Lords Sitting of 29 March 1979

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

LORD MILES
Sir Bernard James Miles, Knight, CBE, having been created Baron Miles, of Blackfriars in the City of London, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Phillips and the Lord Carr of Hadley.
LORD MILES

  CARDIFF COAL EXCHANGE: COSTS
  3.11 p.m.
  Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government what was the cost to public funds of preparing the old Coal Exchange in Cardiff for the use of the proposed Welsh Assembly; what was the parliamentary authority for this expenditure; and for what purpose do they now propose to use this building.
  The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Stedman): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Lord President of the Council announced in another place on 14th April 1976 that the Government were authorising the Property Services Agency to enter into commitments in advance of legislation so that buildings would be available in time. Provision was subsequently taken in Estimates. So far, the only expenditure incurred in preparing the Coal Exchange has been some £42,000 for preliminary repairs and the provision of a plant room. If the Exchange is no longer required for a Welsh Assembly, the Government will
  1652
  consider possible alternative uses or disposal.
  Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that moderately reassuring reply, may I ask her to explain why she uses the expression,
  "If the Exchange is no longer required for a Welsh Assembly"?
  Baroness STEDMAN: Because the future of the Welsh Assembly is still a matter for consideration, my Lords.
  Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, is it not a fact that this building was taken on leasehold originally? May I ask the noble Baroness to say who is now the landlord?
  Baroness STEDMAN: It was taken on leasehold, my Lords; it was taken on a 20 years' lease with a break clause after 10 years. At the moment the Property Services Agency has the tenancy of it. The freehold, at the time we leased it, was in the control of Control Securities Limited. The freehold is currently owned by a company called Mount Stuart Foundation, which is registered in Lichtenstein, and Control Securities Limited are their managing agents.

  HOSPITALS: DISPUTES AND VOLUNTARY HELP
  3.14 p.m.
  Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will ensure that in future volunteers will be able to help in hospitals during emergencies so that patients are protected.
  The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of HEALTH and SOCIAL SECURITY (Lord Wells-Pestell): My Lords, as your Lordships know, there is a long tradition of valuable work done by volunteers in the National Health Service, and I pay tribute to the contribution they

  1653
  have made in recent weeks. During the current disputes in the National Health Service, action became so serious in some places that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State told health authorities on 15th March that they might invite volunteers for an extended role when that was the only way of keeping essential services going. I regret to say that some authorities found it necessary to issue such invitations, and they met with excellent response. Looking to the future, we are concerned at what happened recently and the Government feel that the extended use of volunteers during industrial action should be undertaken when it would otherwise be impossible to maintain essential services.
  Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. Does he agree that patients are no part of an industrial dispute and should never become hostages? Is it not against all Christian feeling that one should he stopped from helping one's fellow man in need? Is the noble Lord not aware that some hospitals or local hospital authorities were frightened of calling in volunteers?
  Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, as I have said many times in this House, we were quite aware of the situation and did not approve of many things that took place. An attempt was made to agree upon some guidelines which were originally issued by the Volunteer Centre and which made it perfectly clear what the volunteers should do in certain circumstances. When there was a difficulty between the people on strike and the needs of the hospital, there were negotiations. If those negotiations did not meet with the desired result, there were facilities by which the hospital and volunteers could get through direct to my right honourable friend. We are aware that from time to time there is need for volunteers and we shall do our best to see they give the help that is required.
  Lord SANDYS: My Lords, due to the very slow pace at which negotiations took place during the recent strikes, is it not a fact that many thousands of volunteers could have taken part very much earlier to the great benefit of the patients?
  Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, it is not true to speak of very slow progress. A good deal was done in a comparatively short time. The noble Lord knows as well as I do that there was a reason why my right honourable friend the Secretary of State did not issue a call for volunteers; because we wanted to try to do it by persuasion rather than by taking action which would have exacerbated the situation.
  Lord SANDYS: My Lords, while fully recognising that arrangements were taking place on a local basis, and that is quite well understood on this side of the House, may I ask whether the noble Lord is aware that, where a robust attitude was taken locally, volunteers were warmly welcomed?
  Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he thinks there could be a lasting policy agreed with all the parties, unions and volunteers, for emergency care, so that everyone knows where they are and the patients—who are, after all, the most important people in times of problems like this—will feel safeguarded and know there will be people coming in to help them?
  Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, when there are local difficulties, by which I mean relating to a particular hospital, we are hoping that in the not too distant future we shall be able to work out a formula with all the parties concerned so they can deal with it on a local level—that is, a hospital level—immediately. When one is faced with a strike that spreads over the whole of the National Health Service, it is often difficult, as noble Lords will be aware, to have a system which will be accepted and acted upon by every group.
  Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to say what contact there was with the British Red Cross and St. John's, who have people trained as volunteers; and were they very adequate in the last dispute?
  Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the British Red Cross Society and St. John's Ambulance Brigade are organisations which, as I think everybody knows, rendered magnificent and invaluable service during the recent crisis, particularly

  1655
  in the maintainance of emergency ambulance services during the strikes. We cannot speak highly enough of the value of their contribution, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness for enabling me to say that.
  Lord SEGAL: My Lords, in view of the fact that large numbers of extra volunteers came forward during the recent emergency, can the Government devise a means of retaining their services in times of non-emergency in order to relieve the heavy burdens still being placed on our nurses?
  Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the running of hospitals is in the hands of local management, not in the hands of the Government or my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. It is for local management to arrange these matters. Most hospitals have a number of volunteers, and when it is necessary to have more it is up to management to recruit them, and in many instances this has not been at all difficult. In the emergency which we recently faced 32 health districts used additional non-staff volunteers to help them with the essential services.
  Lord MACKIE of BENSHIE: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that having volunteers on hand, far from exacerbating the situation, might make the strikes easier to settle?
  Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, having on hand volunteers who cannot get through the picket lines tends to make the situation worse.
  Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: My Lords, when the Government are re-elected will my noble friend the Minister call a meeting with the various voluntary bodies to ensure that, if there is another occurrence similar to that which took place over the past two months, they will work together?
  Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, we have a number of plans which we propose to put into operation as soon as possible after 9th May.
  Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, can the noble Lord enlarge upon what he said about volunteers not being able to get through picket lines? Is that not a very serious admission for a Minister of any Government to make? Should it not be possible for people to get through picket lines? Did not the Prime Minister himself say that?
  Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, let us be realistic; let us face facts. Everyone in your Lordships' House knows that when there are picket lines in force sometimes people can get through them and sometimes they cannot. If the noble Lord looked at television he would have seen that that was the case regarding the lorry drivers' strike. When a situation of this kind arises in the hospitals we endeavour to have an arrangement with the unions concerned to the effect that in cases of emergency volunteers are allowed through the picket lines. In fact, this happened, and I have already mentioned that 32 health districts used additional non-staff volunteers in the emergency.
  Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, may I point out to the Minister that that is selling the pass? People should always be allowed through picket lines. Picketing is the right peacefully to inform and persuade. If the present law is unenforceable, it should be changed; indeed, it should already have been changed.
  Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the hospital workers on strike were on full pay while doing nothing, and does he not agree that, so long as they can be on strike on full pay, there is no possibility of breaking the strike?
  Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if the noble Lord's information is accurate, I would say that as I understand the situation the strikers have in fact returned to work.
  Lord HANKEY: My Lords, are the Government aware that, during he electricians' strike last November, the electricians at the West London Hospital not only shut down the place electrically but also took away the fuses, so that doctors had to work by lamp light to prepare for operations?

  WORLD CLIMATE CONFERENCE: RECENT WEATHER PATTERNS
  3.25 p.m.
  The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the recent meteorological conference has been able to explain the prolonged period of low temperature in the United Kingdom during recent months while the Southern Hemisphere has experienced unusually high temperatures.
  Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the World Climate Conference, held in February, was concerned with drawing up a long-term programme of international collaboration. The reasons for particular climatic anomalies, such as those mentioned by the noble Earl, were not discussed.
  The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I am not sure whether I can thank the noble Lord for that reply. Can the noble Lord's examination of this matter give any indication why the winds over the last four months—winds which are said to be cyclonic—appear to be unidirectional from the Arctic towards the Equator? If this situation continues, can the noble Lord arrange for information to be made available to motorists—possibly on a similar basis to that for aviators and sailors—so that people do not have to spend the night in a snowdrift on the main roads of this country?
  Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the Meteorological Office is examining observational evidence to find out whether it provides an explanation why, or indicates a method by which, the severity of the winter could have been predicted.
  Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that the temperature in the United Kingdom will probably rise in the next four weeks?
  Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, following the General Election of October 1974, we enjoyed two particularly good summers—1975 and 1976—and I have no doubt
  1658
  that the next two summers will be equally good.
  Lord TANLAW: My Lords, can the Minister say whether in the World Climate Conference any connection has been found between the increase of fossil fuel burning and global deforestation and the apparent weather changes mentioned in the Question?
  Lord STRABOLGI: Yes, my Lords; the World Climate Conference has drawn attention to the possibility that there could be changes in the global climate within a few decades induced by man himself. The most likely cause is the increase in carbon dioxide content due to the burning of fossil fuels which will tend to produce a warming of the surface of the earth.
  Lord NUGENT of GUILDFORD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware, with regard to his reply about the prospect of summers to come, that he should be reminded about Shakespear's comment that, short summers lightly follow early springs?

  YOUTH OPPORTUNITIES PROGRAMME: POLICY
  3.28 p.m.
  Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government how many work experience places have been offered by Government Departments under the Youth Opportunities Programme.
  The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, about 200 posts have been designated for work experience schemes, but I am far from satisfied with the progress that has been made in introducing work experience places in Government Departments under the Youth Opportunities Programme. There has been an increase in the number of places available since last December. Most of the Civil Service unions are co-operating fully, and I appreciate this, but the Civil and Public Services Association has up till

  1659
  now opposed the introduction of the scheme. I am hopeful that the CPSA will change its policy at its 1979 annual conference.
  Lord CARR of HADLEY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply, but does he agree that the number he mentioned is seriously low? Does he recollect that Ministers themselves, I think, guaranteed every 1978 school-leaver a place within the Youth Opportunities Programme before Easter this year? Private employers have done well in this respect, and it is distressing to see Government Departments and the public service unable not only to give an example, but apparently even to follow it.
  Lord PEART: My Lords, as I said, I am not satisfied with the progress, and I agree with the noble Lord. I believe that his Question will help me to try to get one union—which now promises to raise the matter at its annual conference—to accept this worthy scheme.
  Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether it is the Government's policy to keep records of the ethnic origins of the young people who are assisted under the Youth Opportunities Programme? If it is not, how will the Government be able to monitor the performance of Government Departments in complying with the Government's own policy of promoting equality of opportunity?
  Lord PEART: My Lords, I do not think that that point has any relevance to the Question.
  Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, can the noble Lord say what has been the cost per head in relation to the young people who have got these jobs?
  Lord PEART: No, my Lords, I cannot. I shall try to get the figure and write to the noble Baroness.
  Lord TAYLOR of BLACKBURN: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend about the position regarding Task Force North? I am grateful for the grants that have been given, and I wonder whether they will be continued during the next two years.
  Lord PEART: My Lords, I will write to my noble friend about Task Force North. I am not sure.
  Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, will the noble Lord take into account the terrific success of this scheme, and how much good it has done to many young people who have turned themselves from being totally unemployable to being thoroughly useful young chaps?
  Lord PEART: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his comments; but I think we should bear in mind that we could still improve upon it.

  DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT
  3.30 p.m.
  Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I read out a Press Statement which has been released about the General Election.
  "The Prime Minister has today asked Her Majesty The Queen to proclaim the Dissolution of Parliament. Her Majesty has been graciously pleased to signify that she will comply with this request.
  "In order to complete essential financial and other business, Parliament will sit until Wednesday, 4th April. Dissolution will take place on Saturday, 7th April. The General Election will take place on Thursday, 3rd May, concurrently with the local government elections in England and Wales; the legislation necessary to facilitate this will need to be enacted before Parliament adjourns on 4th April.
  "The new Parliament will be summoned on Wednesday, 9th May, when the first business will be the election of the Speaker and the swearing-in of Members, and the State Opening will be on Tuesday, 15th May.
  My Lords, with the leave of the House I will make a Statement about future business at a convenient moment later on this afternoon.

  EXCHANGE EQUALISATION ACCOUNT BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  PROSECUTION OF OFFENCES BILL [H.L.]
  Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
  FOSTER CHILDREN BILL [H.L.]
  The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, for reasons which will no doubt already be apparent to your Lordships but which will be made clear in the Business Statement to which my noble friend has referred, I do not propose to move the Second Reading of this or the next Bill which stand in my name on the Order Paper.
  CHILD CARE BILL [H.L.]
  The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, as I have just said, I do not propose to move the Second Reading of this Bill.

  CONFIRMATION TO SMALL ESTATES (SCOTLAND) BILL
  3.35 p.m.
  The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, in moving the Third Reading of this Bill I should like to express my appreciation for the assistance that the officers of the Scottish Office gave, in explaining to me both the basis and the procedure of the Bill, and also particularly the courts administration department. I should also like to express my appreciation to the Lord Advocate for the encouragement which he has given to the forward passage of this Bill. With these words, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a. —(The Earl of Selkirk.)
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey): My Lords, may I acknowledge, on behalf of my right honourable friend, the tribute which has been paid? I shall certainly be delighted to convey that to him and to the officials to whom the noble Earl referred. May I also respond by saying that many people in Scotland will have reason to be grateful to the noble Earl and to his honourable friend, who, between them, have taken through Parliament a measure
  1662
  which will make a part of life easier and cheaper for some people at what may be, for them, a difficult time. I want specifically to mention that Mr. Michael Clark Hutchison, who introduced this Bill into another place, I believe equals a record for getting on to the Statute Book, if that is your Lordships' wish, a record number of Private Members' Bills.
  Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, perhaps I may congratulate my noble friend on having piloted through this complicated Bill, and also on having done it with such excellent timing, so that it is going through in the nick of time. I should also like to acknowledge the help and support which has been given by the Scottish Office and the Scottish Law Officers' Departments.
  On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

  PUBLIC HEALTH LABORATORY SERVICE BILL [H.L.]
  Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendment be now considered.
  Moved, That the Commons Amendment be now considered. —(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  [Note: The page and line refer to [Bill 51] as first printed for the Commons.]
  Page 2, line 4, after ("allowances") insert ("and may make such provision for the payment of pensions, gratuities or allowances to or in respect of persons who have ceased to be members of the Board,").
  Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, it is desirable that if board members were to be paid it should be possible also to provide for them to be pensioned or otherwise compensated when their period of office is terminated. It was believed initially that this could be done under existing legislation. Indeed, this appears still to be the case; but we are now advised that it would be an inappropriate use of the powers conferred by these Acts, and the Amendment to Clause 2 of the present Bill removes any doubt as to the availability of appropriate powers. Like the clause which it amends, this is a contingency measure only. My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment.
  Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment. —(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
  Lord SANDYS: My Lords, we have no comment on this provision other than to state that the Bill as originally introduced into your Lordships' House on 18th January had a special bar on this provision under Clause 3(3), which has now been removed.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  CARAVAN SITES BILL [H.L.]
  Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, for reasons which will be made clear in the Business Statement later today, I will not move that this Bill be committed.

  CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS (LIMITS OF LEVY) ORDER 1979
  3.40 p.m.
  Lord LEONARDrose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th March, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to preface my explanation of this draft order with the assurance that it does not in any way reflect a change in policy towards the film industry, but that it arises as a result of a general increase in the level of admission prices to cinemas and from a most welcome upturn in cinema attendances.
  This order amends Section 2(3)(b) of the Cinematograph Films Act 1957. This Act gave statutory force to the collection of the levy on cinema seats—better known to the House, perhaps, as the Eady levy. This levy is a proportion of the admission price paid in respect of all public cinema performances, with certain exceptions; for example, cinemas are exempt from levy in any week when their takings do not exceed a certain threshold, as are charitable and educational performances. This levy is therefore not a Government aid, but is what might be called a recirculation of "trade" money. It is collected by Her Majesty's Customs and Excise and paid to the British Film Fund Agency—a body established under the 1957 Act. Out of the proceeds, the
  1664
  agency, with the approval of the Secretary of State, makes grants to certain worthy bodies connected with the film industry. These are the Children's Film Foundation, the British Film Institute, the National Film School and the National Film Finance Corporation, on behalf of the National Film Development Fund. The balance is then paid by the agency to the makers of eligible British films in proportion to the current earnings of those films in the domestic market. The purpose of this distribution is, of course, to encourage British film production, to which it has proved a valuable aid.
  When the Act was passed, Parliament wished the levy to be neither so small as to be of little benefit to the industry, nor so large as to be an unreasonable burden. Consequently, the Act specified in 1957 that the estimated annual yield should he greater than £2 million but less than £5 million. By 1975, the true value of that £5 million was much reduced and it was therefore decided in that year to raise the upper limit to bring it a little nearer its original value and it was increased to £7 million. This was said at the time to be sufficient to cater for any increases in the general level of prices over the following two years. It is now necessary to increase the upper limit again, but, I stress, with an important qualification. I shall return to this in a few moments.
  The levy year, I must explain, is a period of 52 consecutive weeks. Last year it ran from 25th September 1977 to 23rd September 1978, and the total levy collected was of the order of £6½ million —very close to the upper limit. In the first 23 weeks of the current levy year, the sum collected was approximately £700,000 above that of the same period last year. Clearly, if this rate of increase were to continue, it appears that the present upper limit of £7 million would be exceeded this year. The enabling legislation provides that the Secretary of State may make a variation in the levy yield, but he is required first to consult his statutory advisory body, the Cinematograph Films Council. This council includes representatives of all sections of the industry. The council's advice was that the present maximum yield should be raised; and their advice has been accepted. This order therefore provides that the

  1665
  upper limit of the levy yield be raised by amending Section 2(3)(b) of the 1957 Act by substituting for £7 million the sum of £12 million. This raising of the ceiling will not, of course, increase in any way the rate at which the levy is collected from cinemas, which this order does not seek to change; but the new upper limit should prove sufficient to cover the levy yield for the foreseeable future.
  My Lords, it has been said that there are other ways of dealing with the problem of the levy yield exceeding the present permitted upper limit. For example, the rate of the levy on each ticket could be adjusted or the exemption threshold raised in order to produce a lower yield. In response to requests from the industry for relief to cinemas, such adjustments have, in fact, been made two years running. In each of the years 1977–78 and the current year 1978–79, these adjustments were calculated to produce an estimated reduction in the total yield of £1 million. Despite these reliefs, the total yield has risen, partly as a product of higher prices, but, most gratifyingly, as I mentioned earlier, also because of a recent strong upturn in cinema attendances. Alternatively, it has been suggested that the collection of the levy could be suspended when the £7 million ceiling was reached—not that one would want to approach that ceiling too closely, as the levy is collected fortnightly and the total is not known to the Department of Trade until several days later.
  I am certain, however, that we should not again tinker with the collection of levy in any of the several ways that have been suggested; simply because not enough is known about the ability of cinemas, particularly independents or small groups, to pay the levy at the present rate, nor, indeed, at any other rate. Some months ago, therefore, the Department put in hand a series of moves that will give us information about the levy that has never been available before. The important qualification to this proposed increase in the maximum levy yield that I mentioned earlier, is that it is only an interim measure to cover the period while the information now coming in can be collated and digested, interested parties consulted and the decision taken as to whether or not fundamental changes should be made in the levy system.
  1666
  Various moves have been put in hand to obtain more information. First, the Department of Trade is sharing with a number of trade associations the cost of a very thorough investigation by an independent firm of accountants into the ability of cinemas of different types in different circumstances to pay a levy. It would be quite wrong, I believe, to pre-empt the findings of this investigation by making any arbitrary alteration in the present rate of levy before their report has been most carefully considered by all the parties to it.
  In addition, the publication has now been arranged of the levy distribution in respect of individual films, details of which have hitherto been unpublished. The first two such publications have now appeared covering the 14 weeks from 24th September to 30th December, 1978, and subsequent publications will be appearing at four-weekly or five-weekly intervals. The names of some of the films benefiting from levy distributions have attracted attention in the Press. In particular, criticism has been directed at films said by some to be of a pornographic nature which obtain levy distribution; and much has been made of the possibly untypical example of one short film which, under the present system, fortuitously attracted very large levy payments because it was screened with a very popular feature film. We accept that these appear to be shortcomings, but it is all to the good that these matters are now for the first time brought into the open, as there can be no intelligent debate about levy without this information. In addition, both the Interim Action Committee on the Film Industry and the Cinematograph Films Council are now considering the subject of levy and are to make recommendations.
  In the next few months, therefore, a lot of new facts will be coming to hand, together with opinions which can take these facts into account. All this new information will be most carefully considered and there will be consultation with interested parties so that it may be determined—perhaps for years to come—whether fundamental modifications should be introduced to the levy system in the interests of the British film industry. The conclusion of this consideration may be given effect in a separate measure; or

  1667
  it may take its place in a wider measure which will give effect to the statement of policy the Government will shortly be making on their future plans for the industry.
  Either way, I assure noble Lords that the matter will be dealt with as expeditiously as proper consideration and consultation permit. I do not believe we should engage at this time in any short-term fine tuning of a system about which there are basic doubts on a number of grounds. In order, therefore, to permit collection and distribution to continue meanwhile without interruption, I commend as an interim measure this increase in the maximum limit of film levy. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 6th March, be approved. —(Lord Leonard.)
  Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for such a very full explanation of this draft order. It would be very hard to add anything after so much has been said on the subject. From these Benches we feel that the measure is very sensible and we welcome it. The noble Lord referred to facts being brought forward as a result of inquiries that are taking place at the moment. This is most important. There is one aspect, so far as levy is concerned, which we will want to look at carefully: some cinemas that are making a loss are actually paying a levy. This seems somewhat unfair. I am sure that when all the facts are available some of these discrepancies can be taken care of. This is not the moment to do it and therefore we welcome this order.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  AIRPORT TERMINALS: PUBLIC INQUIRY PROCEDURES
  3.51 p.m.
  The Earl of KINNOULL The Earl of KINNOULL rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the public inquiry procedures for any new proposed terminal at the major international airports in the United Kingdom. The noble Earl said: My Lords, it is not often that at just about ten to four one comes on to an Unstarred Question. Perhaps I should explain after
  1668
  the excitement of last night, and in case I am accused of a lack of feeling of the House, I also wondered at the value of pursuing this Question with the ever-patient noble Baroness, Lady Stedman. However, by the time I had made my inquiries this morning, I discovered that I was a little late to withdraw and, indeed, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for being present to reply. The usefulness of this Question is that the problem will not disappear and although the noble Baroness cannot commit any future Administration, perhaps her Department can consider the arguments to see whether there is a basis for recommending some adjustment in the framework of procedures.
  The Question really concerns the current procedures of public inquiries which are particularly looking into new terminal building proposals at our major airports. I would add that I have no intention of making any comment on the merits or demerits of the recent inquiry on Terminal 4 at Heathrow, as clearly this would be improper and facile. From the experience of that inquiry, one can ask usefully whether the framework of such an inquiry is serving the best interests of good planning with the twin responsibility of providing adequate facilities at our airports while looking after local needs.
  The planning facts leading to the Terminal 4 inquiry are briefly these: that the British Airports Authority were granted powers by Parliament under the general development orders of 1977 for anything specifically connected with airport use within the perambulations of an airport. In other words, no planning permission was required for a cargo handling building but would be required if a hypermarket were suggested. There were several important exceptions under this order where planning permission would be required to be sought from local planning authorities. First, the extension of runways; hotel development within the airport; development of land acquired after 6th December 1968; and if any tenants of the British Airports Authority—the airline users or whatever—wished to put up a building.
  Despite the general development powers that were granted to the British Airports Authority, they agreed, I believe informally, with the Secretary of State that they would consult local planning authorities

  1669
  —and, in the case of Heathrow, there are three local planning authorities—for anything other than minor developments. However, above all this, the Government retained power under that general development order under Article 4 which in essence gave the Secretary of State power to call in what he thought was a major development and on which in the public interest there should be a public inquiry. This I understand was the basis of the public inquiry of Terminal 4 and the judgment of calling it I have no quarrel or question—indeed I am sure—was a correct judgment. That inquiry started in mid-May 1978 and finished about mid-December of that year; in other words, seven months.
  It took 93 sitting days, more days than the whole of the Roskill Committee spent examining airport policy. In fact, it was one day less than the massive Windscale Inquiry into the nuclear power station. The cost I am told to the British Airports Authority, to date, is £400,000, principally in legal fees; and it is estimated that the inquiry as a whole cost just over £1 million, which largely fell on either ratepayers or the taxpayer. If one looks upon the British Airports Authority and if one assumes that the Minister who makes the decision finally has an overriding duty to provide a facility at the airport, the delay to the British Airports Authority means something in the region of two years from the time that a new terminal could come into operation.
  The best evidence that one has about that delay is that there will now be a two year gap between the exhaustion of Heathrow's present passenger capacity and the availability of a fourth terminal. I have no doubt on pure good planning grounds that all the costs, delays and frustrations are worth while if there is really a genuine open question. Is the fourth terminal really needed at the airport? I submit to the noble Baroness that with all the public statements and evidence on Maplin, the third London airport and, indeed, on the Government White Paper, there is now little room for doubt on the lack of choice open to Government and the acute and urgent need for providing additional terminals at existing airports to provide that extra capacity while the third London airport decision is being taken, if we are to avoid a very damaging thrombosis to what
  1670
  must be now one of our main arteries of commercial life.
  I do not believe that anyone would argue, whether or not one lived near Heathrow, that Heathrow represents something like 13 per cent. of all that we buy and sell in this country and is indeed the very nerve centre of our tourism and trade. When one looks at such public inquiries as Terminal 4 and sees the sometimes often repeated evidence by separate local authorities—indeed, four local authorities in this case—being involved, and the time-scale it took together with the enormous costs against the apparent sheer necessity for having this terminal, I hope that the noble Baroness will consider it fair of me to ask: Is the framework of such inquiries really meeting the needs of good planning? Should more precise terms of reference be given to an inspector handling such inquiries? This is without removing, of course, the proper right of people to hear and submit relevant evidence. Is there a need for three local authorities to give evidence separately but the same evidence? Could they not combine a case? Does it really take six months to mount an inquiry of this nature? Those are the questions that I seek to ask the noble Baroness today. They are nothing to do with the inquiry itself but simply the procedures.
  3.59 p.m.
  Lord HANKEY: My Lords, I should like to support what the noble Earl has been saying about the cost and duration of these public inquiries. I have recently become interested in the problem of securing access to Gatwick Airport for those who live to the east of it. The noble Baroness who I surmise is going to reply for the Government has very kindly interested herself in this matter and has been most helpful on it.
  The problem is complicated by the time taken for these inquiries. Any normal person would have thought that a small roundabout was all that was required outside the staff entrance at Gatwick to enable people travelling from the east to avoid driving an extra four miles all round the countryside to get into Gatwick. In fact the proposal is to make a small spur to the motorway. This is an extremely acceptable solution for those who are affected, but unfortunately it requires a

  1671
  public inquiry and the matter is going to drag on so long that there is no hope that this small spur of, I think, less than a mile in length can be opened before 1982 or 1983. I think we make too much heavy weather of this. Anybody who objects to anything in this country is allowed to go on objecting, whereas it seems to me that the public interest ought to take precedence.
  Another example I can give is the question of the route for the M.25 in the area south of the Dartford Tunnel. There the objectors turned up in such force that the inquiry was disrupted and finally had to be abandoned. I think it is highly undemocratic: it is not at all the way that it should be done. In this admirable country in which we live issues ought to be settled on their merits. The fact that the motorway looks like having to go through some rather beautiful country does not excuse totally undemocratic proceedings of that order. The village of Eynsford suffers absolutely colossal lorry traffic going through its narrow streets to the great detriment of the inhabitants, and especially children, and makes it clear what a terrible business this is. I do not know what the ultimate solution to that will be, but certainly that part of the motorway has to be constructed. The noble Baroness made a most interesting and forceful speech on this subject not long ago. However, I do want to support the noble Earl in expressing the hope that a better procedure can be found for these public inquiries. Anyone can see that they are necessary and that they ought to be conducted in a swift, sensible and objective manner. And disrupters, I think, ought to be thrown out.
  4.3 p.m.
  Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, perhaps I may intervene to make just a few short observations on the Question tabled by my noble friend. I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I do not speak at very great length this afternoon. That in no way attempts to detract from the importance of the matter which has been raised, but perhaps your Lordships will agree that some of us have had other things to consider and I was not aware until just an hour or so ago that this Question would in fact be taken.
  1672
  I think one has to recognise at the outset that the terminal developments referred to in the Question do indeed have a very considerable impact not only on the airport itself—that surely is selfevident—but also upon the surrounding countryside, because they inevitably lead to a substantial increase in the traffic of the airport concerned. For example, there is presently under consideration—indeed a planning application has recently been made for it—a second terminal at Gatwick. That, if and when it comes to pass, will increase the capacity of the airport, at least in the minds of the British Airports Authority, from 16 million passengers a year to 25 million passengers a year, with a related increase in the number of aircraft movements. Therefore it behoves us to make sure that all the people who live in the surrounding districts get a reasonable chance at least to make their views known; but I share some of the concern expressed by my noble friend regarding these present procedures.
  As my noble friend explained, it is the case at present that on land which is already owned by the Authority no planning permission is, strictly speaking, required for facilities needed for the purposes of the airport. Thus the second terminal at Gatwick could have been built without any planning application at all, so I understand. However, the Authority have decided in the public interest—I think quite properly, but to their own detriment, at least as was exhibited in the case of the fourth terminal at Heathrow—to make the appropriate planning application. The Secretary of State certainly called in the application for the fourth terminal at Heathrow in order to arrange for a public inquiry in that case. I have no doubt that the Secretary of State, whoever he may be, will also call in the application for the second terminal at Gatwick. That application was lodged only a week or two ago and, so far as I know, the Secretary of State has not yet announced his decision in the matter; but I think we can assume that it will be called in in due course.
  As my noble friend said—and the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, made further reference to this—some of these inquiries tend to be disrupted by all sorts of people who seem more concerned with advancing their own careers in inquiry obstruction

  1673
  than in forwarding the cause of good planning or the cause of democracy in these matters. I think that my noble friend is right to suggest that these procedures need review. Having said that, I have no doubt that the review will be difficult because it is not possible—for me at least—to imagine how we can alter the procedure without depriving worthy people of the right to say their piece. However, I do not think I can add anything more to this beyond saying that the procedure does need review but that the review will not be an easy one and will no doubt take some time. Certainly I should have thought that it would not be possible to complete any necessary legislative changes before the inquiry into the second terminal at Gatwick comes before an inspector, as doubtless it will in the near future.
  4.7 p.m.
  Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the Question the noble Earl has raised today is a very interesting one. It is particularly apt that he should raise it since much public attention and discussion has recently been focused upon the nature and form of our major inquiries into proposals for public development of one kind or another. Interest in the procedures adopted on the one hand in the Windscale Inquiry and more generally in motorway inquiries has been considerable and often lively, and we have had most recently the long inquiry into the proposal for a fourth terminal at Heathrow.
  Much of the interest has concentrated on the rights of the parties at an inquiry to examine in full and satisfactory detail issues they consider to be vital to the ultimate decision of the Secretary of State, in particular the major issue of need—something which in times past has tended to be taken for granted. The trend of this modern awareness and concern is thus rather in the direction of larger and more elaborate inquiries than in the direction of constricted inquiries of the kind about which the noble Earl was speaking.
  What the noble Earl has done has been to put a perspective on the planning inquiry system, which is a valuable contribution to further consideration about the way that system ought to develop in major cases. Just to set the scene,
  1674
  there are some thousands of planning inquiries held every year. Many of these are of only local interest and are concerned with comparatively modest proposals. Proportionately the number of those which I would call of general local significance is fairly small, perhaps a few hundred. But the number of those which may be said to affect us all and are of national significance (as Windscale was) is, I should say, perhaps only two or three a year.
  In this group I would place the type of inquiry dealing with proposals for new terminals at major international airports that the noble Earl has mentioned. It is in this area, as he rightly says, that proposals arc usually made against a background of declared Government policy. It is, of course, necessary for the Government to take policy views about new projects coming forward in the development of our larger nationalised industries. It is important that the industries, the particular promoters and the public in general should be aware in advance of what the Government are prepared to entertain. But this is not to say that the decisions on granting planning permission for these projects have in any sense been pre-empted. Let me instance, in fact, what the Command Paper on Airports Policy said about Gatwick. It said:
  "The Government sees no objection to the BAA bringing forward for examination through the appropriate planning procedure proposals for the development of Gatwick during the 1980s as a two-terminal airport".
  There are three main principles on which the planning inquiry system has rested. First, it is for Government and Parliament to determine national policies against which specific proposals are brought to inquiry. Secondly, against the background of declared national policy there should be, when a planning application results in a call-in (or following an appeal against refusal of planning permission) a full and fair inquiry conducted by an inspector to consider whether the reasons for supporting the proposal are sufficient for it to be allowed to proceed or whether it should be turned down. Thirdly, it is for the Secretary of State, under the powers granted to him by Parliament, to make his decision in the light of the inquiry and the inspector's report.

  1675
  The kind of criticisms that in recent times have been made of the statutory procedure applicable to these inquiries have rather been aimed at greater thoroughness and examination of detail than at the time they are taking, or that they have been going into matters which should be taken as read. It has been said that they can frustrate those who want quick decisions but, on the other hand, there are also those who complain that their point of view might have prevailed if only further exhaustive studies could have been made into all the implications, and particularly the environmental effects. I have every sympathy with the noble Earl's view that inquiries should proceed with efficiency and, if that can be maintained without detriment, with a degree of despatch, and it is naturally undesirable that we should be burdened by the extra cost of inquiries that are unduly prolonged.
  The noble Earl raised a particular point about the terms of reference, which he thought might be so drawn as to limit the evidence produced before the inquiry and yet still give people a chance to air their views. This certainly could be one approach, if we were so minded to adopt it. But, in fact, a planning inquiry has no terms of reference as such. The inquiry is into the planning application itself, but in major inquiries into proposals which are called-in for the Secretary of State's own decision, he provides the inquiry with a statement made under Rule 6 of the Planning Inquiry Procedure Rules, indicating the issues which he considers most relevant to his own decision. I must stress—
  Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, will the noble Baroness forgive me for interrupting for one moment? There is a new departure in this, which is quite helpful. Not only does he do that, but he has now started to introduce a pre-inquiry meeting where people may argue about the terms of reference, rather than the merits of the subject matter. So that you can settle, once and for all, beforehand what it is that you are going to talk about. This is, I think, a comparatively new procedure, and it is one which is likely to be very helpful.
  Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for that intervention, and I accept that what he
  1676
  says is what happens now. We hope that it is a move along the right path in making these things much easier for everyone to understand and take part in. But I must stress that even then the inspector is not confined to the matters within that statement. He can allow evidence and examination on other matters which he regards as relevant to the decision on the application.
  It is therefore most important that not only the Government but the public at large should be wholly satisfied that all matters relevant to the Secretary of State's decision should be thoroughly ventilated. There is no means of laying down standard rules about this, which could apply to the range of major inquiries that take place. The proposals before inquiries each have their own characteristics, and this is why it is left to the inspector in each case to make sure that the evidence produced is the evidence that will be needed for the decision, and is relevant, well examined and well assessed. In short, inquiries must take their natural length and must not be fitted into some kind of very tight straitjacket.
  The noble Earl also referred to the costs of public inquiries. We accept that voluntary organisations, in particular, have tremendous difficulty in raising the money in order to pay the fees of the experts who put their case, and that sometimes lengthy public inquiries can impose quite considerable strain on those taking part. My right honourable friend and our Department are already considering this question, in the light of representations that have been made to us before today. I hope that either I or my successors can continue with considerations of that kind in due course.
  The noble Lord, Lord Hankey, referred to delays, and was more concerned with getting the road spur at Gatwick. The noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, also drew attention to the delays resulting from the implementation of planning procedures in the provision of airport capacity. I do not believe he is suggesting that we should sweep aside these procedures and undertake airport developments without any regard to planning and environmental considerations. But, nevertheless, the noble Earl is right to draw attention to an issue which goes considerably wider than airport development, and involves other considerations as well.

  1677
  There is no doubt that the implementation of our planning procedures takes time, and sometimes we would argue that it takes too long. I am a great believer in public participation, but I also believe that there comes a time when someone has to say, "Enough is enough and we will get on with the job", and we have to decide at what point we say that and who says it. But the decision to call in the planning application and hold a public inquiry into the fourth passenger terminal at Heathrow was announced on 4th August 1977, the inquiry started on 31st May 1978, and ended on 15th December 1978. My right honourable friend now hopes to receive the inspector's report some time after Easter, which is certainly a very long time. Clearly in a matter of this importance whoever is responsible will wish to consider carefully the inspector's conclusions before reaching a decision. So about two years will have elapsed between the announcement to hold the inquiry and the actual decision being known.
  The House will appreciate that I cannot today anticipate what the decision might be on the fourth terminal at Heathrow. But if the decision was in favour of the development, there would then be a further period for a detailed planning application and for obtaining planning permission, and for the letting of contracts, which might occupy yet another year before construction of the terminal could begin. The noble Earl has emphasised the delay, but we have also to recognise that our planning procedures involve considerable costs for industry and for all others concerned, an extended period of uncertainty and the deployment of scarce management resources in work associated with the planning procedures. What we have to find, and we ought to be trying to find it quickly, is how we strike a balance between these factors and the planning and environmental considerations. I think that I shall have the noble Earl's agreement when I say that I believe that should be our objective.
  I hope that what I have said will convey to your Lordships the view of Her Majesty's Government on the principles on which major public inquiries should proceed, and the great importance that we lay on securing inquiries which result in decisions that will be seen as fair and
  1678
  acceptable in themselves, even to those who set out to oppose the proposals in the first place. I should like to finish by quoting from a speech made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, in Manchester last September, on this very subject, when he said:
  "We are a democracy: and we govern by consent. It is our duty to ensure that that consent is justified and to make it possible for the public to feel and to know that the ultimate decisions reached are as wise, fair and acceptable as we are able to make them. This is what we owe to ourselves and that is the responsibility we bear for the future".

  ROYAL ASSENT
  4.19 p.m.
  The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
  Forestry Act,
  Confirmation to Small Estates (Scotland) Act,
  Public Health Laboratory Service Act.
  Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure for half an hour until 4.50 p.m. to await the Business Statement.
  Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  [The Sitting was suspended from 4.20 p.m. to 4.50 p.m.]
  House resumed.
  Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the Business Statement is not yet ready, as it is being discussed between the usual channels and with another place. Therefore, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 5.30 p.m.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  [The Sitting was suspended from 4.51 p.m. to 5.30 p.m.]
  House resumed.

  BUSINESS REARRANGEMENT
  Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, for the convenience of the House, I should like to make a Statement about the business to be taken next week. It will be a little difficult for your Lordships to follow and I apologise for having to read it but I shall read it as slowly as I can.
  On Monday, we start with Starred Questions; then we have the Industry Bill (Money), Third Reading; Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Bill, Third Reading; Banking Bill, remaining stages; Estate Agents Bill, remaining stages. The following Bills are expected from the Commons and, if they come to this House, will be taken: Credit Unions Bill, Second Reading; Independent Broadcasting Authority Bill, Second Reading; Merchant Shipping Bill, Second Reading.
  Motions for approval—White Fish Subsidy (Deep Sea Vessels) (Specified Ports) Scheme 1979; Air Navigation (Noise Certification) Order 1979; Carriage by Air Acts (Application of Provisions) (Second Amendment) Order 1979.
  Tuesday: Starred Questions. Arbitration Bill [H.L.], Consideration of Commons Amendments; Land Registration (Scotland) Bill [H.L.], Consideration of Commons Amendments; Credit Unions Bill, remaining stages; Independent Broadcasting Authority Bill, remaining stages; Crown Agents Bill, Second Reading; Consents to Prosecutions Bill, Second Reading; Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workmen's Compensation) Bill, Second Reading; Representation of the People Bill, all stages; Merchant Shipping Bill, remaining stages.
  Wednesday: Starred Questions. Appropriation Bill, all stages; Finance Bill, all stages; Crown Agents Bill, remaining stages; Consents to Prosecutions Bill, remaining stages; Pneumoconiosis etc. (Workmen's Compensation) Bill, remaining stages; Appropriation Bill, all stages; Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Order in Council.
  That is the business for next week and perhaps it might be convenient if I were to say now that, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Boston of Faversham will repeat a Statement, being
  1680
  made in another place on the Representation of the People Bill, at about 6 o'clock.
  Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Chief Whip for what she has said, but what she is advising the House to do is quite impossible and I have the very gravest doubts about its constitutional propriety. As I understand it, the noble Baroness is asking your Lordships' House to pass at least seven Bills in two days which have not even had a Second Reading in this House. They are by no means uncontentious. Some of them are uncontentious, but very long. One of them, for example, the Merchant Shipping Bill, has between 40 and 50 clauses and your Lordships are now being asked to pass a Bill of 40 to 50 clauses in two days.
  We all know what happens when your Lordships' House does not do revision to legislation, and I really think it would be most unwise for this House merely to act as a rubber stamp in a situation of this kind on a Bill of this importance. Then, there are other Bills which the noble Baroness mentioned. There is the Leasehold Reform Bill, which is by no means uncontentious. As I understand it, the Leasehold Reform Bill seeks to upset a decision of this House sitting judicially. There is another Bill—the Weights and Measures Bill—
  about which a number of your Lordships will want to say something. I could go on.
  It may be that there are some Bills among those mentioned by the Chief Whip which your Lordships could take, discuss very briefly and accept, but I really must ask the Government to think again because the proposals which the noble Baroness has put before your Lordships not only seem to be impossible owing to lack of time but are also unconstitutional if we do not bother to do our job properly.
  Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, if these Bills come to this House they will have been passed by another place. I understand that a great deal of this programme has been agreed there. I believe that we should think very carefully before actually turning down Bills which have passed through the other place. We are living through a most exceptional time; we all understand that noble Lords opposite wished to have the

  1681
  Election even earlier than we are having it. If that sort of situation arises, one can only proceed by agreement. We had hoped to have agreement in this House as we have had in the other House, and if we do not, then we must just try to get the business through as best we can.
  Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Baroness has totally misunderstood what I was saying. I am not saying that the House should reject Bills from the House of Commons. Of course we should not reject Bills unless there is a very particular reason why we should do so. We have not done so for years. What the noble Baroness is saying is the best argument for single Chamber Government that I have ever heard. She is saying that if a Bill has passed the House of Commons that is all right. What does it matter?—we can all accept it because if we do not, it will be a very bad thing indeed.
  What I am saying is that none of these Bills is particularly urgent. If any Bill is urgent or very important, then by all means let us examine it and let us rush it through if it is necessary, but none of these Bills is urgent. They can all be done again in the next Parliament. They can start here. Good Lord!—there will not be much to do in your Lordships' House for the first few months of any new Parliament—
  Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: Speak for yourself!
  Lord CARRINGTON:—whichever side gets in, and it is surely totally wrong to try to get this House to rubber-stamp Bills which we have not even looked at and which have not had a Second Reading, and to attempt to get them through in two days. It seems to me to be totally unconstitutional and wrong unless there is a real reason why we should do so. I really must ask the noble Baroness to think again.
  Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I should like to raise one point. I do not know whether the noble Baroness is aware that the Merchant Shipping Bill, to which she has referred, has been talked about for some considerable time and indeed, as she probably knows, Questions have been asked in your Lordships' House about it.
  1682
  I myself have asked Questions as to when the Bill was coming because I know that there are some contentious clauses in the Bill and the shipowners themselves are not too happy about it. On the other hand, what concerns me is that the National Union of Seamen, of which I happen to be a life member, is very anxious to have the Bill through as rapidly as possible. Can some arrangement be come to with the other side, to ensure that that Bill goes through? I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, might agree to that being done, even if something else which is not so contentious, or not so urgent, is set aside.
  Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I had always hoped that an arrangement could be come to with the other side, as has happened in another place. I am sure that we could come to agreement on particular clauses and probably there could he no difficulty about that. As the noble Lord knows, we have already been able to accommodate him on one of the other Bills and have given the full undertakings that he wanted. I do not see any difficulty if we are all reasonable about it.
  I can only say that this is the business which the Government want to get through. The other House accepts Bills from this House without going through the whole process of all the stages, and nobody is going to say that they are rubber-stamping our Bills. This is an absolutely exceptional situation and I think the House generally expects co-operation from the Opposition. We look for it and if we do not get it the House will have to sit long and debate whatever business we have to put through.
  Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think the noble Baroness is being totally unreasonable about this. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, it is not for me to come to a decision as to what Bills can go through this House. It is for your Lordships to decide whether or not you want to discuss them. It is for the House to decide what is wanted. It is not for the Government to try to railroad all these Bills through the House if the House is not prepared to do it.

  1683
  I should be very grateful if the noble Baroness would be prepared to come and have a talk outside the Chamber with my noble friend the Chief Whip on this side of the House, with the Liberals—if Liberals there be—and with other Members of your Lordships' House, in an effort to find some sort of timetable which it is possible for us to accept and which is realistic.
  Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, the noble Lord knows quite well that we have had exhaustive talks. We have tried in every possible way to meet the Opposition. We are already meeting them in that we have changed our plans about having short debates on Second Reading at their request, and so on. We have been extremely reasonable. Of course, I shall always be willing to meet the noble Lord and the Opposition Chief Whip. But this is what we have to do; it is a quite exceptional situation. We shall have some debate on these Bills, and if noble Lords find that they are not acceptable they must accept the fact that they have thrown out Bills which the country, on the whole, wants.
  Lord DENHAM: My Lords, we have been discussing through the usual channels, as we do on these occasions, the way that business can in the circumstances best be run next week. I think the noble Baroness will agree that the programme she has outlined was not agreed by our side of the House the last time we spoke.
  Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I did not wish to imply that at all. I meant that it had been agreed at the other end.
  Lord DENHAM: My Lords, it was not agreed at the other end either, my right honourable friends there tell me. My noble friend the Leader of the Opposition and I were told right at the last minute before we came into the Chamber exactly what terms the noble Baroness was going to announce this afternoon. What I would like to suggest—and I am sorry to impose such a thing on your Lordships—is that we have yet another adjournment during pleasure, so that we can discuss what the noble Baroness has suggested through the usual channels; we might
  1684
  possibly meet again in another half hour. In the meantime we might come to some agreement over this.
  Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: Yes, my Lords; I hope I am always reasonable, and I am perfectly prepared to discuss this with the noble Lord. As he knows, I am not the one who presented a change of attitude at the very last minute. This has gone on, as I think everybody knows, for quite a considerable time today. I think I must make it quite clear that we must accept the business for Monday, because the House really must know where it is, but, with that proviso, I am perfectly willing to talk to both noble Lords, and make another Statement in half an hour.
  Viscount BARRINGTON: My Lords, not for the first time, I find myself the only Member on the Liberal Benches. As it was said "if Liberals there be", I have to say as a third-ranking Liberal that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that if this House is a rubber stamp I do not want to be part of that stamp. If there had been more notice there would have been people present capable of putting the Liberal case in a way that I am not and do not pretend to be. I am quite sure that somebody will be here if this proposal is carried out and we meet again in half an hour's time. I have to say this, because I feel otherwise it would be unfair on the Liberal Party if it could be said that there was not one Member who thought that hereditary Peers who are not hereditary Liberals, or Liberal Peers who are not hereditary Peers, who would stand up for their right to vote with their feet or speak with their voices. Hansard may have difficulty in getting that right, but I feel I must say it.
  Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I am sure that we all accept the noble Viscount as a very worthy representative of the Liberals in every sense, small "1" and large "L". I have consulted his Front Bench about the programme. They did know that there was to be a Business Statement, so I think we can assume that if they had wanted to come and object they would have done so.
  Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn

  1685
  during pleasure for half an hour until 6.15, to hear the Statement repeated by my noble friend Lord Boston of Faversham on the Representation of the People Bill.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  [The Sitting was suspended front 5.45 p.m. to 6.15 p.m.]
  Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness can report any progress?
  Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: Yes, my Lords. In accordance with the best traditions of this House, we have had discussions—reasonable discussions—and I think that the best thing for me to say at this juncture is that the business on Monday will be as I announced half-an-hour ago, with the exception of the Merchant Shipping Bill. The Second Reading of the Merchant Shipping Bill will be taken on Tuesday and the remaining stages later. I should also say that it may be necessary for me to make some further changes to the business that I have already announced, but for the moment Monday rests as it is without the Merchant Shipping Bill.
  Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Baroness. Perhaps for your Lordships' benefit I ought to make a few more comments. In the short time available, we have been through the legislation which the Government propose—that had not really been possible previously—and there are a number of Bills, it seems to me, which probably, with explanation, your Lordships could accept without too much debate, provided that your Lordships were prepared to do so. Some of them are totally uncontroversial. However, it seems to me that there are three Bills about which there is some doubt; namely, the Leasehold Reform Bill; the Weights and Measures Bill—a matter which your Lordships do not always find uncontroversial; and then there is the Merchant Shipping Bill consisting of some 40 to 50 clauses, and I must confess that I find it very difficult to understand how this House could take it in a day or two days. However, I think that the best thing we can do is to accept what the Government
  1686
  Chief Whip has said about the business on Monday, which is comparatively uncontroversial as has been agreed on both sides of the House, and discussions should continue further about the other three Bills.
  Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, and I am glad that he accepts that I was not being as unreasonable as he thought and that he accepts the simpler form of the business. We have discussed the Merchant Shipping Bill and we shall proceed in the way that I have indicated.
  Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, I speak not on behalf of the Cross-Benches, but simply as a diligent observer of the procedure of this House. I am sure that every Member of the House is aware of the dedication of the noble Baroness and her success in arranging an agreeable procedure. However, on this particular occasion, I believe that someone should say that, in the interests of the House as a whole, the protest of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, was right. This does not seem to me to be a party matter at all. It is a matter of the constitutional position of the House.
  Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, of course it is quite acceptable for the noble Lord to make his personal views known as such, but I do not think that I was being unreasonable. This is an entirely exceptional situation. The date of the Election has been agreed and the Queen has approved it. It went through this morning. I do not think that I was being unreasonable and I very much appreciate what the noble Lord said about my care for the House, which I think everyone knows is always present, as it is now.
  Lord SPENS: My Lords, I should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Robbins, has said. I am also a Cross-Bencher and during the adjournment of the House I went, first, to the Printed Paper Office to ask for copies of the Bills which we are supposed to pass next week. That office did not have a clue. I then went to the Government Whips Office and asked for some details. I was told that the matter was so secret that I

  1687
  could not be given anything. As Cross-Benchers, we do not have the backing that the major political Parties have in their offices. There is also an unofficial postal strike, and I am wondering whether any of us will receive any copies of these Bills before they are produced before this House. Without those copies, I do not see how we can proceed.
  Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, the business on Monday is the business which is already in this House, with the exception of some Bills which could not be in the Printed Paper Office because they will only come from the House of Commons tomorrow. Certainly those Bills which we have already discussed will be available, but those coming from the other House will not yet have been printed; they will be printed this weekend. I am sure that my office only said that the matter was secret—and I am not sure whether they used that actual word—because I was having discussions with the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, the Opposition Chief Whip, the Chief Whip of the House of Commons, and they could say what the business was.
  Viscount BARRINGTON: My Lords, for the record I want to make it clear that anything I said just now was not said from the Liberal Front Bench but was said on behalf of a part of the Liberal Party—a part, which every Party has—that is, the Back-Benchers. At one time we were allowed only two Benches for every 36 Peers, but we are now allowed three. However, it is not always the case that a Back-Bencher is present. I was expressing my personal view that in difficult circumstances this House has been treated in a rather cavalier fashion—perhaps that is the wrong word.
  When we left the Chamber just now, I was handed a notice for Front Bench Members, which I was asked to pass on. I was unable to do so. It is a Statement and I shall read just one relevant sentence. It refers to the, no doubt, admirable proposals for fixing the Polling Day for the Election.
  Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, the noble Viscount has passed on to the next business. My
  1688
  noble friend Lord Boston of Faversham will make a Statement about the Representation of the People Bill as soon as I have sat down. I believe that that is what the noble Viscount was referring to.

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL
  6.25 p.m.
  The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, with permission I shall repeat the Statement made by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in another place this afternoon. The Statement is as follows:
  "I will with permission, Mr. Speaker, make a Statement about the Government's proposal for a short Bill about the holding of the parliamentary General Election on Thursday, 3rd May, the day fixed by the Local Government Act 1972 for elections to district and parish or community councils in England (outside London), and Wales.
  "The Government are giving notice today of the introduction of a Bill which will be published and available tomorrow.
  "The Bill will make provision to defer the parish or community council elections for three weeks (to Thursday 24th May) and will permit the additional costs attributable to the postponement to be met by the Exchequer. The Bill will also make a number of changes to assist the conduct of the parliamentary and the district council elections on the same day.
  "The same polling stations will be used for both elections. They will be stations normally used for parliamentary elections.
  "Ballot papers for both elections will be placed in the same boxes in the same polling booth (extra boxes will be available for particular areas if they are required).
  "The hours of polling for local government elections will be extended so that they will be the same as for parliamentary elections, from 7 a.m. to 10 p.m.
  "New notes of guidance to voters will be prepared, to make the procedures absolutely clear to them.

  1689
  "The ballot papers for each election will be easily distinguishable and the Bill, if enacted, would enable me to give directions about the means for achieving this, and I will inform the House on Monday of how I propose this should be achieved. In any case, however, the parliamentary ballot will retain its traditional colour, shape and form with the addition of the words: 'Parliamentary Election', and: 'You may vote for no more than one candidate', at the top of each ballot. In Wales, the same statement will appear also in Welsh.
  "At the close of the poll all ballot papers will be sent to the parliamentary returning officer. He will separate the ballots as between the two elections. He will then count the parliamentary ballot papers, and send the district council papers to the appropriate returning officer.
  "The same officer will deal with postal voting applications for both elections. The Bill will not otherwise alter the postal voting position in either election.
  "These provisions should ensure that there will be no obstacle in the way of combined elections being conducted in an orderly and efficient manner on 3rd May, and I shall be seeking the approval of the House of Commons on Monday for a Bill on these lines."
  My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
  Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, the House will be obliged to the Minister for repeating this Statement. I do not think that this is the right moment to discuss the contents of it. I hope that in the busy three days we have got next week there will be time at any rate to discuss something.
  I myself doubt whether it is very wise to have the two elections on the same day. I think it might have been better to postpone the local government elections, but there is nothing we can do about that at this moment. The only other thing I should like to do is to congratulate the Civil Service on having the foresight to be prepared for the events of last night.
  Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, as indeed I feel
  1690
  sure your Lordships' House will be, for the observations that he has made. Perhaps, if I can say so on their behalf, I thank him too for the very kind remarks he has made about the civil servants involved in these matters.
  Of course I recognise what he has had to say about the question of the possible postponement of the council elections. As I know he will appreciate, the district council elections did present a particular problem because the notices for those went out today, and it was felt that it was right therefore to let them run. But I quite appreciate the observations that he has made about that, and am grateful.