contingency arrangements has been set in hand—which I say to the House quite frankly. In addition, the Select Committee on Science and Technology has been undertaking an inquiry into the management of the "Eleni V" problem by the Government and other public authorities. I think your Lordships will agree that it would not be appropriate for me to comment further until the Select Committee of another place has reported. It is, of course, having a very close look at this matter.
I should also mention that our arrangements have an international dimension. The 1969 (Bonn) Agreement for Cooperation in Dealing with Pollution of the North Sea by Oil provides for the exchange of information between the eight parties about oil spills likely to affect other member countries and for mutual assistance in dealing with major oil pollution incidents. In the case of the Channel, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, in his constructive and interesting speech, Britain and France have developed a joint contingency plan for dealing with all types of maritime disaster—Mancheplan—which in essence lays down procedures for co-ordination and joint operations in major emergencies. I am glad to say in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, that we shall be having a joint British-French test exercise early next year.
The Department of Industry's Warren Spring Laboratory is nearing the end of a two year research programme aimed at developing a containment and mechanical recovery system for oil on the sea surface, which can be used in the open seas around our coasts. Results so far, I am glad to tell the House, are promising. Work is also in hand to evaluate the potential of spraying dispersant front both large and small aircraft. This could significantly improve our response capability. We also intend to set further work in hand with the object of developing useable

1049
techniques for burning oil remaining aboard a stricken tanker. As in the case of measures to improve tanker safety and reduce oil pollution, the development of oil spill clearance measures is a continuing process in which there are no quick or easy solutions.
My noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder asked about the 1969 Amendments. The 1969 Amendments to the 1954 Oil Pollution Convention which regulate operational discharges of oily water from ships came fully into force internationally in January this year, as my noble friend said. However, the United Kingdom and several other major maritime nations had already applied these provisions to their own ships for some years previously—the United Kingdom since early 1973.
The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, referred to the "Ella Hewitt". This trawler sank in Church Bay, off the Rathlin Islands, in 1963. It took with it about 150 tons of fuel oil. The owner of the wreck has the primary responsibility to take measures to deal with any spillage. The Department of Trade agreed in the spring of this year to take action to protect the public interest. A proposal to lift and remove the wreck proved to be disproportionately expensive and alternative means of disposing of the oil are being considered. Action was deferred during the bird breeding season (which the noble Lord mentioned) but it is planned to carry out the operation in the autumn. The Department will be writing to the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, to give him details.
The noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, referred to exercise "Black Watch" which took place off Milford Haven and simulated collision between a large oil tanker and a passenger-carrying ferry. It tested both search and rescue and antipollution facilities, and involved action by several authorities, including the Department of Trade and the Services, mentioned by the noble Baroness, and the Milford Haven Conservancy Board. The contingency arrangements worked well; but detailed improvements will be made to local arrangements as well as being disseminated to similar organisations in other parts of the country.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, the news of the French
1050
depolluting vessel is noted. In general, anti-pollution vessels are expensive, especially when only used infrequently. Our own Warren Springs Laboratory has in recent months been developing a system of recovering oil from the sea surface to be used by vessels of opportunity, though it is not yet fully developed but the results are encouraging. The noble Lord, Lord Greenway, also spoke about ship routing schemes. The United Kingdom has also played a leading role in securing improvements in the safety of navigation through international agreements on ship routing schemes in international waters.
The first internationally adopted separation scheme was that in the Dover Strait. The Anglo-French Safety of Navigation Group's recent report shows how, as a result of sustained efforts over a period of years, ship behaviour has improved in that busiest of all sea lanes. Collisions, I am glad to say, have fallen from an annual average of 12 before 1972 to a yearly total of six or less in subsequent years, and only three in 1977. There has been a similar dramatic fall in the number of contraventions of the scheme. Elsewhere in the Channel we have acted with France and through IMCO, as the noble Lord, Lord Greenway, said, to amend the separation schemes off Ushant and the Casquets so as to keep tankers further off-shore. It is too early to say yet what the results will be, but we hope that they will be successful.
We are currently putting forward Amendments in IMCO to the schemes off our own South-West coasts. When framing our proposals, we have had the benefit of the advice of Trinity House, as mentioned by the noble Lord. In the coming months, we shall be looking carefully at their suggestion for a shipping "motorway" through the Channel, and other proposals on ships' routing. We shall be helped in this by the results—to be published shortly—of a survey made last year of traffic throughout the Channel.
I should also mention that we are in the final stages of a joint study with France of a ship movement "reporting in" system as they pass through the traffic separation schemes in the Channel. This would cover large tankers, gas and chemical carriers and other ships that might be a danger to them, and would be subject to

1051
international agreement in IMCO. We shall be submitting our detailed plans to IMCO next week.
The noble Lords, Lord Greenway and Strathcona and Mount Royal, mentioned the very important matter of communications and the problems of language. It is not thought that this will be a problem in this particular connection, because English is of course the international maritime language and will probably be used for the great majority of the reports. We note what both noble Lords have said.
Our efforts have not, however, been confined solely to the busy seaways of the Channel and the Dover Straits. After a survey of traffic and its behaviour in the other United Kingdom separation schemes around the Irish Sea, we shall shortly be proposing various improvements in IMCO. We have also been encouraged by the action of the Marine Advisory Committee, representing most of the major oil companies working in British waters, in drawing up suggested routes for tankers sailing near the Shetlands and in the Irish and North Seas. I understand that these routes may soon be published. This is a useful self-help scheme to improve the safety of navigation.
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, raised the question of the intervention after a casualty. He referred to the possibility of a tanker collision outside our territorial waters. In such circumstances, we would indeed first endeavour to contact the ship-owner and flag State. However, if there were insufficient time to do so, we have power to intervene under the Prevention of Oil Pollution Act 1971. We would of course use these powers as appropriate.
The noble Earl also asked: What are the penalties for disregarding separation lanes? Contraventions of the rules governing behaviour of shipping in separation schemes are at present subject to a maximum fine of £100. This of course has for some time been considered inadequate. I think that it is ludicrous. It was proposed in the White Paper published in May, which contained draft clauses of a new merchant shipping Bill, that the maximum penalty should be increased at £1,000. In view of the great harm which may result from various contraventions, however, this maximum
1052
sum, I am glad to say, is now being examined with a view to ensuring that it is established at an appropriately severe level.
With regard to United Kingdom territorial waters, I may say in answer to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, that the question of a possible extension of United Kingdom's territorial waters has been raised, and I can confirm that this issue is now under consideration by the Government. The noble Earl also asked about liquefied gas carriers. IMCO codes for the construction and equipment of ships carrying liquefied gasses in bulk and for existing ships carrying liquefied gasses in bulk, lay down minimum standards of equipment for gas carriers which take full account of the hazardous nature of the cargo. Nearly all gas carriers built since 1972 have been designed to meet the code standards. The recent IMCO Conference reorganised the need for special training for the crews of gas carriers as well as of oil tankers.
The noble Earl, Lord Kinnuoll, asked if the Lloyd's open form is satisfactory. As a result of the uncertainty which appears to have surrounded events leading up to the stranding of the "Amoco Cadiz", a range of studies on the present international salvage regime has been set in hand. The council of IMCO have accepted the need for urgent attention to be given to this subject. The secretariat have therefore been instructed to prepare a report setting out existing weaknesses and measures to remove them.
In answer to the noble Earl's question about spillages, reports received by Her Majesty's Coastguard of sitings of oil around United Kingdom coasts, either at sea or on the beach, totalled 169 in 1976 and 164 in 1977. No figures are yet available for this year. It is not possible to say how many of these sitings are genuine and how many were what I may describe seriously as "false alarms" through heightened interest. We shall certainly take note of what the noble Baroness said about the possibility of a Lloyd's register of stranded ships, and I will write to her if I may about that.
I should like now to say a few words about compensation and the general position, a point which was raised by my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder. The arrangements for compensation for

1053
oil pollution damage have been greatly improved since the stranding of the "Torrey Canyon". The first major step forward was the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage in 1969. Under this Convention, the owner of an oil tanker is generally liable for oil pollution damage whether or not the damage results from his fault or negligence. The owner of the oil tanker may limit his liability within a maximum of about £9 million per incident, unless the incident results from his own fault, when his liability is unlimited. The owner of a tanker carrying more than 2,000 tons of oil as cargo must carry insurance to cover his maximum liability. This Convention has been ratified by 35 countries and came into force on 19th June 1975. The Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Act 1971 made the necessary changes to United Kingdom law.
It was realised in 1969 that there would still be circumstances in which the shipowner would not be liable or in which his liability would be insufficient to meet the cost of the oil pollution damage. As a result, the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage was agreed in 1971. This convention will increase the amount of compensation available to those who suffered damage from oil pollution or who take action to avoid or minimise such damage to about £19½ million, and includes a procedure to increase that amount up to about £39 million at any time. This topping-up fund will derive its monies from a levy on oil importing companies. The United Kingdom ratified this convention in April 1976 and the powers required to implement it are available in the Merchant Shipping Act 1974. The convention will come into force on 16th October 1978.
The oil industry had, of course, as is well known, voluntarily set up a scheme to supplement the 1969 convention, and this is known as the Contract Regarding an Interim Supplement to Tanker Liability for Oil Pollution, which in its abbreviated form is known as CRISTAL. This came into effect on 1st April 1971 and covered (and indeed still covers) nearly all the crude oil and fuel oil moved by sea. The purpose of CRISTAL is to increase the amount available from all sources to
1054
reimburse reasonable expenditure on avoiding or minimising oil pollution damage or as compensation for such damage. Until recently the maximum amount available from all sources was made up by CRISTAL to about £16 million per incident. Since 1st June, CRISTAL has increased this figure to about £19 million. Compensation is available to private parties as well as to Governments, and does not depend on the tanker owner's fault or negligence. The tanker owner's "clean-up costs" are, however, a first charge on CRISTAL.
CRISTAL, which is largely a voluntary scheme, as I said, will be largely superseded by the statutory 1971 Fund Convention, when this comes into force. I understand the 1969 convention and the CRISTAL scheme apply to the "Eleni V" incident: consequently, we expect that there will be up to £16 million available to meet claims for compensation. It is soo soon to estimate what the claims will be. At a rough estimate, the Government expect to claim some £2 million. The main items covered are the hire of dispersant spraying vessels, the cost of the dispersants used and the cost of the salvage operation.
Then there is the question of the local authorities. Local authorities, like anyone else, can make a claim under the Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Act 1971 which implements the 1969 convention and, of course, under CRISTAL. For the most part, one would expect their claims to be for expenditure on preventing or reducing pollution damage or on cleaning up oil pollution. It has now been decided that in the initial stages the Government will negotiate on a without-prejudice basis with the "Eleni V" insurers and CRISTAL for the recovery of the costs of the East Anglian local authorities as well as its own coasts. I am sure that will be of interest to the noble Lord, Lord Buxton, who conies from East Anglia.
Private parties—very important—such as fishermen and hoteliers can also make a claim under the Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution) Act 1971 which implements the 1969 convention, or under CRISTAL. Apart from claims for actual physical damage, for example, fouled fishing nets, we would expect most of these claims to be for loss of earnings resulting from oil pollution damage.

1055
The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, asked about insurance against fines. The feasibility of preventing shipowners from taking out insurance against fines is under consideration by the Government. There are difficulties, including the fact that this form of insurance is offered by insurers who are not necessarily based in the United Kingdom; but it is something that is in hand.
I should like to say, in conclusion, that this has been a very interesting and useful debate. I hope I have answered most of the points that have been raised by your Lordships, but if there is anything I have not covered I shall be glad to write to noble Lords and answer them in more detail.

PARLIAMENTARY PENSIONS BILL
Returned from the Commons with certain Lords Amendments agreed to; and with the remaining Lords Amendment disagreed to with a Reason for such disagreement.
GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) (No. 2) BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
VALE OF GLAMORGAN (BARRY HARBOUR) BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.