Lords Sitting of 13 December 1979

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Hereford):
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Earl of St. Germans—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.
The Lady Saltoun—Sat first in Parliament after the death of her father.

EEC AND NATO STRATEGY
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that NATO strategy is not being sabotaged by certain dissident elements in the EEC.
Lord TREFGARNE: Yes, my Lords; the European Community has no role in NATO strategy.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that not very satisfactory answer, may I ask whether he would agree that the decision by the Dutch could become a precedent which might eventually turn out to be the Achilles' heel of NATO? Secondly, is he aware that even in this country we have dissident elements? Only yesterday a group of MPs sent a telegram to NATO demanding that no nuclear missile be put on European soil. Lastly, does he not agree that because of the decision of the Dutch Mr. Brezhnev's insidious propaganda will be increased tenfold?
Lord TREFGARNE: Not necessarily, my Lords; indeed, I am not entirely certain to what decision my noble friend is referring. At the consultations yesterday all the members of the NATO Alliance agreed to the modernisation of TNF in Europe. I should say that my
1360
noble friend Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal will be making a Statement on that later this afternoon.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, are we to understand from the Minister's reply to the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, that all the countries associated with the EEC are unanimous in support of NATO and its policy? Is it not true that some of them, if not in opposition, are far from enthusiastic? Is the noble Lord aware that so far as France is concerned it has contracted out of NATO? That does not necessarily mean that they are dissidents, but they are certainly not in support.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the membership of the European Community and the membership of the NATO alliance are two different matters. Most of the members of the European Community are members of NATO, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, points out, the French are not participating members of NATO, though they have not in fact withdrawn from the alliance.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, is France having any of these modernised American weapons deployed on her soil?
Lord TREFGARNE: Not at present, my Lords; but I would ask the noble Lord to await the Statement to be made by my noble friend Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal a little later this afternoon.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that part of the difference between us and the nations on the other side of the Iron Curtain is that people who disagree with Government policy in our countries are perfectly free to express their opinion in any manner they wish? And does he also agree that any implied criticism of honourable Members in another place for expressing those views in a telegram is wholly out of order?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I think that the telegram referred to was from Members of the European Parliament, not Members of another place. But the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is of course quite right in saying that those who live behind the Iron Curtain do not have the opportunity of expressing their views as we do.

TEXTILES: OUTWARD PROCESSING
3.6 p.m.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: 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, in view of the EEC facilities for outward processing of textile products granted to certain Mediterranean countries, when it is expected that the promised regulations will be made to confine this trade to bona fide manufacturers, aligned to a percentage of their domestic production.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Viscount Trenchard): My Lords, the Community outward processing regulation is expected to permit, but not to require, Member States to confine access to any separate outward processing facilities to manufacturers. The draft regulation is still being discussed between Member States. However, the delay has no direct effect in this country because the United Kingdom counts outward processed goods against normal restraint levels.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, in thanking the noble Viscount for that reply, may I ask whether he can give us any figures regarding the extent of our processing not by manufacturing industry, as well as by manufacturing industry? Secondly, what assurance is there that the proposed regulations now being discussed will prevent the possibility of non-manufacturing distributors sending fabric which may or may not have been made in this country to a clothing manufacturer abroad, in a country whose exports to the EEC are normally subject to duty, and by using the outward processing formula evading full payment of duty and possibly exceeding the level of their quota?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, it is extremely difficult to get a clear picture of the quantity of outward processing—and certainly not broken down between manufacturers and retailers or wholesalers; I am speaking of course of Europe as a whole. However, it is
1362
possible to know that the total outward processing quotas of the EEC amount to 12 per cent. of the normal quotas of the EEC. It is not possible to know whether part of the normal quotas is at present used by other countries for outward processing purposes, nor whether in other cases the full outward processing quotas are in fact used.
What we hope to get out of the regulation at least is that the Council will control the total amount of outward processing. At the moment there is not agreement within our own country or other countries as to whether we should use the suggested permitted power to restrain non-manufacturers from using this quota; and there is most definitely more than one opinion on that subject, particularly abroad.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister of State confirm that the Government of West Germany already restrict outward processing to bona fide manufacturers, and that they also impose a quota on such manufacturers' stock? Can we not do the same in this country?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that piece of information, of which I was not aware. I shall immediately try to check it, but my impression is that Germany is very definitely not one of those countries in favour of tying the use of outward processing quotas to specific manufacturers. If I am wrong on that, I shall let the House know on a future occasion.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, would the Minister enlighten me? What does "outward processing" mean?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, as far as I can understand it, it means that you send British cloth or British materials abroad to a country where costs are cheaper, where the cloth is made up into clothing of one kind or another. It is then imported back into this country or, for that matter, into any other EEC country if this method is practised by them.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, could my noble friend say at what stage of preparation these regulations are at the present time?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, the work on this proposed regulation started in February of this year, and we hope that it will come to fruition in the very early part of next year.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, are Her Majesty's Government aware that they are innocents living in a world of artful dodgers, and that unless they find some better method to protect our textile industry then this industry, which is vital for strategic reasons, will just die?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, there are artful dodgers. I do not think the world is completely full of them, and some of them live in this country.
Lord HALE: Yes, my Lords, but is the noble Lord aware that the whole subject of outward processing has been dealt with at length by the Select Committee of this House, that the problems are fully postulated and that the noble Viscount's Answer today makes abundantly clear the case for a renewal of the multifibre agreement, because the added uncertainty of his reply today and the added suggestion that it will take some time to clear things up leaves every textile manufacturer facing demands for his plans, and so on, without being able to know what is going to happen in any department of the industry in six months' time?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, the report of the Select Committee, as always in this area, has been extremely valuable; and, if I recall correctly, one of its main points was that this country must include outward processing as though it were imports within all existing quotas and restraints. That, indeed, is the policy and the practice of Her Majesty's Government. So far as the MFA is concerned, I think that is another question. My right honourable friend has made clear that forms of restraint and regulation must continue after the end of the present MFA.

PIG PRODUCTION
3.13 p.m.
Earl FORTESCUE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are concerned about the profitability of pig production and the closure of several large pig processing plants in the United Kingdom, particularly in view of the expansion of the pig populations in Denmark and Holland.
The MINISTER of STATE, MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES and FOOD (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, the profitability of production and the closure of some processing plants in the United Kingdom, coupled with the expansion of the pig populations in other Member States of the Community, have been a cause for some concern in recent years. One of the Government's objectives is to ensure that United Kingdom pig producers and processors are able to compete on fairer terms with those in other countries. The Green Pound changes made earlier this year and the changes announced yesterday are a major step towards this objective.
Earl FORTESCUE: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is he aware that the last costing published by the Meat and Livestock Commission shows that all types of pig production are still running at a loss?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, my information is that although they have been running at a loss they have in fact now turned round and are becoming more profitable, and the figures which I have indicate that.
Earl FORTESCUE: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that further answer, may I ask him whether the Government are still pressing for a change in the method of calculating the pig MCA's?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, we have always felt that the method of calculating the monetary compensation amounts is not very satisfactory, and we should wish to see an alteration; but the fact is that, in order to achieve the alteration, you must have the agreement of the other members of the Community. But we have been concerned to see that our producers can compete on fairer terms, and the way in which this is best done at

1365
the moment is by ensuring more strict parity with the Green Pound. I would remind my noble friend that in 1976 the Green Pound was out by no less than 45 per cent., that in January of this year it was out by 28 per cent., and that it is now out by 3·7 per cent. If I may give him this further bit of information which he may find helpful, the MCA on Danish bacon was £235 a tonne in March and with the alteration of the Green Pound it will be £35 a tonne as from this next week.

CHEAP MILK FOR SCHOOLCHILDREN
3.16 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERFARD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they agree that the provision of cheap milk to schoolchildren is desirable where local authorities are able to take advantage of the EEC subsidy.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Baroness Young): My Lords, under the provisions of the Education (No. 2) Bill, which is now being considered in another place, the present statutory obligation on local education authorities to provide free school milk will be replaced by an enabling power. This is being done to allow those authorities who wish to do so to reduce their expenditure on free school milk in 1980–81 and beyond. It will be for individual authorities to decide to what extent to provide free or cheap milk in the future, and, in coming to a decision, they will no doubt take account of the availability of the EEC subsidy.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that satisfactory Answer, may I ask her whether she would not agree that it would be unwise for local authorities not to accept this subsidy, this generous subsidy, from the EEC for the provision of free milk to schoolchildren? Would
1366
she not further agree that if we do not accept monies from the EEC for purposes with which the general public would agree, presumably, our pleas of poverty regarding our contribution to the Common Agricultural Policy of £1,000 million a year might fall on deaf Continental ears and might appear to make us out to be hypocrites?
Baroness YOUNG: I think, my Lords, that the facts of the situation are that local education authorities can recoup 49 per cent. of the cost of providing free school milk by claiming the EEC subsidy, but they will still have to meet the other 51 per cent. of the cost, which we estimate to be approximately £10 million. It is in relation to this charge that they will be free either to recoup or, indeed, not to provide milk at all.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness the Minister how many local authorities it represents when she says that it will cost local authorities £10 million? What is expected to be the average cost to local authorities who decline to provide free milk and who decline to take advantage of the EEC subsidy?
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, there are 104 local education authorities. I have not available the figures to provide a breakdown in relation to each authority; but if they decline to take the subsidy, of course, they will not in those circumstances provide the other part of the cost of the milk. Therefore, although they would lose the subsidy they would not have to pay the 51 per cent. of the cost which they have to do at present.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, could the Minister say at this particular stage how many local authorities are likely to decline to provide free school milk?
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, we have not yet received final figures from local authorities. It is true that a great many are contemplating abandoning free school milk except for those children who have a medical certificate.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that administration is now the greater part of the cost of provid-

1367
ing school meals? It is not either the milk or the food, but the administration. Are these facts available as they concern the different 104 local education authorities, so that those who are good in this respect may be copied by those who are bad?
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I do not have the breakdown of the administration of the service, authority by authority, but we estimate that the average cost of administration works out at about 4 per cent. of the cost of the milk.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: My Lords, could the noble Baroness say exactly what is the actual cost at the moment, bearing in mind that it is relevant expenditure; so that the £10 million comes down to 51 per cent. and that is just over £5 million? If the Government add their contribution, how much does it really cost?
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, the gross expenditure on milk is about £20 million, in round figures. The subsidy is approximately £10 million. It is true that it attracts rate support grant. If one breaks it down, as it were, to pints of milk, it works out at 15p per pint, 7p for the subsidy, and to qualify for the subsidy the local authority must pay a minimum of 2p a pint. This could mean that if an authority decided to charge, the charge for the pint of milk could go up to 6p. The difference would have to be borne by the local authority.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether the administrative cost is not infinitesimal? Is not the distribution and administration in the main done by the teachers themselves?
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, it is true that a lot of the detailed administration within the schools will be done by the teachers. I can only give the cost as it has been estimated to us, and the cost of the administration is 4 per cent. of the cost of the scheme.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that a great leader of the Conservative Party in his
1368
heyday said that no nation can invest its money better than by stuffing milk into babies and children?
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I think the answer to the noble Lord is that, of course, that famous leader said a great many important and wise things. The latest information that I have from the Department of Health and Social Services is that the only time when milk is essential is for the young infant up to the age of six months—and then it is human milk which is essential, or a suitable substitute.

NATO LONG-RANGE THEATRE NUCLEAR FORCES
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, as my noble friend Lord Trefgarne has mentioned, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m., my noble friend Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal will repeat a Statement on the modernisation of the NATO long-range theatre nuclear forces.
My Lords, perhaps I could say one more thing. This evening is the occasion of the annual dinner of our Doorkeepers. I should like therefore to make a special plea for brevity of speeches today. As your Lordships are aware, they look after us without complaint, if necessary until any hour of the night, and with that unfailing blend of firmness and impeccable courtesy with which we are all familiar. I am sure that noble Lords will wish to ensure that, on this one evening in the year, we should be as helpful as possible to them.
Several noble Lords: Hear, Hear!

ZIMBABWE BILL
Brought from the Commons, read 1a, and to be printed.

DARTMOOR COMMONS BILL [H.L.]
3.25 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. I introduced this Bill at Second

1369
Reading in February on behalf of the Devon County Council and thereafter no fewer than 14 petitions were raised against it. It had, therefore, a particularly thorough investigation at Committee. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking our Committee under the chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, for the thorough and patient consideration that they gave to the Bill. After that consideration, the Bill emerged virtually unchanged. A few points have been conceded by the promoters; one was accepted by them on the recommendation of the Committee.
My Lords, there are two schools of thought about the management of our countryside. One is that we proceed by way of controversy and conflict, eventually ending up with a compromise of sacrifices that is imposed by order from above or from outside by someone like the Secretary of State. Another view is that we proceed by patient negotiation, careful consultation and finally reach an agreement among most of the parties concerned that confers considerable benefits all round and which can subsequently be made legally binding, as this Bill seeks to do in the case of the agreement on the Dartmoor Commons.
In the course of this Parliament, we shall be dealing with at least one Bill, the Countryside Bill, in which the choice of these two methods will have to be considered carefully by your Lordships' House and by another place. I think that most of us believe that the second method of proceeding, by agreement, is greatly to be desired as compared with the first. I should like therefore to take this opportunity briefly of applauding the management agreement that is incorporated in this Bill. There have been management agreements for the management of moorland, the countryside, and commons before; and there will be many others in the future; and better provision for them is to be included in the Countryside Bill. But this Bill probably will be the greatest, the most extensive and the best-contrived that we shall see for many years.
I should like therefore at its Third Reading to commend it to the House. In some senses, this Bill will be seen as a model. It is a model of what can be achieved by this approach. It is an
1370
example of the very great benefit that can be secured by this approach, and it is a model which demonstrates that it is possible to proceed by Private Bill despite many people feeling that primary legislation is needed before much can be done about the better management of commons. On the other hand, the Bill is definitely not a model in the sense of being a blueprint which can be adopted in any other part of the country. It could not be adopted as it stands by Brecon Beacons or the Yorkshire Dales or anywhere else. They are geographically different: their commons rights are different and all the local circumstances are different. The attitudes of the farmers and of the amenity lobbies and so on differ in different parts of the country. But it is a model and a very good model in the three senses that I have mentioned, and for that reason I have no hesitation once again in commending it to your Lordships' House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a—(Lord Sandford.)
3.29 p.m.
Viscount BROOKEBOROUGH: My Lords, I speak from Northern Ireland, and I am very fearful seeing the number of Devon Peers here, because of their "ninety men of valour". I go by boat from Belfast to Liverpool on many occasions and I hope the next time I come that I am not sunk by a Devon cruiser. While I applaud very much all that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has said, I am going to put my finger on what I believe to be a vital omission in this particular Bill. I speak from 27 years' experience on a county council and from having been in the chair and having prepared a council for the rush of tourists which was bound to come. Therefore, my approach to all these matters must be with regard to the preservation of the great assets that we have.
I speak on behalf of the British Horse Society of whose governing body I am a member. We are the national body which is accepted by the Government as being the spokesman for the horse sport and horse industry in nearly all matters except for racing. If I tell your Lordships of the extent of our bailiwick, our authority, it is, I think, appropriate to quote from the report of a British market

1371
research carried out between 1971 and 1976. It showed that, during that period, the number of people riding had increased by 16 per cent. This gives an absolutely staggering total. I am sure that noble Lords when they go through the countryside, especially on the outskirts of towns, will have seen the enormous growth of ponykeeping and horsekeeping. It amounts to 1½ million people in this country who ride. These are not prosperous people; they are what are called Class C and Class D in the economy. They are not privileged. They do not have the right of access to private land and therefore the natural place for these people to ride—especially in the future, because the increase will continue—will be on areas such as common land.
The Royal Commission recognised this in paragraph 314 and 318, when they stated that sensible rights of access should be given and that sensible restrictions should then be placed upon the users of common lands. I support what the noble Lord, Land Sandford, said: that this Bill is a model of good management in so many ways. However, if it is a model, we are afraid that one of the elements that will be taken is the exclusion of the statutory right of horsemen to exercise on Dartmoor.
Two classes of people had de facto rights on Dartmoor for hundreds of years. This is not a new right in any way. One class was pedestrians and the other was horsemen. Now this Bill has changed the status of the two. There is a de jure right in Clause 9 of the Bill. It gives an absolute legal right to pedestrians and the horsemen no longer have any rights on the Commons except those expressed in Clause 12. This merely recognises a rather vague right. It is my belief that if one wants to preserve the countryside where a de facto right has existed for hundreds of years, then one must give a de jure right and then legislate to exercise control by by-laws in that way. That has been recognised in almost every other clause of the Bill.
The British Horse Society recognises the problems that are created by this phenomenal growth of horses and the keeping of horses. In days of yore when the legal right was established it was expected that the parson would go from
1372
one village church to another along the bridle path—and we all know what damage is done when 12 riders go galloping down a path following three or four inches of rainfall. We recognise that. We believe that conservation is best served by sensible regulation and by education. However, the problem will not go away. As the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, said, we shall be having more Bills dealing with common land; and, in my view, we have to face this problem. The sport of riding is a marvellous one. We who are riders do not cause traffic jams on the way to the football terraces. Indeed, we do not have riots on the football trains. We do not crowd the roads on the way to the coast. It is a good and growing sport which should be encouraged.
I must ask the Government to state their case. If this is going to be a model, do they approve the dropping of the Royal Commission's recommendations on the access to common lands? I deplore the absence of this statutory right in this Bill, but I must go along with the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, in congratulating the promoters on the rest of the Bill for its comprehensive and very sensible approach to all affairs.
3.34 p.m.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, I should like to add a word to what my noble friend Lord Brookeborough has said. As a Devonian, I strongly applaud any sensible measures to look after the Dartmoor National Park, an amenity which is enjoyed by thousands of people far beyond the bounds of my own county. Last night my noble friend Lord Brooke-borough told us that County Fermanagh was the finest and most beautiful county in the British Isles. If I accept that. may I then say that without any doubt whatever Devon is the second finest and most beautiful county in the British Isles.
Like my noble friend, I am still a little unhappy about the rights of horseriders in relation to the rights of pedestrians. Pedestrians have full rights of access. Horsemen now, it seems, are not quite to have full rights. They are going to be subject to certain restrictions; and unless these are applied with sympathy and understanding they may involve discrimination against a very worthy type of user.

1373
The Bill, while tolerating horseriders, does not give them the same statutory right of access in the future as pedestrians. Reading between the lines of the Bill, I cannot help but get an impression that the riders do not seem to be positively welcomed. Perhaps in the words of the late P. G. Wodehouse, if they are not disgruntled about the riders, they do not seem to be positively" gruntled ". I may be doing the authorities an injustice. I agree with my noble friend Lord Brooke-borough that riding is an excellent and healthy form of recreation. Almost all of this area is entirely suitable for this activity. Horseriders, from my experience, are generally responsible people and will respect a few sensible and understandable rules. They are unlikely to do any wilful damage. Can they not have the same statutory rights of access as pedestrians? I hope that my noble friend Lord Sandford—who knows a great deal about the problems of our national parks—will comfort and satisfy me that my fears are groundless.
3.36 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, it may be helpful—as my noble friend Lord Brookeborough asked for a Government view—to say that the Department of the Environment have examined this Bill very carefully. The Secretary of State has reported to Parliament about it and his points have been met in Committee. We have no remaining objections; but it is of course for the promoters of this Bill and my noble friend Lord Sandford to persuade Parliament—yourselves—that the powers they are seeking in the Bill are justified.
As regards the horseriding side, the promoters of the Bill stress that they have no intention of reducing horseriding, but only to ensure that it takes place without damage to the park and without undue interference to others who are enjoying recreational facilities. Furthermore, I must tell your Lordships that for technical reasons general access can only be given to horseriders by withdrawing the Bill and reintroducing it completely. We do not consider, therefore, that the Bill seeks unreasonably to regulate or curtail horseriding or any other sport. With regard to the point in the Royal Commission's report to which my noble friend referred, I will ask for indulgence
1374
and write to my noble friend further on the matter. I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Sandford for introducing the Bill and I wish him all success.
3.38 p.m.
Lord CLIFFORD of CHUDLEIGH: My Lords, as a Devonian and one who has probably ridden over Dartmoor more than anybody else in the House—that is subject to correction—may I say that, as I understand the Bill, there would be no disadvantage to those who are legitimately riding or hunting over Dartmoor as it is at the moment. Provisions are made to protect parts of Dartmoor from further dilapidation, to stop people from riding in places where they should not do so. Heaven knows!, there are lots of other places where they can ride, and it would be a good idea for their own safety if they do not go riding over Fox Tor Mire which Conan Doyle used in The Hound of the Baskervilles, because they would not ride any more after that!
3.39 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I do not think anybody is more "gruntled" than I am at horseriders, at the pleasure that they get from riding in the park, and at the fact that the numbers of riders enjoying the parks is increasing. But it is of course the very fact that the numbers are increasing which makes it impracticable, in the view of the Devon County Council and the National Parks Authority in particular, to continue the completely unrestricted de facto access by horse-riders all over the area with which this Bill deals.
The Devon County Council believe that they have got the balance right. They were able to convince your Lordships' committee that they had got the balance right. But I am sure they would join with me in being very willing to reconsider yet again with the British Horse Society—should they wish to petition again when this Bill goes to another place—whether the formula could be improved. I know that I speak for the promoters when I say it is their desire that this Bill should reach the statute book with the maximum agreement possible secured on it; so I can give that assurance.
I should like also to reiterate what I said in my earlier remarks to my noble

1375
friend Lord Brookeborough: namely, that this Bill is not a model or blueprint in the sense that the precise provisions which the Devon County Council think necessary for Dartmoor will necessarily apply everywhere else. There may well be other areas in the country where it will be possible for horse riders to have unrestricted de jure access as wide as the de facto access they have enjoyed hitherto. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL
3.42 p.m.
Lord MAIS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. We covered a considerable amount of ground during the Second Reading, but I should like to refer to Part II of the Bill in particular. Once again, this part of the Bill was designed to authorise the Corporation, in their capacity as conservators of Epping Forest, to grant the Minister of Transport interest and rights in the forest or on forest land to the extent of some 14½ acres which the Minister requires for the construction of the M.25—a motorway connecting, or running between, the A.10 at Bull Cross and the M.11. As was fully explained by the promoters on Second Reading on the 15th November, if this length of motorway is to be constructed on the land chosen, the road at that point will be built in tunnel, and that tunnel will run under Bell Common. I think it is fair to say that ultimately no harm at all will be done to the forest, but one must accept the fact that during the construction work the tunnel will be built by the formation of an open cut. There is bound to be some disfiguration for a period of time, but we are perfectly satisfied that when the back-fill takes place and the top soil is replaced, the forest can be restored to its normal beauty.
One or two questions were raised on Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. He put forward a query as to the length of the road and its passage
1376
through the forest and as to the effect it might have on the wildlife of the forest. This was considered very carefully and at great length by the Select Committee, which sat for five days under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, to consider the petition of the Upshire Preservation Society, who petitioned against Part II of the Bill. After hearing the evidence which was submitted by the promoters and the case by the petitioners, the committee were satisfied that Part II should be approved.
A further question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, concerned the reinstatement and restoration of the forest when the work was finished. This again was considered in very considerable detail by the committee, and they were satisfied that ultimately it would be restored. The recommendation was approved.
There were other provisions in the Bill which were unopposed by petitioners, and these were subsequently considered by the Lord Chairman, assisted by the noble Viscounts, Lord Hood and Lord Simon. They were satisfied with the promoters' proposals with regard to Part III of the Bill relating to Billingsgate Market. Subject to certain amendments to that part of the Bill, it was approved in committee.
They also considered Clause 18 of the Bill with regard to the Museum of London. This was to bring the museum into line with other local authority and national museums, so that the governors of the museum would be able to make a charge for special exhibitions and also to bring them into line with other museums should there ever be a change in Government policy relating to charges for ordinary admission. During the Second Reading I made it clear, I hope, to your Lordships, and it was certainly made clear to the committee, that there was no intention at this stage for the City of London Museum to make charges for ordinary admission. That point was likewise approved by the committee. I think that is all I can say at this stage to help your Lordships. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Mais.)
3.47 p.m.
Lord UNDERHILL: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Mais, has mentioned, I intervened at Second Reading of this Bill and it is not my intention to speak in opposition to its Third Reading, particularly as a committee has sat for five complete days and gone into this matter exhaustively. However, perhaps I should say that the petitioners have raised with me, purely as a Member of your Lordships' House, the whole question as to whether or not this matter should have been the subject of a Private Bill, on the grounds that the proposals can be of no benefit to the forest or to the City of London, as such. It may be of benefit to people in parts of Greater London, but it cannot be of any benefit to the forest. Your Lordships will he pleased to know that I do not intend to pursue this legal argument, and in any case it may have been better for this matter to be raised through the City and Corporation of London because, as conservators, I recognise that they have done a splendid job for the forest over the years. I am sure they will continue to do so, and even in this particular case they have mitigated any damage to the forest. I should like to place on record an appreciation of voluntary bodies which take up matters of this kind, because unless we have such bodies we could find ourselves in the hands of planners, who leave us with concrete jungles and damage a great deal of our heritage.
In a short while your Lordships will undoubtedly be dealing with the Heritage Bill. It is all right to have a Heritage Bill dealing with properties, but heritages such as Epping Forest, once damaged, cannot be replaced. Those of us who have taken a keen interest in this matter are concerned about the encroachment over the years. We are still worried about what might be the Ministry's decision regarding the links at the Leytonstone or Wanstead end of the M11 and what effect they will have on parts of the forest in those areas which have already been damaged by the encirclement byroads, and also whether there is likely to be any further encroachment upon the forest as a result of any major schemes in the future. One never likes to give stress to people, but I am certain that in Epping Forest there will be great concern if in the future there are to be any more
1378
large encroachments such as further six-lane motorways through Epping Forest. There will be a limit to how much we can stand, and I am certain that this House will need to keep very much in mind the name of Epping Forest if there are to be further encroachments of this kind.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, like my noble friend I am very jealous regarding the future of Epping Forest. Perhaps I have a special interest in it, because my back garden gate leads directly into the forest and I have the pleasure of walking through its verdant pastures and woods every morning. I feel that the City of London Corporation adopts a very responsible view in regard to its custody of Epping Forest. Epping Forest is a very well-managed slice of woodland which, in addition to being very well-managed, is allowed to remain virtually in its natural state, and I would hesitate to see any interference with the manner in which the City Corporation now exercises its functions over the forest. With particular regard to the roadworks which are now proposed, I think it is fair to say that the road does not go very far through the wooded part of the forest, but largely goes over grass-surfaced fields. Therefore, I have no fears whatsoever as to the future beauty of the forest if these proposals are allowed to go through.
3.51 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I should like to welcome on behalf of the Government the Committee's decision to allow Part II of this Bill. I should also like to take this opportunity to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, that we have no plans for major new roads crossing the forest, other than the one discussed in Part II of this Bill. The M25, as your Lordships know already, has the highest priority in the Government's road building programme and the section through Epping Forest forms an essential part of the whole.
This part of the route has been the subject of an extensive public inquiry. It was considered in detail by a Select Committee in another place and the Committee of this House spent five days

1379
giving it the most careful consideration. I hope that those who may be concerned about the Bill's effect on Epping Forest will now rest assured that the route of the M25 proposed is the right one and that everything possible is being done to safeguard the forest. Finally, I should like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Mais, on the admirable manner in which he has piloted this Bill through your Lordships' House and I should like to commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

STIRLING DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
3.53 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (The Earl of Mansfield): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Mansfield.)
Lord ROSS of MA RNOCK: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell me why we have these three Bills? This is the first of three. Every word in them is the same, every comma is in the right place and it really is a matter of changing the function of Scottish local government, including that of these three district councils, in regard to dealing with stray dogs. Under the 1906 Act that was the responsibility of the police. If the police are not doing their job in this respect, then why is it that within this Bill they continue to be given the task with local authorities? I do not necessarily disapprove of the Bill, but we need some explanation as to why we should have each district council in turn coming up with a confirmation Bill, which must be very expensive to them. After all, we should be concerned about their expenses in these days.
Perhaps the Minister can tell me how many district councils have already had such a Private Bill. Secondly, can he tell me how many more are coming? There is one other point which I should like to ask him about. In the year 1906, which is the year of the Act that is being suitably amended to include the district councils of Stirling and, later on, of Dumbarton
1380
and of Kilmarnock and Loudoun, there was a register to be kept by the police. Now, so far as I can see from the Bill, there are to be three registers; one kept by the police, one kept by the council and one kept by an institution to which the stray dogs may be sent. Of course, we have the best bargain of the century here, because in 1906 it cost one shilling to see the register and it will now cost lop. Taking the change in the value of money, and what happens in yet another confirmation Bill that we have before us, there is little difference.
Can the Minister tell me about these points? Would it not have been better to have a Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill with this included, without putting the local authorities to all this expenditure? Lastly, since we are so worried about the minimal cost of milk for children, will this be relevant expenditure for rate support grant, and how much will it add to the rate support grant bill that the Government are so anxious to cut down?
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I suppose that it falls to me to congratulate the noble Lord on what I imagine to be his first speech from the Opposition Front Bench. The compendiousness of my answer would have been a good deal greater if he had actually told me that on these somewhat esoteric matters he wanted to attract the attention of your Lordships. The position, as I understand it, is that the responsibility for the control of dogs—and if one looks at the schedule to the Bill one can see how it is designed and how it is set out—is, in effect, passing from the police to the district councils. One can see the various powers which under the Dogs Act are now to be vested in the district council.
This procedure is something which obtains in some parts of Scotland but not in others, and it is a matter for the district councils themselves. I am afraid that I frankly do not know the conditions in which these various district councils have made application, as it were, for legislation of this type. It is a matter for them to organise themselves in the way that they consider best, in the absence of all-embracing legislation. I really do not think I can reassure the noble Lord any further than that. I have no information as to the cost of this. I really do not

1381
think that it would be a matter for the rate support grant, and I certainly do not think that it will take any milk out of the mouths of the children of Dumbarton or of any of the other places.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: But, my Lords, surely the noble Earl can tell me who is going to bear the expenditure. The expenditure is going to be borne by the local authority. The Government have approved of their spending the money. At the present time, they have no place in which to keep the dogs. They will need dog catchers to catch them. It is going to be a matter of local authority expenditure. Surely the noble Earl can tell me whether or not this is relevant expenditure.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I really doubt whether the noble Lord is in order with these persistent questions. Perhaps I may be permitted to write to the noble Lord with the information which he seeks.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

DUMBARTON DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Bill read 3a, and passed.
GREATER GLASGOW PASSENGER TRANSPORT ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Bill read 3a, and passed.
KILMARNOCK AND LOUDOUN COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Bill read 3a, and passed.
SCOTS EPISCOPAL FUND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Bill read 3a, and passed.

BAIL ETC. (SCOTLAND) BILL
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(The Earl of Mansfield.)
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, I intervene only briefly to say a word or two on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey. I must confess that I cannot claim any expertise in Scottish law. I do not say that this is a virtue, but it enables me to respond all the more easily to the very appropriate appeal for brevity which was made a few minutes ago by the noble Lord, Lord Denham.
As the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate will know, on the last occasion upon which this Bill was before your Lordships my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey offered his apologies because he knew then that it would not be possible for him to be here this afternoon. I tender his apologies again this afternoon.
I know, however, that he would wish me not to let this moment pass without saying a very warm word of thanks to both Ministers concerned with the Bill for making amendments to the Bill and also for making, in earlier stages of the Bill, statements of intent in order to meet some of the points made by my noble and learned friend. He is very grateful for that. I know that he would also wish me to wish the new system of release on conditions, replacing money bail, every success.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, it would be churlish of me not to thank the noble Lord for his kind remarks. His noble and learned friend used approximately the same words at the end of the Report stage of the Bill and I could not think then of a way of reciprocating. However, I would ask the noble Lord to pass on to him the thanks of my noble and learned friend and myself for the constructive way in which he approached the Bill when it was before your Lordships' House.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

NATO LONG-RANGE THEATRE NUCLEAR FORCES
4.3 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, MINISTRY of DEFENCE (Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence. The Statement is as follows:
" With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to make a statement about the NATO Foreign and Defence Ministers' meeting in Brussels yesterday to consider proposals for modernisation of the Alliance's long-range theatre nuclear forces, and a parallel arms control offer. A copy of the communiqué issued at the end of the meeting is being placed in the Library.
" Faced with the rapid growth in Soviet long-range theatre nuclear capability, notably the deployment of large numbers of modern SS-20 missiles and Backfire bombers, at a time when the Alliance's own equivalent forces are increasing in age and vulnerability, we concluded that some modernisation of NATO's theatre nuclear capability is essential.
" The modernisation programme will involve the deployment in Europe of United States owned and operated systems comprising 108 Pershing II ballistic missile launchers, which will replace the same number of the existing Pershing IA, and 464 ground-launched Cruise missiles. All 14 NATO countries concerned have agreed to support the programme, and certain infrastructure costs will be met through NATO's existing common funding arrangements. As far as basing is concerned, Germany, Italy and Belgium, in addition to ourselves, have agreed to stationing, subject in the Belgian case to a six-month deferment of implementation while arms control developments are monitored. The Netherlands will take a decision in 1981 on deployment in their territory. The first deployments should take place in about three years' time.
" We will discuss with the United States where the 160 Cruise missiles
1384
to be deployed in the United Kingdom should be stationed; I will make a Statement about this as soon as practicable.
" As an integral part of the programme, we also agreed that the United States should withdraw 1,000 of their nuclear warheads from Europe as soon as possible, and that the remaining stockpile will not be increased as the 572 warheads associated with the modernisation programme are introduced.
" In parallel with this modernisation programme the United States will make an offer to the Soviet Union to begin negotiations on the limitation of both Soviet and United States land-based long-range theatre nuclear systems. The intention is that their bilateral negotiations should begin as soon as possible. They will be based on the principle of equality between both sides; any limitations will have to be adequately verifiable. The aim will be to contribute to a more stable military relationship in Europe, and hence a more predictable and manageable situation at a lower level of armaments. Because of the particular importance of these negotiations for the European members of the Alliance a special consultative body is to be set up within NATO to follow the negotiations on a continuous basis.
" Her Majesty's Government have, as I have earlier made clear, fully supported the Alliance effort to reach agreement on this programme, which I believe is essential if we are to avoid a dangerous gap emerging in NATO's theatre nuclear capability. Such a gap would weaken the Alliance's strategy of flexible response and so cast doubt on the credibility of our deterrent. The decision reached yesterday is a dramatic reaffirmation of the American commitment to the defence of Europe. This decision is also a demonstration of the cohesion and political will of the Alliance to respond to a growing Soviet threat and to resist a massive Soviet propaganda campaign. My right honourable and noble friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and I therefore regard the outcome of the Alliance's lengthy and careful deliberations as highly satisfactory. We must now hope that the Soviet Union are now willing to negotiate seriously on

1385
the limitation of theatre nuclear systems ".
My Lords, that is the end of my right honourable friend's Statement.
4.8 p.m.
Lord PEART: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement. It is a very important Statement and I am sorry that Her Majesty's Government have been deficient in providing parliamentary time to discuss it. No doubt noble Lords will have seen some of the very effective television programmes on this matter, but other countries in Europe have been debating it in their Chambers. Therefore, I should like to chide the Government for not offering time for the matter to be debated in Parliament. It is so important. We should have had discussions well before a Statement was presented to this House. As I have already said, other NATO countries have had parliamentary debates on this issue.
While there is consensus in the United Kingdom on the need for adequate defence and strong support for NATO, nevertheless there is a clear need for new initiatives on arms control, disarmament and détente, and I am glad that this formed a small part of the Statement which has been made today.
We on this side of the House strongly support pressing forward with SALT II and wish SALT III discussions to be started now. The House will recall that some time ago we had a debate on this matter. In that debate I stressed the importance of negotiations which would lead to détente. Our allies, the United States of America, are having important discussions and wish to continue the dialogue.
We must do all that we can to reactivate the talks on mutual and balanced force reductions, and we must be positive about this. We want to avoid a widening of differences. We want the two large Powers to get together and to have fruitful discussions. I hope that we can achieve this.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, the Government will certainly not be surprised to learn that we on these Benches warmly welcome this NATO decision, since the Parliamentary Liberal Party has already expressed its approval, while accompany-
1386
ing it with the demand that the whole scheme should be linked with proposals for negotiations with the Soviet Union on arms limitation. With the noble Lord, Lord Peart, we are happy to note that the United States will now take the initiative in this direction—an initiative with which, as we understand it, the European members of NATO will to some extent be associated.
We would however welcome a little explanation on how this method of negotiation will actually work. Will it in effect be the equivalent of SALT III? It is, after all, a decision of the first importance and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Peart, that it should have been discussed in this House before Christmas. In any case, will it now be embodied in a White Paper which we could have an opportunity of discussing immediately after the Recess? I see that the noble Lord, Lord Peart, is nodding his head. I also suppose that in such a debate the attitude of the Government will be clarified, if it has not been made clear already, on such important matters as whether the missiles stationed in this country will be operated under the so-called double key system and whether it will be possible or desirable—as some suggest—to lessen the vulnerability of missiles stationed here by placing at least some of them in small camouflaged merchant vessels?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, may I respond to those two comments first. My right honourable friend has, on a number of occasions in the last six weeks, said that he would welcome a debate, and I think we can take some credit in this House for having discussed this matter; indeed, we are going to have a further opportunity of discussing it next week. I admit that it is not a major debate such as we would wish. So far as the White Paper is concerned, I will draw the noble Lord's comments to the attention of my right honourable friend.
The noble Lord, Lord Peart, mentioned the mutual and balanced force reduction negotiations, which, of course, run continuously. But we hope and confidently predict that the result of this offer will galvanise those talks into slightly greater progress than they have been making recently. I think the implications of the Statement are that the SALT III negotiations would take place in a rather similar

1387
manner to the SALT II negotiations, but there has been this consultative body which would give some formality to our relationships with the United States, who will be negotiating, as it were, on behalf of the West. That is my understanding of the situation.
The noble Lord asked me one other specific question which I can answer. At the present time it is not envisaged that these missiles would be under a double-key arrangement. It would be a wholly American operated system, and of course it is mobile.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, would the possibility of stationing them on camouflaged merchant ships be discussed?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, so far as I know it is sites in this country which are being discussed at the present time.
4.13 p.m.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, the Minister has confirmed the question that I was going to put to him, that all these missiles, be they cruise or ballistic missiles, will be under American control so that they add nothing whatever to the Government's vaunted defence policy of having an independent deterrent, but in fact by being stationed here they add to the dangers to this country and indeed it increases the possibility that, should the Soviet Union react actively, we should be a "target for tonight "—we are that already, but it would be even more so. In which case, does it not become imperative to accede to the obviously reasonable request made by the noble Lord, Lord Peart—provided the Government have nothing to hide—to have an early debate so that these matters may be threshed out, not in the form of questions and answers, which is not satisfactory, but so that we may know the whole truth? In my submission, this policy is part of a smokescreen in order to placate Senate objections to getting SALT II. Militarily it is just a load of nonsense and just as much a load of nonsense as Polaris was as a successor to Blue Streak or to Skybolt; and as the penalty if things go wrong has to be paid by the British public is it not imperative that the British public
1388
should be informed in the first instance through a debate in this House or in another place?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord and I are likely to agree about the military assessment, so I will not attempt to convince him on that point. We believe that this agreement asserts the solidarity and the unity of NATO and that is really the easiest way to answer his misgivings about the increased risk to this country. So far as a debate is concerned, this is something which I think we should best take up through the usual channels.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I accept that and I hope there will be a positive response. I know that the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, is raising the matter at some time, but I think that the Government should provide time.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this Statement will be very warmly welcomed on these Benches? It underlines the fact that this is a NATO decision and the Americans are not imposing these missiles on an unwilling Europe. They are being warmly welcomed by all the NATO allies as a modernisation of the existing force. And is he aware that his Statement will do something to counter the propaganda in the media and other places—particularly on television—which is suggesting that the American President is somehow imposing this on Europe against our will? Is he aware that many of us have been alarmed by the success of the Soviet massive propaganda campaign which persuaded the United States and other NATO allies not to deploy the neutron bomb, and on these Benches we are delighted that the Government have taken no notice of that success but have gone ahead to make a modern nuclear deterrent in Western Europe?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. It is, of course, the importance of the reiteration of the American identification with the defence of Europe which pleases us in this Statement.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, in

1389
extending a welcome to the proposition, but there is a great deal to discuss before we come to a definite decision. One accepts the principle but—and I say this with respect—rejects the statement made by the Minister about this being an expression of unity in Europe, because obviously that cannot be said so long as France contracts out. Nothing has been said about that. There has been a great deal of talk in the Press about unity in the countries of the Nine and setting aside the reservations of the Dutch and the Belgians, but France—a nuclear power itself—has contracted out of NATO, so where does unity come in? I should like the Minister to express an opinion on that.
I want now to come to the question of negotiation. Let it be clearly understood that the primary purpose is not to provoke war or to engage in a conflict. The primary purpose is to create a deterrent; to say in effect to the Soviet Union: "You are strong—stronger than you require to be. You are forcing us also to become strong and therefore we must negotiate ". Will the negotiations always take place in private? Are the public, who are primarily concerned, to be excluded—particularly on issues such as verification, which is a very substantial element in these discussions?
There is a great deal more to be said about this and I hope we shall have a debate, but my final question is this. On the subject of infrastructure, are we to understand that the process of infrastructure will begin before there is a definite decision, say in 1983, because that would mean vast expenditure for communications and similar purposes that may have nothing to do with a future conflict at all? I ask that part of my question because, following the last war, some of the countries of the Nine were able to create communications of various kinds which have been used for the purpose of industrial development, to the detriment of the United Kingdom, when they were only intended for the purposes of conflict.
4.20 p.m.
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I have quite a number of questions from the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, which I will endeavour to deal with. Naturally, we regret the situation which has grown up over the
1390
years in NATO'S relationship with France. Conceivably this might be an opportunity for them to rejoin the alliance in full. This has not been mentioned; the noble Lord is quite right. The nature of the negotiations is something that is not yet settled; it is very early days.
So far as verification is concerned, I agree completely with the noble Lord about the need to convince the public of the credibility of verification. The great problem is that verification is in iteslf an extrenely sensitive area about which it is rather difficult to be entirely forthcoming. On the matter of infrastructure, my understanding is that the basic decisions to station these missiles are now taken in principle and will have to be taken in detail in the coming months. It is axiomatic, I would have thought, that if the missiles are gonig to be deployed in 1983, obviously it will be necessary to make certain infrastructure provisions to accommodate them when they finally arrive.
Lord BALOGH: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that American internal politics have played too large a part in this decision? Would he further agree that to re-arm and at the same time cut steel production capacity by 40 per cent, is folly?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I do not think that American internal politics have had anything to do with this. This has been a European matter largely led by this country.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt something which is of very great concern, but in view of the fact that we are slightly up against time and that the questions on this Statement have gone on for about 19 minutes, I wonder whether it would meet with the approval of the House if we were to move on, bearing in mind that my noble friend has said that he would be quite happy, through the usual channels, to consider a debate.

ISLE OF MAN BILL
4.22 p.m.
Read 3a, and passed.

BETTING, GAMING AND LOTTERIES (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
Lord NEWALL: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Lord Newall.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PAPUA NEW GUINEA, WESTERN SAMOA AND NAURU (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
4.24 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Papua New Guinea, Western Samoa and Nauru (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill be now read a second time. The essential purpose of this Bill, in the words of the Long Title, is:
"… To make provision in connection with the attainment by Papua New Guinea of independence within the Commonwealth and with the membership of the Commonwealth of Western Samoa and Nauru."
Before describing the contents of the Bill, I should like to trace very briefly the histories of the three countries concerned and follow by saying a few words about the reasons for the Bill's introduction. Papua, formerly a British Colony, was ceded to Australia in 1906. But it was not until 1921 that the Territory of New Guinea also came under the administration of Australia under a League of Nations Mandate. After the Second World War New Guinea was administered as a United Nations Trust Territory. On 16th September 1975, by the authority of the Australian Parliament, the two territories were united to form the independent State of Papua New Guinea. This State became a member of the Commonwealth on the same date, under the sovereignty of Her Majesty The Queen. Western Samoa, which had been administered as a Trust Territory, achieved independence from New Zealand in 1962; but it did not become a full member of the Commonwealth until 1970. Nauru, also a former
1392
Trust Territory, was until its independence in 1968 administered by Australia. It became a "special" member of the Commonwealth later that year. Nauru's Commonwealth membership is "special" only in that it does not participate in full—as distinct from regional—meetings of Commonwealth Heads of Government.
My Lords, as I am sure you will know, when British Colonies achieve independence from the United Kingdom and become members of the Commonwealth, their Independence Acts include provisions making consequential modifications to United Kingdom legislation. However, in order to achieve the same result for Papua New Guinea, Western Samoa and Nauru, which, as I have explained, were brought to independence by Australia and New Zealand, a separate Bill must be passed by this Parliament.
The proposed amendments to our legislation provided for in this Bill follow a well-established pattern. They flow automatically from the achievement of independence and membership of the Commonwealth of these countries. However, there is a particular problem which this Bill has been designed to resolve. That is the national status of the citizens of Papua New Guinea, Western Samoa and Nauru under United Kingdom law.
Until these three countries are designated members of the Commonwealth for the purposes of our British Nationality Acts, they are deemed to be foreign countries and their citizens are, strictly speaking, aliens. The Bill therefore includes a clause which adds Papua New Guinea, Western Samoa and Nauru to the list of Commonwealth countries in the British Nationality Acts, thus making their citizens Commonwealth citizens. It has not been possible, however, to backdate this provision to the date upon which each of these countries joined the Commonwealth. To do so would create confusion, since it would alter the status already enjoyed by a number of their citizens under our existing immigration laws. For example, leave of entry to the United Kingdom given under the Aliens Order, 1953, would no longer be valid for a person who became, retroactively, a Commonwealth citizen.
The Bill is also designed to resolve an anomaly which has arisen regarding the registration of births of children of United

1393
Kingdom citizens and deaths of such citizens which have occurred in Papua New Guinea since its independence. Since Papua New Guinea is until this Bill becomes law still technically a foreign country under the British Nationality Acts, these births and deaths may only be registered, under those Acts, in Consular registers. However, our mission in Papua New Guinea is a High Commission and not a Consulate, and accordingly has no Consular registers. This Bill, if enacted, will make Papua New Guinea a Commonwealth country under our law, and births and deaths occurring there may then be registered in the High Commission registers.
In order to deal with the births and deaths which took place there between independence and the enactment of this Bill, a provision is included enabling them to be registered retrospectively in the High Commission registers. We cannot extend this provision to Nauru or Western Samoa since we have no resident High Commission in either of those countries.
My Lords, the Bill now before the House contains, as I have said, modifications of United Kingdom legislation. It does not modify the laws of Papua New Guinea, Western Samoa or Nauru in any way, nor would it, given the independent status of these countries.
I now turn to individual clauses. Clause 1 adds Papua New Guinea, Western Samoa and Nauru to the list of Commonwealth countries in the British Nationality Acts. It confers the status of British subject and Commonwealth Citizen on the people of these three countries. Clause 2 enables births and deaths which occurred in Papua New Guinea since her independence on 16th September, 1975 to be entered in the appropriate registers of the British High Commission in Port Moresby. Clause 3 and the schedule provide for a variety of modifications to certain United Kingdom enactments. All of these amendments are consequential upon the attainment of independence and entry into the Commonwealth of Papua New Guinea, Western Samoa and Nauru. The changes are on the standard lines when a territory becomes independent and joins the Commonwealth. Clause 4 gives the short title of the Bill.
1394
My Lords, this is not a controversial measure, but it is long overdue. Happily, very few have been affected by its absence and those not seriously. The delay has been caused principally because the previous government were unable to give the Bill sufficient priority. Clearly this should now be given and that is why we have introduced it quickly.
The consequential modifications incorporated in the Bill place the three countries concerned on the same footing in our law as other members of the Commonwealth. It raises no new questions of principle and clearly should be delayed no further. Accordingly, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be read 2a.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
4.30 p.m.
Lord GORON WY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I rise simply to say that of course we welcome the Bill and appreciate the manner in which the noble Lord has moved the Second Reading. As he has said, Papua New Guinea, was brought to independence by Australia, in whose trust and within whose administration it remained until September 1975. It then became an independent State, but, because it was brought to independence by another State, the normal procedure of Independence Acts by this country did not need to be followed. Nevertheless, certain consequential amendments in our own law are necessary. The noble Lord has described them, and they are of course principally adjustments dealing with the status of citizens of PNG (Papua New Guinea), Western Samoa, and Nauru. The Bill does that by adding those three countries to the list of Commonwealth countries in the British Nationality Acts, as we have heard, making the citizens of those countries Commonwealth citizens under United Kingdom law.
As regards the second point that I should like to raise, I should like to ask a question. The Bill also deals with the registration of births and deaths—certain categories—which are normally a consular function. However, our office in Port Moresby is a High Commission and, so far as I know, we have no consulate there. Therefore, the Bill provides for registration of births and deaths in certain

1395
categories to be done in the High Commission in Port Moresby. However, we have heard that we cannot extend this provision to Nauru or Western Samoa, in neither of which have we a High Commission. I imagine that we have something in those countries—even in the delectable mini-State of Nauru. My question is what alternative provision for dealing with these questions of registration do we have for Nauru and Western Samoa?
We have dealt with the Papua New Guinea position, but so far as I can see we have no provision at all to deal with the registration of these births and deaths—the births of children of citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies in Western Samoa and Nauru and the deaths of such citizens—between the dates of independence which, in both cases I believe, precede that of Papua New Guinea, and the date of the enactment of this Bill. I am sure that we have administrative provision to meet the needs of those categories in those two countries. However, if it is a detail which the Minister is unable to give the House this afternoon we shall be well content if, in the normal alternative ways he makes available that information.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to the noble Lord for his helpful and friendly reception to the Bill. As regards the point that he has made, I am advised that no similar provision is needed for Western Samoa or Nauru, as the United Kingdom, as he has said, has no resident High Commission in either country. Moreover, so far as I know, no births of children born to United Kingdom citizen fathers have occurred in either of those countries. Should such births occur the person concerned could presumably obtain local birth certificates for the purposes of documentation. The lack of a High Commission birth certificate will not affect their citizenship or eligibility for a passport. I hope that those comments help the noble Lord. If I can add anything further I shall certainly write to the noble Lord.
Papua New Guinea, Western Samoa and Nauru are goods friends of the United Kingdom and highly-valued members of the Commonwealth. It is I believe right, therefore, that your Lordships should now ensure that these few remaining anomalies
1396
are removed without further delay, and that these three countries are placed, as they should be, on an equal footing in all matters regarding British law with other members of the Commonwealth. Accordingly, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CINEMATOGRAPH (FILMS) (COLLECTION OF LEVY) (AMENDMENT No. 7) REGULATIONS 1979
4.34 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I beg to move, That the draft Cinematograph Films (Collection of Levy) (Amendment No. 7) Regulations 1979, which were laid before this House on 29th November, be approved. I hope that it will be convenient for your Lordships if I speak to the second Motion in my name, relating to the draft Cinematograph Films (Distribution of Levy) (Amendment) Regulations 1979, at the same time. I shall then move the second Motion formally when we come to it.
First, perhaps I should remind your Lordships exactly what the levy is. The Cinematograph Films Act 1957–75 provide for a statutory levy (popularly known as the "Eady levy") to be paid by cinema exhibitors in Great Britain out of their box office receipts, for eventual payment to makers of British films and to certain specified organisations connected with the British film industry. The levy is collected by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise and is remitted by them to the British Film Fund Agency, a statutory body established under the 1957 Act, who carry out the distribution. The levy is thus generated entirely within the trade. The costs of collection and distribution are met out of the levy yield and there is no charge to public funds.
My Lords, I shall read fairly swiftly and I shall be able to provide a copy for the benefit of the Hansard reporters at the end of my speech. The rate at which levy has to be paid is prescribed in the Cinematograph Films (Collection of Levy) Regulations 1968, as amended. The

1397
standard rate is currently one-ninth of the amount by which the price of admission, net of VAT, exceeds 17½p. This portion of the net admission price which is not liable to levy was set at Is. 6d. in 1968; it was increased to 12½p in 1977 and to its present level last year.
The regulations also provide for certain exemptions, the most important of which is in respect of cinemas whose weekly takings are less than £1,100. This exemption limit was set at £400 in 1968 and has since been steadily increased to its present level. To avoid imposing a disproportionate burden on cinemas whose takings just exceed this figure, a levy of 25 per cent. of the excess of the weekly takings over £1,100 is imposed where this is less than the levy calculated on the basis of the standard rate. Assuming an average ticket price of £1 (net of VAT) this lower rate of levy applies where the weekly takings are less than £1,736.
The annual yield from the levy remained steady at about £5 million for a number of years in the early and mid-1970s, as higher seat prices offset a fall in cinema attendances. The falling trend of attendances was, however, reversed in 1978, when attendances rose by a quarter to 127 million, although it is impossible to tell whether this reversal is permanent or temporary. But the result was that the yield of the levy has now risen to about £7 million, even after recent changes in the regulations which were estimated to cut the yield by a total of £2 million. On most market projections the yield would rise still further over the next few years if there were no changes in the regulations. A large number of exhibitors have argued that this increasing burden on their profits is becoming intolerable. In response to these arguments the Government, together with the Cinematograph Exhibitors' Association, the Association of Independent Cinemas, and the Cinematograph Renters' Society (recently renamed the Society of Film Distributors) commissioned a report by a firm of independent accountants on the ability of cinemas to pay the levy. The report was also to consider whether changes in the levy collection regulations were required, and if so to recommend appropriate changes.
The report indicates that many exhibitors are operating either at a loss or at an
1398
unacceptably low profit margin, and that perhaps 350 cinemas (out of a total of some 1600) might fall significantly below break-even level in 1979–80. So the effect of continuing to charge levy at the current rate could well be to exacerbate the disturbing trend of cinema closures in recent years—closures which in many areas have effectively denied the public access to cinema films.
The Government have a statutory obligation, under the 1957 Act, to pay regard to the prevailing economic circumstances of both exhibitors and makers of British films in determining the rate of levy; and they are also obliged to consult the Cinematograph Films Council This has been done; and the Council have recommended, in view of the pressures exhibitors are under, that the adjustments to the rate of levy proposed in the first set of regulations now before you should be made.
In recommending the particular methods for affording this relief, the Council were mindful of the fact that increases in the levy-free portion of the ticket have failed to keep pace with increases in the price of cinema tickets generally. Because this levy-free portion no longer provides any effective relief for cinemas the Council endorsed the recommendation that the levy-free portion should be abolished and that the levy should be charged at a flat rate of one-twelfth of the cost of the ticket (net of VAT). This change by itself would reduce the amount of levy to be paid by all cinemas with a ticket price over 70p (net of VAT)—in other words, the vast majority of cinemas.
But the Council were also mindful of the importance of giving relief to the least profitable cinemas—primarily the smaller cinemas which attract smaller audiences, and which in general have a lower ticket price. It is for this reason that they also endorsed the accountants' recommendation for two further changes in the levy; an increase from £1,100 to £1,400 per week in the amount by reference to which total or partial exemption from the levy is allowed; and a reduction from 25 per cent. to 20 per cent. in the rate at which levy is charged for cinemas whose takings just exceed this exemption limit. Together with the changes I have already referred to, these changes will substantially reduce

1399
the burden of the levy on smaller and less profitable cinemas, while also providing some relief to the larger ones.
The effect of these measures taken together will be to reduce the expected levy yield in a full year by between £1.5 million and £2 million, depending upon market conditions. As I mentioned earlier, however, the yield from the levy has increased sharply in recent years, and without any changes in the regulations could be expected to rise still further. Even given the reduced yield resulting from the application of these measures, the amount available for distribution to film-makers will be close to or above the long-term average.
In summary, then, the purpose of the draft Collection Regulations is, first, to increase the amount by reference to which total or partial exemption from levy is allowed, from £1,100 to £1,400; secondly, to reduce from 25 per cent. to 20 per cent. the rate at which the marginal levy is applied; and thirdly, to change the normal rate of levy to one-twelfth of the ticket price (net of VAT).
I now turn to the draft Distribution of Levy (Amendment) Regulations. The present method for distributing the levy is prescribed in the Cinematograph Films (Distribution of Levy) Regulations 1970. These regulations provide, as I mentioned earlier, that after grants have been made to certain bodies—that is to say, the Children's Film Foundation, the National Film School, the British Film Institute and the National Film Development Fund—the remainder of the levy is to be distributed according to a formula which relates payments to the rental earnings of eligible films in Great Britain. "Rental earnings" are incidentally the amounts paid by exhibitors to distributors for the hire of films—which, because they are related to box-office takings, indirectly reflect the success of the film with the cinema-going public.
For the purpose of this distribution formula, eligible films are divided into three categories: high-cost long films; low cost long films; and short films. "Short films" are defined as films with a playing time of less than 33½ minutes—which corresponds apparently to 3,000 feet of standard 35 mm film. All other
1400
films are long films. "Low-cost" long films are films whose labour costs do not exceed £50,000; and all other long films are defined as "high-cost long films.
The regulations prescribe a different distribution formula for each class of film. The simplest formula applies to high-cost long films, which receive a levy payment proportional to their rental earnings. A more complex formula applies to low-cost long films, which, when the regulations were introduced, were generally made as second feature films. Because such films were typically allocated a very small share of the rentals, the formula provides that rental earnings should be inflated to establish a film's entitlement to payments from the levy. The earnings are inflated by multiplying the first tranche of earnings—up to a limit of £18,750, or the labour costs of the film, whichever is lower—by two-and-a-half. Thereafter levy payments are made at the flat rate. A similar logic lay behind the formula for short films. In this case, however, there is no limit; all rental earnings are multiplied by two-and-a-half to give the inflated earnings figure in proportion to which payments are made.
The film industry is of course not static; and it is only to be expected that a formula which has been in operation more or less unchanged for over 30 years will need to be revised to take account of changes in the industry. It is noteworthy that in earlier years the levy earnings of individual films were not published. Publication of these details was then arranged with effect from the levy year commencing in September 1978. The figures now published monthly have permitted informed debate, as was intended. Before proposing changes in the formula however, the Government are obliged to consult the Cinematograph Films Council. This has been done, and the Council considered in the light of the published figures that three particular anomalies had arisen.
First, the absence of a ceiling on the amount which can be earned by any one film means that in years when a "blockbuster" of a British film is released a very substantial amount of levy is paid out in respect of only one film. The most recent examples are "Superman" and "Moonraker"—good entertainment—which have already between them earned some £1·8 million from the levy. This

1401
reduces the amount available for other films: so that films which are moderately successful can suffer badly from being released in the same year as a "blockbuster when had they been released in some other year they could have received much higher payments. Moderately successful films, however, need the levy much more than "blockbusters"; for them it can be the difference between profit and loss—whereas "blockbusters "invariably earn very large sums internationally. The new draft regulations provide for a ceiling of £500,000 on the amount of levy any one long film can receive. This figure is, we feel, high enough not to reduce the incentive value of the levy in attracting film investment to Britain, but at the same time low enough to prevent any one film creaming off a quite disproportionate share.
The second anomaly is the application of the two-and-a-half times multiplier to the earnings of low-cost films. As I have said, this multiplier was introduced when second feature films were still commonplace: one cannot visit the cinema nowadays without realising that the second feature film as a separate genre is, by and large, a thing of the past. That is not to say that double bills are not still shown; but it is rare for films to be made intentionally as second feature films. At the same time an increasing number of low-cost films are released as first feature films, or in tandem with another low-cost film, and have in many cases proved commercially successful. It seems somewhat unfair that, purely on the grounds that they cost less to make, these films should benefit from the two-and-a-half times multiplier.
In addition, a recent development has been that one of the main beneficiaries from the multiplier has been cheap films, known in the industry as "sexploitation films ", which can be made without expensive stars or sets. Despite some Press comment to this effect, these films are not pornographic, as I understand the word—the British public is protected from public exhibition of true pornography both by the law and by the British Board of Film Censors—but it is distasteful that such films should benefit from levy payments at an enhanced rate. It has understandably been suggested that such films should receive no levy, but the levy system is not an appropriate medium for
1402
censorship—which already exists—and we do not want to set up another body to apply subjective standards of judgment. For all these reasons the draft Regulations provide that the multiplier for low-cost films should be abolished. This will remove the statutory distinction between low-cost and high-cost films; and with this simplification all long films will in future be treated alike.
The third anomaly revealed, which we seek to correct, is the application of the multiplier to the earnings of short films. In this case, the justification for the multiplier has not disappeared to the same extent. Unlike low-cost long films, short films cannot generally be shown as the main attraction, only as support to a feature film; and typically the feature film still receives the lion's share of the rental. But because the rental earnings of the whole programme depend on the popularity of the main feature rather than of the supporting short, an anomaly has arisen.
I can best explain this anomaly by illustrating it. A little-known short film about skateboarding called "Hot Wheels "—admirable entertainment for the young, no doubt—was circulated with the very successful film" Grease ", which was not eligible to receive anything from the levy because of its American origin; but "Hot Wheels" was British and therefore eligible. Because it was allocated its share of the rental earnings from the programme, and these earnings were multiplied by two-and-a-half to determine its share, this short film has received nearly £¼ million from the levy—many times its production costs and very much more than most long films can hope to receive.
While we can agree that some special treatment is required to encourage the making of short films, we cannot believe that this means that a few short films should be eligible for sums of this order at the expense of all other films. The draft regulations provide, therefore, that for a short film the two-and-a-half times multiplier will apply only until levy payments reach £30,000. They also provide that payments over £30,000 will be made at the flat rate; and that no short film should receive more than £50,000 from the levy.
In summary, then, the purpose of the draft Distribution Regulations is, first, to limit to £500,000 the amount of levy which any one long film can receive;

1403
secondly, to abolish the two-and-a-half times multiplier for low-cost long films; thirdly to limit the application of the two-and-a-half times multiplier for short films; and fourthly, to limit to £50,000 the amount of levy which any one short film can receive. I therefore recommend these two orders for the approval of your Lordships. I beg to move that the draft Cinematographic Films (Collection of Levy) (Amendment No. 7) Regulations 1979 laid before the House on 29th November be approved.
Moved, that the draft regulations laid before the House on 29th November 1979, be approved.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
4.50 p.m.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for explaining these two orders. May I assure the House that I will not take 14 minutes in replying to his speech, as I know that there is an important function later this afternoon. It is certainly very convenient for us to take these two orders at once, and I was grateful to the noble Lord for his explanation. Indeed, I found his explanation more satisfactory than the explanatory note attached to the two orders, which leaves one slightly bemused as to exactly the purpose of the two orders other than to alter the rates of levy for the reasons which have now been made clear by the noble Lord.
It is also clear that although the effect is of reducing the percentage of the levy, it will increase again as inflation will no doubt continue to push up the amount of levy collected each year as prices of cinema seats rise with inflation. Indeed, it seems that we have been considering every other year a variation in the amount of the levy and the way the percentages are calculated. I was also interested to hear from the noble Lord of the tendency for cinema audiences in fact to increase during the last year or two. I was grateful to him for explaining to us the anomalies in the provisions at the present time. As he said that he would, he did read his speech at a fairly fast rate, and I shall look forward to reading it at a slightly slower rate in Hansard tomorrow. I am sure that the House in general would agree with the proposed changes in these draft statutory instruments.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (DISTRIBUTION OF LEVY) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS 1979
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 29th November 1979 be approved.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT 1963 (MILK) ORDER 1979
4.54 p.m.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Weights and Measures Act 1963 (Milk) Order 1979 laid before the House on 29th November 1979 be approved. This order will allow liquid milk to be sold in an alternative range of prescribed metric quantities from 1st January 1980. The existing range of imperial quantities already prescribed under the 1963 Weights and Measures Act is not affected by this order since the Government do not intend to dictate the pace of metrication by phasing out these imperial sizes. Specifically nothing in the order prevents the trade from continuing to deliver the traditional and most popular pint bottle to the doorstep. This honours assurances given by successive Governments for the last 10 or 15 years.
The necessity for the order arises from our obligations under an EEC Council Directive, which I regret to say is commonly known as the "Liquids Directive ", which was adopted in December 1974. This Directive requires all Member States to remove any metrological barriers to the marketing of certain specified metric sizes of a number of pre-packed liquids. Of these, cows' milk is the only one for which the United Kingdom has restrictive legislation, since it is one of a number of basic foodstuffs which have long been required by law to

1405
be sold only in certain specified quantities as an aid to consumer protection. Although the Liquids Directive generally requires any restrictions to be removed within 18 months of its adoption the United Kingdom was allowed to defer implementation until 31st December 1979. This is why the proposed order has to be effective from 1st January 1980. We are also introducing for the first time an exemption whereby small quantities of milk below 50 millilitres may be sold in any size of pack. This is to avoid the possibility of an unwitting offence being committed through small packs which are essentially supplied for catering purposes finding their way to the retail market, as can happen.
It is by no means certain that metric packs will appear on the market in the near future, and it is unlikely that the doorstep pint will disappear for a very long time. Certainly the United Kingdom dairy trade have told us that there are no immediate plans to adopt any metric sizes. To cover the eventual possibility of shop sales in metric cartons, however, separate regulations are being made requiring all containers other than glass bottles to be dual marked, in both metric and imperial quantities. Noble Lords will also note that the special provisions for vending machine sales are restated in this order. This permits cartons containing less than half a pint to be sold in any size.
My Lords, this is a straightforward measure which does no more than we are required to do under the EEC Liquids Directive. It has full support from the trade by retaining the concept of the pint and the half pint, and the one-third pint, which I understand is very popular in the schools. Consumers' interests will be safeguarded by the dual marking requirement. My Lords, with that, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th November 1979, be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
4.58 p.m.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for explaining the provisions of this order. I am sure that noble Lords will be pleased to know that from 1st January 1980 it will become legal to purchase small quantities of milk in little individual packs.
1406
One wonders what happens if somebody wishes to purchase a quantity of milk which is more than 50 millilitres and less than 200 millilitres. One conceives that those who market such commodities might think of marking a two-cup pack instead of a single cup pack. Perhaps consideration ought to be given to whether we ought to be able to buy two-person packs as well as one-person packs. But I am sure that the people of Britain as a whole will be pleased to know of this new liberty of being able to buy these small portions of milk without committing an offence in doing so. I would in general terms commend this order to the House, but I should be interested to know whether the noble Lord has any comments to make on the possibilities of a two-person pack.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, we are grateful for the welcome we have had for this order from the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. I just wondered whether the noble Lord was stepping back into the previous debate about sex films, and that kind of thing, if he was wondering about two-packs. I am not sure what is the capacity of what the noble Lord was calling single person packs. He will be reassured to know that 100 millilitre packs of milk are legal now by this order. Nevertheless, I have not got the answer. I am not sure about odd packs—let us say 86 millilitres, or something like that—which may be a two-person pack, but I shall endeavour to find out and inform the noble Lord as soon as possible.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his remarks. My reading of the paper was that they were only legal at 100 millilitres if made up before 1st January 1981.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, the noble Lord is right; but the noble Lord and the House should know me better, and that we shall be back, I hope at these Benches, before that date.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACT 1963 (SOLID FUEL) ORDER 1979
5 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL rose to move. That the draft order laid before the House on

1407
29th November 1979 be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a small amendment to our weights and measures control over the way in which solid fuel is sold. For many years solid fuel, mainly coal and coke, has been sold in prescribed imperial sizes, the most common sizes being the half hundredweight and the hundredweight sack, though multiples of one hundredweight were, and still are, permitted. The Weights and Measures Etc. Act 1976, introduced by the previous Administration, authorised a parallel range of metric sizes. On the advice of the trade, provision was made for 25 kilogram and 50 kilogram sizes only, overlooking the need for a 100 kilogram size to replace the use of two-hundredweight sacks when solid fuel went metric.
This order, which has the support of all interested parties, simply authorises the use of "multiples of 50 kilogram" sizes. I hasten to add that this is a purely permissive order since, as I said in relation to the milk order, the Government's policy is to have no more compulsory metrication. The coal merchant and, I hope, the consumer, will retain his freedom to buy and sell in imperial or metric sizes. The order simply means that the metric range is as comprehensive as the imperial one.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 29th November 1979 be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for explaining this draft order and I am sure people will be pleased to know that it will be possible from 1st January to buy a 100 kilogram sack of French coal. I have always felt it very odd and regrettable that a country such as ours, which has had its industrial past built on coal, should be conceiving a situation when we would be wanting to buy 100 kilogram sacks of coal; but to conform with EEC regulations it is obviously right and necessary that this proposal should be agreed to.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I am grateful for the noble Lord's comments and I am sure that if he and I could between us lift a 100 kilogram sack of coal we should be very happy.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ENERGY POLICY: CSS REPORT
5.3 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of DURHAM The Lord Bishop of DURHAM rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have fully appreciated the multidimensional character of energy policy as set out in the Council for Science and Society report Deciding about energy policy, and if so what steps do they propose to take to ensure full public participation when making such policy decisions. The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, the Question which stands in my name is about decision-making, not about energy policy as such. Your Lordships' House has already had a number of excellent debates on various aspects of energy policy and I have no wish to waste the time of the House in traversing familiar ground. There are, however, questions to be asked about how policy is made in a field as complex as this, one which has so many ramifications into so many aspects of civilised life and which demands a time-scale far longer than the time-scale of normal political processes.
The report to which my Question refers makes the point that the way policy is made is part of the policy itself. Decision procedures reflect assumptions about what has to be decided, and in particular decisions which are heavily dependent on forecasts may easily fail to escape from the assumptions built into those forecasts, which are themselves simply a reflection of what is already being done. It is thus possible to become trapped in a vicious circle of unexamined assumptions and the only way of escape is to ensure that genuine alternative policies are explored by those who genuinely believe in them and who are given the information and facilities to enable the exploration to be serious and thorough. This is to my mind the strongest argument for public debate and I am glad to recall the point made in the present Government's election manifesto that there will be—
" the fullest possible participation in major new decisions ".
In this connection, I shall be interested to note in the reply to my Question whether the Government's intention, so we are told by this week's Press, to build 15 new nuclear power stations counts as a major new decision, and if so when we are to expect the fullest possible participation

1409
in making it. My main point, though, is that energy policy requires the fullest possible participation, not in order to placate the public, not because there are pressure groups which might otherwise create trouble, but because the only way of making sensible decisions which do not simply reflect the assumptions of those who ask the questions is to expose them to critical public discussion.
The Council for Science and Society, which produced the report, is not a pressure group; it is a body of distinguished scientists and others who try to look ahead at the ways in which scientific and technological issues interact with questions of social policy. One of its main concerns is to ensure that policy questions with a large scientific and technological component are not simply left to the experts. The dangers of this happening in energy policy are directly related to the complexity of some of the technical issues and the fact that some of the technical information on which sound decisions ought to be based is not easily available.
But these are not only technical issues. There are appallingly complex economic issues too, and social ones; issues of national and international growth and security; issues concerning personal and public risks; and very long-term issues which invite searching questions about what the report calls "our horizon of obligations ". No body and no Government department is expert in all these fields, yet they are all highly important, and what our report tries to do is to bring the many strands together and to show their interrelationship.
I must apologise for the jargon word "multi-dimensional ", but it is really the only one which makes the point. One of the basic insights of the report is that policy must necessarily deal with many factors which cannot all be measured on the same scale. This is one of the ways in which the Roskill Commission went wrong, in seeking to reduce all the factors in its inquiry to one dimension—money. The same thing could happen in energy policy if too much attention is paid to market factors and the sort of short-term differences between financial costs of energy as produced by different means.
Most practical problems are multidimensional, at least in the minimal sense, but multi-dimensional problems of the degree of complexity and importance and on the scale we are considering require rather special means of dealing with them if their multi-dimensional character is to be preserved, and the assumption underlying my Question is that our present means are inadequate.
I have no wish to weary the House by going through the criticisms already made of some of our present procedures for trying to ensure full public participation. The Windscale Inquiry has been subjected to detailed scrutiny and there seems widespread agreement that in some respects that inquiry has been found wanting, not least because its scope was limited. The phrase "salami politics "has been coined to describe this kind of decisionmaking—a slice here and a slice there, until the really controversial slice in the middle stands revealed as inevitable. So a decision about nuclear reprocessing, followed by a decision about a major expansion of fission reactors, could make the eventual case for the breeder reactor incontrovertible. The Belvoir inquiry seems likely to suffer from the same fault of having a limited scope.
I fully accept the conventional wisdom of trying to decide policy not in some grand, general way, but by concentrating on a particular project, in a particular place. But the trouble with that method is that, by the time a particular project is ready to trigger off an inquiry, and a particular place has been selected for the procedures to apply to, some of the major decisions have already been made. The commitment to the project, whatever it is, is already too great for a genuine alternative to be presented with any conviction. There is often a further problem, too: that in these highly technical spheres most of the available expertise and resources are to be found among those who are already committed to the project. So limited local inquiries have their shortcomings. But, if we go to the other end of the scale and try to make policy through some standing commission, or other high-level body of experts, the whole thing can easily become too remote from the actualities of decision-making.
If I may, I wish to draw your Lordships' attention to another report, produced

1411
jointly by the Council for Science and Society, Justice and the Outer Circle Policy Unit. This proposes—and I quote the sub-title—
" A new procedure for the impartial investigation of projects with major national implications ".
The report is entitled The Big Public Inquiry, and has already been the subject of a Question in another place. It uses as its major illustration the kind of procedures which might be appropriate in deciding whether or not to build a demonstration commercial fast reactor. Very briefly, it proposes a two-stage procedure for making general decisions about a specific project. This procedure would be preliminary to a normal local planning inquiry, which would then simply have to decide the particular issues concerning the actual place where the project might be sited. The first of the two preliminary stages would be investigative—a thorough exploration of the issues, with agreement between differing parties on the relevant questions, and a full sharing of information. The key to the idea is that when that investigative procedure had been completed no more information would be allowed in to upset the applecart at a later stage, unless genuinely new information became available; but there would be an equal sharing of the information on which decisions had to be based.
Then there would be a second, briefer phase—the adversarial phase, leading to a full exposure of the issues for eventual decision by Parliament. The method is set out in detail in the report, but I shall not expound it any further because it is not my purpose to commend this particular method. I simply want to make the point that other methods besides the ones at present used are perfectly feasible and might have great advantages over the present ones. In fact, in preparing for the debate I was interested to discover that the Town and Country Planning Association put forward very similar proposals, again with reference to the commercial fast reactor, very shortly after the end of the Windscale inquiry. They summed up in rather a nice sentence, which I wish to quote to your Lordships. They said:
" The whole wedge should be examined, not just the thin end ".
My Lords, this is a subject on which it is possible to say a great deal, but I am
1412
aware of the pressures under which we are working. I am also aware that there are many here who know much more about the subject than I do. However, I hope that I have said enough to indicate that many different groups of people, people who are by no means all of one point of view, are looking anxiously to Her Majesty's Government for some indication of how these immensely difficult problems are going to be tackled.
5.16 p.m.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, we are very much indebted to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham for introducing this debate. He has done something which I should have thought was almost impossible; namely, started in your Lordships' House a debate on energy on an entirely new level, doing it in a way which I think your Lordships will appreciate because many of the debates we have had have necessarily been technical. They have dealt with the details of what sort of reactor we might consider suitable, with questions of whether solar energy or wave energy is the right source to use, or whether we should have coal, oil or whatever it may be. But the right reverend Prelate has rightly and wisely placed the emphasis upon the decision-making process, on how we look at these problems, and anyone who has been at all concerned with energy over the last few years—and in one way or another we all have—has, I am sure, been struck by the fact that we have as many different views as we have advocates of the different forms of energy. We can have all kinds of different ways of dealing with the matter, but when one listens to the arguments that are put forward one finds that almost invariably they are put forward on a technical plane which is very difficult for the ordinary person to follow and understand. Consequently, all of us tend to take a point of view and say, "Ah! nuclear energy is bad"; or, "The fast-breeder is the only conceivable solution"; or, "Let us rely upon solar energy".
But of course the fact is that it is impossible at any given time to state that there is only one form of energy to be used. It is quite impossible to say that any one of us can give an absolutely firm and definite answer. I have noticed frequently on TV that when experts have been asked to give

1413
their opinion—and they are very good experts; we have had people from places such as Windscale giving excellent evidence—they are obsessed with their own point of view, and that they are therefore inevitably judging matters from a standpoint which has already been decided by their background. I understand that the report to which the right reverend Prelate is drawing our attention is attempting to say that we ought to have proper discussion—discussion by everyone—but the experts ought to be expected to produce their evidence, not just as advocates of a particular cause but in order to present what they know so that the rest of us can consider and make our decisions. If this could be done, I believe there would be a very great advantage.
The right reverend Prelate has referred to the Windscale Report. I think it is perfectly clear that that type of inquiry is extremely expensive, is time-consuming, and does not really do the job that we want done. You still have to have the decisions made outside such an inquiry. That type of inquiry is not the best way to get at all the facts. But, my Lords, if we look at other countries we do not find that the position is any better. The American position is not at all good, and the recent Kemeny Report has revealed the complete inadequacy of the controls in that country. I have no doubt, knowing the Americans, that they will take all steps to remedy that, and to get a very much better procedure. But the fact is that they have gone ahead with a vast programme based on inadequate discussion, on very little knowledge of the details of what can take place, and with a tendency on the part of the experts to dismiss all criticism before they know whether or not that criticism is valid. This is something which we cannot afford to have happen in regard to an energy policy.
We are embarking now, apparently, on a large energy policy. I have no doubt that the noble Earl will be able to enlighten us later on as to whether this policy is as indicated in the Press. If so, then it seems to me that, as the right reverend Prelate suggested, there is a very good case for a proper participation and inquiry into the matter, because the programme which is talked about is one involving the use of the pressurised water reactor. The pressurised water reactor has a record of poor success, to put it mildly,
1414
almost all over the world. It is true that it has been extremely powerfully sold, but it has not been a high success. In fact, I am told that a great deal of effort has had to be used in the United States of America by their nuclear industry in order to patch up the defects of the pressurised water reactors.
France is banking on the pressurised water reactor. I was over there at the beginning of September, and spent two days looking at their nuclear energy programme. Frankly, I was rather appalled. It seemed to me that they had gone ahead in a way which was extremely risky. They were planning to build 45-gigawatt reactors by 1985, commissioning five a year. No country has ever done such a thing. The Kemeny Report in America reveals that one of the biggest troubles that they had at Three Mile Island was an inadequately trained staff to operate the reactors, apart from the fact that there were faults in the reactors. I find it difficult to believe that the French will succeed in training enough people to commission five reactors a year. It is a mighty task; no other country has ever done it.
My Lords, these are technical details, and I do not wish to go into the technical side because I think that the importance of the Question which has been asked by the right reverend Prelate is that he asks for policy consideration. My Lords, policy consideration is something which naturally involves finding the right sort of machinery, and the right reverend Prelate has referred to one type of machinery. I wonder whether we could think of another possible type. I throw out the suggestion. I cannot pretend that I have thought it out in detail, but your Lordships' House has decided that it will set up a Select Committee on Science and Technology. Such a committee would in effect be a sort of Standing Royal Commission, and there is no reason why such a committee should not undertake as part of its work the steady and continuous examination of the problems of energy.
My Lords, if this were done, it would have the advantage that it would use a number of Members of your Lordships' House well qualified to help in the investigation; it would have the right to call evidence from civil servants and industry;

1415
and I believe it would be using the time of your Lordships' House in a very profitable way to do a very serious job, a job of great importance. Of course, if this were done it would not be the whole story. I would regard this as just a beginning because I believe that to follow out further what has been proposed in this booklet we must also have continuous relations with people throughout the whole country. It is not just enough for a group of people to sit here in Whitehall and reach decisions, however excellent they are, unless they can go out, or can send people out, to discuss with people all round the country, where-ever proposals with regard to energy are being considered, and to have informed discussion. I am told that in Canada they are doing something of this sort, and I would suggest that we might give consideration to this matter.
I do not want to detain your Lordships any further; I merely want once more to thank the right reverend Prelate for what he has said and for introducing this debate. I hope very much that the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, will be able to give us some sort of reassurance that the Government will look at new methods of consultation and participation.
5.27 p.m.
Lord TANLAW: My Lords, we on these Benches are grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham for asking what is a very timely Question concerning public debate. I believe that the report, Deciding about energy policy, produced by the CSS, is a very helpful one. It will be a handbook for all energy spokesmen, and a useful tool for public debate. I was particularly impressed by its objectivity and by the way the evidence was given. The authority of the distinguished contributors to it makes this a worthwhile book to be used at seminars and at public discussions similar to those that the Bishop of Brecon and Swansea, as my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran has just informed me, carried out successfully a year ago at Cardiff, where he was rapporteur.
We on these Benches are in some difficulty regarding the general tenor of this debate, because I had hoped to pursue the line of questioning started in the last
1416
debate on this subject on 20th November, and it is with some regret that I have not received a reply to the rather fundamental questions which were then put forward from these Benches regarding the Government's position on energy policy and the particular areas which I specified. I therefore think it is appropriate that I do not continue with this line of questioning until I hear from the noble Earl in more detail about the Government's position, but should perhaps concentrate on some of the moral issues which energy policy raises which, to my knowledge, have not been discussed before.
My Lords, the subject matter of this debate is that there should be full public participation in making policy decisions regarding energy. The Liberal Party supports this now, as it has always done; but one has to ask: if a Member of your Lordships' House has difficulty in obtaining what amounts to fairly basic information, what chance has an ordinary member of the public got to obtain similar information in order to take an intelligent part in public discussions on energy matters of the kind referred to by the right reverend Prelate? Proper information must be made available if the term "public debate or inquiry" is to have any meaning at all, and the withholding of it, or the apparent inaccessibility of it, often leaves doubts and creates fears in areas where none should exist at all. It is because of this that my honourable friend in another place and others have put before Parliament the Freedom of Information Bill. If this is successful in passing through Parliament, then there will be an opportunity and a greater chance for members of the public to have a right of access to this information, which apparently is so difficult to get—and I shall come on to this point a little later.
The noble Earl is on record as saying that the nuclear question may become the burning issue of the 1980s; and I am inclined to agree with him. But at present there is so much mystery surrounding the nuclear business, or its presentation is of such a complex nature, that many misunderstandings and unnecessary fears have arisen around it. This does not mean to say that there is not very real concern about the hazards and the methods of safety in nuclear power generation. We believe that full public debate and discussion will resolve a lot of these issues that are worrying people today,

1417
provided that it takes place quickly. The nuclear industry has yet to prove conclusively, through a public inquiry, that it is capable of raising the temperature of water above boiling point without endangering the health and safety of present or future generations. I have every confidence that if a public inquiry is instigated the nuclear industry can provide this proof, not only on its past record but on its future intentions.
This debate initiated today by the right reverend Prelate does give us an opportunity to resolve what, for me, is more a moral problem than any other. Those individuals and organisations generally opposed to nuclear power have indicated on occasions that there may be something different about suffering injury, death or bereavement as a result of a nuclear accident as opposed to that arising in any other industry. I personally cannot distinguish between those 10,000 families in Gujurat or the 2,000 in Northern Italy who suffered loss, injury or bereavement through the bursting of a hydro-electric dam and those very few families who have suffered similar tragedies from accidents arising through the nuclear power industry. This is a straight moral issue as I see it; and it would be most helpful if perhaps on some later occasion the right reverend Prelate could state whether he makes, or can make, a distinction on any grounds whatsoever between the effects of accidents that could occur in the nuclear industry and those that have occurred outside it.
My Lords, there is one particular part of the report to which I should like to draw attention. It is that part which mentions (in Part III Section 17) the carbon dioxide problem and its potential effects on the global weather system. I am delighted from these Benches that this has been recognised as something that should be considered in all energy policies at an international level, where it belongs. There is further reference in the same section to the environmental damage due to sulphur and dirt from the conversion of fossil fuels. We entirely agree with the report that similar monitoring of these sources at atmospheric pollution should he maintained at the same level as that of the monitoring of the nuclear processes.
My noble friend Lord Thurso made mention of this on the last occasion
1418
that we discussed the matter in this House. This aspect of fossil fuel pollution was highlighted in a recent article entitled "Acid Rain" in the October edition of Scientific American. The article goes into some depth about the problem created by tall chimney stacks pumping sulphur and other noxious chemicals into the upper atmosphere. It is disturbing to learn that the sulphur emissions from one copper/nickel smelter in Sudbury, Ontario, Canada, amounted to 1 per cent. of the total annual emissions throughout the world. These emissions equal the amount emitted by all the volcanoes in the world in any one year.
Industrial units of this type can avoid local anti-pollution Acts by dumping their pollutants into the upper air stream, when they are then carried thousands of miles across the ocean on to the land mass of Europe. It may be of interest to the right reverend Prelate that perhaps the defacement of the figures on the western facade of Wells Cathedral could, in some part, be due to the acid rain carried across the Atlantic from emissions arising on the other side. It occurs to me that perhaps the right reverend Prelate may conduct an interesting study, through the good offices of the Church of England, to discover whether, if similar acid attacks occur on the stonework of the churches, they occur more on those buildings which face the Atlantic airstream than on those which are subject to winds from other points of the compass. I have a feeling that micro-analysis of the raindrops, if proved to have originated from the other side of the Atlantic, could have interesting implications under international law.
This raises another moral question. Is there any difference between the skipper of a marine vessel which dumps oil outside territorial waters and through wind and tide pollutes the shores of another country, and a fossil-based industry or power station which dumps its polluting chemicals into the upper atmosphere so that they fall outside the national boundaries and legislation of the country of origin?
The same article to which I have referred goes on to show that industry and power generation in the United Kingdom may also be responsible for acid rain and other environmental problems in countries as far away as Finland, Sweden and Norway.

1419
I have attempted to obtain confirmation of this from the CEGB. However, I have not been successful; but there were indications of classified internal reports, instigated by the CEGB, which contain evidence of atmospheric emissions and potential health hazards created by fossil-fuel-burning electricity stations. Perhaps the noble Earl can confirm the existence of such reports and advise me whether they will be available for public access; or, if not, whether they will be released and the information contained in them be given to the general public for the inquiries envisaged by the right reverend Prelate. I ask this simply because there is a possibility that the CEGB may not wish to increase its generation costs by being forced to install more scrubbers or cleaners on its chimneys than are absolutely necessary. If the nuclear debate is to have any meaning and comparative costs are to be made between, say, the PWR and fossil-fuel generation at the turn of the century, then both sources of power generation must maintain the same high health and safety standards and all the costs that go with it.
Finally, my Lords, I come to the question of conservation and the need for public awareness. As I have said before, it is impossible to implement a successful conservation policy unless the general public is made conscious of a need for it. For instance, from a recent survey in the United States, it would appear that 120 million people (that is, more than half the population) were not aware that the United States imported more than 50 per cent. of its oil requirements. Therefore, and understandably, they see no need for conservation or to accept increases in the retail cost of refined petroleum products. Closer to home, I wonder, if a similar survey were taken in this country, what percentage of the population would know that from the evidence available so far the United Kingdom will become again a net importer of oil by the 1990s. We believe that the Government have an urgent task ahead to inform the public of as many of these facts as possible if they are to obtain the co-operation required for the implementation of a successful conservation policy.
As has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, discussions with scientists who are knowledgeable on the
1420
subject must form part of this information process. The difficulty is that in the past scientists, in the same way as experts, have been more fallible than articulate. Their difficulty has been to communicate with non-scientists. This is a challenge to the science section, so to speak, of the energy industry. They somehow have got to overcome the restrictions that they have put upon themselves before now, and manage to communicate to the general public, without losing their integrity, some of their fears and some of their assertions, in order that the public debate is not to be based on the wrong foundations.
5.39 p.m.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, my speech is going to be disjointed because there are several matters which I wish to mention briefly, but I should be able to do this in well within 10 minutes. First, I should like to support the view that the public at large should be brought into the energy debate. This does not mean more public inquiries: they are expensive and I think a waste of time, partly because they are usually dominated by extremists who decide emotionally what they feel and then look round for one-sided arguments to support their view. What is wanted is a continuous dialogue so that when the Government have to make a decision it will be seen against an informed background.
I do not want to discuss nuclear power today but I should like to repeat three things that I have said previously. The energy picture must be looked at worldwide. Whatever economies we make here or in the West, the demand for energy by developing countries will increase; consequently, so will that of the world as a whole. The use of oil does not require high technology. It is therefore better if, as far as possible, the West makes economies on oil and uses nuclear power, thus leaving more of the oil to the developing nations. This philosophy has the added advantage that nuclear power would be safer in the hands of the developed countries.
I have some sympathy with the Governments who are being prodded to adopt alternative energy sources. At present it is too early to decide which horse to back. However, this is no excuse for doing nothing, particularly in the energy con-

1421
servation field. I was amazed to find out from the Answer to a recent Starred Question that the Government have no immediate plans for improving the standards of insulation in new houses. They are still considering and consulting. The reasons for this are, I imagine, threefold. In the first place, the number of new houses which are being built is a very small percentage of all our existing stock, and therefore for a long time the possible energy saving is correspondingly small. But this applies to almost all possible economies.
Secondly, any increase in housing prices, however small, is unwelcome politically, particularly at this time. Thirdly, the building trade as a whole is not yet geared up to build better insulated houses. There is one champion, fat red-herring about increased condensation. This is just not a problem for any degree of improved insulation which might be considered by the Government; in fact, the reverse is true. The reason, presumably, why this is mentioned is that condensation can increase if ventilation is reduced beyond a certain point. I should like to say much more on this point, but I hope I have said enough to convince you that, at the very least, the Government ought to announce their intention of bringing in improved standards of insulation for houses.
Lastly, I should like to deal with district heating from power stations. I had an Unstarred Question down on this subject but was persuaded to withdraw it because of the lateness of the hour. The Government have seen what I was intending to say and I have read the Minister's proposed reply. However, I should like to mention the subject briefly today. It is a potential winner in energy saving, but its implementation is difficult. In rather simple terms, the argument for it is as follows. The efficiency of an electric power generating station is only about 35 per cent. Apart from a comparatively small amount of heating loss to the boiler chimney, the rest goes out with the condenser cooling water. This waste heat could be used for district heating. If it is taken at a high enough temperature to be directly useful for district heating, the efficiency of electrical generation declines. Nevertheless, the overall saving in energy is likely to he of the order of 30 per cent.; in other words, we should need only one ton of
1422
coal instead of 1·40 tons to provide the same useful energy output compared with separate electricity generation and separate district heating.
District heating is relatively common in other countries: for example, it provides around one quarter of domestic heating in Denmark and Sweden; and in the latter country 60 per cent. of this comes from electricity generating plant. We have had at least two high-level reports on the subject, both favourable. A major difficulty is that at present it is very costly to dig up the streets in an existing urban area to provide heat distribution mains, and to be worth while a large urban population is needed.
I say again to the Minister that further ink and brain power should not be spent on in vacuo studies. What is needed is action to see where such a scheme could reasonably be introduced, now or in the future. The siting of new power stations and district heating for new conurbations should be considered in this context. Perhaps the loss of efficiency in a smaller power station might be acceptable. I am not saying that economic studies are not needed for each case, but I maintain that they should be made only in the context of finding a solution. Bearing in mind that several Ministries are involved in this matter, might it not be a good subject for the new House of Lords Committee on Science and Technology? My Lords, I am sorry that I have rather rushed through that speech; but I have managed to make it in seven minutes.
5.47 p.m.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I shall try to emulate the noble Viscount. I should like to thank the right reverend Prelate for giving us this debate and in particular for drawing the attention of the House—and I hope giving it much wider publicity—to this excellent study by the Council for Science and Society. They have done something I have been anxious should be done for a great many years. I mean that it is excellent. It is informative and one can turn to it like a handbook to get information on the present status of various alternative sources as well as nuclear energy, oil and coal. By and large, I accept the evaluations of the existing status. I would add that that status might be changed if Government

1423
policy is to direct a great deal more rigours towards energy projects. The study has been badly needed in a situation in which decision about energy policy has been singularly inept.
The credentials of the study group are impeccable. It is an interdisciplinary group, so it encompasses not only the knowledge and insight of scientists in the energy field, but those of social scientists, environmentalists and others. It spells out scientific facts and covers alternative sources. So one can turn to it as a very responsible handbook on what we are talking about.
I am not going to deal with the technicalities, like the noble Viscount. I would be highly tempted to deal with some of them to advertise my particular interest. But I am not going to deal with the technicalities, I am going to address myself—as we should be doing in this debate—to the purpose of the study itself, the decision-making process. I say this with great confidence in your Lordships' House, which I regard—whatever people outside may think about it as the House of the past—as the House of the future. I keep on repeating that it is the House of the future and we are responsible trustees for posterity. The other House has too many preoccupations and the Government are too much preoccupied with the urgencies and the exigencies of the day. We here can at least take up the longer term.
This is what the report says:
" Let the policy-makers make their decisions with all the authority with which they are invested—but only in the limelight of the widest possible debate on all relevant aspects of the subject based on the best information available ".
It points out:
" Energy is one of the most difficult problems facing modern industrial democracies: how to reach decisions on matters which are technically sophisticated and complex and which yet deeply affect entire populations over whole generations. In this respect, our political processes have failed to keep pace with the rapid advances of technology itself ".
I want to say very strongly myself that Homo faber, Man the Maker, has out- stripped his alter ego, Homo Sapiens, Thinking Man, and that the divergence is now becoming alarming. Societal man and his social managerial institutions are completely ineffective; so we are diverging
1424
from what man is capable of doing in material terms and potentially destructive terms, and at the same time the institutions by which we should be judging and managing are falling behind.
That is why there is this widespread concern among the public. They are aware of this. They think they are not being brought in sufficiently, not just for consultation but they believe that somehow technology is running away with them and with us. That is why we have the increasing care, which I am delighted to see, about the quality of life. This is one of the choices in decision making; what is the quality of the life we are putting at risk and how shall we enhance or protect it? Why do we have these protest movements? Why do we demand, and properly demand, environmental impact inquiries? We shall go on having demonstrations like those at Torness about building the gigantic nuclear power station. I assure the right reverend Prelate that if we are going to have 14 nuclear power stations we are going to have a lot more demonstrations before people are reassured.
What is happening—and it has been happening, I should say, since the end of the war—is that the public at large do not trust the experts. At one time a scientist was vested with great authority. He was objective, he was a realist and what he told you was presumably the best of his knowledge. But that is no longer true; I assure your Lordships that it is no longer true. That is why we have to rehabilitate, through processes we are discussing here, the scientists. Today, the public, by and large, in all these debates and in any part of the world—and I have taken part in debates in many parts of the world—regards the scientists as interested parties and as hired spokesmen who, if they do not positively pervert the facts, prevaricate. The public do not feel—this was demonstrated by the nature of the inquiry—that they are getting from the experts, from the authorities and from the expert witnesses the insight on which they should be basing their judgments.
This is in fact a very serious problem, because I have talked in this House before about the nature of nuclear superstitions and how the whole thing happened. We have these natural—I say "natural "—misgivings, amounting to superstition. about the unseen, the untasted, the unsmelt,

1425
the unfelt, the all-pervading. The only answer to any superstitition is the rational facts. If the repositories of the rational facts are not trusted and if the scientists are not believed, how on earth can you blame anyone for being "superstious ", and indeed putting obstacles in the way of what the programme should be?
The other point is—I can demonstrate this factually at great length—that so much of what we have been receiving in the way of technological justification not only in the nuclear fields but in many other fields as well, has been ignorance masquerading as knowledge: that is to say, the experts have not admitted that they do not know. They have proceeded on assumptions from the base on which they started, and we have finished up either with disasters or with incidents such as the fall-out from the H-bomb, so that we have ended up with a complete discrediting of the experts. Claude Bernard said, over a century ago:
" True science teaches us to doubt and in ignorance to refrain ".
He was not saying that science should be discouraged but that wisdom would demand that advancing from one new discovery to beyond another was like venturing into an uncharted minefield with a mine detector and making sure of every foothold. That is all we ask—that we make sure of every foothold. We want public assurance and we do not want bed-time stories.
We have heard very much about overkill in the military field, but we are also now seeing possible overkill in peaceful uses. That sort of thing we want in the judgment and policymaking: we want to be quite sure that we really do need more and more nuclear reactors. I am not now discussing the merits of reactors, but I am discussing this quantitatively, as to whether they are necessary. We get the word from the interested parties—oh yes, we get the word. What is discussed in this report is the need for all the options to be deployed; not just to encourage or determine the cost, and so on, but also to build in these guarantees of quality as against quantity.
This is a very important subject. I want to support the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Wynne-Jones, that here at least we have a handbook that we should put on the table as an example to
1426
the new Select Committee, when we get it. We will not be in that great public debate, but at least we will be the people who will be able to judge and determine what in fact is required and what is to be fed into the hopper of public discussion.
5.58 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EMPLOYMENT (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, I too, am indebted to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham for drawing our attention to this admirable report by the Council for Science and Society. Perhaps I should say, as no one else has mentioned it and he himself was too modest to do so, that the right reverend Prelate was a member of the distinguished body which composed the report. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, that it is a good study, thought-provoking, objective and full of fresh insights into what has become in recent years a very live subject.
The Government are keenly aware, to use the jargon, of the "multi-dimensional nature of energy policy ", and the issues raised in this report are very much the continuing concern of the Department of Energy. We find ourselves in agreement with the CSS in a number of important areas, although there are some areas where we might differ. Nevertheless, it is an important study and I commend the group for their impartial and objective analysis of the energy problem and the energy policy-making process.
Of course, we believe that wider discussion about energy issues is important. It is also important that discussions are well informed and constructive. The Department encourages the dissemination of information relevant to important energy issues, and our record in this area is good. There is today a wide range of Energy Papers and Fact Sheets on which the public may draw. For example, if I may say this in response to the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, about 40 Energy Papers have been published to date, covering such areas as energy research and development, conservation, combined heat and power—which I know is of special interest to the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth—and energy policy generally. They are all available, and I have a list of them here which I shall be very happy to make available to any noble Lord.

1427
As another example, the Department has recently published Energy Projections 1979. These projections examine energy supply and demand prospects to the year 2000. They do not represent the results of Government policy decisions—these will depend on decisions to be taken progressively as we see how the projections turn out between now and the end of the century—but they do, at least, represent a suitable backdrop against which individual decisions can be made.
The only thing that I was perhaps a little surprised about in the debate was the feeling that the debate is not taking place. I am very sure that it is, as I said under the Motion in the name of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy a few weeks ago, and I am of course equally sure that it will continue. I am glad to be able to back up my feelings on that point by noting that the Council for Science and Society itself,
" acknowledges that the energy debate in the United Kingdom is as open and as well informed as in any country in the world "
This is partly a reflection on our democratic institutions, but I suggest that it may also be due in part to the importance that we in the Government place on encouraging wider debate about energy issues generally. And whatever you may feel about the Government's views, I do not think that television, the newspapers, the mass media generally or Parliament itself would ever let this debate lie down or go away.
The right reverend Prelate, the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, asked about the Government's plans for nuclear power and referred to reports that we were intending to build 15 nuclear power stations. To some degree, this debate, like the debate of my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy, has fallen—useful as we have found it—at a slightly unfortunate time, because, as I undertook to say to the House under the Motion of my noble friend two or three weeks ago, the Government were very much nearing their decisions on their nuclear policy.
They have now reached those decisions—I have, in fact, seen them, which puts me in an awkward position tonight—but I am sure the House understands that it will be very difficult for me from this Box to be as informative as I should like,
1428
before my right honourable friend the Secretary of State makes his announcement in another place. I can say that if your Lordships wish it I will, of course, repeat in this House my right honourable friend's Statement when it is made, and your Lordships will all have the pleasure of grilling me on this difficult subject at that time.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, will the noble Earl forgive me for intervening? Does that mean that he is likely to be able to do it before the Recess?
The EARL of GOWRIE: My Lords, I think on balance that that is the likelihood. Of course, our policy of nuclear power will have to be announced through Parliament and not through the Press by methods of leaking. We are going to make the Statement shortly. I know, however, that all through the consultations which have built up to this Statement, the Secretary of State attached the greatest importance to full public and continuing discussion of the issues, and the need to ensure that the appropriate information is publicly available.
But I would say to everybody—I do not want to cast any ambiguity or doubt here—that decisions of some kind or other have to be made, and decisions in this field will always be controversial. In our society, these decisions are based on the principle of the buck stopping on the desk of the Government of the day, but that does not, of course, preclude what was expressed in a useful phrase by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, that what is wanted is continuous dialogue, so that when the Government do make an informed decision it can be seen against that continuous background.
A remark was made about the Three Mile Island incident. The Secretary of State has asked the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate and the Central Electricity Generating Board for their assessments of the implications of the Kemeny Report on the Three Mile Island accident for the United Kingdom, and those reports will be published. Clearly, the lessons to be learned from the accident will need to be taken into account in any safety assessment of a pressure water reactor for the United Kingdom. As I say, there will be full public debate about that and that will be published shortly.

1429
I am also grateful to the right reverend Prelate for drawing the attention of the House to a second report by the CSS, The Big Public Inquiry. The House will be aware that the Government have already made it clear—I made it clear in the debate of my noble friend Lord Campbell—that any decision to build a commercial demonstration fast reactor in the United Kingdom would be subject to a full public inquiry. The timing and nature of such an inquiry is one of the important issues which the Government will now need to consider.
The safety record of our civil nuclear industry has, I think, been outstanding. During 22 years of operation, no accidents have occurred at commercial nuclear power stations that have given rise to significant public hazard, and there is no evidence that any injury has been caused by radiation from a nuclear power station in the United Kingdom.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, I beg the noble Earl's pardon. I would say that there was concern over Windscale. I should not like to develop it because of the time, but I would include Windscale.
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, I am aware that that is the case. I was dealing with the question of nuclear power generation, which does not cover Windscale. But I take the noble Lord's point. The noble Viscount, Lord Han-worth, raised the issue of home insulation. I rather agree with him about this, but of course there is a strong incentive to insulate one's home through the pricing mechanism. That still seems to us to be the best, and it is of course perfectly possible to insulate homes in existing stock.
I have recently taken charge within my department of issues concerned with the new technologies. I can say to the noble Viscount that it seems to me that this is a very fruitful area for monitoring devices based on the chip, to tell us how well our homes are being insulated and, above all, what their lack of insulation is costing us day by day. So I think that pricing is an important factor there.
The noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, returning to a very favourite theme of mine on these occasions, mentioned, in his good phrase, the nature of nuclear superstition. I think we all recognise,
1430
though, that adequate and secure energy supplies are essential in a modern society; so essential that we have to overcome any superstition. Our self-sufficiency in energy is not expected to last beyond the next decade. On present prospects, North Sea oil and gas will be declining in the 1990s and we shall face a rapidly changing energy outlook. The department's projections suggest a substantial gap between demand and indigenous supply by the end of the century. Even after making allowance for a major expansion of nuclear power, they indicate an energy import requirement in the year 2000 that could be between 20 million and 70 million tonnes of oil, at a time when oil supplies in international markets are expected to become increasingly scarce and expensive. The cost to the balance of payments of such imports could be between £2½ billion and £8½ billion at today's prices. Without nuclear power, the figures could be much higher; I did say on the last occasion that we have to run a mixed economy in respect of energy, and that of course covers coal as well as oil, nuclear power and gas.
We cannot, in my view, afford to take the risks to our society involved in not having nuclear power and—what may be insufficiently widely known and I welcome this opportunity to publicise it—we have, of course, been operating a nuclear power policy in energy generation for nearly a quarter of a century, as things stand at the moment. Our commitment to increased nuclear capacity is total and so, I understand, is that of the Opposition. But that does not preclude the need for continuing public debate and reassurance which, as I said, in any case is going to happen, but which we have had a fruitful example of this evening.