Lords Sitting of 31 January 1980

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.
The Lord Hardinge of Penshurst—Took the Oath.
The Lord Cunliffe—Took the Oath.

ETHIOPIAN/ERITREAN WAR: SOVIET INVOLVEMENT
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: 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 have made or will make representations to the Government of the Soviet Union concerning the deployment of 2,000 Soviet, 3,000 East German and 15,000 Cuban military personnel in the Ethiopian/Eritrean War in direct disregard of the Helsinki agreement.
The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (Lord Carrington): My Lords, we have made clear to the Soviet Union and her allies our concern about the involvement of their forces in Africa.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, may I say that I hope very much that, under his expert guidance, we shall continue to make whatever representations we can about the behaviour of the Russians in this area.
Lord CARRINGTON: Yes, my Lords; I might say, in passing, that I find it rather ironic that those African countries which are at the moment denouncing us in the Security Council about the ceasefire in Rhodesia, which has been infinitely
978
more successful than most of us could have hoped, should at the same time seem to ignore the situation to which my noble friend has drawn attention.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, is the Secretary of State aware that when this matter was taken up with the previous Government about a year ago they declined to refer the question of Eritrea to the Security Council on the grounds that such a move would be unlikely to secure enough international backing, particularly from African countries, and that the African countries might be opposed to its ventilation on OAU grounds of territorial integrity? But, my Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that the latter argument has lost a good deal of its force by reason of the recognition by many African countries of the claims of the Polisario Front in West Sahara, while the general condemnation of Soviet intervention in Afghanistan makes it more likely that a move in the Security Council in respect of Eritrea would be successful now?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord for that suggestion, and I will look into it.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, has my noble friend noted that many of the Helsinki monitoring force in Moscow have already been arrested and deported? Do we keep a Helsinki monitoring force available here? Do we make representations every time there is a transgression in relation to the Helsinki agreement? Is there any purpose in the Helsinki powers congregating in Madrid in the present atmosphere and the present total destruction of the Helsinki spirit?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, we of course make representations—a great many representations—particularly about violations of the Helsinki agreement which affect persons connected with this country. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, I think the other day, we are prepared to continue the arms limitation talks and with détente, and with the CSC talks in Madrid; but, of course, what has happened inevitably casts a shadow over the whole process of détente, and will certainly slow it up.

THE OLYMPIC GAMES AND UK PARTICIPATION
3.5 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 advice they have it in mind to tender to the sports organisations concerned about participation by British competitors in the Olympic Games scheduled at present to take place in Moscow this year.
The PARLIAMENTARY-UNDER SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Lord Bellwin): My Lords, we believe that as a first step we should urge the removal of the Summer Games from Moscow. Noble Lords will know from the Statement made by my noble friend the Foreign Secretary last Thursday in your Lordships' House that my right honourable friend the Prime Minister wrote to the British Olympic Association asking them to urge the International Olympic Committee to take the necessary action. The Association, in reply, agreed to put our suggestion forward.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, thank my noble friend for that reply. Might it not assist consideration of this sensitive matter if it could also be indicated to the young athletes in question that, while no one would advocate putting physical barriers in the way of their attending these Games if they want, even in Moscow, they might feel themselves in an unhappy position parading before and receiving the plaudits of a Government whose troops are engaged in aggression in several parts of the world?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I think that for the moment we really must wait to see the results of the efforts to have the Games removed from Moscow. We entirely recognise that athletes who have trained so hard for so many years should have a chance to compete for medals, but, in view of world events, not now in Moscow. If the IOC refuses to relocate, we shall then have to consider the options open to us; but I think that to try to anticipate events now would be unsatis-
980
factory, and could possibly even be counter-productive.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, would the noble Lord not recognise that the strong probabilities are that we shall not be able to get the Games transferred from Moscow; and, that being so, would Her Majesty's Government not agree that the next alternative will be to take action such as that suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, in order to bring such moral pressure as they can to bear on the athletes not to attend? Would they also consider the possibility of, by one means or another, not giving any publicity in this country to the Games?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I think I must revert to the earlier point I made, that it is a question of timing. I think that one should wait. There is, indeed, an indication that there is growing concern around the world about this whole matter, and I think it might be prudent to wait until we have the result that we are now seeking from the Olympic International Committee.
Baroness BURTON of COVENTRY: My Lords, while welcoming the tone of the Minister's response, may I, as the chairman for some four years of the International Committee of the Sports Council, ask him whether he is aware—and I think his Answer implies that he is—that there is a strong feeling in this country, I think, among sporting people that the Games should be moved from Moscow but that they should not be boycotted, because that would damage our athletes who have tried so hard? If it is not possible to transfer them this year, then would it not be feasible to hold the Games next year? Because, as I understand it, there is no hard and fast rule that they must be every four years.
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the point which she makes, but I really think I have to say again that that, and indeed all aspects of it, should await the outcome of the representations which have been made.
The Marquess of ABERDEEN and TEMAIR: My Lords, is not relocation (which is a pretty horrible word in itself) this year absolutely out of the question

981
in view of the fact that the principal impact of a modern Olympic Games is as a vast, worldwide television spectacular, with multilingual radio coverage, which is just as hard to organise, and that there simply is not the time or the resources to do it?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, it may well be that events would show that to be the case; but it might also be considered that if the 104 countries who expressed their condemnation at the United Nations really wanted to put themselves to the point where there could be relocation, then difficult it may be, even unsatisfactory in many ways it may be, but impossible, I would suggest, it is not.
The Marquess of EXETER: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the question of transferring the Games elsewhere is quite impracticable at this short notice? As an organiser of the London Games (which I was) I know some of the problems on these occasions. Is the Minister also aware, which I expect he is, that the Games do not belong to the host country but to the International Olympic Committee and that the moment the Games start, when the flag goes up, they are handed over to the International Olympic Committee and to the International Federation? Is he also aware that they are backed by 137 Olympic committees in the world, and they are controlled by the representatives of the various sports in their countries—and there are 26 of these sports? This is a matter which does not affect something merely on the surface but affects millions of people in the world. Does he realise that international sport is the one great worldwide, generally accepted movement through which the young can get together in friendship and understanding; and that it would be a tragedy if we were to do something to damage it?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, the answer to the several supplementary questions which my noble friend posed is, Yes, the Minister is very much aware. I should have thought that, perhaps better than most, my noble friend would agree that it is as well to take one hurdle at a time. While we have entire sympathy with all the points which my noble friend has made, I think that we must recognise, like it or not, that the Afghanistan invasion and
982
the implications which flow from it have given the Moscow Olympics enormous political significance. To carry on as if nothing had happened would be to acquiesce in, and to contribute to, a massive propaganda exercise by the Russians.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, would the Minister say whether the Government have taken fully into account the advice given by Mr. Edward Heath recently, that the Government had jumped in feet first without thinking out their policy—which seems to be in touch with every aspect of their political activity?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I am quite sure that the Government take advice from all quarters, from whatever surprising direction it may come.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the Olympic Regatta is scheduled to take place in an occupied country, a country occupied forcibly by the Soviet Union against the wish of the people, namely, Estonia? Whatever the difficulties may be in resiting the main events away from Moscow, should not every effort be made to relocate the Regatta away from Tallinn?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I repeat what I said earlier: that the wisest thing would be to wait to see what happens. The Government are close to this and are watching carefully. We should wait to see what occurs.
Lord BROOKES of TREMORFA: My Lords, would the Minister agree that even if it were found possible for the Games to be changed to another venue this year, or to postpone the Games until next year or possibly to hold them somewhere else, the inevitable consequence would be that the Eastern bloc would not take part in the Games if they were held anywhere else; and that that would mean effectively the end of the Olympic Games?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, that is a point of view. No one should belittle all the problems and difficulties surrounding this sensitive matter. I merely repeat that the wisest thing is to wait and see what happens to the representations we have made.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, is the Minister aware that several athletes have said that they want to go to Russia to win a gold medal for Britain? This, I am sure the Minister is aware, implies a sense of patriotism. Is there not a slightly more important sense of patriotism implied, in that if they do go to Moscow, however much they want to win a gold medal for Britain, they may be endangering Britain's other interests, as in 1936, and possibly endangering other British lives?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, again I repeat my original point, which I think wisest in all the circumstances. Possibly, the more that one says at this moment, the more one would exacerbate the situation, which is very sensitive. We might well wait on events and be assured that the Government are watching closely.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, is it not a fact, as history shows, that, whatever the position of the Olympic Committee to which my noble friend's attention has been drawn by our noble friend, the host country almost always treats the Games as a major public relations exercise? Was this not particularly so when the Games were last held in a dictatorship country, in Berlin in 1936?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I thought that I had made that point myself; but I am grateful to my noble friend for confirming it.
Lord PORRITT: My Lords, would the Minister consider, in view of the public interest in this subject and the divergent opinions expressed, that perhaps time might be made available for a proper debate and discussion instead of this question-and-answer business? Would he not agree that at the moment it seems that Her Majesty's Government are doing the right thing in the wrong way and most of the Olympic bodies the wrong thing in the right way?
Lord BELLWIN: My Lords, I am sure that I would not be expected to acquiesce in that; but I am also sure that Her Majesty's Government will have taken note of the concern expressed and that, through the usual channels, no doubt that will be considered.

THE STEELWORKERS' STRIKE: SECONDARY PICKETING
3.15 p.m.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government to what extent secondary and tertiary picketing have been taking place in support of the strike against the British Steel Corporation, and what is the police estimate of the largest and the average number of such pickets during daylight hours.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EMPLOYMENT (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, it is clear that there has been extensive secondary picketing during the steel strike, including picketing of steel stockholders' and users' premises. I regret that detailed information about the number of pickets involved is not available.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, did my noble friend hear the one o'clock news when it was reported that 70 pickets were picketing a firm in the Midlands, that scuffling had been widespread and that arrests were made? Can he say why the Government are so reluctant to set a limit on the number of pickets who can picket outside a factory and its entrances, particularly as this request was made by the Police Federation many years ago and continues to be recommended now?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, we are very well aware that, as strikes progress, feelings harden, tempers rise and the situation can get out of hand. We feel that the present law on secondary picketing is confused and ambiguous and that is why we seek to amend it. On my noble friend's latter point, the police have powers to limit the number of pickets where they believe that too many are likely to lead to breaches of the peace. We intend that there should be guidance on the number of pickets in any code of practice which follows on our legislation.
Lord McCARTHY: My Lords, would the noble Earl agree that the question of whether or not there has been secondary

985
or tertiary picketing is largely irrelevant? This is a term of art which it is impossible to define and apply on any picket line. The crucial thing is whether the pickets went beyond the known law. Will he tell us whether any of these pickets went beyond the narrow limits of the law—which states that pickets are to attend peacefully for the purpose of communicating information and seeking to persuade—and whether, if they did so or if they committed any offence like obstruction or resisting the police, the police in their wisdom decided not to prosecute? If they decided not to prosecute, what is the point of changing the law?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, any offences committed are not a matter for me, as the noble Lord knows. We intend to see that picketing is lawful, or subject to immunity, only at a person's place of work. It will be clear when a person is picketing outside his place of work. There is ambiguity about that and many other issues—an ambiguity which we are seeking to clear up in order to improve industrial relations in this country.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether it is the intention of the Government to make provision in the Employment Bill that pickets will be required to wear armbands so that they can be identified as belonging to one union or another?
The Earl of GOWRIE: My Lords, that is a little wide of the Question. Nevertheless, I would draw my noble friend's attention to the fact that the TUC code of practice gives some rather ambiguous guidance, but guidance nevertheless, on the use of armbands. In my view, that would be best dealt with by a tightened provision in the code of practice.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that the code of practice has so far failed? Would it not, therefore, be better to introduce some rules as to picketing in the terms of the Employment Bill?
The EARL of GOWRIE: My Lords, that is exactly what we are doing. The code of practice is an extension of the
986
Bill in order to get sensible procedure in ad hoc situations; but there is no question that we are not going to amend the law where it affects secondary picketing.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, do not the results given yesterday—that there were more days lost on industrial strikes in this country in 1979 than in any year since 1926—suggest, when compared with other countries' records, that they order their affairs and arrangements better than we do here? Would the Minister be able to let me have a summary of legislation in respect of picketing, secret ballots and closed shops as it concerns other countries if I put down a Question for Written Answer to that effect?
The EARL of GOWRIE: My Lords, I will certainly try to oblige my noble friend in that regard. I agree with him that the self-inflicted damage of poor industrial relations has been very harmful to this country and we are determined therefore to try to improve that.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, can the noble Earl remind us how this country's number of days lost in industrial disputes in 1977 and 1978 compared with those lost in other western European countries in view of the statistics given for last year by the noble Lord opposite?
The EARL of GOWRIE: My Lords, as I have said, that is wide of the original Question, which dealt with secondary picketing. I know perfectly well what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is getting at: he is arguing that one gets fewer industrial disputes in a period of pay policy. The trouble is that one gets more of them when emerging from a period of pay policy, and that is the situation we are now in.
Lord ROCHESTER: My Lords, would the noble Earl accept that, in the light of recent judgments and events, many of us welcome his recognition that there is an urgent need for Parliament itself to make clear what immunities should apply in this field?
The EARL of GOWRIE: My Lords, I am in total agreement with the noble Lord.

DIEGO GARCIA: COMPENSATION FOR EVACUEES
3.22 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether a settlement regarding compensation has yet been reached for the 434 families evacuated 10 years ago from Diego Garcia and other islands in the Chagos Archipelago to enable an American military base to be established.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, in 1973 Her Majesty's Government, in agreement with the Mauritian Government, paid £650,000 for resettlement of the families in Mauritius. A further "without prejudice" offer of £1.25 million as compensation for displacement is now being considered by the community.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the appalling conditions under which these evicted families have lived, putting up their own very unhygienic shacks made of battered cans and bits of wood? In the case of the contribution of £665,000 which we made on evacuation, can the noble Lord explain why the Mauritius Government did not make this offer to the evicted persons for eight years? Is it not the case that it was rejected because of the decreased value of money? Why has it taken two years to make the proposal which is now being considered?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am not sure that the noble Lord is quite accurately informed on this matter. The money that we originally paid to Mauritius for this purpose was £650,000, as I announced. It was paid over to the islanders two years ago, and when that was done it was paid together with accrued interest.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, is it not the case that these persons evicted by us have for at least eight years been living under appalling conditions without the compensation which was their due? Does not the present contract under consideration include a clause that they and
988
their children shall never return to their homeland 1,200 miles away? Surely we can hope that by the time that their children are adults the Indian Ocean may be neutralised as all the border states demand and civilian life be possible there again.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am not sure, again, that it is accurate to say that the island of Diego Garcia was the homeland of these people. They were, generally speaking, migrant workers working in the copra plantations on that island. The copra plantations were being progressively run down, anyway, and the workers were in general moving away.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, could the noble Lord tell us how many people were removed and how much compensation per head they received?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the number of people concerned amounted to about 1,000. The money was distributed to families rather than to individuals, so I cannot give the noble Lord the amount.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, how much did they receive per family?
Lord HALE: My Lords, is this island now wholly occupied by American forces, or are there any British people left on the island? If we glance at the report of the debate which took place on this matter when this rather terrible and forced evacuation took place, will the noble Lord see whether the promises that were made about the future—the interest in the future—were carried out, or have they since been completely altered?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, if I may first respond to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton, as the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, said in his Question, there were 430 or so families, and the sum originally paid over by us to the Mauritian Government was £650,000. I cannot work out the arithmetic in my head, but I am sure the noble Lord can. To answer the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Hale, there are a small number of British personnel on Diego Garcia now. I think the total number is about 25.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I put one further question? It has been suggested that, as a conciliatory action, the British Government should build a home for the aged among these families. Would that be a gesture which would be welcomed by the Government?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, we have made a "without prejudice" answer, as I said, of £1.25 million. It will be for the islanders to decide how to dispose of that fund if they agree to accept it. That would certainly be a very proper use for it.

EEC COUNCIL OF MINISTERS: FEBRUARY BUSINESS
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, a Statement is being made in another place about the business to be taken during February in the European Economic Community Council of Ministers. With the leave of the House, I shall arrange, as usual, for this Statement to be made available in the Official Report.
Following is the Statement referred to:
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a Statement about the main business to be taken by Ministers of the European Community during February. The written forecast of business was deposited in the House on Monday, 28th January. At present three meetings of the Council Ministers are proposed for February.
The Foreign Affairs Council will meet on the 4th and 5th and is expected to discuss an improved Commission mandate for the new co-operation agreement with Yugoslavia; revised proposals for the non-quota section of the Regional Development Fund; the problems caused by imports of certain United States synthetic textile products and the voluntary restraint of certain textile products from Greece during 1980. Ministers are also expected to consider Community relations with ASEAN in preparation for a March ministerial meeting and the signing of a co-operation agreement; a negotiating mandate for talks with Brazil on a new co-operation agreement and relations with Turkey preparatory to a Community-Turkey Association Council meeting to take place in the margins of the Council. A second meeting at ministerial level in the Portuguese accession negotiations will also be held in the margins of the Council.
The Finance Council will meet on the 11th and is expected to discuss the financial implications of the Commission report on changes in the Common Agricultural Policy to help balance the markets and streamline expenditure. The Council is also likely to discuss ways of improving co-ordination of economic policy in the Community and there may be some discussion on ways in which Community expenditure in the United Kingdom could be increased. Ministers are also expected to exchange views on the economic situation in the
990
Community especially in the light of recent oil price developments and have a preliminary discussion on the report prepared for the European Council on the problems that may be encountered and possible solutions in setting up a European Monetary Fund.
The Agriculture Council will meet on the 18th and 19th and is expected to continue discussion of the report on changes in the Common Agricultural Policy and the common organisation of the markets in wine, potatoes and sheepmeat, including discussion of the French import controls. The Council is also expected to discuss access arrangements for New Zealand butter, post 1980; aspects of policy regarding agricultural structures and have a preliminary exchange of views on the CAP price proposals for 1980–81.

ISLE OF WIGHT BILL [H.L.]
3.27 p.m.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Aberdare.)
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, may I say one or two words about a provision in the Isle of Wight Bill which has come before your Lordships' notice on one previous occasion, that is to say on 19th February last year? Several of these county council Bills were considered on the same day and I ventured to draw your Lordships' attention to the provisions regarding notice of street processions. Prior to the Local Government Act 1972, many local authorities had provisions in their local legislation requiring such notice; but, in general, it was very much shorter than the notice they sought in the reorganisation that followed in 1972. By far the largest number of the old enactments called for either 36 or 24 hours' notice, whereas in the new Bills that were presented, either in your Lordships' House or in another place, as much as five or even seven days' notice was to be required. In the case of the Isle of Wight Bill it started off with three days and it finished up with three days.
In another place, my honourable friend Mr. Alan Beith moved an Instruction on the West Midlands County Council Bill. That was accepted by another place and the clause requiring notice of street processions was deleted. I will not go into all the arguments again, but one of them was that

991
we should have a comprehensive review of requirements for notice, particularly in the light of the remarks that have been made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, in relation to the Red Lion Square demonstration.
I should add that since the present Government came into office a review has been announced of the Public Order Act and related matters. Sooner or later the Government are, one supposes, going to introduce public general legislation regarding the holding of street processions, demonstrations of one kind or another, in the light of the experience that we gained not only from the inquiry of the noble Lord, Lord Scarman, into the Red noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, into the Red Lion Square demonstration, but also from the recent events in Southall which led to the tragic death of Mr. Blair Peach and the injury of a large number of persons.
I did submit on a previous occasion that it was a mistake for local authorities to introduce a variety of provisions in their own Acts regarding the notice to be given of public demonstrations when sooner or later Parliament would come to some general conclusions, particularly in the light of any advice that may be offered to us by the Home Office. I still think that is true, but the battle seems largely to have been fought over the West Midlands Bill and a conclusion reached which may not entirely satisfy anyone. I would call it a sort of "interim compromise".
Those local authorities which originally wished for more notice than they had would be content with three days but feel that special provision should be made for spontaneous demonstrations. My honourable friend, in his speech in the other place, gave various examples, and I think it is important for your Lordships to note the possibility of demonstrations by a trade union in legitimate furtherance of a trade dispute where some event has occurred which immediately excited the passions of the workpeople and they wished to show their feelings in a public manner. There is no reason whatsoever why they should not be permitted to do so.
After these questions were discussed in another place, it was agreed that although, generally speaking, 72 hours' notice had to be given for a procession, where an
992
emergency occurred which led to "spontaneous demonstrations", as they were called, it would be perfectly in order for the organisers to notify the police as soon as practicable thereafter. This was the form that the clause took in the final version agreed on the West Midlands Bill.
It is unfortunate, I think, that all this time has gone by—a whole year's deliberation since the matter was first raised in your Lordships' House and even slightly longer than that since my honourable friend Mr. Beith and my noble friend Lord Hooson, who was then in another place, first drew attention to the matter there. With great respect, I do think it would have been possible for the local authorities to get together and devise a common solution on the West Midlands lines.
I am not entirely content with it, but at any rate it is preferable to the extreme of five or seven days that some authorities were asking for, though I should have preferred none at all. But, with the provision for spontaneity and the additional proviso regarding funerals, I think this would be, as I believe my honourable friend said, an interim compromise acceptable to most people. I cannot let this occasion pass without expressing some regret that the promoters of the Isle of Wight Bill have not seen fit to fall into line with that compromise which had been so generally agreed in another place and without expressing the hope that, even at this late stage, they may see fit to do so.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, when the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, says that this is a matter which is basically better dealt with in public general legislation, I must say that I thoroughly agree with him. There are a number of matters in these large authority Bills which would be better dealt with in public legislation, but the fact is that there is no such legislation at the moment and, where local authorities feel the need for a power, this is the only way they can obtain it.
As the noble Lord rightly pointed out, there has been an agreed compromise on the West Midlands Bill. The relative provision reads as follows:
"Notice under paragraph (a) above shall be served at a time not less than 72 hours before the procession starts to pass through any street or as soon as reasonably practicable after that time".

993
I think he does less than justice to the Isle of Wight promoters in criticising them. They have already reduced their period of notice to three days, and the compromise on the West Midlands Bill occurred after the Select Committee of your Lordships' House had considered the Isle of Wight Bill. This Bill, will, if your Lordships give it a Third Reading, now go to another place, and I have no doubt that they will look with great care at this particular provision.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed and sent to the Commons.

WEST MIDLANDS COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
3.35 p.m.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered. So far as I know, the only one of these 261 amendments which has attracted your Lordships' attention is Amendment No. 64 and I have arranged for that amendment, and the Motion standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, to disagree to it, to be printed. The remaining amendments are available in the normal way in the Private Bill Office. It might be for your Lordships' convenience if, with leave, I should move a Motion to agree en bloc all the amendments preceding No. 64. We could then deal with Amendment No. 64, and after that has been done I will, again with leave, move en bloc the amendments from No. 65 to No. 261.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[Nos. 1–63]
Page 2, line 33, leave out "1978" and insert 1979"
Page 2, line 36, leave out "1978" and insert "1979"
Page 2, line 40, leave out "subject to section 3(4) of this Act"
Page 2, line 40, leave out line 42 and insert "the expiration of three months after the passing of this Act".
Page 3, line 3, at end insert—
""the Act of 1967" means the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967;"
Page 3, leave out lines 11 and 12
Page 3, leave out lines 34 and 36.
Page 4, line 19, leave out "Road Traffic Regulation" and after "Act" insert "of"
Page 4, leave out lines 28 to 30
Page 4, line 32, leave out "1st October 1979"
and insert three months after the passing of this Act".
Page 5, line 7, after "newspaper" insert "being a page or part of a page"
Page 5, leave out lines 10 to 13
Page 5, leave out Clause 4
Page 5, lines 30 and 31, leave out "(not exceeding one-eighth)"
Page 5, line 33, at end insert—
"Provided that a local authority shall not under this section set apart an area of any park, pleasure ground or open space exceeding one-half hectare or one-eighth, whichever is the less, of that park, pleasure ground or open space".
Page 6, leave out lines 28 to 32 and insert—
"Provided that in the case of such prohibitions as are mentioned in paragraph (a), (d), (e) or (f) above the district council may exempt a child under such age as may be specified in the notice in respect of any or all of those paragraphs and may similarly exempt any other person who is in charge of such a child while the child is on the land".
Page 7, lines 28 and 29, leave out "for the purpose of placing, maintaining or examining apparatus"
Page 7, line 29, leave out "in pursuance" and insert "where reasonably necessary for the exercise"
Page 7, line 41, leave out "Road Traffic Regulation" and after "Act" insert "of"
Page 7, line 43, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Minister of Transport"
Page 7, line 44, leave out "said"
Page 7, line 45, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert "Minister of Transport".
Page 8, line 15, at end insert—
"(d) restrict the entry by horses or cattle on any grass or other margin provided by a highway authority in pursuance of section 70 of the Act of 1959 (provision of margins for horses and livestock)."
Page 8, line 27, leave out "Road Traffic Regulation" and after "Act" insert "of".
Page 9, leave Out lines 23 to 32 and insert—
"(5) Where a competent authority propose—

(a) to exercise the powers of section 213 of the Act of 1971 to provide facilities in any such footpath or road as is mentioned in subsection (1)(a) or (d) above; or

(b) to consider an application for permission to provide facilities for recreation or refreshment pursuant to subsection (4) above for more than 28 days in a calendar year;

they shall give notice of their proposal or, as the case may be, the application, specifying the nature of the facilities and the place where it is proposed that they be provided and the period, not less than six weeks after giving the notice, during which representations regarding their proposal or, as the case may be, the application may be made to them:
Provided that notice shall not be required where the application is for renewal of permission previously given."
Page 9, leave out lines 38 to 41 and insert—
"(b) by serving the notice on the occupier of any premises appearing to the competent authority to be likely to be affected by the facilities, addressed to him by name or, if his name is not known, by delivering the notice at the premises addressed to him as "The Occupier".
(7) The competent authority shall not proceed with any proposal to exercise any such powers, or to grant any such permission, as are mentioned in subsection (5) above until they have taken into consideration all representations made in accordance with that subsection.
(8) The competent authority shall take such steps as they think necessary for affording to any organisation appearing to them to represent the interests of persons trading in shop premises which may be affected by the provision of facilities under this section an opportunity to make representations to the authority about any such proposal as is mentioned in subsection (5) above.
(9) Nothing in this section shall be taken to relieve any person from liability for damage caused by him to any apparatus belonging to, or maintained or used by, statutory undertakers.
(10) A competent authority shall not exercise the powers of section 213 of the Act of 1971 as it has effect by virtue of this section in relation to any highway belonging to or repairable by, or any operational land or disused railway belonging to, the railways board except with the consent of the railways board, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld and any question whether consent is unreasonably withheld shall be determined by arbitration."
Page 10, line 4, leave out "(6)" and insert "(10)".
Page 11, line 5, insert "(1)" before "Section"
Page 11, line 7, at end insert—
"(a) for the words "a vault arch or cellar under the carriageway of a street" there were substituted the words "under a highway any part of a building on land adjoining the highway or a vault arch or cellar";
Page 11, line 8, leave out "(a) for" and insert "(b) before"
Page 11, line 9, leave out "substituted" and insert "inserted"
and after "building" insert "or"
Page 11, line 9, leave out lines 10 and 11
Page 11, line 15, leave out "and"
Page 11, line 15, leave out line 16 and insert—
"(e) after subsection (5) there were inserted—
"(5A) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to the construction of code-regulated works as defined in section 1(5) of the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950."and
(f) subsection (b) were omitted.
(2) Section 153 of the Act of 1959, as that section has effect in accordance with subsection (1) above, is set out in Schedule 1 to this Act.
(3) Section 154 of the Highways Act 1959 (openings to cellars or vaults under footways) shall have effect in the county as if, in substitution for the definition of "appropriate authority" in that section provided by section
996
153(6), there were inserted at the end of section 154—
"(6A) In this section 'appropriate authority' means, in relation to any street which is a highway, the highway authority for the street, and, in relation to any other street, the local authority in whose area the street is situated."
Page 11, line 28, at end insert—
"and that section as so applied shall have effect as if references to the local authority were references to the highway authority."
Page 12, line 8, at end insert—
"(2) A district council shall not exercise the powers of this section in relation to any part of a subway, which is situated over or under or within 15 metres (measured in any direction) from any railway of the railways board or any works connected therewith without the consent in writing of the railways hoard:
Provided that such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld and any question or dispute arising between a district council and the railways board as to whether consent is unreasonably withheld shall be determined by arbitration".
(2A) A district council shall ensure that there are adequate advertisements in its subways for family planning and venereal disease clinics.
Page 12, line 9, leave out "(2)"and insert "(3)"
Page 14, line 41, after "Sandwell" insert "Borough"
Page 15, leave out the words from the first "the" in line 31 to the end of line 33 and insert—
"quantity of dust emitted into the open air was not materially greater than would have been emitted if the notice had been complied with"
Page 16, line 7, leave out "does" and insert "do" leave out lines 19 to 21 and insert—
"(1) No person shall in a district use or cause or permit to be used any air-powered tool or mobile air compressor in connection with works to which section 60 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 applies unless an effective device or arrangement for minimising the noise emitted is in operation:"
Page 16, line 27, at end insert—
"(3) In proceedings for an offence under this section it shall be a defence to prove that the alleged offence was covered by a notice served under section 60 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 or a consent given under section 61 or 65 of that Act".
Page 16, line 28, leave out "(3)" and insert "(4)"
Page 16, line 38, after "council" insert" or any person aggrieved"
Page 17, leave out line 4
Page 17, line 5, leave out "(b)" and leave out "other"
Page 17, line 7, leave out "(a)"
Page 17, line 10, leave out "(i)"and insert" (a)
Page 17, line 11, leave out "(ii) "and insert"(b)"
Page 17, line 11, leave out lines 15 to 17
Page 18, lines 34 and 35, leave out "or that refusal is apprehended"
Page 19, line 17, after "satisfied" insert "or for the period of one month whichever shall be "the less"
Page 19, line 17, at end insert
"(1D) Any subsequent application for a warrant relating to premises for which a warrant has previously been issued shall contain a sworn account of the steps taken in the exercise of the previous warrant or warrants and the outcome thereof."
Page 19, line 20, after "and" insert" except as provided in subsection (2) below"
Page 19, line 21, at end insert—
"(2) Premises are not required to be registered under this section by reason only that they are occupied by a hairdresser for the purpose of attending to persons employed at those premises".
Page 19,line 22, leave out "(2)"and insert" (3)"
Page 19, line 26, leave out "(3)"and insert"(4)"
Page 19,line 29, leave out"(4)"and insert"(5)"
Page 19, line 36, leave out "(5) "and insert"(6)"
Page 20, line 15, at end insert—
"(4) Nothing in this section shall extend to the practice of tattooing by or under the supervision of a person who is a registered medical practitioner or to premises on which the practice of tattooing is carried on by or under the supervision of such a person".
Page 20, line 16, leave out "(4)" and insert "(5)"
Page 20, line 24, leave out "business" and insert "practice"
Page 20, line 26, leave out "business" and insert "practice"
Page 20, lines 40 and 41, leave out "duly qualified" and insert "registered"
Page 20, line 41, leave out "or"
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 1 to 63 en bloc.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[No. 64]
Clause 25, page 21, line 1, after ("1957") insert ("or a registered member of the British Acupuncture Association and Register Limited").
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 64. This is a somewhat unusual Motion, for reasons which I will explain in a moment, but it is not without precedent. The only case I can find which happened fairly recently was in 1903, but the history of this amendment is really rather exceptional. The reason it is an unusual Motion is that there is a longstanding agreement between the two Houses that, if an amendment is passed
998
on a Private Bill, which this is, in one House, that amendment is not disputed in the other House. That is the normal procedure; but what has happened in this case is that this amendment, when the Bill was before your Lordships—and it started in this House—had not been put down by the petitioners, and so up till now your Lordships have had no opportunity of discussing the amendment.
It was then sent to the other place and in the ordinary way was sent up to a Select Committee. When it came back for the Report stage and Third Reading, for procedural reasons which I think, after being carefully briefed, I understand, though I will not weary your Lordships with their procedure, the amendment was not called and so could not be discussed. Therefore, here is this amendment
which has not been discussed in either Chamber, and there might well be a divergence of opinion between the two Houses. If this amendment had come before your Lordships in the first instance you would have seen that it is roughly similar to one that was put down in the South Yorkshire Bill which your Lordships turned down. So here is this suggestion that it should go forward to law, without either Chamber having discussed it.
Our Rules of Procedure are very different from those of the other place and we could, of course, debate this amendment now. But, in view of the long-standing agreement about which I have spoken, it would be quite wrong if we had anything to do with the merits of this amendment. However, I have had messages from both sides of the other place—I do not know whether I ought to say so—that they would very much like to discuss this amendment, if they have the opportunity. Therefore, it would seem only polite and reasonable for your Lordships to agree with my Motion, so that the other place can discuss this amendment.
If your Lordships agree and the amendment goes back to the other place, and the Commons insist on it, I have not the slightest doubt that when it comes back to us we would accept the amendment on the nod, because of this long-standing arrangement. We do not want any dispute between the two Houses. I have been asked to do this, and I hope your Lord-

999
ships will agree. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth disagree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 64.—(Lord Dement.)
3.42 p.m.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend, Lord Derwent, for raising this matter of the Commons amendment to Clause 25 of the Bill. It may be helpful to the House if I say a very few words about it. The Secretary of State at the time recommended against the exemption which has been sought for members of the British Acupuncture Association and Register Limited. The Commons Committee granted their petition, but said in its report that it had accepted the Secretary of State's recommendation. It is not at all clear how this came about, but in a matter of this kind the Government feel—and I understand that Ministers concerned in the former Administration agree—that the other House should be given an opportunity to look at this matter again.
In another place, this clause was amended to exempt from its provisions registered medical practitioners and dentists who might practice acupuncture. That was justified, because doctors and dentists, unlike acupuncturists, are registered by statutory bodies—the General Medical Council and the General Dental Council. I am sure that most acupuncturists have no desire to put their patients at risk, and that, therefore, they endeavour to practise their profession hygienically. But the organisations to which some belong are not statutory bodies and have no means of enforcing discipline upon any members who may not maintain acceptable standards. It was for these reasons, I am sure, that a Select Committee of your Lordships' House, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Ampthill, in November last year, did not grant a petition by the same British Acupuncture Association against a clause similar to this in the South Yorkshire Bill. If Clause 25 of the West Midlands Bill became law, conferring exemption from its provisions on members of the British Acupuncture Association, it would be an unfortunate precedent, or at least an anomaly.
1000
However, I do not want to make a stand on the merits of the amendment. I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, in the view that another place should be given the same opportunity that this House now has of noting the divergence between the actions of our respective Committees on the West Midlands and South Yorkshire Bills. This opportunity would be welcomed by both sides in the Commons, and this House would naturally take the matter no further if the Commons decided to retain the amendment.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am familiar with the circumstances of the matter now before your Lordships' House. Your Lordships have had the benefit of hearing the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, who I think we all recognise is a great authority on procedure in your Lordships' House, and we have heard the circumstances put by the noble Lord the Minister who is involved in this matter. All I want to do is to remind your Lordships that we are not seeking to reject the amendment on its merits, but merely providing the Commons with an opportunity to consider an unusual turn of events, and in that way we support the Motion and the Government.
Lord WINSTANLEY: My Lords, I rise but briefly to indicate the support of my noble friends on these Benches for the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, in his Motion that your Lordships' House do disagree with this amendment. Like him, I shall resist the temptation to stray into the merits of the case, but since the noble Lord, Lord Cullen, touched upon them briefly let me just say this. We in your Lordships' House seem to have occupied a great deal of our time recently in discussing restrictive practices of one kind or another operated by the professions. As a doctor, I should like to make it entirely clear that I personally have no wish whatsoever to place obstacles in the way of other people coming along and doing work which I might otherwise have to do myself. Nor do I want to say anything in particular about acupuncture, save that it seems to me to be very effective on Chinamen, but not particularly effective elsewhere.
Having said that, I think it is important that another place should be given an opportunity to make sure that, when

1001
practices of this kind are allowed to be conducted, they are in fact conducted by people with professional training and with clear professional opportunity. I do so much agree with the noble Lord that it is very important indeed that another place be given another, better opportunity to reconsider this amendment.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I certainly do not want to enter into the merits of the case, but before we dispose of this matter I think I should acquaint your Lordships with certain matters that occur on the procedural side with regard to Private Bill procedure. The reason why we have not acted in this way since 1903, as the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, told us, is a very good one. The principle of comity between the two Houses in Private Bill procedure is of very great importance for the smooth working of the system. It is for this reason that our Companion to the Standing Orders, on page 176, reads:
"If there is any disagreement between the Houses on amendments to Private Bills, the same procedure of sending reasons for disagreement is followed as for Public Bills. In modern times the policy on Private Bill legislation is so co-ordinated between the two Houses that the need for this procedure seldom, if ever, arises. Another factor is the unwritten principle, scrupulously observed, that in a Private Bill neither House re-inserts a provision which has been struck out by the other House unless by agreement between the two Houses".
So the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, is asking us to take a most unusual step in rejecting this Commons amendment.
The history of Clause 25 is that there was no petition against the clause in this House, but the British Acupuncture Association and Register Limited petitioned against the Bill in another place and succeeded in obtaining an exemption from the requirement to register under the clause. This exemption was granted by the Select Committee on the Bill, who reported that they had allowed Clause 25 with amendments after evidence of need. They heard argument and evidence from both the promoters and the petitioners, and they also had before them a report from the Secretary of State for Social Services which said, in respect of this clause:
"The Secretary of State recommends that there is no need for district councils to be empowered to register medical and dental practitioners who are already subject to statutory registration, although it would appear to be inappropriate to extend exemption from the provisions of the
1002
clause to members of a body of which the requirements for membership do not include provision for statutory registration.";
in other words, the British Acupuncture Association. In the light of the evidence, they made the amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, is now asking the House to disagree.
I just want to point out that there will be certain serious consequences in accepting this Motion. First, we will have a situation in which a decision of a
Committee of one House, taken in quasi-judicial proceedings after hearing
evidence from both sides, is overturned by the other House without having heard such evidence. I think it is fair to say that this would represent a reversal of what had hitherto been regarded as the legitimate expectations of the parties to Private Bill proceedings, quite irrespective of the departure from the usual rule of comity between the two Houses.
Secondly, there is a danger that a departure from the usual rule of comity in this case may be taken as a precedent for further departures in future years, and this could damage the smooth working of the system for dealing with Private Bills that has for so long operated so well.
Thirdly, there will inevitably be further delay in reaching Royal Assent on this Bill, which started its progress in this House in November 1977 and would, apart from this Motion, have completed its passage today. Normally, therefore, I would advise your Lordships that the principle of comity between the two Houses should prevail and that we should not seek to overturn the decision of a Commons Committee. However, in the present case, as your Lordships have heard from spokesmen on both Front Benches, there are other considerations.
Both Government and Opposition seek an opportunity for reconsideration of this amendment in another place, at the same time undertaking not to oppose the amendment any further if it is confirmed by decision of another place. Moreover, as the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, has pointed out, to disagree to the Commons amendment is consistent with the decision of a Select Committee of this House on the South Yorkshire Bill. I am not saying that different committees may not make different decisions in different circumstances. That is indeed at the heart of

1003
all private legislation. The trouble is, as I was saying before in the case of the Isle of Wight Bill, that this clause is again one better suited to public general legislation and there is, therefore, an argument for uniformity.
To sum up, therefore, I have very considerable misgivings about the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, and its possible effect on future private legislation, but your Lordships have heard spokesmen from both Front Benches supporting the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, and the decision must lie with the House.
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their support. I have been assured—I cannot be more accurate than that—by the other place that the Bill will not be held up by this action. I cannot actually promise the Chairman of Committees that the next occasion on which I shall move a Motion of this kind will be in the next 77 years!
On Question, Motion agreed to.
3.52 p.m.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 65 to 261 en bloc.

COMMONS AMENDMENTS
[No. 65–261]
Page 23, leave out lines 5 to 9
Page 23,line 10, leave out "(4) "and insert" (3)
Page 23, leave out lines 15 and 16
Page 23, line 17, leave out (6) "and insert" (4)"
Page 24, line 18, leave out "or a part of which, is let in lodgings or which"
Page 24, line 19, leave out "members of more than one family" and insert "persons who do not form a single household "leave out lines 37 and 38
Page 24, line 39, leave out "(4) "and insert" (3)
Page 24, line 43, leave out "(5) "and insert" (4) ".
Page 25, line 12, leave out "(6) "and insert" (5)
Page 25, line 14, at end insert—
"(6)(a) The powers conferred by this section shall not be exercisable in relation to any house without the consent of the statutory water undertakers within whose limits of supply the house is situated, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, and in giving their consent the statutory water undertakers—

(i) may attach thereto such reasonable conditions as they think fit; and

1004

(ii) may, without prejudice to any action or proceedings which they may take under any other enactment, elect to carry out on behalf of the district council any repair, renewal or other works proposed by the district council, in which case the expenses reasonably incurred by the undertakers in so doing shall be repaid to them by the district council.

(b) Any difference which may arise between any statutory water undertakers and a district council under this subsection other than a difference as to the meaning or construction thereof, shall be determined by arbitration."
Page 25, line 26, leave out "to the Solihill Borough Council "and insert" in the borough of Solihull"
Page 27, line 40, at end insert—
"(e) provided in connection with a departmental store; or"
Page 27, line 41, leave out "(e)"and insert"(.1)"
Page 28, line 16, leave out "their district" and insert "the district of the council making the order"
Page 28, line 33, leave out "the district council" and insert "they"
Page 29, leave out Clause 39 and insert new Clause 39:
39. "Notice of street processions
(1)(a) No person shall organise or conduct a procession through any street in a district unless there has been served on the chief officer of police at any police station in the district through which the procession is intended to pass, a notice stating the route by which and the date and time on and at which it is intended that it should pass.
(b) Notice under paragraph (a) above shall be served at a time not less than 72 hours before the procession starts to pass through any street or as soon as reasonably practicable after that time.
(2) If any procession passes through any street in a district by a route or at a time which has not been stated in a notice relating to that procession delivered in accordance with subsection (1) above, except in accordance with directions given by the chief officer of police under section 3 of the Public Order Act 1936 or other directions given by the senior police officer, if any, attending the procession, any person organising or conducting the procession shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £200.
(3) Nothing in this section shall apply to a procession:

(a) commonly or customarily held; or

(b) organised or conducted for the purpose of a funeral by a person acting in the normal course of his business where his business is that of a funeral director.

(4) For the furtherance of co-operation between the organisers of processions and the police, the Chief Constable shall issue a code of practice giving guidance to the organisers of processions on any matters which he deems to be relevant, and in particular drawing attention to:

(a) the desirability of notifying the police as early as possible when a procession is planned and publicised; and

1005

(b) the need to make arrangements for stewarding and to agree the route with the police.

(5) Proceedings shall not be instituted for any offence under this section unless the proceedings are instituted by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions."
Page 29, line 41, leave out "have been approved" and insert "must be deposited".
Page 30, line 4, leave out "a stand".
Page 32, line 14, leave out "under" and insert "subject to"
Page 32, line 18, leave out under "and insert "subject to"
Page 32, line 31, after "to" where it occurs for the second time insert "the"
Page 32, line 37, leave out "under" and insert "subject to".
Page 35, line 21, after "which" insert "provides"
Page 35, line 22, leave out "provides"
Page 35, lines 22 and 23, leave out "either alone or in addition to any other facility or service"
Page 35, line 27, leave out "is constructed or adapted to provide"
Page 35, line 29, leave out "building providing" and leave out "space" and insert "place"
line 40, after "authority" insert—
"and, in a case where a licence under the Petroleum (Consolidation) Act 1928 will be required in respect of the building, after consultation with the licensing authority under that Act (if not the fire authority),".
Page 36, line 34, leave out "by them"
Page 36, line 35, after "any" insert "corresponding".
Page 36, lines 35 and 36, leave out "in respect of the use of a parking place to which this section applies".
Page 37, line 2, leave out "parking place "and insert "building or part of a building"
Page 37, lines 2 and 3, leave out "to which this section applies"
Page 37, line 5, after "Act" insert "as a parking place to which this section applies".
Page 38, leave out line 6.
Page 39, line 40, after "section" insert "and"
Page 39, line 42, at end insert—
"(9) The foregoing provisions of this section shall not apply to apparatus installed or proposed to be installed on or in premises in respect of which a licence under the Cinematograph Acts 1909 and 1952 is for the time being in force but, where any apparatus to which this section applies is proposed to be installed on or in any such premises, the owner or occupier of the premises shall, before the apparatus is installed, give notice to the fire authority informing them of the position in which it is proposed to place the cut-off switch and how it is to be coloured or marked".
Page 39, line 43, leave out "(9) "and insert" (10)".
Page 40, line 4, leave out "(10)"and insert" (11)"
Page 40, line 5, leave out "or" and after "(5) "insert" or (9) "
Page 40, line 7, leave out (11)"and insert" (12)"
Page 40, line 26,leave out "any".
Page 41, line 14, after "include" insert"(a)"
Page 40, line 16, at end insert—
"or
(b) any such equipment for generating electricity forming part of a generating station of the generating board or equipment provided in accordance with proposals approved under section 6 of the Electricity Act 1957;".
Page 40, line 38, at end insert—
"(d) If the Secretary of State, on considering byelaws submitted under section 236 of the Act of 1972 as having effect in accordance with paragraph (c) above proposes to make a modification which appears to him to be substantial he shall inform the county council and require them to take any steps he thinks necessary for informing persons likely to be concerned with that modification and shall not confirm the byelaws until there has elapsed such period as he thinks reasonable for consideration of, and comment upon, the proposed modification by the county council and by other persons who have been informed of it".
Page 44, line 4, at end insert—
"(5)(a) Nothing in this section shall authorise the fire authority to require the generating board or the electricity board to affix on any building or part of a building on operational land (as defined in section 222 of the Act of 1971) any sign, symbol or notice without the consent of the board concerned which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.
(b) Any question whether a consent required by this section has been unreasonably withheld shall be determined by the Secretary of State".
Page 46, line 23, after "exceeds" insert "any of"
Page 46, line 36, leave out "under any conditions" and insert
"if any of the conditions specified in section (4) below are not fulfilled"
Page 46, line 38, leave out "12" and insert "50"
Page 47, lines 1 and 2, leave out "consisting wholly or partly of materials other than wood "and insert" of any materials, not being a stack specified in paragraph (c) or (d) below",
Page 47, line 7, at end insert—
(c) for stacks consisting wholly of paper, cardboard or rags, if the conditions specified in subsection (4) below are fulfilled—

(i) 5 metres in height;

(ii) 750 cubic metres in capacity;

(iii) 20 metres in any horizontal dimension;

(iv) 235 square metres in any horizontal section;"

Page 47,line 8, leave out "(c)" and insert"(d)"
Page 47, line 14, leave out "and (c)"and insert" to (d)"
Page 47, line 23, leave out "are"and insert"is"
Page 47, line 31, after applies "insert—
(a) if, being a stack of a temporary nature in connection with works of construction, alteration, maintenance, repair or renewal of a railway line of the railways board, it is alongside a railway line on premises

1007
occupied by the railways board for the purposes of their undertaking and is not on a site habitually used for the stacking or storage of any of the materials specified in subsection (2) above; or
(b)"
Page 48, leave out lines 1 to 41 and insert—
"(2) A person making application to the county council for a consent under this section shall provide such information for that purpose (including information about the materials to be stacked, the premises and the undertaking, trade or business conducted on the premises) as the county council may, within 28 days from the date on which the application is made, reasonably require.
(3) Where an application has been made to the county council for their consent under this section and the county council have failed, within 8 weeks, or such longer period as the applicant may allow, after the application was made to give notice to the applicant that they give or refuse their consent, or give it subject to conditions, the county council shall be deemed to have given their consent without conditions except any that have been accepted in the application.
(4) Where the county council have given a consent under this section to the stacking of materials on any premises—

(a) they may—

(i) at the request of the owner of the materials or of the occupier of the premises; or

(ii) on a change of the occupier of the premises; or

(iii) on a change of circumstances which in their opinion creates or, as the case may be, increases the fire risks of the stack;

give notice to the owner of the materials or the occupier of the premises imposing conditions under this section, or adding to or varying any condition already imposed under this section; and

(b) they may at any time by notice to the owner of the materials or the occupier of the premises relax any conditions imposed under this section.

(5) The conditions which may be imposed under this section on a consent to the stacking of materials on any premises shall be such as, having regard to the reasonable requirements of the undertaking, trade or business conducted on the premises, appear to the county council to be reasonably necessary to prevent the outbreak of fire, to reduce the damage that fire will cause if it breaks out and to facilitate fire-fighting, including the provision of water for fire fighting purposes:
Provided that where, on an application for consent under this section to the stacking of materials the county council are satisfied that by reason of those materials the stack does not create fire risks, the county council shall give their consent unconditionally."
Page 49, leave out the words from "refusal" in line 1 to "section" in line 4 and insert "of consent, or by any condition imposed on such a consent, under"
Page 49, line 6, leave out "this" and insert "that"
Page 49, line 22, leave out "(5)" and insert" (4)"
Page 49, line 24, leave out "for a stack"
Page 49, line 25, leave out 28 "and insert" 42 "
Page 49, line 28, leave out "28 "and insert"42"
Page 49, line 30, leave out the second "the" and insert" a "
Page 49, line 33, after "his"insert"undertaking, trade or "
Pages 50 to 56, leave out Part VIII.
Page 56, line 24, leave out "IX" and insert "VIII".
Page 57, line 5, leave out "any" and insert "that" and after "shall" insert "on that day"
Page 57, line 5 at end insert—
"(3)(a) A district council may resolve that in its application to their district this Part shall—

(i) apply only to boxing or wrestling entertainment and in that event this Part shall, in its application to that district, have effect as if a specified entertainment did not include music or dancing entertainment and accordingly the said section 51, if adopted in that district, shall continue to have effect in that district; or

(ii) apply only to music or dancing entertainment and in that event this Part shall, in its application to that district, have effect as if a specified entertainment did not include boxing or wrestling entertainment:

Provided that a district council may by subsequent resolution apply the whole
of this Part to their district.
(b) Section 3 (The appointed day) of this Act shall apply to any resolution passed under this subsection".
Page 57, line 6, leave out "(3) "and insert" (4)"
Page 57, line 26, after"(b)"insert" except in the case of application for the renewal of a licence"
Page 58, leave out lines 20 and 21 and insert—
"(b) No fee shall be payable under this subsection where the application relates to an entertainment which, in the opinion of the district council, is of an educational character or is given for a charitable purpose; and in any other case the district council may dispense with, or reduce, the fee".
Page 59, leave out lines 2 to 9 and insert—

"(a) keeps or uses, or permits the use of, premises contrary to subsection (1) of section 71 (Licensing of entertainments) of this Act; or

(b) contravenes, or permits the contravention of, a term or condition specified in an entertainment licence;"

Page 59, line 15, after "grant"insert"renew "
Page 59, line 19, after "grant" in both places where it occurs insert" renewal
Page 60, line 25, leave out "X" and insert "IX"
Page 61, leave out lines 7 to 9 and insert—
""authorised insurers" means a person who is permitted under the Insurance Companies Act 1974 or the corresponding provision for the time being in force in Northern Ireland to carry on in Great Britain or in Northern Ireland insurance business of a relevant class or who has corresponding permission under the law of another member state;"
Page 61, line 37, after "recover" insert" a sum not exceeding"
Page 61, line 43, leave out "specified payment" and insert "sum"
Page 62, line 26, leave out "XI" and insert "X"
Page 63, line 4, leave out "three" and insert "six"
Page 63, line 16, leave out "three" and insert "six"
Page 63, line 34, leave out "1934" and insert "1978"
Page 64, leave out the words from "area" in line 17 to "information" in line 19 and insert "at any premises to which section 142(1) of the Act of 1972 applies supply"
Page 64, line 20, after "make" insert "reasonable" and leave out "bureau" and insert "premises"
Page 65, line 18, leave out "to the Birmingham City Council" and insert "in the city of Birmingham"
Page 65, line 19, leave out "XII" and insert "XI"
Page 65, line 21, leave out "1" and insert "2"
Page 65, line 36, leave out "Schedule 1" and insert "(1) schedule 2"
Page 65, line 39, at end insert—
"(2) The code in Part II of the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950 shall apply and have effect in relation to apparatus of the statutory undertakers as if the construction of any subway under a street or the execution or doing under a street of any work or thing authorised by this section and Schedule 2 to this Act were works to which paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 21 of the said Act of 1950 applies.
(3) In this section "apparatus" includes any structure constructed for the lodging therein of apparatus."
Page 67, line 3, at end insert "or any electric line or work of the generating board or the electricity board"
Page 67, line 15, after "liable" insert "on summary conviction"
Page 67, line 23, leave out "corporation" and insert "Birmingham Council"
Page 67, lines 24 and 25, leave out "within 21 days from the date of the notice"
Page 68, line 16 and 17, leave out "subparagraph" and insert "paragraph"
Page 68, lines 19 and 20, leave out "subparagraph" and insert "paragraph".
Page 69, line 6, leave out "deposited map" and insert "map deposited"
Page 69, line 18, leave out "has" and insert "had".
Page 71, line 8, leave out "35" and insert "22"
Page 71, line 30, leave out "dependent" and insert "dependant".
Page 72, lines 5 and 6, leave out "justices acting for the petty sessional division of a district" and insert "Magistrates' Courts Committee for the city"
Page 72, line 12, leave out "justices" and insert "committee" leave out lines 14 to 17
Page 72, line 18, leave out "(4)" and insert "(3)"
Page 72, line 32, leave out "XIII" and insert "XII"
Page 73, line 12, leave out "Estates" and insert "Charity" leave out the words and figure from "(2)" in line 16 to "to" in line 17 and insert "Schedule 3"
Page 73, lines 20 and 21, leave out "the city" and insert "Coventry as preserved by the Act of 1972"
Page 73, line 22, after "Schedule" insert "3".
Page 74, line 37, leave out" (a)"
Page 74, line 37, leave out the words from "trustees" in line 37 to the end of line 38
Page 74, line 39, leave out "(i)" and insert" (a)"
Page 74, line 43, leave out "(ii)" and insert."(b)"
Page 75, line 3, leave out "and"
Page 75, line 4, leave out "(iii)" and insert "(c)"
Page 75, line 9, after "thereto" insert "and" leave out line 10
Page 75, line 11, leave out "Inclosure Award of 1875" and insert "(d)"
Page 75, line 19, leave out "to whom such sum is payable".
Page 75, line 21, leave out "said two bodies of"
Page 75, line 23, leave out "said bodies of"
Page 75, line 23, leave out line 24
Page 75, line 41, at end insert—
" "the trustees" means the trustees of the charity called the Coventry Freemen's Charity regulated by a scheme of the Charity Commissioners of 29th December 1978."
Page 76, line 14, leave out "the" where it occurs for the second time
Page 76, line 14, leave out lines 19 to 32 and insert—
"(3) In its application the Coventry Council the said section 37 shall have effect as if—

(a) in subsection (1), for the word "highway" there were substituted the words "road within the meaning of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1967"; after the words "occupier of the land" where they first occur there were inserted the words "or by the Coventry City Council"; after the word "may" where that word secondly occurs there were inserted the words "in the case of land in which the Coventry City Council have a freehold or leasehold interest" and for the words "an order made with the consent of the owner and the occupier of the land" there were substituted the word "order";

(b) in subsection (2) in paragraphs (a) and (b) the words "made with the consent" onwards except the concluding word "and" of paragraph (a) were omitted; and paragraph (c) were omitted;

(c) after subsection (2) there were inserted the following subsection—

"(2A) If the owner or occupier of a loading area is aggrieved by any proposal of the Coventry City Council to make, vary or revoke an order under subsections (1) or (2) above he may appeal to a county court who may dismiss or allow the appeal and may make directions giving effect to the court's decision; and the Coventry City Council shall comply with any such directions."

1011
and in their application to the exercise by the Coventry Council of the powers of the said section 37 having effect by virtue of this section the Control of Parking in Goods Vehicle Loanding Areas Orders (Procedure) Regulations 1978 shall be construed as if references to the county council were references to the Coventry Council as if references to consultation with any local authority were omitted and as if for references to obtaining the consent of the owner or occupier of the land in question there were substituted a requirement that—

(a) a copy of a notice of proposals be served on any such owner or occupier other than the Coventry City Council before publication; and

(b) before considering any objection made by any such owner or occupier the City Council shall afford to him an opportunity of being heard by a committee of the City Council.

Page 77, line 5, after "Street" insert "in the city"
Page 77, line 6, leave out "Earl Street in the city" and insert "the said street"
Page 77, line 15, after Street "insert "in the city"
Page 77, line 23, before"The "where it occurs for the first time insert" (1)"
Page 77, line 27, at end insert—
"(2) Where the river Sherbourne or any of its tributaries pass under, through or by the side of any railways or works of the railways board the powers of subsection (1) above shall be exercised subject to the following conditions—

(a) the Coventry Council shall not commence to cleanse or scour the said river or tributaries or the beds or banks thereof until after 14 days' previous notice shall have been given to the chief civil engineer of the railways board for the time being responsible for the area in which those railways or works are situated;

(b) all such cleansing and scouring shall be done under the superintendence (if given) and to the reasonable satisfacttion of the chief civil engineer and shall be done so as not to cause any injury to the said railways or works and if any injury shall arise to the said railways or works in consequence of such cleansing or scouring the Coventry Council shall make compensation to the railways board in respect of such injury;

(c) any question or dispute which may arise between the railways board and the Coventry Council with reference to the provisions of this subsection, or as to any works to be carried out in pursuance thereof, shall be determined by artibtration."

Page 77, line 28, leave out "XIV" and insert "XIII".
Page 78, line 26, leave out "XV" and insert "XIV".
Page 79, line 1, leave out "XVI" and insert "XV".
Page 79, line 21, leave out "XVII" and insert "XVI".
Page 79, line 27, leave out "XVIII" and insert "XVII".
Page 80, line 7 after "business" insert "or practice"
Page 80, line 10, after "business" insert "or practice"
Page 80, line 14, after "business" insert "or practice"
Page 80, lines 17 and 18, leave out "122 (Appeals, general)" and insert "123A (Suspension of proceedings pending appeal)"
Page 80, lines 17 leave out lines 25 to 28 and insert—
"(a) in any case where a question or dispute arises under the following provisions of this Act—

Subsection (10) of section 8 (Highway amenities);

Subsection (2) of section 14 (Provision of shops, etc., in subways);

Subsection (6) of section 33 (Urgent repairs to supply pipes and water fittings);

Subsection (2) of section 95 (Maintenance of buildings, etc., over watercourses); and

Subsection (2) of section 111 (Cleansing of river Sherbourne);

by the President of the Institution of Civil Engineers;"

Page 80, line 30, leave out "1" and insert "2"
Page 80, line 32, leave out "(1)"
Page 80, lines 17 leave out lines 34 to 40
Page 81, leave out lines 1 to 12
Page 82, line 3, at end insert—
"Suspension of proceedings pending appeal
Where a requirement, refusal or other decision of a local authority against which a right of appeal is conferred by this Act—

(a) involves the execution of any work or the taking of any action; or

(b) makes it unlawful for a person to carry on any undertaking, trade, business or practice which he was lawfully carrying on immediately before the requirement, refusal or decision was made or, but for this section, came into effect, or to use premises for any purpose for which they were lawfully then used;

then until the time for appealing has expired or, if an appeal is lodged, until it is disposed of or withdrawn or fails for want of prosecution—

(i) no proceedings shall be taken in respect of any failure to execute the work or to take the action, nor shall the local authority themselves execute the work or take the action; and

(ii) the person may continue to carry on the undertaking, trade, business or practice or to use the premises for that purpose."

Page 82, line 22, leave out "Reduction of" and insert "Minimising"
Page 82, line 25, at end insert—
"Section 29 (Restriction on use of dustbins);"
Page 82, leave out lines 35 to 39
Page 82, line 40, leave out "IX" and insert "VIII"
Page 83, line 10, leave out 3 "and insert "4"leave out line 36 and insert" Part VII (Storage of flammable material)"
Page 83, line 36, at end insert—
"Provided that, before entry on any operational railway line of the railways board in pursuance of any of those provisions of this Act and of the said section 287 as it has effect by virtue of this section, not less than 24 hours'

1013
notice of intended entry shall, except in case of emergency, be given to the railways board and any person entering on any such railway line in pursuance of that notice or in any such emergency shall comply with the reasonable requirements of the railways board for the protection of their undertaking."
Page 84, line 3, leave out "Reduction of" and insert "Minimising"
Page 84, line 26, leave out "Reduction of" and insert "Minimising"
Page 84, line 34, leave out "4" and insert "5"
Page 84, line 36, leave out "that" and insert "the said"
Page 84, line 37, after "Part" insert "II"
Page 85, line 32, at end insert—
"(7)(a) Notwithstanding the repeal by this Act of enactments continued in force by the Water Act 1973 relating to functions exercisable by the water authority for the supply of water within their area—

(i) the water authority may continue and maintain all waterworks authorised by those enactments as if this Act had not been passed; and

(A) for the purposes of section 3 of Schedule 3 to the Water Act 1945, the said waterworks shall be deemed to be authorised, and the lands on which those works are constructed shall be deemed to be specified, in an enactment which is for the time being in force; and

(B) for the purposes of section 36 of the Water Resources Act 1963, the said waterworks shall be deemed to be authorised by virtue of such an alternative statutory provision as is therein referred to;

(ii) the water authority may take any water which may be taken or intercepted by any of the said waterworks under and in accordance with any licences granted under Part IV of the Water Resources Act 1963 and expressed by reference to any of the said enactments repealed by this Act.

(b) Notwithstanding the repeal by this Act of enactments continued in force by the Water Act 1973 relating to any other functions exercisable by the water authority, the water authority may continue and maintain all works authorised by those enactments as if this Act had not been passed.
(8) Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this section shall prejudice or affect any provision made, or which may be made, in any order under section 254 of the Act of 1972 as extended by section 34 of the Water Act 1973."
Page 85, line 33, leave out "(7)" and insert "(9)"
Page 85, line 39, after "the" where it occurs for the first time insert "said"
Page 85, line 41, leave out "(8)" and insert "(10)"
Page 86, line 3, leave out "(9)" and insert "(11)"
Page 86, line 5, leave out "the"
Page 86, line 13, leave out "(10)" and insert "(12)"
Page 86, line 19, leave out "(11)" and insert "(13)" and after "operation" insert "of sections 15 to 17"
Page 86, line 20, leave out "1889" and insert "1978" and at end insert—
"(14) In this section" the water authority" means the Severn-Trent Water Authority and the Welsh Water Authority or either of those Authorities."
Page 86, line 21, leave out "5" and insert "6"
Page 86, line 22, after "in" insert "that part of"
Page 86, line 25, leave out "5" and insert "6"
Page 86, line 26, after "effect" insert "to the extent specified in that part of that Schedule"
Page 86, line 31, at end insert—
"(3) Section 51 (Prohibition of smoke in certain areas) of the Coventry Corporation Act 1948 and any order made thereunder shall continue to have effect until the end of 1981 or until the coming into operation of any order made by the Coventry City Council and confirmed by the Secretary of State under section 11 of the Clean Air Act 1956 (smoke control areas) in respect of the area defined in the said section 51 as "the central area" as extended by any order made and confirmed under that section whichever is the sooner and section 262(9) of the Act of 1972 shall not apply to the said section 51 or to any order made thereunder"
Page 87, line 1, at end insert—

SCHEDULE 1
SECTION 153 OF THE ACT OF 1959 AS HAVING EFFECT IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 11 OF THIS ACT
(1) No person shall construct under a highway any part of a building on land adjoining the highway or a vault, arch or cellar without the consent of the highway authority and the authority may by notice served on a person who has constructed any part of a building or a vault, arch or cellar in contravention of this section require him to remove it, or to alter or deal with it in such manner as may be specified in the notice.
(2) A person aggrieved by the refusal of a consent required by the foregoing subsection, or by a requirement of a highway authority thereunder, may appeal to a magistrates' court.
(3) A person who constructs any part of a building or a vault, arch or cellar in contravention of this section shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable in respect thereof to a fine not exceeding five pounds, and subject to any order made on appeal, if he fails to comply with a requirement of a notice served on him under subsection (1) thereof, he shall be guilty of a further offence and shall be liable in respect thereof to a fine not exceeding forty shillings for each day during which the failure continues.
(4) The authority may also cause any part of a building or a vault, arch or cellar constructed in contravention of this section to be removed, altered or otherwise dealt with as they think fit and may recover the expenses reasonably incurred by them in so doing from the offender.
(5) As soon as may be after an authority consent to the construction of any part of a building or a vault, arch or cellar under a highway they shall give notice thereof to any public utility undertakers having any apparatus under the highway.
(5A) Subsection (1) of this section does not apply to the construction of code-regulated works as defined in section 1(5) of the Public Utilities Street Works Act 1950".
Page 87, line 2, leave out "1" and insert "2".
Page 90, line 40, leave out "section" and insert "paragraph".
Page 93, line 1, leave out "2" and insert "3"
Page 93, line 2, leave out "THE CITY OF
Page 93, line 28, leave out" the city "and insert "Coventry as preserved by the Act of 1972".
Page 98, line 31, leave out "freeman's" and insert "freemen's".
Page 99, line 1, leave out "3" and insert "4".
Page 100, line 1, leave out "4" and insert "5".
Page 102, line 17, third column, leave out "9" and insert "9(2)"
Page 102, line 21, third column, leave out "111" and insert "to"
Page 102, line 46, at end insert—

"9 & 10 Geo. 5 c. 1.

Birmingham Corporation Tramways Act 1919

The whole Act".

Page 103, line 48, third column, leave out "to".
Page 104, third column, leave out lines 3 and 4 line 36, third column, leave out "19" and insert "to"
Page 104, lines 37 and 38, third column, leave out "and sections"
Page 104, line 45, third column, after "4" insert "22"
Page 104, line 55, third column, leave out "and"
Page 104, line 56, third column, after "28" insert "and 51".
Page 105, line 8, third column, leave out "and" and after "41" insert "and 59"
Page 105, line 52, third column, after "4" insert "and"
Page 105, lines 53 and 54, third column, leave out "and 150 and Schedule 1".
Page 106, line 28, third column, after "3" insert "8 to 10".
Page 108, line 6, third column, leave out "the".
Page 109, line 4, third column, leave out "Order" and insert "The order".
Page 113, line 1, leave out "5" and insert "6" leave out lines 18 and 19.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendments.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
A Committee appointed to prepare a Reason to be offered to the Commons for disagreeing to the said amendment, the Committee to meet forthwith.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
3.53 p.m.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords be named of the Select Committee:—

Adrian, L.

Ashby, L.

Avebury, L.

Bessborough, E.

Brown, L.

Caldecote, V.

Cranbrook, E.

Gregson, L.

Jeger, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Schon, L.

Shackleton, L.

Sheffield, L.

Todd, L. (Chairman)

That the Committee have power to appoint Sub-Committees and that such Sub-Committees have power to appoint their own Chairman;
That the Committee have power to co-opt any Lord for the 'purposes of serving on the Committee or any Sub-Committee;
That the Committee have leave to report from time to time;
That the Committee and any Sub-Committee have power to adjourn from place to place;
That the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee and any Sub-Committee from time to time be printed and, if the Committee think fit, be delivered out;
That the Committee and any Sub-Committee have powerto appoint Specialist Advisers;
That the Committee do meet on Wednesday the 13th of February at a quarter past Eleven o'clock.—(Lord Aberdare.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lord Greenwood of Rossendale be added to the Panel of Lords appointed to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this Session.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES COMMITTEE
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move the last Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, on behalf of the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, the Lord Gladwyn, the Lord Greenhill of Harrow, and the Lord Scarman be added to the Select Committee on the European Communities in the place of the Lord Ashby, the Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, the Baroness Seear and the Lord Trevelyan, resigned.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

POLICE NEGOTIATING BOARD BILL [H.L.]
3.55 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Belstead.)
Lord BOSTON of FAVERSHAM: My Lords, we on these Benches have already welcomed this Bill. Indeed, action along these lines was contemplated before the change of Government took place last year. There is something which I should like to say at this stage. In your Lordships' Second Reading debate, I referred to the proposal for an independent secretariat and welcomed warmly the recommendation by the Edmund-Davies Committee that it should be set up.
1018
However, I expressed slight concern that it was not provided for in the Bill itself, although, as I think three speakers who took part in that debate pointed out—the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and myself—it was referred to in the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill. So it was obviously accepted by the Government in principle.
I feel it only fair to mention now that I was most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for underlining in, if I may say so, a clear and emphatic way in his reply to the Second Reading debate, the Government's commitment to the proposal for an independent secretariat. It was for that reason that I did not need to return to the matter either in Committee or on Report. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for the emphasis that he gave to the Government's commitment.
There is only one other matter to which I should like briefly to refer. Apart from the tributes which we paid to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies, and his Committee, we also had the opportunity on a previous occasion to say how pleased we are that the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, has agreed to serve as chairman of the new Police Negotiating Board. He has considerable knowledge of these matters and was brought on to the Edmund-Davies Committee as deputy chairman by my right honourable friends when its terms of reference were extended to deal with police pay in December 1977.
I do not think, however, that we should let this moment pass without noting that the services of the chairman and deputy chairman of the new board are being secured at such small cost. As the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum says, the total fees, depending on the number of meetings, are not expected to exceed £1,100 in the first year. Moreover, if the noble Lord, Lord Plowden, will not feel it embarrassing for me to mention this, a Government Press Notice of 25th July 1979 said that the noble Lord, Lord Plowden:
"does not wish to receive any remuneration for his duties as chairman of the new police negotiating body".
I think it only right that we should not pass over or take for granted the contribution which very busy people make for the public good. People generally should be

1019
made aware of this, and acknowledge it. I am bound to add also that I feel that we do on occasion get services of this kind too much "on the cheap", and that sometimes the nation itself does not face up to its full responsibilities in these matters. I hope that your Lordships will give a Third Reading to the Bill.
3.58 p.m.
Lord SEFTON of GARSTON: My Lords, I wonder whether I may ask a question on Clause 1, relating to the proposed composition of the negotiating board. Clause 1 reads:
"There shall be a Board to be known as the Police Negotiating Board … representing the interests of the authorities who between them maintain"
the Police Service. I understand that in the face of opposition by the local authority associations the Government are insisting that part of the negotiating board shall consist of lay magistrates. Lay magistrates, under no circumstances at all, could be described as a body which maintains police services, although they have a role to play in the police authorities' function. If that is the Government's intention, I think that we should know about it.
Secondly, I should like to ask the noble Lord how he reconciles that with the reply which he gave to my question; namely, that there is no intention on the part of the Government to weaken the democratic element within the Police Service. It is quite evident that if for the first time lay magistrates are to be included on the Police Negotiating Board, there is a dilution of the power of local authorities and central Government. This, in my opinion, confirms the trend we have seen in the Police Service ever since the 1964 Bill, of an insidious wearing away of the democratic responsibility for the police forces in this country.
4 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, with regard to the point which the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, has raised, this of course was the intention of the report of the committee under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies, upon which the drafting of this Bill is based. It is for that reason that one-third of the official side of the Police
1020
Negotiating Board shall be magistrates. The composition of the board, as the noble Lord will notice if he cares to glance yet again at the Bill, is provided for in Clause 1(3):
"… the board shall be established in accordance with … consultations between the Secretary of State and …"
those who make up the board. These consultations have been undertaken, and it has now been agreed that this shall be the make-up of the board.
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boston of Faversham, for what he said. He reminded us that perhaps the most substantive matter which was raised by several noble Lords, of whom he was one, when the Bill was first debated on Second Reading, was whether in fact there would be an independent secretariat. It was provided for as a matter of principle in the Bill, and it is because Clause 1(3), which I have just mentioned in reply to the noble Lord, Lord Sefton, lays a duty that there shall be consultation between the Government and the authorities making up the board, that it is not written on the face of the Bill that the independent secretariat shall be part of the machinery of the board.
I repeat, these consultations have been undertaken, and I should like to make it crystal clear that all are agreed that the independent secretariat shall exist
and it is indeed being provided by the Office of Manpower Economics. I think it only remains for me to thank noble Lords who have taken part in the discussions on this short but extremely important Bill for their work on it as it has gone through your Lordships' House.
Lord SEFTON of GARSTON: My Lords, I do not very often detain the House, but before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him to deal with two specific points. Perhaps it is unusual to ask the noble Lord's opinion, but is it not a fact that this does dilute the democratic control of the police forces; and, secondly, will he make it clear whether or not the local authority associations resisted to the end the idea of lay magistrates being put on the board?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, it reflects the make-up of police authorities throughout the country and therefore seems self-evidently right. Certainly it

1021
appeared self-evidently right to the committee under the noble and learned Lord, Lord Edmund-Davies, and I think it appears self-evidently right to those who now make up the board, because my answer to the second point which the noble Lord has raised is, Yes, indeed. The local authorities pointed out very strongly to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State the difficulties which they saw in this, but after consultations between the local authorities and my right honourable friend, it has been agreed that this is the way in which the board shall be constituted.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: My Lords, can the Minister inform me as to how this is interpreted in Scotland? Since the wiping out of burgh courts I do not think that the term "lay magistrate" has much effect now, and this Bill deals with Scotland as well as England and Wales.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, the noble Lord has bowled me rather a fast ball, and I shall have to write to him on that point.
Read 3a, an Amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

PETROLEUM REVENUE TAX BILL
4.5 p.m.
Read 3a, and passed.

ARDVEENISH HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
4.6 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 MARNOCK: My Lords, we dealt with this Bill rather perfunctorily on Committee, rather late at night on Tuesday—
The Earl of MANSFIED: It was on Report, my Lords.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: Well, my Lords, we dealt with it or did not deal with it, as the case may be. There is only one point I wish to raise. I welcome the Bill, of course, and I am glad that the Government show their confidence in the Highlands and Islands Development Board, and that they are prepared to give to that board now the authority of a harbour authority and the exercise of all the functions of a harbour authority. I believe that in this particular case the board bought a piece of land for development and discovered that they had bought a rather derelict and dangerous jetty which had formerly belonged to the private company Barra Atlantic; and it has now got to the stage where it would perhaps be rather better to put up a notice warning people of the dangers of using it. So now we have to give them the full statutory authority to become a harbour authority and to erect a new jetty.
The one thing that I really want to ask the noble Earl—and I am sorry if I have not given him notice of this—concerns page 3 of the Bill, where there is a certain assessment of the cost, which I think is about £268,000. Bearing in mind that the plans were drawn up, I think, on 7th November, 1978, it may well be that that sum of money is a considerable underestimate of what the work would now cost, and it has not yet started. Has the noble Earl any information about the actual cost? But, much more important, does it follow that the Secretary of State will give approval for the immediate expenditure of this money, bearing in mind the urgency of providing this pier at Ardveenish?
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I am sure that the inhabitants of Barra will welcome as indeed I do, the support of the noble Lord to this measure, and indeed the support of the Government for the Highlands and Islands Development Board, which I have vouchsafed in public on a great number of occasions. As the noble Lord has said—or at any rate implied—this is a private Bill which is not directly sponsored by the Government: therefore I shall be perfectly frank with the noble Lord. Without prior notice I am not briefed to answer technical questions on matters such as estimates, and all I can do, as I think I did on a

1023
previous occasion, is to say that I will write to the noble Lord about this matter.
Lord ROSS of MARNOCK: But surely the noble Earl knows, because I understand that something has already gone before the Scottish Office to the effect that the Secretary of State will approve or disapprove of the spending of this money and also the timing. It is important that we should have some information about that.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, the noble Lord will get his information as soon as it can come with a 10p stanp.
On Question, Bill read 3a and passed.

FORTH PORTS AUTHORITY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
4.10 p.m.
Read 3a, and passed.

FORTH PORTS AUTHORITY (No. 2) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a, and passed.
INVERNESS DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a, and passed.
KIRKCALDY DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a, and passed.
LOCHABER DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a, and passed.
STRATH KELVIN DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a, and passed.
WEST LOTHIAN DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (DEFINITION OF TREATIES) (MULTILATERAL TRADE NEGOTIATIONS) ORDER 1980
4.14 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Multilateral Trade Negotiations) Order 1980, which was laid before the House on 15th January, be approved.
My Lords, this is a long and complex order. I did consider whether I should simply speak for a very few moments because of the extremely technical nature of it, but I came to the conclusion, reluctantly I must say, that it was my duty to explain this matter fairly fully, and I fear, therefore, that I shall have to detain your Lordships for rather longer than usual on a routine matter of this nature.
This order, made under Section 1(3) of the European Communities Act 1972, constitutes an important step in the implementation of the agreements reached in the Tokyo Round of Multilateral Trade Negotiations. The Tokyo Round is the latest in a series of post-war negotiations, under the auspices of the General Agreement on Tariff and Trade, commonly known as the GATT, aimed at reducing barriers to international commerce. Unlike previous rounds, however, the Tokyo Round negotiators placed major emphasis on reaching agreements about non-tariff barriers to trade, as well as securing a further reduction in tariff levels. The resulting package of agreements, taken together, constitute the first general revision of the principles governing the conduct of international trade since the GATT came into force 30 years ago.
An outcome along these lines seemed by no means assured when the negotiations began. They started as long ago as 1973, with a declaration by Ministers from participating countries meeting at Tokyo. But it was not until Congress had passed the necessary enabling powers for the United States Government to negotiate, and until a new President had been inaugurated in January 1977, that it was possible to make decisive progress. Most aspects of the negotiations were brought to a conclusion when the negotiators from the main developed participants signed an

1025
understanding last April. Subsequently, in July, the detailed results of the tariff negotiations were set out in a tariff protocol.
This Government have published a White Paper (Cmnd. 7724) on the outcome of the negotiations, and the matter is being considered in detail by our Select Committee on the European Communities. I am conscious, however, that the outcome has not until now been debated on the Floor of your Lordships' House. I would like, therefore, to take this opportunity of saying something about the issues involved in general terms, before turning to specific consideration of the agreements which are the subject of the order.
The negotiations did not take place at an easy time for pursuing the Tokyo Round's objectives of trade liberalisation. The start of the negotiations was followed almost immediately by the oil crisis of 1973, and by the unsettled economic conditions that have been with us in recent years. In such circumstances it was to be expected that there would be pressure from those who see protectionist measures as a way in which to increase employment. This approach has, however, been rejected by the leaders of the main Western countries at successive summit meetings. Within the United Kingdom, the leaders of all the main parties have continued to support the preservation of the open system of international trade; and both the present Government and their predecessors have endorsed the outcome of the Multilateral Trade Negotiations.
The importance for the United Kingdom of a successful outcome lies partly in the consequences which might have flowed from a failure. An inability by the developed countries to agree would not, of course, have led immediately to any sharp increase in barriers against imports. But it would inevitably have shaken confidence in the commitment of the developed countries to maintain open arrangements for international trade. An increased tendency for each country to pay greater heed to the protectionist pressures within its borders would have been the natural consequence.
We in the United Kingdom export some 30 per cent. of our gross domestic product, compared with only 20 per cent. 15 years
1026
ago. As a country heavily dependent upon international trade, we would have been badly placed to cope with a general increase in protectionist measures which could have occurred. Quite apart from the international implications, the general use of import restrictions is not a path we would wish to tread on domestic grounds. We do not believe that the removal of the stimulus of overseas competition offers a way to improve our industrial performance. The fact that the consumer has a choice, and is prepared to use it if British goods do not provide what he wants, when he wants, at a price he is prepared to pay, is the best spur that British industry has to improve its competitiveness and productivity.
The agreements which have been negotiated in the Tokyo Round should provide the benefits which protectionist developments would deny us. This positive outcome will help to maintain business confidence in the continued expansion of world trade in the medium term. It should provide greater opportunities for competitive United Kingdom firms to improve their sales, through increasing their exports, while resisting competition from imports. At the same time, the general up-dating of GATT principles will provide a more secure framework for resolving difficult issues about the conduct of international trade which will arise in the 1980s, as in the past.
The negotiations were concluded last summer, and the focus then turned to the implementation of the results of the negotiations. The crucial United States implementing legislation was quickly passed into law, in July last year. On 20th November, the EEC Foreign Affairs Council accepted a proposal by the Commission—which had been examined by the Westminster Scrutiny Committees in the usual way—that it should agree to conclude the agreements on behalf of the Community. The Government supported this decision; indeed we would have preferred it to have been taken earlier. Following the Council's decision, the Community was able to join with the other main industrialised participants in signing the negotiated agreements.
Signature took place in Geneva on 17th December—that is, shortly before the bulk of the agreements came into force on 1st January 1980. Countries

1027
which—like ourselves—had not completed their Parliamentary procedures, signed the agreements subject to their subsequent approval through their various constitutional processes. The bulk of the implementing action for Member States of the Community is being undertaken through Community legislation; for example, new regulations on counter-vailing and antidumping, new customs valuation regulations, the new Community tariff for 1980, and so on. The drafts of all these, and the Government explanations of them, are being brought before the Scrutiny Committees in the usual way; and the necessary action has been completed on the agreements which came into force at the beginning of this year.
Within the United Kingdom, an order is necessary, so that the MTN agreements shall have full effect in United Kingdom law. Last year there was only a short time in which to try to do this, between the approval of the negotiated agreements by the Foreign Affairs Council and the end of the year. A draft order similar to the present one was approved on 10th December by the other place, but the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments was unable to complete its consideration of the order in time for it to be approved by your Lordships in 1979. So the Government withdrew the draft 1979 order, and have instead brought forward the present one. I am glad to say that the 1980 draft order was cleared
by the Joint Committee on 23rd January. If your Lordships approve the present draft order, no practical difficulties should result from the short delay.
I turn now to the order itself. Three agreements in the package are not proposed for specification in the order. The supplementary tariff protocol and the two agreements relating specifically to the agricultural sector do not need to be specified, either because they have been signed by the Community alone and not by the United Kingdom, or because they are not of such a nature that they could have direct effect. All the other agreements negotiated in the Tokyo Round have been specified for the reasons explained in the Explanatory Memorandum. In general, these reasons are that the agreements have been signed by both the Community and the United Kingdom, and they contain provisions which we
1028
judge might be held to have direct effect. The nine agreements concerned are all covered in one order as they are closely related and all have been negotiated as one package.
The various agreements specified have been described in detail in the Government's White Paper on the Tokyo Round which was published in October, and their texts have been published as Command papers. Today I shall only touch briefly on each agreement and shall concentrate on their effects in the United Kingdom.
The tariff negotiations, while not necessarily the most important part of the package, were among the most difficult to conclude. No firm likes to see the tariffs protecting its home market being reduced. Each party to the negotiations naturally tailored its cuts to the circumstances of its own industry, so the
cuts are balanced overall but not necessarily product by product. Nevertheless, I believe that the Community's tariff cuts are being implemented in an acceptable way for United Kingdom industry.
The EEC's Common External Tariff on manufactured goods is being reduced in annual stages between 1980 and 1987 from an average level of 9·8 per cent. to 7·5 per cent.; that is an average reduction of about 0·3 percentage points a year. Additional assurances have been provided to the textile and paper sectors, which were particularly concerned about the prospects of increased competition from imports, and the Community has reserved its right to stop the tariff-cutting process after five years if the economic circumstances of the time require this. The reciprocal tariff cuts of other participants in the negotiations will yield worthwhile export opportunities for a range of industries—in particular, for our producers of chemicals, ceramics, wool textiles, and various types of engineering products.
I now turn to the various non-tariff agreements covered by the order. The Customs Valuation Agreement and its Protocol lay down detailed rules for the valuation of imports for duty purposes. Valuation is normally to be based on the price paid or payable for goods. Certain alternative methods are specified—in order of precedence—for use in circumstances where this criterion cannot be applied. The agreement will require some changes

1029
in our Customs valuation methods which will result in small decreases in duty paid in some cases, though in most cases the duty paid will remain the same as at present. Our exporters will gain a greater predictability and fairness in the valuation applied to their products—and hence in the duty paid—in some foreign markets.
The Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Duties elaborates the existing GATT rules on the imposition of countervailing duties against subsidised imports. As a result of the agreement, the Community has made some changes in its regulations on the imposition of such duties designed to make them more precise; these changes will not impede the Community's ability to take action in defence of its industry. Signatories are also committed to certain general principles about seeking to avoid subsidies causing adverse effects for the trade of other countries. Under the agreement we have gained the acceptance of all participants—including for the first time the United States—of the GATT material injury criterion, under which countervailing duties can only be imposed if the subsidised imports can be shown to be causing material injury to a domestic industry as a result of the subsidy.
The existing GATT Anti-Dumping Code which dates from 1968, has been updated to bring its provisions into line with those of the Subsidies and Countervailing Duties Agreement. The Community will continue to be able to take the necessary action to protect British industry from dumped goods.
The Agreement on Import Licensing Procedures is designed to ensure that the ways in which import licensing schemes are administered do not cause unnecessary difficulties for traders. It will require no change in United Kingdom practice. The Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade is concerned to alleviate the difficulties which exporters can face from product standards and certification systems in force in the importing country. Under it, an authority establishing a new or revised standard is encouraged to adopt an international standard where this is appropriate, and to follow certain notification procedures before laying down a national standard when no suitable international one exists. The agreement also
1030
provides for improved information for exporters on existing standards, and improved access to certification schemes. The British Standards Institute, and other bodies concerned with standards in the United Kingdom, are encouraged to follow these practices, while our exporters should benefit from similar practices in other countries participating in the agreement.
An agreement has also been reached on the liberalisation of government purchasing, other than the defence purchasing of warlike stores. After the agreement comes into force in 1981 the procedures under which tenders are invited must be made public, and most contracts over £100,000 must be advertised in advance in specified journals. These and other provisions are designed to ensure that the purchasing authorities within the agreement's scope do not discriminate in their award of contracts. Many of the procedures to be established by this agreement are similar to those contained in the EEC Supplies Directive 77/62 which came into effect in July 1978. As a result, it is expected that the existing departmental arrangements under the supplies directive will be able to continue on much the same basis as before.
Finally, the order that is before your Lordships covers the Agreement on Trade in Civil Aircraft. The agreement provides for duty free trade in aircraft, aero engines and some aerospace equipment between signatory countries. It also lays down certain general principles relating to such matters as government support for projects, and the purchasing of aircraft by airlines. The elimination of tariffs has not affected the Community's tariff on large aircraft, which was already suspended at zero; while the general principles are designed to help establish a modus vivendi with the United States who are of major importance both as producers and purchasers of civil aircraft.
I hope your Lordships will be able to see from this explanation, and from the detailed documents which have been provided for this debate, that none of the obligations which the United Kingdom will be assuming under the Tokyo Round Agreements are unduly onerous. The main agreements each provide for a Committee of Signatories to oversee the operation of the agreement concerned, and ensure that its provisions are complied

1031
with. I believe that we and the Community have sufficient influence to use this machinery effectively, so as to make sure that the agreements are implemented in a balanced way between ourselves and other participants.
Before concluding, I should like to say a brief word about the safeguards issue
which is still outstanding in the negotiations. While the Government were committed to a successful outcome to the negotiations for a Safeguards Agreement, it did not prove possible to reach agreement within the timescale of the rest of the negotiations. Discussions on a Safeguards Code are, however, to continue within the GATT. The working party which will undertake these
discussions is required to report back by the end of June 1980. While we regret the delay, we welcome the general willingness among participating countries to seek an agreed resolution of the difficult issues involved.
Apart from the outstanding issue on safeguards, the main aspects of the Tokyo Round Negotiations have been brought to a successful conclusion, and a conclusion broader in scope than at one time seemed likely. I have explained to your Lordships the Government's reasons for supporting the Tokyo Round package, to help maintain the open trading system and provide improved opportunities for competitive United Kingdom firms. In keeping with the bipartisan support the Tokyo Round has enjoyed, the Government have joined with other Member States in supporting the conclusion of the agreements by the Community, and the adoption of implementing instruments at Community level. The approval of the draft order before us is a further important step in the implementation of the agreements in the United Kingdom; and on this basis I commend the order to your Lordships.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th January be approved.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
4.34 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am sure the House will wish to support the Minister in his Motion, that we should approve this order. The order
1032
represents a package of extremely useful liberalising moves in the direction of freer and more open trade and, as a major exporting country, we clearly have a marked interest in any movement in that direction. The order itself of course, as the noble Lord has explained to us, declares the various agreements which he has described so clearly and competently to be Community treaties. We are well familiar with the procedures and the justifications for what we are doing today in regard to these agreements. We are in fact implementing our own European Communities Act 1972, are we not, in regard to Section 2, wlich provides for the implementation of just such treaties as those we have been discussing.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for setting out in a fairly general way the principles lying behind the negotiations which have been going on for a long time. It is a fact that there is movement towards liberalising of trade. There is always the concern of national Governments, outside and inside the Community, to retain a margin of protective provision for themselves in exigencies relating to ailing or vital industries, and we have quite a few of our own.
This brings me to one of the most important of these agreements; that relating to subsidies and countervailing duties, on which the Minister has spent some time, and I do not apologise for repeating one or two of the points that he made. This agreement of course does not impose a new practice on us as a country or, so far as I know, on other Member States of the Community. We have been doing this for some time. But it does define more precisely the practices which are enjoined upon us—for example, through the illustrative list of export subsidies.
I think I am right—and glad to be right on this point—that the United Kingdom export assistance schemes are not affected. The ECGD and other means we have of properly and legitimately promoting exports survive. No doubt when the Minister replies to the discussion he will confirm that. I cannot find the reference in this excellent explanatory memorandum, but I am pretty sure it is there and that it makes that point. It might well be repeated on the record for the business community to be doubly reassured on that point. One is glad to see the United

1033
States coming in on these hopeful and encouraging moves, particularly this one.
The Minister also referred to the agreement on technical barriers to trade arising from the adoption of standard codes and systems of certification. We are all very well aware that these disguised prohibitions have become a form of art in some quarters in the Community and elsewhere. I think they are very much less resorted to in this country than in some other countries.
Lord BRUCE of DON INGTON: Hear, hear!
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: I was hoping not to make too strong a point of that or to arouse too much applause about it, but, as a former rapporteur of the Budgetary Committee in Strasbourg, my noble friend of course knows his way in and out of these matters very well. This places us in a very good position. We have less need to watch this matter and introduce new provisions than perhaps some of our competitors. To that extent we shall be the gainers by the increased virtue of our competitors compared with the less necessary adventition of virtue in our case.
This agreement places no great constraint on the initiative of Member States—certainly not on us—for instance, in protecting standards of health, environmental standards and standards of safety. It encourages (I do not think it does more than that) the adoption of international standards and notification, but substantially leaves it to the national Governments, so long as they reach the required minimum, to take the initiative.
How far this particular agreement will help British exporters I have already hinted, and I think I am right, but I would ask a specific question. There have been complaints by more than one industry in this country who have great interest in exports that disguised prohibitions and restrictions in some countries have defeated their own legitimate export efforts. For example, the car industry has encountered certain difficulties of this kind in the Far East, in Japan. I do not make too acute a point of this, but how far does the Minister think that this agreement as it stands—it is in many ways rather tentative—will help, for instance, the car industry to penetrate certain export markets which
1034
have to some extent been protected by the imposition of somewhat arbitrary standards, for example, as regards the testing of cars? He may not be able to answer a specific point like that immediately, and I shall have no complaint if he cannot; I have been in that position so often on the other side of the House. The main thing, is to get the information in one way or another.
Then the Minister mentioned the important agreement on anti-dumping. I do not want to detain the House, but I feel inclined to quote what the Explanatory Memorandum says about the anti-dumping agreement:
"The Department of Trade will continue to maintain its own anti-dumping unit to give advice and assistance to firms preparing complaints to put before the Commission."
I quote that in support of the plea that whatever else the present Government feel should be cut in their crusade to reduce public expenditure, this particular unit, which has been and will certainly be of great assistance to our firms and which will continue to have complaints, should be maintained in strength. We are all familiar with firms which believe, though they may not he quite sure, that there is a dumping practice going on, and it is helpful to them to be able to go to the fountainhead of knowledge and experience which is found most expertly in the Department of Trade. The quotation continues:
"The negotiation of the new Agreement does not of itself affect the ability of Member States to take appropriate measures in regard to products covered by the ECSC Treaty and its subordinate legislation to protect national interests."
That is specific enough and it suits everybody. One hopes of course that, when it comes to the protection of national interests, everybody will exercise a certain restraint—I am all for the Minister's view that we should not be tempted to forge ahead to a protective system; that would be counter-productive to a country like ours—and that everybody concerned, certainly in the Community, will keep pace in this effort to protect national interests, necessary and reasonable as that is from time to time. For instance, there are aspects of agriculture, the basic industry, which need to be protected from time to time. There are ways of doing that and certainly there is an extent to which agriculture should be protected, especially within an economic community such as that to which we belong. We hope that

1035
the long-standing dispute about the export of lamb from this country to France will be related to the well-meant and well-phrased protective phrases about national interests.
The next agreement the Minister mentioned was that on trade in civil aircraft, and this will certainly help our aerospace industry's exports, especially to the United States—perhaps the Minister would care to confirm that. At a time when there is anxiety about trade in avionics generally, it would be encouraging to know that our aerospace products may be helped by this agreement, especially in the very important market across the Atlantic.
The Minister mentioned the import licensing procedures agreement, and here again I think we stand to gain as our own practice is, I believe, above suspicion. We do not use licensing procedures—the phrasing of application forms—so as to stultify or delay proper business, and the British practice may serve as something of an example to others. In any case, a we are already doing this very substantially, we should gain, because others, through this agreement, will be induced to reach the same standard of practice.
I have nothing to add to what the Minister said about the tariff protocol, except to say that it is a very acceptable agreement to reduce industrial tariffs by nearly one-third in eight annual instalments between now and 1987. That will certainly help our exports, although it may present problems for some of our firms which depend entirely or mainly on the home market, because it clearly it works both ways and competition from outside may give them times of anxiety. However, the phasing of this over eight years should, we hope, give such firms time to readjust and fit themselves for these new challenges.
The Minister referred to the agreement on technical barriers to trade, and we have dealt with that. The only other matter I would mention is the agreement on Government procurement. This is a truly liberalising measure and is greatly to be welcomed. It provides for real publicity to be given to contracts when they are announced, and this is certainly a move forward. The changes in Customs valuation were described, and those will involve
1036
us in certain changes. I do not know whether administratively it will cost us much in manpower and money to effect these adjustments. They are fractional in statistical terms; some valuations will go down but most will stay as they are, if I heard the Minister rightly. Whether this involves us in new administrative outlay, I do not know.
Generally speaking, I am sure the House will wish to approve this order as one which, after some years of negotiation, has got the best out of GATT and almost the best out of the Community, and has secured very nearly the best possible result for the United Kingdom.
4.50 p.m.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for his very thorough explanation of the purpose of the order, As he made clear, it implements, so far as the United Kingdom is concerned, nine of the agreements concluded in the Tokyo Round of negotiations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. Some 99 nations took part in those negotiations, and we on these Benches welcome the fact that at last we have reached this final stage. As the noble Lord said, the negotiations began six years ago. They have passed through various vicissitudes and have been subject to much delay, but it is encouraging to have an agreement liberalising trade concluded at a time when there is so much talk of a relapse into protectionism in the face of a worldwide recession.
The noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, spoke about the United Kingdom having a marked interest in any move towards the liberalisation of trade, and I think that he is right. As we have heard, the main developed countries are to reduce their tariffs by rather less than a third. Of course they have certain reservations in what are called the sensitive areas—areas such as textiles and steel. Nevertheless, as the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, said. it is a considerable achievement to have reached that level of reduction. For example, the proportion of Common Market exports facing a tariff higher than 20 per cent. in the United States has been reduced from 4.5 per cent. to less than 1 per cent.

1037
The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, pointed out that the agricultural arrangements are not covered by this particular order, but they are part of the general package of agreements, nine of which are covered by the order. Agriculture proved a sticking point, as always. The White Paper tells us that the tariff concessions on agricultural production were not as large as the Government would have wished and that the outcome for Australia and New Zealand has fallen well short of the hopes of those countries. We must regret that, but, even so, the White Paper says that British consumers will benefit from the agricultural arrangements.
Most of the agreements deal with non-tariff barriers to trade, and these barriers are to be reduced and regulated. The rules dealing with such matters as subsidies, countervailing duties and the general conduct of trade have been considerably tightened, and GATT has been updated to provide a framework for the 1980s. One must hope that it will be a framework which will limit and contain the trend towards protectionism—a trend which, if it were allowed to grow, would destroy more jobs than it would save.
The developing countries have been critical of certain aspects of the Tokyo Round. Concessions have been made to their point of view. The noble Lords, Lord Goronwy-Roberts and Lord Trefgame, have spoken about the question of safeguards, and the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, made it clear that negotiations over safeguards are continuing, but final agreement on that is not yet reached. The industrialised countries have wanted selective safeguards and this has been what most of the argument has been about, but as they have been able to discriminate against all the exporters of a particular product, they want to have the power to discriminate against a particular exporter of a particular product, and that is being resisted by the developing countries. I wonder whether the Community are still taking the line that they want selective safeguards. Is that still the line which is being supported by the Community and by the Government?
Further, are these continuing negotiations also covering the question of the withdrawal of privileges from countries as they become industrialised, compelling those countries, when a certain state of
1038
development is reached, to give the reciprocity that, quite rightly, they are not required to give in their present state of underdevelopment? Is that still an issue that is under discussion?
In conclusion, I should like to make three points. First, I should like to remind the House that this is an area in which the EEC acts as one unit, and we on these Benches look forward to seeing that practice extended into other spheres in the future. Secondly, I should again like to welcome the substantial reduction in tariffs and to express the hope that the areas where the EEC is applying restriction—the crisis areas—will remain the exceptions. I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, make it very apparent that the Government will set their face against the introduction of any general system of import controls. Finally, we on these Benches would hope that the recently concluded negotiations will be followed, by the end of the 1980s at the latest, by the commencement of another similar round.
4.56 p.m.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, may I join in the congratulations to the noble Lord upon the very lucid statement he has given us, and I am sure he will appreciate that with an item so complicated we shall require to spend a great deal of time in studying it line by line. I should like to ask a very general question. I understand that some 99 countries were concerned in these negotiations. Can the noble Lord tell us whether any significant exporter, or group of exporting countries, is not party to the agreement and will therefore not be hound by it, but will be free to pursue its own methods? Further, can he tell us in general terms whether the agreement, while it provides for the reduction of tariffs, gives any leeway on what is of great concern to many of the industrial nations; namely, the complete lack of reciprocity, where the developing countries have a very free entry into the industrial nations and have complete embargoes on many items going into their countries? Is there any provision against the complete embargo, as opposed to the reduction of tariffs?
The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIR-MAN of COMMITTEES (Baroness White): My Lords, I have no wish to enter in any substantive way into the debate, but I wish to present to your Lordships the apologies of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, who had hoped to be able to take part. I do so because he is the chairman of the Sub-Committee of your Lordships' Select Committee on the European Communities which deals with treaties and trade. The noble Lord's Sub-Committee has done much work in the area covered by the order that is before us, and I am sure we all regret that he is indisposed and so has not been able to take part. I should also like to take this opportunity to pay a public tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, who, with great public spirit, has for some time now taken the place of the noble Lord, Lord Trevelyan, who, as we know, has been gravely ill, and has given the most dedicated work to this area of European activity.
4.58 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am obliged to all noble Lords and noble Baronesses who have spoken this afternoon. I shall try to deal with some of the points that have been raised. I fear that I am not in a position to deal with all of them, but those that escape my attention now will be dealt with most promptly as soon as I have an opportunity to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, put a number of points to me, one of which related to civil aircraft. The agreement will certainly open up the large United States aerospace market to duty-free entry for United Kingdom producers of aircraft, aero-engines and aerospace equipment. The Community is to give commitments in return which are not out of line with normal United Kingdom practice, and the agreement contains useful procedures for assisting in the settlement of disputes over matters to do with aircraft trade. The view of the aerospace industry is that the advantages of the agreement outweigh the concessions, and that is a judgment with which we most definitely agree.
The noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, also referred to the question of technical standards relating to, for example, vehicles going into Japan. It is
1040
true that there have been some difficulties in this direction in the past. The new agreement will not, I fear, have a revolutionary effect overnight, but it should considerably limit the elaboration of new technical barriers deliberately designed to obstruct trade, and will be of very considerable value to the Community, who will be vigilant to ensure that it does just that. It will particularly provide a forum for disputes about unnecessarily restrictive existing standards, and over a period should help to improve matters there.
I was asked, too, I think, about ECGD cover, and other export-promoting schemes that we operate. I can confirm that the United Kingdom's schemes, including the ECGD, will not need to be altered on account of the Subsidies and Countervailing Duties Agreement. This is on record in paragraph 36 of the White Paper which we published on the outcome of the negotiations.
I was also asked about French lamb. I am not sure whether I was asked by the
noble Lord, but it is a subject which is bound to come up on an occasion like this. I am afraid the answer is that these agreements do not affect the problem, and certainly do not offer any solution to it. GATT generally, and these particular agreements under GATT, apply to trade with third countries—that is to say, those outside the Community. Trade within the
Community is of course regulated by the Treaty of Rome. Our quarrel with France is that they are in breach of their obligations under the Treaty of Rome, not under the GATT agreements.
I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith, who asked me about reciprocity. She was of course referring particularly to the question of textiles. She and I have discussed textiles across the Floor of your Lordships' House on a number of occasions, and I do not really think there is very much I can add to what I have said previously. But I shall certainly look carefully at what the noble Baroness has said, and will write to her if there is anything further I can add. One noble Lord—I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Banks—referred to Australia, and to the disappointment felt there. Australia is the only major developed country which has not so far signed any of the agreements. However, it is expected that Australia will sign some of

1041
them shortly. Developing countries, by and large, have not yet signed many of the agreements, but we hope that they will be able to do so before too long.
My Lords, I think I have covered all the important points that were put to me. I will, as I promised, study the record of what has been said and will write to any noble Lord whose point has not been properly dealt with; but, meanwhile, I ask your Lordships to agree to this Motion.
Lord GORON WY-ROBERTS: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he of course realises, does he not, that I was in no way suggesting that the movement of Welsh lamb to France is covered by this package order? But it is surely right to remind our friends and allies across the Channel that when a package like this—in this case, in relation to third countries—rests so much on implementation generally by the Community, so that practice should be borne in mind on their own hearth and with their own nearest and dearest.
Lord TREFGARNE: I absolutely agree, my Lords. I cannot hide from your Lordships that the problems over French lamb are very serious, and we hope they will be soon resolved; but they do not precisely fall under the terms of this order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL HERITAGE BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

METRICATION: GOVERNMENT POLICY
5.4 p.m.
Lord ORR-EWING Lord ORR-EWING rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what are their plans for the continuation of the conversion to metric units of measurement. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I put down this Unstarred Question in order to give Her Majesty's Government an opportunity to state both firmly and categorically that the change to metrication in this country is to continue. Having been chairman of the Metrication Board from 1972 to 1977, and having noticed that this
1042
debate was to take place today, I got in touch with my successor, Mr. Max Wood, chairman of the Metrication Board, to ask him to update me and to give me some notes. I did the same with the CBI, to Mr. Etoe, and to the British Standards Institute; and I owe a debt of gratitude to all those three organisations, who have been most helpful in bringing me up to date with the progress, or lack of progress, since I left.
My Lords, it was in 1965—just 15 years ago—that the FBI then, now called the CBI, told the Government of the day that they favoured a change in this country to the metric system; and it was in 1969 that the Metrication Board was first set up under Lord Ritchie-Calder—and I am delighted to see him in his place, and that he is kindly going to join in the debate. Then, 1975 was the target for completion. We have to face it: we have been dragging our feet. No Government like to bring forward subsidiary legislation which is not wildly popular, perhaps, and does not attract votes, least of all in electoral years; but I am afraid it is a sympton of a rather Luddite approach. We are very bad at introducing new schemes, new systems and new products into this country. Throughout the world, 143 countries have decided to adopt the metric system, and perhaps of all those countries it is more important for us because we are so utterly dependent on our export trade for the support of our 55 million people.
What is sad is that other countries, particularly our Commonwealth friends, who started after us, have made very much quicker progress than we have here. New Zealand, for example, has finished the change. Australia, as we are reminded when we listen to the Test matches, has virtually completed the change, too. India has long finished it. The African countries are proceeding, and perhaps the biggest and richest of them all, Nigeria, has virtually completed it. In Canada, legislation has now been passed to complete the retail sector change by 1981. In the United States, the Metric Board has been set up for some two years, and they are making progress, particularly in the gasolene field. Recently, a Parliamentary Question was put down to Mrs. Sally Oppenheim, the Minister for Consumer Protection, which asked how British

1043
exports were divided between metric and other countries. The Answer was pretty devastating. It was that, in 1978, 66.8 per cent. of all United Kingdom exports were to countries which were already metric; another 32.8 per cent. were to countries which were changing to the metric system; and only 0.4 per cent. were to countries which were not changing and had no plans to do so.
I believe it was a mistake for Her Majesty's Government to reject some supporting legislation which would back up the voluntary effort in the retail sector, because every important organisation in the United Kingdom had agreed that a purely voluntary system would not bring this about. The organisations
which took this view were widespread: the National Consumer Council. the CBI, the National Union of Teachers, the National Farmers' Union, the Retail Consortium, the National Federation of Women's Institutes, the local authorities, Age Concern and organisations representing retailers, packers, wholesalers, engineers and manufacturers, All agreed that the time had come for the Government to plan a timetable change, and not to leave us in doubt about the future.
It is interesting to note that every other free country has found it necessary to have back-up legislation to complete the change. After all, we have had compulsory legislation for many centuries in the field of weights and measures. You are not free to weigh out goods in pounds of your own choosing; they must be very accurate or you are in trouble. It is not unusual in the weights and measures area to have some compulsion. We initiated in my time—and it has gone on; and the noble Baroness, Lady White, did much as my deputy chairman—long discussions with the retail sector about weighed-out goods and measured-out goods. All those that we consulted rejected voluntary and piecemeal metrication. No one would recommend it to their members. All seemed willing to accept an orderly time-tabled programme with legislation to ensure that there was fair trading, fair competition and an orderly change-over. Some associations were even willing to see the smallest retailer, the corner shop, the village shop, exempted from legal requirements.
The manner in which we have dragged out this change has cost us a lot of money. The cost of the overlap period is measured in terms of our making goods to double standards, stocking goods to double standards and supplying them to double standards. It means double-stocking in all our warehouses. The CBI tell me—and they have taken a small sample—that five small companies calculated that it would cost them a total of £320,000 to make the complete change; but that the total saving that would be realised annually—not just once, but annually—would be more than twice that at £709,000. On a bigger scale, GKN reported that they had £40 million tied up in duplicate stocks of threaded fasteners. I am glad to say that the CBI are now initiating a bigger survey to evaluate more accurately the cost of double stocks and the cost of not going over to a single system. The CBI feel that what is needed is a positive lead from Her Majesty's Government which will allow all companies—not those that I have just quoted and particularly those who are contractors, subcontractors and sub-subcontractors in the field export or with export interests to go ahead.
Mrs. Oppenheim decided in her wisdom to dissolve the Metrication Board, now 28 strong. That is to be done on 30th April. I do not want in any way to criticise that decision. We always had it in mind—even in Lord Ritchie-Calder's day; and, certainly, in mine—that at about 1980 we would virtually have completed the change-over. But I must confess that we all thought then that it would be more thoroughly completed, particularly in the retail sector, than has been the case. Her decision to slow down the change in the retail sector will certainly slow matters down; and I am afraid that it will certainly add to the cost. And I am afraid that also it will add somewhat to the confusion of the consumers.
I should like to ask my noble friend Lord Trenchard, who is the Minister responsible, the Minister for Industry, this question. When the Metrication Board goes, who will pick up the ball? Who will mastermind the change? The change, or the remainder of it, concerns the Minister for Industry, the Minister for Trade, the Minister of Education—and I am glad to say that although we oldsters may find it tiresome to think in the new terms, this does not apply to the young

1045
ones, for 19 million come out of our schools trained to think in metric terms as a primary system—and it concerns also the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. But surely somebody must be responsible overall for planning this orderly change.
My Lords, I should like to thank all who have stayed to join in this debate. My noble friend will recall from his intimate knowledge of the Bible:
"If the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for the battle?".
I am going to give him the opportunity not to give an uncertain sound but to give a blast on the trumpet on behalf of the Government to show that we are to make steady and continuous advances in metrication, particularly in the field for which he has the responsibility, that of industry.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, I should like to support strongly the proposition that the Government should take positive action to promote the full implementation of metrication in this country. A few weeks ago the Minister of State at the Department of Trade, Mrs. Oppenheim, led people to believe that the Government would go very slow on the whole issue of metrication. I have no doubt that that statement was received joyfully by conservatives in all parties; but, to a very large extent, that was the enthusiasm of ignorance, the bliss of ignorance, for I think it true that from the failure to educate the public in what is involved in the whole issue of metrication, the idea has grown up that metrication would involve inconveniences—and these have been stressed—whereas the costs and losses incurred by the failure to metricate have not been made clear to the public at all. Whenever the subject is discussed in uninformed circles—and those uninformed circles are very large indeed—the only thing you get is a reference to what happened at the time of decimalisation. I do not even know what happened at the time of decimalisation, and nobody can tell you what it was. They all refer to the fact that awful things happened then, and, therefore, if we went into metrication, the same thing would happen.
It is a crazy argument, but the sort of argument put forward by people who have never been presented with the facts of what
1046
is involved in going metric and the costs of not going metric. The fact is that, if we had decided years ago that we were not to go metric, that would have been a mistake, but, at least, there would have been some logic in the present position. What is absolutely crazy is that we decided that we were going along that road and then ran out of steam and we are suspended halfway between an imperial system and a metric system which is about the worst situation in which we could be.
The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, has already given your Lordships most of the important facts in connection with cost of metrication and the absurd position in which we now find ourselves. I should like to underline one or two of the points he made and to add some specific cases. It surely must be crazy—and can we not get a headline on this?—that this country, dependent as it is on export trade, is in the dotty position of making in imperial standards, whereas (with those that are committed to it as well as those that already operate the metric system) over 99 per cent. of the people to whom we sell are operating on the metric basis. There can be no justification for a great trading country to persist in making in standards which are not the standards required by the people to whom we sell. The result is that we are making in both metric and imperial standards—which is an extremely costly and wasteful way of proceeding. We are now hopelessly behind the times.
When we last debated this some years ago—and I am referring to the last major debate—there were a few at least of our very important customers, such as the United States, that had not gone the whole length of metrication. It was then possible to say that there were still some important countries, even if a minority, which maintained the imperial standard. I think that I am right in saying that the only "whole hoggers", so to speak, against the metric system are now Brunei, Burma, Liberia and the two Yemens. They are not the great leaders of trade or the great industrial nations with whom, with all respect to them, we would normally expect to be associated. I very much doubt whether one person in 100,000 in the population as a whole realises in what very limited company we now move as the great exponents of the imperial standard system.

1047
The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, has referred to the fact that our schools, ahead of the industrial and political world, have, over many years, been teaching youngsters in the metric standard. It is the case that when young boys or girls come out of school, having been taught to do calculations in the metric system, and they move into an apprenticeship in industry—into which as a whole it is highly desirable that they should go, and in which too few of them seem very enthusiastic about going—they then find that they have to learn to operate in the imperial standard. I am informed that they have to be sent on courses to learn how to operate the imperial standard, because, ahead of their time, they have been taught the metric system. I find it difficult to imagine anything less encouraging than for a boy or a girl who enters industry, having been told that this is where the future lies, to find that what they have been taught at school is ahead of what industry is doing, so that they have to waste their time being taught an old system for which there is no future.
May I add one other example, because I have the great honour of being associated with the British Standards Institution. Since 1971–72, British standards have been worked out in the metric system, quite rightly, because not only were we led to believe that this would be the standard of the future, but of course because British standards—I am very glad to say—have a worldwide acceptance. It would be ridiculous for the British Standards Institution to be doing its work in anything other than the metric system. The British Standards Institution is not working out standards in imperial calculations so that those organisations which persist in working on the imperial standard are either not using BSI standards, or they are using old standards which can in themselves be very undesirable.
For these and other reasons—which further speakers will no doubt bring forward—I urge Her Majesty's Government to bring this subject to the forefront. It has slipped from people's consciousness, it is not a matter of discussion. It is a matter about which the public are in very considerable ignorance and will stay in considerable ignorance unless a real effort is made to bring it to the forefront of people's consciousness and bring forward the basically simple and overwhelmingly
1048
compelling argument why we should now quickly take steps to see that in a very short time we are with the vast majority of countries in the world which are operating metric.
5.24 p.m.
Baroness WHITE: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, indicated, I had the pleasure of working with him as his deputy at the Metrication Board for about four years, most amicably, considering our difference of views on various ideological matters and other fields. All of us who have had to deal with metrication in the United Kingdom know that its
history has been bedevilled by three things. As the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, said, by decimalisation of the coinage; secondly, by confusion with issues connected with the European Community; and, thirdly, by the pusilianimous attitude of successive Governments, each in turn giving way to the temptation of simplistic populist appeal. The trauma of decimalisation is surely behind us. I cannot believe that any Member of your Lordships' House really wants to go back to 12 pence in the shilling. If you do, my Lords, then you are not the men I take you to be. Why therefore should we have so little confidence in our ability to overcome the loss of 16 ounces in the pound or 36 inches in the yard? To anyone brought up in the modern world, to choose to waste one's energies in the extra labour of calculations involved with such units when one can do it by moving a decimal point is ludicrous.
On the second factor, a debate in another place on 19th December last indicated the mental confusion of those who suppose that metrication is a wicked ploy thought up by our colleagues in the Common Market. It is quite true, of course, that the French started it at the time of the French Revolution. They invited us to join in but we declined the invitation, although it is just about 100 years since the other place almost passed a resolution to adopt metrication—it was lost by only five votes.
As the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, emphasised, for us as a trading nation not to realise that it is now officially calculated that not more than 0·4 per cent.—just think how minuscule that is—of our overseas trade is with non-metric countries, or countries that have a firm pro-

1049
gramme for going metric, leads one to despair. These countries include virtually all our Commonwealth partners which have tackled their problems of transition
from imperial to metric with a spirit and determination which leaves us in Britain looking pretty sick, tired and old, clinging to a nostalgic past. Surely we we are capable of achieving what our Australian and New Zealand cousins have accomplished, not to mention many countries in the Third World. I am all for maintaining the aesthetic quality of our language and literature; but one may have a scruple about hiding one's light under a bushel, even if one has only the haziest notion of the precise measure denoted by a scruple or a bushel. One can go along with the poetry of Full Fathom Five or Half a League Onwards without being altogether certain of the dimensions of either a league or a fathom. I do not feel that this is an overwhelming argument, although I know that it influences a good many people.
On the third factor, the attitude of successive Governments, I must tell the House that I have been more depressed over the past few years since I became closely concerned with metrication by the attitude of successive Governments to this problem than by their handling or mishandling of matters which seem to be of much greater moment. Both major parties have shown a lack of resilience and courage which is known in detail only to those of us who have been really concerned with the matter. It has, I fear been symptomatic of our declining powers that this challenge is one that we find so hard to take in our stride.
So now we face a situation of confusion and muddle, of a waste of time, effort and expense in maintaining two systems side by side, of squandering the very real educational achievement emphasised by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, of our schools which have brought up several generations of children to feel familiar with the modern world. However, as we have heard, the children continue to emerge bewildered into our backward-looking society which has not kept pace with change.
It must never be forgotten that this change was undertaken in 1965 at the direct request of British industry. It was
1050
not the bureaucrats of Whitehall who thought it up; it was the then Federation of British Industry—now called the CBI—which has been absolutely steadfast in its support. I am sure that some of its leaders must share the feelings already expressed in your Lordships' House.
It is true that it is at the consumer end, the retailing end, that we have come unstuck. With hindsight, it might have been better had we tackled these difficulties first as I believe some other countries have done, and had we done so, perhaps, with greater imagination. For example, I learned only yesterday an interesting detail of the Australian plan of which I had not been aware: that they did not say, "You must not use any imperial scales you happen to have". What they did was to forbid the sale of any new imperial scales, so that all new scales had to be in the metric system. That seemed to me a rather skilful way of tackling an admittedly difficult question. The matter of replacement of scales, as my colleagues on the Metrication Board know very well, took up a great deal of our time and attention.
I should like to draw to your Lordships' attention a particularly striking speech during the debate in the other place on 19th December, which was made by Mr. Tim Sainsbury. He speaks with undeniable authority from the experience of his firm serving, as it does, some two million customers a week—of which I am one. He expressed his disgust—I think that is a fair word to use—over the wastefulness and stupidity of the present dual system, with imperial and metric side by side, with all the attendant costs—at a time when we are exhorted to save all we can—and which adds very considerably to the confusion of the shopper and the housewife.
It may be right for the Metrication Board to go. I should like to pay my tribute to the dedication of its officers in the face of considerable discouragement. It has never, except in its earliest days, had behind it the political "clout" of Ministers. Its functions are now presumably to be divided among the Department of Trade and Industry, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the Ministry of Transport, the Department of Education and Science, and the rest. But who is going to give authoritative

1051
and non-conflicting replies to the 6,000 or so letters each month which have to be dealt with by the Metrication Board? To whom are people to turn, as they can turn now, for advice, explanation and assistance? We hope very much that the noble Viscount, Lord Trenchard, will be able to enlighten us.
Also, who is to keep track of the voluntary effort which the present Government fondly believe will do all that is necessary for continuing peaceful change to the metric system?—because, as I understand it, the Government have not given up the metric system: they simply do not want to go on with it. Of course, one does everything possible by agreement. There is endless consultation with every conceivable interest concerned. I doubt whether there has been more consultation, relative to the scope of the operation, on any subject in recent years than there has on metrication—and we have had 15 years of it.
At the end of the day—and this is in other spheres of government and administration—there comes a point when someone must exert some authority. After you have done everything you can by persuasion you will always have some people who will find a reason for not going along, even though it is clearly in the public interest that they should do so. We have accepted this in many spheres of public administration. You do everything you can by persuasion and everything you can by voluntary agreement and you consult in every direction; but eventually there is a point at which somebody must take some responsibility.
I do not believe that it is right, as I understand that Government wish to do, to leave this responsibility entirely to the trade associations, the retail organisations and the rest. We have now had years of experience of voluntary effort. We know what it means and what the difficulties and pitfalls are. I would say, by and large, that in industry, where there has been very firm leadership from the major firms, it works reasonably well but as regards anything to do with the retail trade it is completely hit-or-miss affair.
It is true that, for example, an organisation like the Post Office, which is a monopoly, can express its postage rates in
1052
metric because there what people worry about basically is the cost rather than the unit of measurement. It may be that, with petrol prices soaring, the petrol outlets will succeed in the proposed voluntary change from gallons to litres in what is in any event a highly centralised distribution system. But I know from considerable personal experience the problems of dealing with ordinary household shops.
May I give your Lordships one example in which I was myself closely involved: that is, the sale of carpets and floor coverings. It is perhaps an outstanding example. Tremendous trouble was taken to try to get agreement, and we had a very large measure of success. A date was fixed and much time and effort was spent on staff training. Almost all the main retail traders—the big chain stores and the department stores—co-operated admirably. There were one or two notable exceptions and some of the smaller shops in the high street understandably hesitated. There was no official back-up for any sort of date in the future by which the operation should be completed should the voluntary effort lose momentum.
What happened? Although a metre is only some three inches longer than a yard, a square metre is significantly larger than a square yard, and carpets are an expensive domestic investment. To advertise, side by side, square yard prices and square metre prices confuses the public. The operation happened to coincide with a "squeeze" period in the economy. The smaller shops felt they would do better with the apparently lower prices per square yard and, after a truly gallant effort, the larger enterprises faltered. I will not go into further details and bore your Lordships, but I would say that, though the battle has not been lost, there has been a significant retreat; and behind this relative failure lies a great deal of effort of which the critics remain blissfully ignorant—wasted effort.
We have all kinds of anomalies in our shops. Furnishing fabrics are sold partly in metric and partly in imperial. On the other hand, dress fabrics and trimmings are almost all now sold in metric, largely because the paper pattern designers were persuaded to turn rapidly to metric and therefore the purchasers of materials to make up the patterns followed suit without any real difficulty.

1053
On the food side, we have the ridiculous situation that certain foods may be sold in metric but must be per unit priced in imperial—how helpful to the consumer! Because of Government failure to help the public to make the change sensibly and courageously, we now face the prospect of wasteful, two-system confusion possibly until 1989, if we are still in the European Community at that time.
As the debate in the other place on 19th December made clear, the Community did not initiate the system of units of measurement known as "SI" (Système International) to which they ask Member States to adhere. It is a world-wide system, not a plot hatched in Brussels; and we still have until 1989 completely to comply. The glee with which some Members of the other place greeted the prospect of further possible delay till 1989, and then the prospect that the United Kingdom might still be able to use its veto when that year arrived, simply reinforced one's despair at the image we must create. Perhaps it is more significant than one used to suppose that our units of measurement are called imperial and that we cling to them helplessly as the last vestiges of Empire. Let us keep the past in our poetry and song, but let us, for goodness' sake, show ourselves to be what we once used to be—the best shopkeepers in Europe.
5.41 p.m.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, for giving us the opportunity to debate this matter tonight. Whether he will be as grateful for my intervention I am not so sure, although I suspect that I shall be the only speaker taking the view that I do, at least from the Back Benches.
Unlike noble Lords who have spoken so far, I warmly support Mrs. Oppenheim's action in winding-up the Metrication Board, not that I would deny for a moment the hard work put in by members of that board; and, obviously, one must pay tribute to their achievements in that sense. I support Mrs. Oppenheim's action for at least two reasons. First, it demonstrates that the Conservatives are, from time to time, prepared to pay rather more than lip service to the concept of individual freedom which they purport to
1054
uphold. There was a time, indeed, such was the fervour of the obsessive metricators, that one seriously feared Britain might go the way of South Africa in making any mention of imperial units by the media a criminal offence. It demonstrates, too, that Conservatives with a large "C" can occasionally be conservatives with a small "c", in the very best sense of that term; that is to say, in upholding the traditions which have contributed to our development as the distinct people that we are, and not just as part of the grey amorphous mass.
An enormous number of people hold these views, but many are reluctant to express them for fear of appearing un-trendy. That is one more reason to regret the sad and untimely death of the former City Editor of the Sunday Telegraph, Mr. Patrick Hutber. He was a staunch upholder of the freedom of the individual and, as a corollary, was passionately opposed to compulsory metrication. Contrary to superficial appearances, this is not just a question of being reactionary, of opposing all change on principle. As I think I said once before, when we discussed this matter on an earlier occasion, it would not worry me in the slightest if a decision were made that in future British motorists should drive on the right of the road, rather than on the left; and this. I submit, is a far more radical change than metrication or decimalisation.
What is more, I believe it is right that not only wine should be sold in litres and centiliters; after all, most drinkable wine comes from Latin countries and one would therefore expect that. But it seems reasonable to me that spirits and soft drinks ought to be measured in litres and centilitres as well, for the simple reason that fluid ounces are not part of everyday usage. But most of us, I submit, generally prefer imperial units of measurement. I quite appreciate that other noble Lords feel differently, but that is what freedom is all about. People who think like myself find them more fitting, and this is not surprising because imperial measurements—and if I may correct the noble Baroness, Lady White, they are nothing to do with the British Empire; they evolved from the Roman Empire—
Baroness WHITE: That is dead and gone too, is it not?
Lord MONSON: But, my Lords, it is not quite the same thing.
As I was saying, imperial measurements evolved over the years from the real needs of real people. They were not the creation of cloistered academics, unaware of the desirability of having units that divide by three without leaving untidy fractions. Imperial units tend to be on a human scale that one can visualise. It is possible, admittedly, that one can (with some difficulty) visualise a centimetre, and rather more readily visualise a decilitre, which is about the capacity of a decent size glass
of wine. But the Systéme International does not now allow us to use centimetres or decilitres. It has to be millimetres or millilitres, which are far smaller than the human eye can gauge.
It is not only the ordinary man and the ordinary woman who find the rule of thumb useful: we do not all carry calculators, steel tapes and balances around with us. Professional people, too, find it useful from time to time. There are still plenty of architects and surveyors who pace out a site or an area in the first instance. They pace it out in yards, not metres, because if they tried to do so in metres they would run the risk of doing themselves a serious injury. Of course, precise measurements have to be taken eventually, but they can equally well be in yards or feet as well as metres. One might as well finish as one starts out—if one is building for a British client.
While we are talking about precision, which I assume is one of the aims of the metricators, why on earth replace the relatively precise Fahrenheit scale for measuring temperature by the far less precise Centigrade, or Celsius, scale? The Centrigrade scale is only 55·55 recurring per cent. as precise as the Fahrenheit scale or, to put it in another way, the Fahrenheit scale is 80 per cent. more precise than the Centigrade one. Furthermore, a scale of zero to 100 degrees Fahrenheit happens to embrace the normal range of climate to be found in the average temperate zone country over a 10-year period. The fact that 100 degrees Centigrade happens to represent the point at which pure water boils at sea level is really of no consequence in daily terms to the farmer, the football manager, the person who is wondering whether to go to Brighton for the day and so on.
1056
Of course, I am not insensitive—I revert to what the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, was talking about—to the need of exporters, although it should be pointed out that somebody wanting to sell cars to the United States would have to convert back from metric to imperial, because——
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, may I correct the noble Lord, because I am sure he would not want to deceive the House. All the car makers in the United States now make to metric standards, because they are international companies and they recognise, and have recognised for three years, that they have to market both at home and overseas in the metric system. So that all their cars are designed to metric standards.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I was under the impression that engine capacity in the United States was measured in cubic inches and not in cubic centimetres. I think that the noble Lord is probably talking about the length and width of the bodywork. I am not sure. We should not forget, too, that the aircraft on which I am, God willing, to fly out to the East tomorrow will be flying not between 6,000 and 12,000 metres, but between 20,000 and 40,000 feet. Fathoms and nautical miles are still used and tape recorder speeds—and you cannot get much more in tune with contemporary society than with tape recorders—are measured in imperial and not metric terms. However, I accept that for most exporters' purposes knowledge and use of the metric system is vital.
The noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, did not make it clear whether he was thinking specifically of capital goods exporters or consumer goods exporters. Capital goods exporters already have an enormous amount of paper work to do. They have to print their assembly installation instructions, operating instructions and maintenance instructions in any variety of languages, from Finnish and Portuguese to Urdu and Japanese. I do not believe that he was thinking of them: I believe that it was consumer goods exporters that he had in mind. In several countries—Switzerland, Belgium and Canada among them—consumer goods manufacturers are obliged by law to print their packaging in at least two languages. This does not seem to hinder them.

1057
Then, of course, the biscuit manufacturers—and I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, will have something to say about them—list their ingredients in a number of languages, as well as giving the weight in both imperial measurement, 7.05 ounces, say, and metric measurement, 250 grammes. To put both systems of measurement on the packet is really far less trouble, I should have thought, than printing the ingredients in three or four languages.
What we seem to be left with is the anguished cry: "What about the kiddies?" The noble Baroness, Lady Seear, made this point. Well, what about them? I am constantly travelling in countries, not all of which are exactly noted for a high incidence of intellectual genius, where, as a matter of course, nearly everybody—school children, young married couples, the middle-aged, the elderly—speak two or even three languages quite fluently. Apart from the obvious utility of knowing two or three languages, I suggest that this is good exercise for the mind. With this in view, it is a slur on British children to suggest that they are incapable of absorbing the metric system together with the system which is a fundamental part of our culture and heritage and which is interwoven into the world's finest literature and poetry. Therefore, I fully support the Government in "setting the people free" on this issue, and I urge them to stick to their guns.
5.51 p.m.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, I am very glad that I am in a position to follow the noble Lord, Lord Monson. I was afraid that we were going to have such a chorus of support for metrication that we would lose the authentic voice of those who, in very small numbers but very loudly, have been shouting and screaming at us over the last 15 years. When we were facing opposition to metrication, I encountered in the other House 25 Members of Parliament who were totally opposed to it. They were divided between those whom I call "the folklorists", like the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and those who were saying, as the noble Baroness, Lady White, pointed out, that this was a devious device for dragging us into the Common Market.
1058
I do not know why any Government should listen only to these voices when the argument, as has been pointed out, was so overwhelming. This was not a question of the bureaucrats dreaming up jobs for themselves, nor was it a question of the academic élite forcing metrication upon us. The call for metrication came from those people who are earning our living for us; namely, from industry.
As the first chairman of the Metrication Board, I have, in what I regard quite definitely as a very grievous situation, a sense of responsibility and a sense of personal grievance. I have a sense of responsibility for the distinguished men and women who have served the Board. We were reminded by the noble Lord,
Lord Boston of Faversham, of this great self-sacrificing group that we can call upon in this country. Furthermore, hundreds of similarly distinguished people have served on the sector committees and the working groups, giving freely of their expertise—expertise which money could not buy—and whose efforts have been treated with contempt by the Minister, Mrs. Sally Oppenheim, who chose a pickle factory in Bury St. Edmunds as the venue for her ill-considered announcement that there would be no more cut-off orders for imperial weights and measures. As your Lordships will have noticed, that is not quite true, because there have been sotto voce orders since then from the other Bench.
I feel a sense of personal grievance and, indeed, a sense of betrayal because I accepted appointment as the first chairman of the Metrication Board on
understandings which were honoured neither by the Labour Government which appointed me nor, for my successors, by successive Governments since. I agreed, as would many people of common sense, that metrication should be achieved by voluntary methods. Indeed, I could not see, with all the complexities extending into every sector of the economy and so many sectors of society, how it could be done otherwise than by voluntary methods. But in accepting the recommendations of his Standing Joint Committee on Metrication that a Metrication Board should be set up the Minister of Technology said, and I quote from Hansard of 26th July, 1968, cols. 1167 to 1711:

1059
"The Government accept that legislation will be needed to remove obstacles to the adoption of metric units and to define the units to be used".
There was nothing inconsistent in that statement with what we were maintaining about doing it by voluntary methods. What the Minister was emphasising, and what I was promised when I took over, was that whatever obstacles stood in the way of adjustments, they would be removed by means of Statutory Instrument.
As the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, pointed out, when we are speaking about weights and measures we are speaking about things which have been treated in this way since the beginning of time. It is in Leviticus; it goes all through history, right through the Winchester measurements, and so on. It was a standard by which one could prevent cheating. There are various kinds of cheating. You can cheat within the system or you can cheat between the system. What we are finding now in this confusion is that small shopkeepers are totally confused, because they are being put upon from all directions.
Ultimately, agreement was reached all the way down the line, as the noble Baroness, Lady White, pointed out. There was an enormous amount of consultation during the last 15 years, with the aim of satisfying everybody, including the
consumer. When I took over I was told that I would be lynched by the housewife.
I went round the country and talked to the women's movements, to housewives and so on and found, on the contrary, that they were insulted by the suggestion that they would be unable to cope. That is not quite true of the discussions one hears at the moment in the clubs and the pubs.
After the failure, as the noble Baroness, Lady White, pointed out, by only five votes in the Commons in 1871–109 years ago—to make the metric system compulsory, the Weights and Measures (Metric System) Act 1897 made the metric system lawful in trade and commerce. Our job in the Metrication Board was to shift it from a secondary system to a primary system which was more functional, more useful and more efficient.
1060
As I said at the time, I was not there to abolish the pint; I was there to liberate the litre. I described the scope of the board as a marshalling yard. The task of the various sector committees, working through industrial and trade associations, through agricultural and educational bodies and in close consultation with consumer interests, was to assemble the wagons and fix realistic timetables upon which they could become effectively metric. But the Government, in order to give us access to and exit from that marshalling yard, had to operate the signals and clear the lines so that the movements could be synchronised. Everything would get hopelessly out of kilter if suppliers and users were operating under different Statutory Instruments, with different statutory units, to different time points.
We got things moving with much fewer difficulties than we expected because most of the preparatory work had already been done very thoroughly in the five years before the Board took over—and because our sector committees and working groups secured the respect, support and vigorous co-operation of their colleagues throughout their sectors. We could shift the points and shunt the wagons, but Governments were dilatory in changing the signals. The line was cluttered with obsolete instruments.
Britain took the decision to go metric in 1965 when the Government accepted the inescapable arguments of the then Federation of British Industries and the findings of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, the Royal Society, the British Standards Institute and the Association of British Chambers of Commerce. With the backing of all these people, and their strong representations, the Government undertook the transition from the folklore of imperial units to the simpler and coherent system of metric units and decided to adopt a common numerical language in which to talk business to the rest of the world.
The lead time—that is, the time to be taken throughout the process of conversion—was accepted as 10 years. It was also accepted in the Government's Statement. The Standing Joint Committee on Metrication has done a masterly job of prep-

1061
aration for converting the historical compulsion into an efficient voluntary system. When I said in the Board's report of 1970 that Britain would be metric in 1975, I can assure your Lordships that I was dealing with a realistic timetable. Events have proved me wrong and 10 years later we are only 70 per cent. (or two-thirds) metric, with resulting confusion and with capital costs running into hundreds of millions of pounds because, as has been pointed out, of the question of double-stocking of imperial and metric supplies, the complications of making the conversion and the lost trade with our metric customers overseas.
I have always wondered—to give one example—what the operation of the dual system really meant in terms of the Concorde as compared with the Jaguar. The Concorde was built in two separate systems. We were building and adjusting all the calculations to metric, and the French were working on their system. I think that the delay can be attributed to the non-metric system.
When I took on as chairman I stipulated a three-year term, because I believed, while I had confidence in co-ordinating and informing, that my job was primarily to get metrication off the ground. If it did not get off the ground in three years, it would not get very far. It was certainly airborne by 1973 when I left, but what I was wrong about was the ETA—the expected time of arrival. Even by that time we were past the point of no return, because we had committed ourselves and we were going all the way down the runway, but timid Governments have kept metrication circling, like stacked aircraft waiting for permission to land. And I warn the Ministers that we are running out of gas.
I am ashamed. Back in 1970, countries were coming to us to learn how to accomplish an orderly transition. We were a model. Now Australia and New Zealand have done the job well ahead of us. In Australia the trouble was not the sacred pint, which bedevilled my life, but the "cobbers" schooner of beer. When the United States decided in 1975 to go metric I was asked to give evidence before a Congressional committee to discuss the lead time, that is, the 10 years as from
1062
1975 (which they had also accepted), the voluntary principle and the statutory
tripwires. They were listening to us because they saw in our system the democratic voluntary approach which they themselves were anxious to foster. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, is not in his place, but I should just point out that the people who took the lead in the United States of America for going metric were in fact the motor industry. America got off to a very strong start because in fact the whole defence programme was put over to metric. What can one do in this space age? One cannot go to the moon in feet per minute. One has to deal in these terms if one wants to get to the moon or anywhere else.
On 17th December 1979, two months after her pickle factory speech, Mrs. Sally Oppenheim in a Written Answer gave the figures which were quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, pointing out that 66.8 per cent. of United Kingdom exports went to countries which use the metric system; 32.8 per cent. went to countries which are in the process of changing and, as the noble Baroness, Lady White, has repeated, and I want to emphasise, only 0.4 per cent. to countries which at present have no plans to change to the metric system. With all due respect, I see Mrs. Oppenheim as being rather like a proud Scottish mother seeing the march past when she said, "They're all out of step, except our Jock". The world cannot be entirely out of step and we cannot be the only ones who are in step.
I also wish that Mrs. Oppenheim would be consistent. She comforted me in 1973 when, in a Commons debate, she said,
"I think that the views"—
on metrication—
"of most consumer organisations almost coincide exactly with the views of Macbeth".
Then she quoted Macbeth.
"If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well it were done quickly".
We should be doing it quickly now. It is a long and painful process with decay in sight.
She also said, very rightly, in that debate that one of the fundamental errors prop-

1063
agated during the debate was that our advance towards metrication was the result of our entry into the EEC. But this has not stopped people saying it. The folklorists have joined in and the people with whom I was arguing at that time on television, and so on. One distinguished MP said that he would go to the barricades to save the pint, and I replied in mild and bitter reproach, "I did not notice you on the barricades against the 15½ fluid ounces of the canned beer in your fridge. I offered him a metric pint of 50 cl. instead of the 44 cl. of that can.
I just want to remind your Lordships that those who believe that the Government are mistaken got support last week from the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod of Borve, when she, in the debate on small businesses, pointed out that one of the worst things that the small shopkeeper has to cope with is the failure of the Government to implement the policy of metrication. She said:
"Whatever our views on the metric system, it is a fact that since 1964 Governments have accepted that the country shall go metric in the interests of our survival in the world markets. Until, by order, the Government complete the change, small shopkeepers will continue to face the time-consuming and unnecessary work which is involved when dealing in both imperial and metric systems. The shopkeeper has to be constantly on his guard to check delivery documents from his suppliers. Some operate in metric, but some still operate in imperial. Some sizes and prices of packs are metric and some are imperial".—[Official Report; 23/1/80, col. 458.]
She pointed out that this was one of the biggest handicaps that the little corner shopkeeper has to deal with.
The point on which I want to finish is one that I do not think we can emphasise sufficiently, in spite of the noble Lord, Lord Monson. My biggest sense of my own betrayal, and I think the betrayal of all of us, was the children. In the early days of the Metrication Board, we got enormous help from the education authorities, and we went over—on the promise, mark you, that the expected time of arrival was 1975, and we were promising the children who were going through this process that they would be coming out into a metric world. The result is that nearly 19 million children have been through that system and have come out into this bi-lingual world of rods and
1064
perches, and all the folk-lore of our system, for which, as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, pointed out, there are a lot of valid reasons when you are going to measure with your knuckle or the length of your arm. Incidentally, a fathom is the length of a Viking's hug.
Baroness WHITE: I am greatly obliged.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, we are coming now to the world of microchip computers. How on earth are the children going to cope? How can they see any sense in their elders, who insist upon lumbering them with this nonsense? I agree that if we had not started it we would not be in the mess we are in now, but the fact is that we started it and we are in a mess out of which we have got to get quickly.
6.10. p.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I have great sympathy with the noble Lord, Lord Monson. I would not say that I entirely agree with him all the way down the line, and I particularly do not agree about the freedom issue. I do not think this has anything to do with freedom. You might just as well say that we ought to be free to drink as much as we like, or to go as fast as we like on the roads. Society does make a certain number of rules to protect itself from itself, and I would have thought that this came more in that area. Where I have sympathy, however, is in this respect, that it always sticks in my gullet when I hear a radio announcer talking about the 22 in a rugger match instead of the 25. I think it is a great pity that the Frenchmen, who in their wisdom devised the metric system in the 18th centry, did not get is quite right, and therefore the nautical mile of 2,000 yards is more closely connected with the degree of latitiude than is the kilometer. It would have been a very good thing if the Frenchmen had been more advanced and had got the thing more accurate so that that little error did not exist for all time.
Also—and I hope the noble Baroness, Lady White, will not be horrified—I regret bitterly the matter of decimalisation, because I think it ought to have been duo-

1065
decimalisation. I think it is a tragedy that the good God gave us four fingers and a thumb instead of five fingers and a thumb, because then we would be able to divide our basic units by two, three, four and six, instead of just five and two. There are hundreds of practical examples where this would have been very helpful. The fact is that we do not have that benefit, and not having that benefit, we have to look at things as they are. We are rather like the chap who was motoring along and stopped to ask somebody the way. The somebody he asked was an Irishman, who, when he had taken in that the chap wanted to go to a particular place, said, "Well, the first piece of advice I can give give you is not to start from here". I think we are rather in that position; we are trying—as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has done in this Chamber—to say that we do not want to be here, we want to be somewhere else for a start point. The fact is, however, that we are where we are, as the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, said, two-thirds or 70 per cent. of the way to the conversion to metric. I should have thought that it depends what area you are talking about. In some areas it is a bit more and in others not so much. We have to be practical about it. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and those in the other place who take the same view, "For Heaven's sake use common sense".
We started in 1965, as my noble friend Lord Orr-Ewing said. Not long after that I was director of the Distributive Industry Training Board. One of the things which brought me into contact with the Metrication Board—though not perhaps at the level of the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, or my noble friend—was in doing the practical thing of trying to make available to the distributive trade the necessary training programmes for them to do the conversion. They were getting on very nicely. I remember about 1972 going into a shop where I wanted to buy 40 yards of electric flex to rig up a bell for my elderly mother. I said to the girl, "Can I have 40 yards?" She looked rather horrified, sort of nonplussed, almost, "What can I say? I do not want to lose a customer". It was our local shop and she knew me very well. This seemed to go through her mind. Suddenly the penny dropped and I said,
1066
"Do you mean you would like to sell it in metres?" and she said "Yes". I then said, "All right, I will have 38 metres", guessing what it might be. She then solemnly took the flex and measured it across the top of the counter, where there was a yard measure and scratched with a screwdriver three inches further on a local personal mark. She solembly measured off my 38 metres with this new marking and ignored the yard measure completely. We had got to that stage in 1972 in ordinary shops with girls with very little training. They were all the way down the line. Then suddenly there came the sort of stoppage which noble Lords have mentioned. It is quite tragic that we have, I would have thought quite unnecessarily, put ourselves into this area of uncertainty.
I was reading only today the minutes of a meeting of the all-party retail group. I have the privilege to be still a member, for I do not know quite what reason. Unfortunately, I could not attend the meeting in question. It said that the Members—Members from another place mainly and some noble Lords from this House—were perplexed (I think was the phrase) as to what really was the situation about metrication.
This is what I think is almost unforgivable. Our Government, for which I generally have the highest admiration, are normally splendidly positive about what they do; they do not leave the country in much doubt as to their thinking. Not everybody may agree with that thinking but at least they have a pretty clear idea of it. In this area we just do not know where we stand. It would be extremely helpful if the Government, and my noble friend in particular, could not only tell us where he thinks we stand but also persuade his colleagues to get on and complete the job as soon as they possibly can.
6.18 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I want to put to the House and particularly to the Minister the views of the consumer Co-operative Movement. That movement handles 11 per cent. of the retail food trade, and in addition it has quite substantial factories doing food processing.

1067
The views which I am going to put to the House are based on the movement's experience in that work. First, let me say that we were never really enthusiastic about metrication, but we appreciated from practical experience that there were considerable advantages to the factory that was packing for both the home market and overseas in having packs which could be sold on both markets. We found that the advantages were quite substantial.
Consequently when, in 1973, the then Government decided to accede to the Treaty of Rome we regarded that as a signal for proceeding with all possible speed to metrication, and we gave our enthusiastic co-operation to the Government of the day, regardless of its colour, and to the Metrication Board. We did so because we felt that if this country was going to join the Common Market, which was wholly metric, then it would be completely foolish to think that we could take the opportunities which were open to us if we stuck to the imperial system. We recognised, of course, that there would have to be statutory cut-off dates, which were agreed in advance with consumers, manufacturers, wholesalers and retailers, and indeed with scale-makers. That, we knew, was an indispensable part of the changeover to become fully metric, since no trader would risk going metric if it were still legal to sell in imperial weights. Dual marking is both tedious and confusing. The cut-off date technique has worked very satisfactorily and steady progress has been made as regards certain commodities and sectors.
In the range of food commodities, for which agreed statutory cut-off dates are now operated—sugar, margarine, butter, tea, coffee, dripping, lard, cooking fats, vegetable oils and suet—there have, to the best of our knowledge, been no complaints about over-charging on the changeover. The Metrication Board recently conducted an independent, in depth, inquiry of its own. It did so on the changeover of soluble coffee from imperial to metric. It found that the retailers had been completely fair in their repricing and that there were no grounds whatever for the changeover being an opportunity for overcharging.
1068
However, we regard our obligations to the EEC as being art imperative reason for continuing with our metrication. We think that it is the height of folly to have joined a market which is a metric market and then to try to hold back orderly progress to metrication. In any case, we have legal obligations, apart from the need for us to take full opportunity of what the market offers us.
So far as scales are concerned, when they fall for replacement, they ought, nowadays, to be replaced with the metric type. The job of converting existing scales to cook with metric weighed-out goods ought to be going ahead now. Food manufacturers and the packaging industry have very similar problems.
We plead with the Government to continue orderly, time-tabled progress. In doing so, we are in very good company. That is also the view of the National Consumer
Council. Indeed, it is not opposed by the CBI and it is not opposed by the retail consortium. We find it very difficult to understand why the Government should be hesitant. We believe that hesitancy of that kind can do damage to education. On the assumption that there would be orderly, time-tabled progress in metrication, there have been radical changes in our teaching of measurements. The metric system is now taught as the principal system, and references to the imperial system are made largely because of their historic interest. However, if we hesitate, as the Government appear to be doing, all those changes will have to be reversed.
We believe that this is not a political matter: it is a matter which is in the interests of our economy, especially our export trade and our trade in Europe for which, by the way, we make some enormous sacrifices in order to have the freedom of trading in that market. We feel that for the Government to hesitate now would be folly and that they should continue the time-tabled and orderly progress. We are not pleading for the maintenance of the Metrication Board, but we believe that the progress to metrication not only should be continued, but should be continued under central control, not scattered over several departments; and that the appropriate place would be the Department of Trade

1069
and, if your Lordships like, the consumer section. However, we believe that it ought to be done and that it would be sad if the Government defaulted in that respect.
6.26 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Viscount Trenchard): My Lords, I should like to start by saying that I recognise the sincerity of all the views that have been expressed today and the very great knowledge behind a great many of them, especially those of the two former chairmen of the Metrication Board. I shall draw all the detailed points that they have made to the attention of my right honourable friend and we also, in the Department of Industry, will study them very closely.
I believe that there is a little misunderstanding and I think that perhaps—if I may impertinently suggest it to two former chairmen of the Metrication Board—we just might be concentrating too much on the past. A number of speakers have pointed out that in their view we have moved too slowly. But where we agree with the noble Lord, Lord RitchieCalder—whether it is 70 per cent. or a little more is perhaps arguable—is that the conversion to metrication is very nearly done. Of the area not converted, there are important segments which, as I am sure noble Lords who have spoken will realise, will inevitably, whether under a compulsory system or a voluntary system, take some time to complete. I shall return to the segments where completion is not yet complete and make that point clearer.
Neither would I accept the charges that have been made today that we do not want to go on, that we want to hold back. The situation is as follows. Since the original decision taken by the Labour Government in 1965, to which reference has been made, each successive Government in this country have taken the view that the adoption of the metric system in an orderly way was in the national interest. That is my view and the view of my right honourable friend. What we are discussing today is the best method of completing the job. As regards that, the Government have taken the view, and the decision, that the job can be completed in an orderly way with a voluntary system. Further, they take
1070
the view that it is a better way than fixing any one particular date, especially as some of the remaining problems are very difficult and peculiar to the industries concerned.
My noble friend who introduced this Question asked me some specific matters. He asked me to state categorically whether it was the Government's view that metrication is to continue. It is the Government's view that metrication will continue, is bound to continue, and is continuing all over the developed and undeveloped world where it does not already exist. It is not the Government's
view that it should be compelled to be completed on a compulsory programme. He asked me whether I would accept that some supporting legislation is necessary. Neither my right honourable friend nor I at the moment have any evidence that that is necessary or desirable as a method to complete the transfers to the metric system which have gone so far, and have been helped so much by the former chairmen of the board whom we have heard from today, and the dedicated members of that board.
My noble friend asked me who would mastermind it. The responsibility must remain with my right honourable friend in the Department of Trade, for any overall co-ordination—after the decision that she has already taken—that may be necessary, but we do not believe at the moment that that will amount to anything of substance. So far as my own position is concerned, which the noble Lord mentioned, I have a duty to study the problems of and costs to industry, and I shall do that. I have indeed heard from the CBI, and I shall no doubt continue to hear from them, but what I hear at the moment is that they believe—it was not their preference—that the job can be completed on a voluntary basis in an orderly way.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Viscount for a moment? Can he tell us what happens supposing that Mrs. Sally Oppenheim, who is to mastermind this voluntary change, finds in two or three years' time that very little progress is being made? Supposing she finds from all the experience we have had in this country, all the experience in Commonwealth countries and other overseas countries, that some cut-off dates are

1071
eventually essential, and she finds that that is also true here, can we then reactivate something along those lines?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I am not going to follow my noble friend in answering a hypothetical question which we do not believe will become a real question. We do not believe it because not every nation has used a compulsory method. My noble friend himself mentioned the situation in relation to American motor cars. He knows that in America they have adopted a voluntary system. My information is that in his dialogue with the noble Lord, Lord Monson, he was correct in saying that they had transferred completely and voluntarily on all important matters regarding motor cars. This has been done under a voluntary system.
I know that in the case of Australia, and many other countries, a compulsory system has been used, particularly in the retail area, but the information that I have suggests that Australian conversion in the engineering sector, for instance, in spite of the degree of compulsion that they have adopted in retailing and in the programme generally, is not as far advanced as our own. Whatever the merits of these different approaches, I accept what noble Lords have made clear; namely, our particular position as a trading nation, and the particular importance to us of manufacturing industry being able to cut down as soon as is possible the number of lines and products and packages that they produce.
I feel that noble Lords have played very lightly on the real problems of conversion and the real hostility that there has been in some areas to conversion to metric on a compulsory basis, and I think they do an injustice to the people concerned. It is seldom that I spring to the defence of 25 Members of the other place who have been totally unanimous, but I must confess that 25 Members of Parliament being totally unanimous must mean that there is something in their argument.
The noble Baroness, Lady White, suggested that the unit price in imperial weights was thoroughly unhelpful, but I think that this underlines what I felt was lack of sympathy with those who
1072
genuinely say, "Please keep, at least in dual marking, some reference to imperial weights, which we understand"—particulary, perhaps, for those who are not so young as to be able to learn more than one system in a hurry, and who would like the protection of being able to compare unit prices in units which they really understand.
I believe that we must not brush on one side—and I, as an industrialist, have perhaps more reason and background to brush on one side—the objections of certain segments of the consumer population. I know only too well how much money can be saved in standardising costs. But I think today, with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, we may have done an injustice to that part of opinion that says, "Go slowly, and go practically". I accept the point that we should explain more fully the importance to industry of being able to pack and mark in one weight. I think that in terms of balancing consumer requirements and industrial requirements there is in this case, as in many others, a need for greater explanation.
The Government's policy is quite clear. I did not know of the quotation of my right honourable friend that,
"If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well it were done quickly".
But I agree with her today, that it should be done in an orderly way.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, you need timetables for that.
Viscount TRENCHARD: You need a timetable for that, as the noble Lord rightly says, and a timetable can be arranged in more than one way. We are talking of the completion of certain segments that have not converted, to which I shall come in a moment. In the past, when I have been in industry, I have often complained that Government have set dates for particular changeovers which may be right for one section of the industry and are quite wrong for the other, and in my view I have been right. What my right honourable friend and I suggest, and suggest to the trades associations, both manufacturing and retail, is that the remainder of the completion should be the subject not just

1073
of individual commercial decisions by companies, which of course are paramount, but of negotiation between the trades associations concerned on the best programme for the particular segments of industry which have not yet completed the change.
Let me correct one other point. We are neither erecting barriers nor trying to go back on or away from metrication. Indeed, most of the barriers to metrication have been removed, and my right honourable friend is studying closely and urgently those remaining harriers of a legislative kind which make it difficult for conversion in one or two detailed areas. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, rightly described the clear and, if I may say so, good thinking of the Co-operative Movement on the need to convert. I am really suggesting that through his retail organisation, working in conjunction with other retail organisations, this job can be completed in the orderly manner that he requested, on a voluntary basis.
I have already paid tribute to the "Metrification" Board, and I assure the noble Lord, Lord Ritchie-Calder, that my right honourable friend meant no offence by announcing her recent decisions in a pickle factory. I was for a short period a temporary and very inefficient ADC to Field-Marshal Montgomery and I know that he made some of his best announcements—if noble Lords will allow me to use the word—in the loo. This is not, if I may say so, an important point.
As for the 6,000 letters which the noble Baroness, Lady White, mentioned, I could say to those who wish to write letters that they should write them to my right honourable friend at the Department of Trade, but it would not be sensible to do that. If a programme for completion of the kind I have outlined, in an orderly way arranged by trade associations, goes forward, it will be announced, and a great many of those letters—if there are queries, as I am sure there will be, on the remainder of the conversion still to be done—should be addressed to those trade associations. But if there are matters which members of the public wish to draw to the attention of Government as a result of the completion plans on the lines I have announced, then of course the residue of those letters should
1074
go to my right honourable friend at the Department of Trade.
I believe the job is nearer done than those who have been wrestling with it in the past have realised. I do not think we are half-way between or in mid-stream"—half-way between" was the expression used by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear—and we are certainly not whole-hoggers against. As for the main areas not completed—the first one is not really main, but there are a lot of them—road signs is a matter for my right honourable friend at the Department of Transport, and there is nothing awfully urgent, in my view, about this. The other two main areas are engineering and loose foods. I have already pointed out that in Australia, despite compulsion in many areas, engineering has not got as far in conversion as I believe we have got. We believe the sector is over 50 per cent. metric today and that, of the other 50 per cent., a good part is bound to take a long time under any system because some machines last a very long time and must have spare parts and replacements for them for the foreseeable future.
Loose foods constitute a major area, and I know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is watching that situation. It is an area where I hope the trade associations concerned will discuss with one another an orderly programme to make progress. I know that the majority of the big retailers regard it as an area where progress has to be made. It is a particilar problem area, food being as important as it is, and again, let us not underestimate the problem of the elderly shopper in understanding what the price and quantity really is.
I have learned a little about carpets in the debate today, although I was at one stage a part-time director of a carpet business, and I wish to ask the industry concerned some questions as to how far they have got and about the danger which the noble Baroness, Lady White, mentioned—that the transfer might drift back. This is an area where I was not aware that was happening. I hope it to be untrue and I hope that progress will continue in that area.

1075
As I said, I have already heard from the CBI and I have no doubt that I shall hear from them again. It is certainly a duty of mine to listen to any problems that industry finds, and I shall do so in future. I thank my noble friend for introducing this Question, for expressing his views so clearly and for instigating this short debate which has distilled so much information from so many experts in the field.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, may I thank him very much for his speech, and thank those who have contributed. Finally, may I——
Lord MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: Order!
Lord ORR-EWING: I am allowed to do this, my Lords; I said, "Before my noble friend sits down''. Finally, may I add my thanks to all those who, for 11 years, have served the Metrication Board.
Lord RITCHIE-CALDER: My Lords, genuinely before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him whether there was any significance in a slip of the tongue by him when he called the Metrication Board the "Metrification" Board? I did not know that we had "if" back into metrication.

ROYAL ASSENT
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Lord Alport): 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:

Petroleum Revenue Tax Act,

Papua New Guinea, Western Samoa and Nauru (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act,

Representation of the People Act,

Bail etc. (Scotland) Act,

Child Care Act,

Foster Children Act,

Ardveenish Harbour Order Confirmation Act,

Forth Ports Authority Order Confirmation Act,

Forth Ports Authority (No. 2) Order Confirmation Act,

1076

Inverness District Council Order Confirmation Act,

Kirkcaldy District Council Order Confirmation Act,

Lochaber District Council Order Confirmation Act,

Strathkelvin District Council Order Confirmation Act,

West Lothian District Council Order Confirmation Act,

British Railways Act.

CANE HILL CEMETERY BILL [H.L.]
Examiners' Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable have been complied with. Ordered to lie on the Table; Bill committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
SOUTH YORKSHIRE BILL [H.L.]
Reported from the Select Committee on opposed provisions with amendments, a Special Report made, and to be printed.
WEST MIDLANDS COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [H.L.]
Report from the Committee of the Reason to be offered to the Commons for disagreeing to one of the Commons Amendments read, and agreed to: Bill returned to the Commons with the Reason.