Lords Sitting of 14 May 1981

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Truro): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Viscount Dilhorne—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

School-leavers and Work Training
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how many school-leavers are expected to take advantage of the Youth Opportunities Programme in 1981–82; roughly what percentage this is likely to be of all school-leavers entering the labour market; and what recent steps have been taken, or are planned, to increase the training element of courses held under the programme.
The Minister of State, Department of Employment (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, current plans for 1981–82 cater for some 300,000 school-leavers to enter the Youth Opportunities Programme. That would represent about 40 per cent. of those leaving school for employment in the academic year 1981–82. Plans provide for 83,000 young people to undertake short training courses under YOP this year—an increase of about 50 per cent. on last year. About two in five of the trainees on work experience undertake off-the-job training or further education, and it is planned to increase the take-up during the course of this year.
Lord Chelwood: My Lords, I am very grateful for that reply. Can my noble friend give an estimate of the cost of the programme in the coming financial year? Can he say anything about what is known as the placing rate; in other words, how many of those who go through the courses go into full-time work or into further training or further education? May I ask another brief question? Can he say whether the Manpower Services Commission's report entitled New Training Initiative will be presented to the Government quite soon, and whether it is hoped to publish it, in view of the wide interest in this question?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, figures on cost are necessarily provisional, but the estimated cost of the YOP in 1981–82 is £320 million at 1981 prices. That compares with a suggested final cost for the 1980–81 programme of about £210 million. About 68 per cent. of former trainees were placed in either real jobs or full-time further educational training in 1980–81. We do not know what the rate this year will be, but we expect a fall, perhaps to about 50 per cent. With tegard to my noble friend's third point, the new rraining initiative document is at present with the Government and I would expect it to be published towards the end of the month.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, can the noble Earl tell us whether his statement represents a significant advance on previous provisions? If it does not, is he in the very near future to tell us whether the Government are, in his own words, to work towards a situation in which all unemployed school-leavers get some vocational preparation, as resources permit? When are we to have a statement to that effect, if the last statement was not so intended?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, the last statement certainly was working towards that condition, since, as I made clear, this is a substantial advance in the numbers. It is an advance from 360,000 places to 450,000 places. However, I share the noble Lord's desire that all school-leavers should be offered some form of training, and the Government are working to achieve that.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, we are grateful for the Minister's assurance that there will be a further element of training within the YO Programme. Will the Minister comment on the wide differences in financial allowances presently given to those training under the MSC, those who attend colleges of further education, and those few who are left in proper apprenticeship schemes? The divergence of Government allowances in these cases is a very serious issue for this age group.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, that supplementary question is a little wide of the initial Question. However, I can say to the right reverend Prelate that the Government have been worried about the fact that in this economy the overall adult rates of pay tend to come into operation rather early, and this might have a disincentive effect on the hiring of young people. Of course, there are divergencies in allowances, but there are also divergencies in the type of opportunities or training obtained.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, in view of the fact that young blacks experience a much higher rate of unemployment than do young whites, do the Government maintain any ethnic records of the persons who benefit from the Youth Opportunities Programme? If the Government do not maintain such records, can the Minister say how they are to measure the effectiveness of the Youth Opportunities Programme as regards ethnic minorities?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, all minorities, whether large or small, suffer disproportionately during periods of recession and high unemployment. Equally well, minorities benefit proportionately from the provision of these schemes. Ethnic monitoring is not carried out formally in that the YOP is a multiracial programme, but since it deals with inner cities, the longer-term unemployed, and school-leavers with low educational qualifications, it inevitably has a high ethnic content.
Lord Davies of Leek: My Lords, is the noble Earl aware that some of us really believe that he is as interested as are any of us in youth opportunities? However, does he agree that our greatest investment

619
in these precarious times is investment in life and in the future of our youth? The cost of one Trident or a submarine would pay for all that we wish to do in this regard. To forgo only one such item would not be a risk to our destiny; it would be a help towards greatness in the future.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble Lord said at the beginning of his remarks. I would certainly wish to underscore the fact that the next year or two will be an acutely difficult time for all young people, including those of relatively high educational qualifications, due to the baby bulge of the 'sixties coming on to the market before the First World War baby bulge comes off. With regard to the second part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, I think one's concern for young people also extends to their defence.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, can the Minister say how many young people in the rural areas receive this training? Are they encouraged to take jobs locally in agriculture, gardening, and so on?
The Earl of Gowrie: Yes, my Lords; the programmes are open to all young unemployed school-leavers of either sex, wherever they come from.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, is there any prospect of employers being given relief? I ask this in view of the fact that, as the noble Earl has indicated, they are precluded from giving skilled training to young people by the higher rates of pay that they are required to give to apprentices, in particular during the last year or two of their training?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, means a tax relief, or relief relating to national insurance contributions—I am not quite sure what relief he has in mind—I must of course acknowledge the fact that the majority of young people who leave school and seek work go into work. Therefore, it might not be cost effective to subsidise (as it were) training for those already in work.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend have discussions with the Minister of Defence to see whether some volunteers might not be trained with the armed forces? Not only would they be subject to some discipline, but they would receive very good preparation for future jobs in the civilian market. It seems odd that one area where they cannot volunteer, and where we are badly in need of extra manpower, is the armed forces.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, the Ministry of Defence, under both this Government and their predecessor, has been a sponsor of the Youth Opportunities Programme for some time. We welcome this. My right honourable friends the Secretary of State for Employment and the Secretary of State for Defence are talking about methods of financing training programmes additional and extraneous to the YOP programme for the Ministry of Defence.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to what extent the technical colleges have been asked to give maximum co-operation?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I would certainly wish to see the colleges of further education increasing the opportunities they can make available for training young unemployed people. They are already involved in the programme through day release or weekly release training programmes. We should like to increase the number of places available.
Lord Denham: My Lords, it is for the House to decide. I know that this is the subject of extreme importance and interest but I think we are rather in danger of getting into a debate on this Question.

Press Conduct: Cheque-Book Journalism
3.2 p.m.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the breakdown of the voluntary agreement between newspapers concerning cheque-book journalism, they propose to legislate on this issue.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, cheque-book journalism takes many forms, some of which are inherently distasteful. The Government believe that it is preferable for the practice to be controlled by voluntary restraint—in the case of the press, through the influence of the Press Council. We are, none the less, considering the feasibility of legislative controls in relation to published accounts of criminals and their activities, but I would not want to underestimate the difficulties both of principle and of practice in the way of legislation, or the sensitive issues which this would raise.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that sympathetic reply, may I ask whether he would not agree with the utter disgust of the public that violent criminals and their immediate families should gain from their crimes and that the distress brought to the parents of victims is utterly distasteful? Would he further agree that the Press Council, as I understand it, can only censure newspapers?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I understand my noble friend's concern, and also I share her expression of views about the sympathy with the families of the victims who are so distressed by the reports to which my noble friend has referred. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary finds it abhorrent that criminals should benefit from publication of accounts of their activities. But, although I do not dissent from the last part of my noble friend's supplementary question, for legislation there are real difficulties of

621
definition and enforcement and I cannot anticipate my right honourable friend's consideration of this matter.
Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, would the Minister accept that very many people share the concern which has been expressed by the noble Baroness and by himself about this matter and that the prospect of payments of this kind causes great indignation and distaste especially among the families of the victims of crime? Can he say whether at the moment the Press Council is in discussion with the Government on this matter, and whether it is coming forward with any proposals of its own? May I ask him to accept that any legislative proposals that he may bring forward on behalf of the Government will be warmly welcomed?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, of course, arising from my noble friend's Question, what we are talking about would be legislation which would create a criminal offence. I think I ought to say that the creating of a criminal offence for something which, in a profession, ought to be regulated by the profession, would be a very serious step indeed. That leads me to the supplementary question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Boston. All that I can say this afternoon is that I understand that all aspects of press treatment of the Sutcliffe case are to be investigated by the Press Council as soon as the criminal proceedings have been concluded.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, can my noble friend say whether consideration has been given to giving the Press Council teeth?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think that this is something which the Press Council themselves will want to consider in looking again, as I have no doubt they will, at their own guidelines.
Lord Ardwick: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that not even the doughtiest defender of the freedom of the press could make any excuse for some of the conduct of certain newspapers and television coverage recently? Nevertheless, the noble Lord's Answer will give a good deal of satisfaction to those who have thought seriously about the problem. One must remember the difficulty which the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, had in his Private Bill, when he attempted to legislate over a very small section of this problem. It is best to leave it to the Press Council to examine what has happened and then try to come up with a better principle than the one they have which, again to quote Lord Wigoder, gave newspapers and the media a certain outlet and excuse of behaving in the public interest in these affairs.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. He shows that concern over this matter is shared on all sides of the House. I share with the noble Lord his expression of views as to the right way forward in the immediate future.
Lord McCluskey: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the law is not confined to criminal law, and that it is possible to provide by civil means a remedy for those who might feel aggrieved by the present situation?
622
Have the Government considered the possibility that for every £1 paid by the press to the criminal or his relatives, they might have to pay £5 or £10 to the victim or his relatives?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, although I am not a lawyer, I am aware of the effect of what the noble and learned Lord has said. But the effect of it is that it does not prevent publication.
Lord Morris: My Lords, will not my noble friend agree that it is well-nigh impossible to encourage let alone to legislate for good taste?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, once again, I repeat that I think there is a view being expressed in all parts of the House that this is a matter which in the immediate future, should be, and I have no doubt would be, in their discretion looked at by the Press Council.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when I complained to the Press Council recently about the publication by the Sun of the memoirs of Mr. Biggs, the edictor said in reply that he disagreed with the ruling given on a similar issue some 10 years before? Is not the right course of action in this matter to give the Press Council sanctions which it can exercise against editors who deliberately flout its earlier rulings?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, this is a suggestion which was made just now by my noble friend Lord Lauderdale. I repeat the answer that I gave to him. In looking at its own guidelines, which I have no doubt the Press Council will be wishing to do, this is an aspect it will wish to consider.
Lord Denham: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has been trying to get up for a long time; but when he has asked his question, and when my noble friend has replied, your Lordships may feel that it is right to go on.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, as the oldest member of the National Union of Journalists, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that working journalists are absolutely opposed to this policy, as was shown in the recent annual meeting of our union? Is not the real difficulty that 80 per cent. of the circulation of newspapers is owned by three families and two individuals who are seeking their own profit rather than the welfare of the public?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord has spoiled his question. I was teeing myself up to agree cordially with what he said; but the second half of the noble Lord's supplementary question I cannot agree with. Therefore, I confine myself to saying that I agree with the noble Lord and I deplore—and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary deplores—the practice of what, loosely, we call "cheque-book journalism". I believe this is a matter to which the Press Council will turn its attention.

Northern Ireland: Television News Reporting
3.20 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make representations to the BBC to ensure that its television news and current affairs programmes give at least as much coverage to the victims of IRA atrocities and their families as was recently accorded to the IRA hunger strikers and their sympathisers.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, under the constitutional arrangements which govern broadcasting in this country, the broadcasting authorities are, subject to the general law and within the framework of obligations laid down in their governing instruments, entirely responsible for the programmes they broadcast. The policy of successive Governments, including the present Government, is that the authorities should be assured of their independence in the day-to-day conduct of their undertakings, particularly in relation to programme content. I am sure that the authorities are fully aware of their responsibilities as trustees of the public interest in broadcasting, in relation to their coverage of events in Northern Ireland, and that they will take note of any views expressed on this matter in your Lordships' House and elsewhere.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. Is he aware that on the evening of 5th May BBC 1 devoted approximately 16 minutes of its main nine o'clock news bulletin—or more than half the programme—to the death of a hunger striker and that BBC 2's "Newsnight" allocated no fewer than 33 out of 50 minutes to this event? Furthermore, at least three-quarters of those chosen by the BBC to comment on this matter were broadly sympathetic to the hunger strikers, whereas, for example, the young mother brutally murdered by the IRA in Londonderry a few weeks previously while collecting census forms received very little attention or sympathy by comparison? Does the noble Lord not agree that this is deplorable?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord asked me the view of the Government about particular programmes on a particular evening. Once the Government say either that they approve or disapprove of a particular programme or series of programmes we are on very dangerous ground indeed. However, may I respond to the noble Lord in this way: There is one general consideration which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has previously referred to and which, in essence, I should like to repeat. Terrorists seek and depend upon publicity. Because they make war on society they outlaw themselves from its provileges, including the privileges of publicity.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, since the whole object of hunger strikes is to attract publicity, why is it that we allow them to have publicity? Why
624
do we not forbid any news of a hunger strike or what is happening to come out of the gaol? And, when the strikers die of hunger, why do we not bury them in the gaol?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, again I must repeat that once the Government say that they approve or disapprove of a particular programme, any Government of any political colour is on very dangerous ground indeed. I trust that the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Paget, will be taken account of—indeed, I know they will—by the broadcasting organisations.
Lord Ellenborough: My Lords, on the nine o'clock news on BBC on 12th May at least four minutes was devoted to the coverage of the voluntary suicide of the terrorist Hughes, including a nauseatingly deferential interview with his brother who naturally enough took the opportunity to refer to the "murderess Thatcher". This was repeated at considerably greater length on BBC 2's "Newsnight". Perhaps about one minute of coverage was given to the tragic death of the 14-year-old boy who was killed as the result of Republican rioting and whose father died only yesterday. Does the noble Lord therefore not agree that the whole priority of news items, the whole emphasis and concern on the part of the BBC, always seems orientated towards the IRA rather than their victims?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I repeat the general remarks which I made earlier: because terrorists make war on society they should outlaw themselves from its privileges, including the privileges of publicity. My noble friend asked me specific questions about specific programmes. I should just like to add this. My noble friend may remember that during the passage of the Broadcasting Bill last year, in response to views which were strongly expressed in all parts of your Lordships' House, an undertaking was given that the broadcasting authorities would each year in their-annual reports give an account of complaints received and what they have done to meet those complaints. May I suggest to your Lordships that, in addition to asking questions in your Lordships' House—to which of course I must reply—it could also be the right way to correspond with the broadcasting authorities?
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, may I as one who has expressed detestation at the atrocities of the IRA many times in this House—more often than most Members—ask the noble Lord whether he will agree that the many atrocities of the UDA should be equally condemned?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the Government condemn atrocities by terrorists wherever they are and whoever they are.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, I welcome the statement of the Minister and his refusal to comment on the content of news programmes by Independent Television or BBC. Would he say whether the same detachment was applied in the case of "Death of a Princess"?
Lord Belstead: That is another question, my Lords.
Lord Oram: My Lords, is it not unfortunately the case that even this very useful exchange in your Lordships' House this afternoon may be given very little publicity in the press? Would the noble Lord himself, instead of suggesting that your Lordships should individually write to the broadcasting authorities, call the attention of the BBC to the exchanges that have taken place this afternoon?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I shall make it my business to discover whether the attention of the broadcasting authorities has been drawn to the exchanges this afternoon. If by any chance it has not, then I shall accede to what the noble Lord has asked me.

NHS Accommodation for Nurses
3.26 p.m.
Lord Auckland: 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 is the volume of expenditure upon renovation of nurses' homes in NHS hospitals and building of new nurses' homes in these hospitals in the United Kingdom during the years 1975–80, and what is the expected expenditure for the years 1981–85.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, I regret that information in the precise form requested is not available centrally. Nor is it possible to provide estimates of future expenditure. The only indication that I can give is that about £12·7 million was spent by English health authorities in 1979–80 on capital schemes costing £15,000 or more for providing or improving staff residences.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I should like first to thank my noble friend for his courtesy in personally seeing me regarding this Question. May I ask him whether he is aware that his Answer is not very satisfactory? Is he also aware that many of our nurses, who work literally 24 hours a day in many cases, come from abroad and live many miles away from their hospitals? Would he not agree that good service to patients can be improved considerably by providing decent accommodation at reasonable rental for nurses? Is he further aware that in many cases the amount of rental is ludicrously disproportionate to the quality of the accommodation? Will he ask his right honourable friend, as soon as financial commitments allow, to look into this matter very urgently?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, it is the responsibility of the health authorities in the area to see to these matters. It will depend on how much they can afford to spend. Naturally, the priority goes to the patient rather than to the nurse. One appreciates the importance of nurses having as good accommodation as possible, but I think that your Lordships will agree that the patient comes first.
Baroness Jeger: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that there is a movement away from institutional living, especially as many more of our nurses, both men and women, are married and want to lead a non-institutional life? Is not the answer to this question of accommodation to be found in providing better salaries so that these men and women can choose where they live, like any other workers? I am not referring to accommodation for student nurses, which is a special problem. Alternatively, might there be some subsidy for their accommodation rather than putting them all into institutions such as one where I stayed with a home sister who made life not very jolly?
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, as I am sure the noble Baroness knows, many of these nurses live out rather than in hospitals or nursing homes. So far as payment is concerned, a completely new system is now operating. It started on 1st April this year. Over a period of four years the charges for accomomodation are going to be gradually increased to the kind of levels which they would have to pay outside. As these increases come on there will be abatement of the charges to the nurses, depending on the state of the accommodation, and this will be agreed by the Whitley Council with the local authorities.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I am somewhat amazed to find that the department do not have detailed information available on this very vital matter? Furthermore, the noble Lord said that the patient must come first. Is it not the position that the patient comes first if adequate nursing care is available and that many consultants and patients depend on the nurses? Is it not a fact that unless we provide adequate accommodation for them not only to carry out their duties but, in the case of students, to study, we shall be falling down on the job? This is a very vital matter and I hope that the department will look further into it.
Lord Cullen of Ashbourne: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord that it is extremely important; but so far as the figures are concerned it is actually only since 1979–80 that the figure I gave to the House has been available, because those figures have never been available in the past.

Fisheries Bill
3.31 p.m.
Report received.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Mansfield)The Minister of State, Scottish Office (The Earl of Mansfield) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 5, line 19, after ("owned") insert ("by").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment simply corrects a grammatical error in the drafting of the clause, and I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 26, leave out lines 32 to 44 and insert—
("(1) The following provisions apply in relation to enforceable Community restrictions relating to sea fishing except where, or to the extent that, other provision is made by an order under subsection (3) below—

(a) if any fishing boat fishes within British fishery limits in contravention of any such restriction, the master, the owner and the charterer (if any) are each guilty of an offence;

(b) sections 11, 12, 14 and 15(2) of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 (penalties, jurisdiction and powers of seizure) apply to such offences as they apply to offences under section 5(1) of that Act; and

(c) section 8 of the Sea Fisheries Act 1968 (general powers of British sea fishery officers) has effect in relation to such restrictions as it has effect in relation to the provisions mentioned in subsection (1) of that section.").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, for the convenience of the House I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 together. According to the present wording of subsection (1) of Clause 30, all Community restrictions relating to sea fishing automatically attract a single level of maximum fine appropriate to prohibitions of fishing under Section 5(1) of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967: that is to say, £50,000 on summary conviction. However, not all offences which would be covered by this subsection will necessarily warrant a maximum fine at that level. The Government have therefore decided that a degree of flexibility should be built into the subsection to enable Ministers, when necessary, to make an order applying penalties and so on on the same basis as for other obligations under subsection (3). Such orders could only apply lower maximum penalties than those provided for in Section 5 of the 1967 Act; in other words, an order could only be made to lessen the severity of the criminal law. I beg to move.
Lord Peart: My Lords, I am grateful for what the noble Earl has done. I think he is right to be flexible about this. It is an important matter and affects the Community as well. I welcome it, and I hope I am expressing the views of the Opposition too.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 27, line 3, after ("Community") insert ("restriction or other").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 27, line 3, leave out from ("fishing") to ("and") in line 5.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 27, leave out line 33 and insert ("reorganising, developing or promoting fish farming in Great Britain.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 5 and 6 together. I should report to the House that the Government are ready to accept the decision of the Committee that this clause should give general enabling powers for the provision of grant aid to fish farmers. We took careful note of the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, that at this stage he sought only
628
enabling powers, and not a commitment to use the full range of those powers. I would be misleading the House if I were to lead your Lordships to believe that we have plans to use the wide powers provided by this clause. There is no provision in existing public expenditure programmes for such a scheme and in the present economic circumstances we can make no commitment to introduce such a scheme.
The Government were invited to examine the drafting of the amendment approval by the Committee, and certain small amendments seem appropriate to ensure that the working reflects the intentions expressed during the debate in Committee. Two points are worthy of a comment from me. First, we advise that the power should extend only to Great Britain. I am assured that parallel powers already exist for Northern Ireland and your Lordships will appreciate that it is undesirable to duplicate such powers. Secondly, it is advisable to be certain that the clause as amended will allow us to introduce the scheme of back-up national grants to provide eligibility for any grants which the European Community may provide. The second of the amendments therefore provides for this power explicitly. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 27, line 36, at end insert—
("( ) A scheme under this section may be confined to the making of such grants as appear to the Ministers to be requisite for enabling persons to benefit from any Community instrument which provides for the making of grants by a Community institution where such grants are also provided by a member state.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 7:
Leave out Clause 33 and insert the following new clause:
("Exclusion of offences under conservation legislation
33.—(1) A person shall not be guilty of an offence mentioned in Part I of Schedule 4 to this Act by reason of anything done or omitted by him in the course of fish farming if it is done or omitted under the authority of an exemption conferred by the Minister and in accordance with any conditions attached to the exemption.
(2) The Minister may be regulations confer general exemptions for the purposes of subsection (1) above, and such regulations may—

(a) make different provision for different methods of fish farming and for other different circumstances; and

(b) specify conditions to which the exemptions are subject.

(3) Regulations under subsection (2) above shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
(4) In the application of subsections (1) and (2) above to offences under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975, "the Minister" means, in relation to the area of the Welsh Water Authority, the Secretary of State and, in relation to other areas to which the Act applies, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; and in the application of those subsections to offences under enactments relating to sea fishing, "the Minister" means, in relation to England, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and, in relation to Wales or Scotland, the Secretary of State concerned with fisheries in that country.
(5) It shall be a defence for a person charged with an offence mentioned in Part II of Schedule 4 to this Act to show that he believed on reasonable grounds that the fish with respect to which the offence is alleged to have been committed were produced by fish farming.
(6) In this section "fish farming" means the breeding, rearing or cultivating of fish (including shellfish) whether or

629
not for the purpose of producing food for human consumption; but the reference in subsection (5) above to fish produced by fish farming does not include fish bred, reared or cultivated in captivity which have later been released to the wild.").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, for the convenience of the House, I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 7, 9, 13 and 14 together. As I explained to the Committee during the consideration of the Bill the Government concluded that the complexities of drafting exemptions for fish farming from freshwater fisheries conservation legislation were so considerable that it would be appropriate to deal with the detailed exemptions by subordinate procedures. The new texts of Clause 33 and Schedule 4 on the Marshalled List of amendments fulfil an assurance that appropriate new texts would be provided at Report stage.
The amendments introduce no change of principle to the provisions. Clause 33 provides powers to exempt fish farmers from specified offences which, while necessary for the conservation of wild fish, are unnecessary and restrictive in respect of farmed fish. Where the Ministers make general exemptions these will be by Statutory Instrument subject to negative resolution. Subsection (5) provides a statutory defence for people involved in buying or selling farmed fish who are charged with offences listed in Part II of Schedule 4. These offences, too, should only apply in respect of wild fish.
I explained in Committee that the exemptions being provided were in respect of legislation applying to England and Wales. There are already exemptions in parallel Scottish legislation. However, on consideration the Government consider that in the interests of parity North and South of the Border the statutory defence available for buyers and sellers of farmed fish in England and Wales should be extended to certain provisions of Scottish legislation, and therefore the list in Part II of Schedule 4 has been extended to include some Scottish provisions.
Finally, I should say a word about the amendment to Clause 38, of which the extension to the Long Title is a consequential. This provides exemptions for fish farmers from freshwater fisheries legislation which applies to the English section of the River Tweed. This area is governed by Scottish legislation, for reasons connected with the efficient management of the fish stocks in the river, but the exemptions from the legislation which already apply for fish farmers in Scotland have not so far been extended to the English section of the Tweed. This is a minor anomaly that the Bill should cover, and I beg to move.
Lord Peart: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for what he has said. It is a minor anomaly and I am sure our Scottish friends will agree that there is a point in making this apply in the same way as they have for a period.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 35 [Regulation of whaling]:
3.40 p.m.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby Lord Houghton of Sowerby moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 30, leave out lines 3 to 26.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I was going to
630
raise this matter on clause stand part at the Committee stage, but I came into the Chamber about 30 seconds too late. So I put down this amendment for this stage of the Bill, to try to clear up a certain perplexity about the Government's intentions on their provisions in Clause 35. The Minister of State will be familiar with this point, because it was raised in the Standing Committee in another place by Mr. Peter Hardy on 19th February this year, subsequent to which a letter was sent by Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith, on behalf of the Government, to Mr. Peter Hardy, trying to clear up any misunderstandings that remained in his mind.
The point is that Clause 35 seeks to extend the protection afforded to whales by the Whaling Industry (Regulation) Act 1934 to all cetaceans, and this is to be welcomed. The central point is that the Government are committed to supporting a ban on all commercial whaling. This was made very clear indeed on behalf of the Government, with a very welcome and firm statement on 21st July 1980, on the occasion of the annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission at Brighton. I quote for the moment from a press statement issued on that day, reporting that Mr. Jerry Wiggin, MP, Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, had said:
"Last year, the United Kingdom decided to support a ban on all commercial whaling and we stand firm in that policy".
He went on to say:
"This year, discussion in your meeting is again likely to be dominated by a proposal to ban all commercial whaling. We believe this measure to be necessary for proper conservation and we will support it".
The question is whether Clause 35 is as clear and as emphatic as the declaration of policy by the Government. It seems odd that in the Bill before the House at the present moment we should be retaining provisions which relate to what is surely by now almost obsolete legislation. The lines that I propose to delete relate to the regulation of whaling in British waters, which we are surely not going to have any more. The explanation given on behalf of the Government by the Minister to Mr. Peter Hardy was: "If we are going to repeal the whole of the 1934 Act, we shall have to put something in its place. That means a new Bill and, in view of the lack of parliamentary time, this is undesirable in present circumstances, if we can achieve the same purpose by an alternative, if not quite so complete, way".
This may be the only explanation which the noble Earl the Minister can offer, and it may be that we shall have to accept it. But it would help if what passed in correspondence between the Minister of State and Mr. Peter Hardy were on the record of the proceedings of this House. Then I think we should know where we are, and the Government's explanation and their assurances, which really are most important, will be open for all to see and for all to rely upon. That is the point.
There is no difference in principle here, but the friends who advise me—and the RSPCA are among them—said that it is perplexing to find repeated in the Bill which is before the House provisions which relate to something which seems no longer appropriate to the British position on whaling. I do not think I can offer any better explanation of my purpose than that.

631
I hope that it is fully comprehended by the Minister, even if I have left some noble Lords in doubt over what it is all about. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Peart: My Lords, I hope that the noble Earl will be sympathetic to my noble friend's plea. What he has said is correct. It is right that it should be on the record that the Government accept, basically, what my noble friend wants. So I hope that the Minister will reply in a positive way.
The Earl of Mansfield: My Lords, I hope that I can clear up what is, perhaps, a misunderstanding. Of course I appreciate the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, and many others on this difficult question of conservation. Clause 35 is intended to extend to all cetaceans the protection which our law currently gives to sperm and baleen whales. So it will ban the killing of such creatures as porpoises, dolphins and killer whales.
The 1934 Act which, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, implied, is somewhat elderly, applies to vessels registered in or licensed under the laws of United Kingdom dependent territories or associated states. What we propose in the subsections which are the subject of this amendment is that the provisions of the clause should not be applied to such vessels directly, but by Order-in-Council. The reason for this is that it will enable the Government to make any exceptions or modifications which may be necessary to meet local circumstances.
The Government share the wish that the prohibition in the Bill on the taking of cetaceans should extend as widely as possible, and that it should apply to vessels registered in dependent territories. Unfortunately, fishing for tuna, which occurs mostly in tropical waters, may involve the incidental killing of a few small cetaceans, such as dolphins or porpoises, because they accompany shoals of tuna. For instance, although in Bermuda, which would be one of the territories under consideration, vessels fish for tuna by setting their nets around floating logs where the fish tend to congregate, in some tuna fisheries the nets are also set around porpoises which prey on the tuna, and some incidental deaths of cetaceans may therefore occur. It may therefore be necessary to make limited exceptions to take account of this. In other words, putting it in more fishery language, we may have to allow a small by-catch.
The possibility for fishing vessels based in these territories to participate in international fisheries should not be foreclosed without consulting the Governments of those territories whose economic interests are in issue. So we intend, immediately after the enactment of the Bill, to approach the Governments of the territories on this question. It is hoped that most of them will rapidly agree to the extension of the Act—unmodified—to their territories and to vessels registered there. But we may, as I have tried to illustrate, have to consider limited exceptions to allow the continuation or development of tuna fisheries, which play an important part in the economy of some of the communities and which may involve an incidental by-catch.
It would be quite inappropriate to make changes in
632
the law which affect territories without taking into account the wishes of the Governments concerned and other local circumstances. There are a dozen or so territories which are affected, but only two where this might be a problem; Bermuda and Cayman Islands. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hughhton, and others who take an interest in these matters will be reassured that the Government are in no way reneging on their commitment and that we want to take into account local Governments and local circumstances before the necessary Orders-in-Council are made.
Lord Houghton of Sowerby: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for his full explanation and I admit that I now understand the system better than when moving my amendment; indeed that is the reward for having moved it in the first place. We now know clearly what the issues are and I cannot quarrel with the line the Government are taking in regard to these exceptions, although we shall of course regret the Government's need to make them if representations strongly suggest that they should. Nevertheless, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister and I hope that we can now examine the position in the light of the fuller information and be more reassured than we were. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 38 [Fisheries offences on River Tweed]:
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 32, line 17, at end insert—
("( ) At the end of section 7 of the said Act of 1976 (fish farmers not to be guilty of contravention of certain enactments) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
"(5) This section, so far as it relates to the enactments specified in paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5(d), 6, 8 and 10 of Schedule 3 to this Act, shall apply to so much of the River Tweed as is situated outwith Scotland as if it were situated in Scotland.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this amendment and I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [The Sea Fish Industry Authority]:
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 37, line 34, leave out paragraph 19.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment to remove from the Bill a paragraph that used to be a standard form in legislation for establishing statutory corporations but which is rendered unnecessary by the Corporate Bodies Contracts Act 1960. The effect of the paragraph is that the Sea Fish Industry Authority would not be required to execute its contracts under seal as corporations were formerly required to do by the common law of England. The common law rule was abolished by the Corporate Bodies Contracts Act 1960 and so the provision is not required in the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [White Fish Authority and Herring Industry Board: consequential provisions]:
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 39, line 30, leave out ("and").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I should also like to speak to Amendment No. 12. Paragraph 5 of Schedule 3 is intended to enable the new Sea Fish Industry Authority to continue to collect a levy on the industry under powers currently enjoyed by the two present bodies—the White Fish Authority and the Herring Industry Board—until the new authority has an opportunity to make its own levy regulations. Unfortunately, by an oversight the provisions in paragraph 5 would not allow the new authority to take over all the White Fish Authority's powers to collect levy on fish meal, which provides a significant sum of income to the authority. The amendment remedies this oversight and, my Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 39, line 33, at end insert—
("; and
(c) so much of any direction then in force under section 55 of that Act as relates to the treatment for levy purposes of any substance or article capable of being produced wholly or partly from either white fish or herring or both,").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Exemptions for Fish Farming]:
The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 13:
Leave out Schedule 4 and insert the following new schedule—

SCHEDULE 4
  EXEMPTIONS FOR FISH FARMING
    PART I

      OFFENCES TO WHICH SECTION 33(1) OF THIS ACT APPLIES
      Offences under the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975
      1. Any offence under section 2(2)(a) of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 (taking, killing or injuring, or attempting to take, kill or injure, unclean or immature fish).
      2. Any offence under section 3 of that Act (restriction on shooting or working seine or draft net in certain waters and prohibition on use of certain nets).
      3. Any offence under section 5(1) of that Act (prohibition on use of explosives, poison or electrical devices to take or destroy fish) relating to the use of a noxious substance or electrical device, and any offence under section 5(4) of that Act relating to the possession of such a substance or device.
      4. Any offence under section 19 of that Act (fishing for, taking or killing or attempting to take or kill fish during close seasons or close times).
      5. Any offence under section 27 of that Act (fishing for or taking fish without a licence or possession of equipment with intent to use it for an unlicensed purpose).
      6. Any offence under section 28(7) of that Act (infringement of byelaws) consisting of a contravention of a byelaw made for a purpose mentioned in any of the following paragraphs of Schedule 3 to that Act—

      (a) paragraph 21 or 25 (descriptions of nets and other instruments which may be used for taking fish and restrictions on their use);

      (b) paragraph 23 or 24 (restrictions on carrying of certain nets);

      634

      (c) paragraph 26 (taking or removing fish from water without lawful authority);

      (d) paragraph 28 (taking fish of less than prescribed size).

      Offences relating to sea fishing
      7. Any offence consisting of a contravention of a byelaw made under section 4 of the Sea Fisheries (Scotland) Amendment Act 1885 (byelaws prohibiting or regulating methods of fishing).
      8. Any offence under section 6(1) of the Herring Fishery (Scotland) Act 1889 (prohibition on beam or otter trawling in certain areas) and any offence consisting of a contravention of a byelaw made under section 7(1) of that Act (power to prohibit beam or otter trawling in certain other areas).
      9. Any offence under section 1 of the Trawling in Prohibited Areas Prevention Act 1909 of landing fish caught by beam or otter trawling within a prohibited area.
      10. Any offence consisting of a contravention of a byelaw made under section 5 of the Sea Fisheries Regulation Act 1966 (byelaws for the regulation of sea fishing).
      11. Any offence under section 17 of the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967 of taking an edible crab or landing a lobster in a condition prohibited by subsection (1) or (3) of that section.
      12. Any offence under section 1(1) or (3) of the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act 1967 (landing or carrying fish smaller than prescribed size).
      13. Any offence under section 3(5) of that Act (contravention of order regulating nets and gear).
      14. Any offence under section 4(3) or (9A) of that Act (contravention of order prohibiting fishing without licence and failure to return to sea fish caught in contravention of such a prohibition).
      15. Any offence under section 4A(3) of that Act (contravention of order prohibiting trans-shipment of fish without licence).
      16. Any offence under section 5(1) or (6) of that Act (contravention of order prohibiting fishing and failure to return to sea fish caught in contravention of such a prohibition).
      17. Any offence under section 6 of that Act (landing or trans-shipping fish in contravention of order).

    PART II

      OFFENCES TO WHICH SECTION 33(5) OF THIS ACT APPLIES
      Offences relating to freshwater fish and salmon
      18. Any offence under section XI of the Solway Act 1804 (possessing, selling or offering or exposing to sale certain fish out of season, and certain fish at any time).
      19. Any offence under section LXXIV of the Tweed Fisheries Act 1857 of wilfully selling, purchasing or possessing smolt, fry, or young brood or spawn.
      20. Any offence under section X of the Tweed Fisheries Amendment Act 1859 (possession during close season of fish taken or caught in river, and selling or offering for sale or exchange fish caught between 15th September and 14th February).
      21. Any offence under section 3 of the Salmon Acts Amendment Act 1863 (exporting or entering for export unclean or unseasonable salmon and salmon caught at a time when their sale is prohibited).
      22. Any offence under section 20 of the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act 1868 of buying, selling, exposing for sale or having in possession unclean or unseasonable salmon.
      23. Any offence under section 21 of that Act (buying, selling, exposing for sale or having in possession salmon taken in close season).
      24. Any offence under section 1 of the Freshwater Fish (Scotland) Act 1902 of having possession of trout in close season.
      25. Any offence under section 2 of the Trout (Scotland) Act 1933 (purchase, sale, exposing or consigning for sale, export or consigning for export trout under 8" or between 1st September and 31st March).
      26. Any offence under section 2(2)(b) of the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act 1975 (buying, selling, exposure for sale or possession of unclean or immature fish or parts of such fish).
      27. Any offence under section 22(1) of that Act (buying, selling, exposure for sale or possession for sale of fish at prohibited times of year).
      28. Any offence under subsection (3) of section 23 of that Act of entering for export or exporting fish contrary to subsection (1) of that section (unclean fish and fish caught at a time when their sale is prohibited).
      Offences relating to sea fishing
      29. Any offence under section 1 of the Trawling in Prohibited Areas Prevention Act 1909 of selling fish caught by beam or otter trawling within a prohibited area.
      30. Any offence under section 16 of the Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Act 1967 (sale, exposure for sale, buying for sale or consignment for the purpose of sale of oysters at prohibited times of year).
      31. Any offence under section 17(1) of that Act of possessing, selling, exposing for sale, buying for sale or consigning for the purpose of sale an edible crab in a condition prohibited by that subsection.
      32. Any offence under section 17(3) of that Act of selling, exposing or offering for sale, or possessing for the purpose of sale a lobster in a condition prohibited by that subsection.
      33. Any offence under section 1(2) of the Sea Fisheries (Conservation) Act 1967 (selling, exposing or offering for sale, or possessing for the purpose of sale fish smaller than the prescribed size).
      34. Any offence under section 2 of that Act (possession for use in the course of a business of fish prohibited from being sold under section 1(2) of that Act).")
      The noble Earl said: My Lords, I spoke to this when moving Amendment No. 7 and I now beg to move this amendment, too.
      On Question, amendment agreed to.
      In the Title:
      The Earl of Mansfield The Earl of Mansfield moved Amendment No. 14:
      Line 8, leave out ("section 6") and insert ("sections 6 and 7").
      On Question, amendment agreed to.

      Insurance Companies Bill
      3.55 p.m.
      Lord Lyell: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
      Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Lyell.)
      On Question, Motion agreed to.
      House in Committee accordingly.
      [The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
      Clauses 1 to 13 agreed to.
      Lord Jacques Lord Jacques moved Amendment No. 1:
      After Clause 13 insert the following new clause:
      ("Requirements to inform the Actuary and obtain his report.
      .After section 22A of the Insurance Companies Act 1974 there shall be inserted—
      "22B.—(1) An authorised insurance company shall at all times provide the person who for the time being is its actuary
      636
      under section 15(1) above or section 3(5) of the Insurance Companies Amendment Act 1973 with—

      (a) such information as that actuary has informed the company that he reasonably requires in order that he would be able to carry out an investigation under section 14 above at any time; and

      (b) information about intended changes in the financial conduct of its long term business of a kind which that actuary has informed the company would in his opinion significantly affect the result of an investigation made under section 14 above.

      (2) An authorised insurance company shall not make changes in the financial conduct of its long term business of a kind referred to in subsection (1)(b) above without first obtaining a report from the actuary referred to in subsection (1) above.".").
      Lord Jacques: This amendment is identical to one that was submitted on Report stage in another place. I introduce it to the Committee on this occasion for two reasons. First, because it raises a very important issue—namely, that post facto reporting, that is reporting after the damage is done, is not sufficient to safeguard policy holders. It is also necessary to have measures of prevention and this amendment is concerned with a measure of prevention. The second reason why I bring forward this amendment is that when it was debated at Report stage in another place much play was made of the fact that there had been little time for consideration and consultation. A month has elapsed since then, and so there has now been more time.
      In 1974 two life assurance companies failed, causing considerable hardship to thousands of policyholders. One of those companies failed because it had issued a large number of policies on the basis of a single premium which were unsound. The other company failed because it had invested too much of its life policy funds in speculative property investments. The 1974 legislation, and subsequent legislation, has tried to prevent that kind of thing happening. An insurance company which carries out long-term business—that is, life insurance—must have an actuary by law, and one of the duties of the actuary is to report on the solvency of the life fund. The actuary usually does that once a year. Unfortunately, the actuary's report can be made out-of-date overnight by the company simply issuing the new policies on different terms and conditions or by changing its investment policies.
      The 1974 Act provided for substantial and detailed annual returns, but this is still post facto reporting, and however elaborate these returns will not prevent company failures. What we need is preventive action. The Institute and the Faculty of Actuaries issue guidelines to their members who are employed in life assurance offices. One of the guidelines is that the actuary should keep in touch with changes in the terms and conditions of new policies issued and with any changes of policy in regard to investments. By way of this guideline there is an obligation on the actuary to keep in touch, but there is no obligation upon the insurance company to keep the actuary informed. The purpose of this amendment is to place that obligation on the insurance company.
      At the Committee stage in the other place there was an amendment which had a very similar purpose to that which I am now moving, but it was more elaborate and was eventually withdrawn. It dealt with the same

      637
      subject-matter. The Institute of Actuaries sent a letter to the Deparment of Trade and a copy of that letter was circulated to each member of the Committee in another place. I quote from that letter:
      "If, however, it is felt that the legislation should be more specific about the company's responsibility vis-à-vis its appointed actuary a practical approach might be to study the possibility of placing a duty on a company to provide the appointed actuary regularly with such information as he may reasonably require about the financial conduct of its long-term business and to obtain a report from him before making significant changes in that conduct".
      The whole purpose of the amendment is to put into the statute this opinion, as expressed by the Institute of Actuaries. I am not contending that this amendment is supported by the institute or, indeed, by the Faculty of Actuaries, but I am saying that the opinion stated here is reflected in the amendment, which I believe is especially necessary for policyholders because it would introduce preventive action rather than ex post facto reporting after the damage has been done. I beg to move.
      4.1 p.m.
      Lord Lyell: The Committee will have listened with attention to the detailed way in which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, proposed his amendments. The noble Lord has pointed out that the subject of these amendments was discussed in another place about a month or six weeks ago.
      I am sure that both the Committee and the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, would accept that the new clauses have the limited objective of placing an obligation upon companies to keep their appointed actuary informed of matters which might imperil their solvency. I accept that the new clauses do not place new and impracticable statutory obligations on the actuary—we would not want that—but they would make a failure by a company to keep their actuary informed in the prescribed manner a criminal offence.
      The Government have no quarrel with the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, about the aims which underlie the amendments. If the actuary who is appointed by the company is to fulfil his role in an insurance company he needs, and I am sure he will receive, all the relevant information to make up his mind when he is preparing his report. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, referred to ex post facto reporting. This proposal would mean that the actuary would be making up his mind prior to presenting his report. Certainly, this would be an earlier safeguard.
      I believe the question is whether or not this or any other details of the relationship between a company and its appointed actuary ought to be the subject of statutory regulation. As a general rule, we do not believe that it is desirable to legislate for the way in which a company organises its internal affairs. These are, of course, internal affairs. This is completely different from the way in which other professions tend to organise their affairs. The noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, and I know that the accountancy profession tends to work outwith the company, whereas actuaries work within the company. For that reason, we believe that these are the internal affairs of a company.
      I think the Committee will accept that it is not only the Government which view the changes envisaged by
      638
      the amendments as unnecessary and undesirable. In fact, the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, pointed out that both the Institute of Actuaries and the Faculty of Actuaries, as well as representatives of the insurance companies, do not necessarily see any need for such statutory provisions to be written into the legislation.
      The amendments were considered in another place, where reference was made to the guidance for actuaries which the Institute of Actuaries and the Faculty of Actuaries issued in May 1975 as a result of the case which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, at the start of his remarks; namely, the big problems which arose in 1974.
      I make no apology for referring again to that guidance note. Among the matters which are referred to in that note is a stipulation that the actuary must have all the relevant information at his disposal to enable him to be satisfied as to the financial status of the company. We think that this is a matter which is best covered by a professional guidance note so that both the Institute of Actuaries and the Faculty of Actuaries north of the Border may be able to issue guidance notes and general lines of conduct to those of their members who are within companies. Then members of the profession will be able to consult their professional institute and carry out their duties as they see fit. To place the exact nature of these duties in a statute is, we think, unnecessary. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, will agree.
      Lord Bruce of Donington: We on this side of the Committee would like to associate ourselves with the thrust of the amendments which have been proposed by my noble friend Lord Jacques. As he indicated during the course of his speech, the transactions of a life assurance company are, broadly speaking, of two kinds.
      First, there is the contract which the life assurance company has with the policyholder, which affects the whole content of that policy. My noble friend Lord Jacques gave the example of an insurance company which had issued a series of policies on terms that were manifestly unsound. That is something which any actuary should be able to pick up within a matter of minutes, if not within a matter of hours. It would be manifestly unsound for a company to be involved in the type of failure to which my noble friend Lord Jacques referred.
      The other type of transaction is the investment of the funds which the insurance company receives. The policies of insurance companies in regard to investment vary. The particular case which my noble friend Lord Jacques mentioned was the investment by a company in certain property transactions. Again, this is very difficult. Who can cross their heart and say that in certain years which have not passed too recently investment in property was not considered to be the last possible word in favour of one's policyholders? The collapse of the property market, although it was predicted by some of us who will remain modestly anonymous for the moment, was not universally predicted at that time.
      It has to be considered whether any actuary, taking for guidance even the Financial Times or the Economist, could be quite sure that if he put in an adverse opinion about a different line of investment he might not be

      639
      laughed out of court by his company. Indeed, your Lordships will note that once again there is now a move to invest funds in property—with what results, of course, only future years will show. The difficulty here concerns the obligation of the company, with its own actuaries and indeed with its own auditors. It seeks to lay a responsibility on the company to provide day to day information. In so far as the first category of the transactions between the life assurance company and the policyholder is concerned, I do not see much difficulty, but I do see some difficulty in regard to the investment policies that are adopted by assurance companies. It could be said—and indeed I have ventured to say so myself—that if one examines the investment record of assurance companies over a period of years, or perhaps even months, one can discern a pattern in that investment. It is for consideration whether it would be desirable for immediate steps to be taken if a particular assurance company intends to rupture that pattern by investing in something which might possibly be regarded in some quarters as questionable.
      What my noble friend is trying to do—and we on this side of the Committee are sympathetic towards it—is to ensure that there is a greater flow of day to day information between the company and the experts who are concerned. We in the accountancy profession know this particularly well, because at one time we were regarded as industrial archaeologists: in other words, we exposed the position only a long time after the events had taken place. But that of course has now changed and it is the tendency in my profession to be involved intimately in the day to day transactions of the company and its managerial policies.
      I have no constructive suggestion to make as to how the Government can go about this. It is a very difficult field and I am quite sure that my noble friend Lord Jacques appreciates that. Therefore, what we would like the Government to do, is to take an even closer look at this to see whether there is some possibility of an amendment—not necessarily in the same words as the amendment moved by my noble friend, which carry some small definition difficulties in regard to financial conduct, which is notoriously a very difficult thing to put into the interpretation section of any Bill. If the noble Lord would undertake to have another look at this, with a view to coming back with some more constructive ideas on the subject, we on this side of the Committee would be greatly obliged to him and indeed we are greatly obliged to my noble friend Lord Jacques for having raised this important question in such a constructive manner.
      4.12 p.m.
      Lord Banks: I should like to add briefly to what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, in order to endorse his final plea to the Government to look at this matter again. When it was discussed at the Report stage in another place, it was clear that there was a closer approach to agreement than there had been at the Committee stage, and the Minister indicated that he was prepared to consider any proposals that might be brought forward to try to deal with this particular problem. One is aware of the objections which have been raised by the noble Lord,
      640
      but, if he would undertake to have a further look at this, I, for my part, would welcome it.
      Lord Jacques: I should like to reply to two points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell. First, he thought this was a matter for professional guidelines. But we already have the professional guidelines—the Institute and Faculty of Architects have issued their guidelines to the actuaries employed in life assurance companies. What is absent is an obligation on the part of the company to supply the information, and I am trying to fill that gap.
      The second point on which I should like to comment is that the Minister thought that this was an internal matter between the company and its actuary. It is not; it is more than that. The question at stake here is the solvency of the life assurance fund—that is to say, the monies contributed by the life policyholders. Therefore, it is a question of protecting the life policyholders as well as the company and consequently it is not purely an internal matter.
      I join with my noble friends on this side of the Committee, in that I would be happy if the Government would have another look at this and try to come forward with some acceptable amendment at the Report stage. Further, I would be content—and I think my colleagues would be content—if it were an amendment which gave enabling powers; that is to say enabled the Secretary of State to make regulations covering the points raised in the amendment, so that such regulations could be made if and when the Secretary of State thought it necessary.
      I could hardly be more accommodating than that, and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, will be able to say that he will come back with something solid at the next stage of the Bill.
      Lord Lyell: I am very grateful to all three noble Lords who have spoken. Perhaps I may first take up a particular point which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce. He mentioned two major aspects of the work of life assurance companies and he particularly referred to the investment policy. I think that what the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, was suggesting was that the actuary would carry out his duties in studying the solvency of the company, and I agree with the noble Lord that the actuary can only work along his own professional guidelines. Indeed, as the noble Lord has pointed out, accountants were referred to as "archaeologists". Certainly the Government would not want actuaries to carry out work in such a way as to be considered students of the crystal ball and to be involved in soothsaying and foretelling the future. I believe that the actuary's duty is fairly broad and well laid down by the guidelines issued by the professional institutions, and we consider that this should be dealt with between the actuaries and the professional institutions. It is certainly for the actuaries to act, if they are dissatisfied with the flow of information coming from the company, either in a particular case or in general. We believe that it is a matter for the profession to regulate for itself.
      The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, felt that the protection of policyholders' funds was not entirely an internal matter. What is an internal matter, we believe, is the provision of information from the company to the

      641
      actuary, who is of course an employee of the company. That was the point that I sought to make.
      Lord Jacques: If the Minister will give way, would he not agree that, when the protection of policyholders is involved, it is not just a matter between the company and the actuary; it is a question of the policyholders' interests and is a matter in which the Government of the day should have an interest?
      Lord Lyell: The noble Lord's amendment may deal on a very broad scale with the protection of policyholders, but the actual thrust of the amendment is entirely on what information should be disclosed and should be demanded by the actuary from the company. I think that is a little narrower than the entire field of the protection of policyholders.
      It was pointed out by the Government in another place that if the actuary or the profession or indeed the insurance companies or anybody else—the noble Lord or any of your Lordships—wanted to bring forward concrete proposals, the department would consider them most carefully. The amendment that has been proposed by the noble Lord, we believe, is not strictly necessary, but I would give the undertaking that if the noble Lord wished to come and have further consultations between now and another stage I am sure we could reach some understanding over that. I cannot go further than that. I do not think the Government would bring forward proposals of their own.
      Lord Jacques: As I understand it, the Minister is saying, "I cannot undertake that the Government will bring forward proposals of their own, but on the other hand if the noble Lord, Lord Jaques cares to come to consult with me to see if we can get an agreement, I would be happy to do that". Is that the position?
      Lord Lyell: Yes, as always.
      Lord Jacques: I thank the Minister, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      [Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
      Clauses 14 to 30 agreed to.
      Clause 31 [Lloyd's underwriters—financial resources]:
      4.22 p.m.
      Lord Lyell Lord Lyell moved Amendment No. 3:
      Page 23, line 30, after ("Act") insert ("and to any determination made by the Secretary of State in accordance with such regulations").
      The noble Lord said: I come before the Committee today in a slightly penitent tone because the need for this amendment, which is somewhat technical, only came to light when the Government were preparing the regulations which will be made under Clause 31. This amendment, No. 3, is designed to avoid what is known as "double delegation".
      As the Committee will see, Clause 31 regulations will reproduce much of the existing Lloyd's (General
      642
      Business) Regulations 1979, and these apply the general business solvency margin which is required of United Kingdom companies to Lloyd's. Of course, the Bill revokes those regulations along with the others which were made to implement the non-life directives which are listed in Part II of Schedule 5. The new regulations will also provide for the calculation of the life solvency margin where the same issue arises for the mixed contracts dealt with in Clause 1(3).
      Certain modifications to the general business solvency margin requirements had to be made to adapt them to Lloyd's circumstances. In particular, the calculation of the margin for companies is based on gross premium income. In the case of Lloyd's, however, Lloyd's brokers deduct their commission before passing the premium to the underwriter. Lloyd's premium income is, therefore, generally known only net of broker's commission. To restore comparability with the requirements for insurance companies, Lloyd's total net annual premium must for the purpose of the calculation of the solvency margin be scaled up by a flat rate percentage which reflects the latest data on commissions paid. That scaling up factor is determined by the Secretary of State.
      Because the existing regulations are made under the European Communities Act 1972 and are tantamount to primary legislation, it is proper for them to provide for the Secretary of State to determine this scaling up factor. If he were to make the determination under Clause 31 as before us today, it would be improper, because the primary legislation did not expressly confer the power to do this. The amendment therefore allows him to continue to make the necessary determination for the purposes of the new regulations. There will in practice be no change in the arrangements which obtain at present. Perhaps I should add that Lloyd's fully understand and accept the need for the amendment. I beg to move.
      On Question, amendment agreed to.
      Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
      Clauses 32 and 33 agreed to.
      Clause 34 [Insurance business.]
      Lord Banks Lord Banks moved Amendment No. 4:
      Page 24, line 44, leave out ("solely").
      The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 4 and to speak also to Amendment No. 5, since the two are related. I must begin by declaring an interest, as I am a director of a firm of insurance brokers. However, these amendments deal with a problem which has more been of concern to insurance companies than to insurance brokers.
      One of the objects of the Bill, as the Committee is well aware, is to implement the 1979 EEC directive on life assurance. The directive is concerned, among other things, with the definition of "insurance business". It war found necessary to deal with a number of commercial activities regarded as insurance business in some countries but not in others. In order to maintain the status quo in individual member states the directive incorporated a saving provision stipulating that the specified commercial activities in question were

      643
      only to be regarded as insurance business—and I quote—
      "in so far as they are subject to supervision by the administrative authorities responsible for the supervision of private insurance and are authorised in the country concerned".
      The United Kingdom, where discussions on the directive were going on, asked for the management by an insurance company of the investments of an outside client's pension funds—"managed funds", as they are known—be included, in order to ensure the right for life insurance companies in this country to continue this type of business. This type of business was already supervised by the insurance division of the Department of Trade.
      That supervision did not apply to the management of internal pension funds for the employees of individual insurance companies. If applied to funds administered by insurance companies for their clients, but it did not apply to the pension funds run for the benefit of the employees of the companies. And it did not apply where one insurance company in a group managed pension schemes within the group. In other words, it did not apply to these non-commercial activities, activities which were not being carried out for profit. It was made clear by the Department of Trade that it was not intended that these non-commercial schemes should be brought under supervision. They would, of course, be subject to the United Kingdom legislation affecting occupational schemes, but they were not to be brought under this supervision.
      However, it became clear when the Bill was published that pension schemes for the staffs of insurance groups would be caught and would be made subject to supervision. Amendments to the Bill which have been passed in another place have improved the position, but insurance companies are not yet in the same position as industrial or commercial companies. The present wording of Clause 34 (c) (ii) would not exclude separate pension schemes for employees of one company in a group managed by an insurance company also a member of the group on a non-commercial basis. If a group scheme administered by an insurance company within the group covered all employees in the group it would be excluded. But where the individual companies in the group have separate schemes administered by an insurance company in the group on the same basis, non-commercially, they would not be excluded.
      The effect of this amendment is to extend the exclusion to cover separate schemes within the group administered by an insurance company within that group. All that is sought is to put insurance companies in the same position as industrial or commercial companies, insurance groups in the same position as industrial and commercial groups. I beg to move.
      Lord Lyell: The Committee will be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, for speaking to his two amendments, which, as he pointed out, are technical. I hope that the Committee will bear with me because they are very complicated and somewhat difficult to understand, although I think that they fall into the Bill in a fairly logical form.
      The noble Lord, Lord Banks, mentioned two particular clauses, but certainly amendments were made
      644
      to Clause 15 and also to Clause 34 of the Bill in another place. Those two amendments made it possible for an insurance company to manage the investments of a pension fund of which its own employees—the employees of that particular insurance company—are beneficiaries, either alone or together with the employees of another company within the same group. They would be allowed to do that without requiring an authorisation to carry on long-term business under, what we find in Schedule 1 of the Bill to be, Class VII pension fund management business. That concession was particularly beneficial to general business companies which can no longer carry on authorised business as long-term business because of the ban which we find in Clause 6 on new composites—those are composite companies.
      That change was only made after the most careful consideration. Pension fund management by an insurance company has to be treated as "insurance business", because if it were not, insurance companies would be debarred from carrying it out by Clause 15 of the Bill which implements another obligation of the directive that insurance companies must not carry out non-insurance business. Nevertheless, the Government did conclude that insurance companies should be free to manage the investments of pension funds of which their own employees are beneficiaries without an authorisation under Class VII of Schedule 1. The necessary amendments to both Clauses 15 and 34 were therefore made and we believe that these amendments can be defended as being within the spirit of both directives.
      However, the amendment which we have before us today goes considerably further and covers the case where none of the insurance company's own employees is a beneficiary of the pension fund. We believe that that is indeed Class VII business. The fact that the pension fund relates to employees of another company within the group is not enough, because once there is no direct link between the insurance company, its own employees, and on the third side, the pension fund whose assets are being managed, we believe that there is no case for regarding the activity as anything other than Class VII business which, as your Lordships will see from the schedule, requires authorisation and supervision.
      I point out that the only issue is the source of the investment advice which is sought by the trustees to the pension fund. The terms of the pension scheme and its organisation are in no way affected. But what might have to change in one or two groups is the source of the investment advice which is received by the pension fund trustees if at present that advice is supplied by an insurance company which is authorised to carry on only general business—that is as distinct from long-term business.
      There are various options that companies can find to try and cover that particular point. One option is to continue the present arrangements on a non-contractual basis, since it seems that only contracts to manage investments are affected. Another option is for the trustees to seek the advice from another company within the group which is either not an insurance company at all or which is an insurance company already carrying on long term business: that company will already have the necessary Class VII authorisation

      645
      once the Bill comes into operation. Finally, the third option is that the trustees could seek the advice on what investment policy they should carry out from outside the group altogether. Of course, such advice is readily available from a wide variety of sources and the interests of the beneficiaries of the fund do not demand that the investment advice comes from within the group. We accept that it would be more convenient for the very few companies who are affected if the amendment which is before us today were to be accepted. But we believe that arrangements within the terms of the clause can be set up without any undue or grave difficulty, and certainly there is no question of the Government making life impossible for pension fund trustees.
      The conclusion that we come to is that the intention underlying the amendment which has been proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Banks, simply cannot be reconciled with the life establishment directive. However, I would assure the Committee that this particular intention has been very carefully considered on a number of occasions, but I am afraid that we could not properly go beyond the changes that have already been made to Clauses 15 and 34 in another place. I hope that that goes some way towards explaining the Government's reply to the very complicated amendments which have been so ably proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Banks.
      Lord Bruce of Donington: I am in some difficulty about the purport of this amendment and also the general sense of the noble Lord's reply, clearly and skilfully though he may have presented it, as indeed, I am sure he has. I have been in communication with the Life Offices Association and the British Insurance Association who are more particularly concerned with the changes that are proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Banks. They, of course, fully support the amendments which he has put forward. It occurs to me that it may be possible that, if those two particular associations had had the advantage, which your Lordships have had this afternoon, of listening to the long, very detailed and clear exposition that the noble Lord has presented, they may possibly have thought differently.
      Therefore, the way in which I should like to leave the matter would be to afford those associations the opportunity of examining in detail what the noble Lord has said this afternoon with a view to seeing whether they have any further observations to offer about it or whether they are fully satisfied with the very detailed assurances that the noble Lord has been good enough to give. Therefore, so far as we are concerned on this side of the Committee, we would like to leave the matter in abeyance with the possibility of returning to it again on Report when there has been further opportunity to study the matter.
      Lord O'Neill of the Maine: I should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has said and also to declare an interest. I think that the feeling in the insurance industry is that it is not being treated in the same way as other companies. As I understand it, the banks were originally in the same position as the insurance industries now find themselves in and they, in fact, have had their situation straightened out.
      646
      Therefore, I should like to support what the noble Lord has just said. Can the noble Lord the Minister give us an assurance that he would be willing to have yet further discussions with the BIA to see if something could not be hammered out before the Report stage?
      Lord Lyell: I should like to attempt to reply to the noble Lords who have spoken in the order in which they spoke. I should like to attempt to reply very briefly first, to the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington. The noble Lord informed the Committee that he had been in touch with the Life Offices' Association and the British Insurance Association and he said that they had indicated their full support for these amendments. The information that I had was that the opposition was not so total as in such a letter as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, might have, but that there were one or at the most two companies, which still found some difficulty in this matter. I think that this matter is very germane to the point raised by my noble friend Lord O'Neill.
      My noble friend mentioned that banks were treated differently. I hope that my noble friend would accept that there is no question at all of the Government seeking to discriminate against insurance companies which are giving or which may wish to give investment advice to trustees of pension comanies. After all, this advice could be, and often is, proferred by merchant banks, financial institutions and other similar bodies which are not insurance companies.
      The main problem that the Government have with this Bill is to fulfill our obligations under the two directives which are particularly relevant to insurance companies. I hope that my noble friend Lord O'Neill might follow the advice and possibly the views of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce of Donington, that perhaps the explanation that I have tried to give could be studied; the department is always at the behest of your Lordships, and, if it were deemed necessary, I am sure that we could have some further consultations.
      Lord Banks: I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, for his reply, although he will not be surprised to know that I consider it rather disappointing. On the options which he mentioned, I do not think that they are extremely attractive, but nevertheless I should like to consider them a little further. It seems very unsatisfactory that no distinction can be made between commercial activity on the part of insurance companies within the group and non-commercial activity. Why should this particular type of non-commercial activity be open to commercial and industrial companies and not to insurance companies? To say that is to emphasise the point which was made by the noble Lord, Lord O'Neill of the Maine. Nevertheless I should like to consider this further and pursue the suggestions made by the noble Lord just now in his second reply. That being so, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.]
      [Amendment No. 5 not moved.]
      Clause 34 agreed to.
      Clause 35 [Interpretation]:
      On Question, Whether Clause 35 shall stand part of the Bill?
      Lord Bruce of Donington: With the leave of the Committee, and as the noble Lord has on various occasions in Committee referred to EEC Directive Nos. 1 and 2, may I ask him whether he has any further news about the progress of the Second Directive, which went to the Council in 1975 and which I understand has recently been the subject of negotiations at Council of Ministers' level? Perhaps I may draw his attention to the fact that under Article 18 of the draft Second Directive a provision is made for its provisions to come into operation two years after it has been ratified. Even on the assumption that the EEC directive was approved this autumn, it would be a number of years before it could be enacted in this country, and that would be 10 years of filibustering within the EEC.
      Lord Lyell: Of course, the whole Committee will never be surprised to hear the robust comments of the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, with his great knowledge of the affairs of the European Parliament and, indeed, European institutions. I am not entirely sure to which directive the noble Lord refers, but if it is the one which the noble Lord normally raises on these occasions—we might call it Bruce's hobbyhorse—I am given to understand that this particular animal has made certain strides forward. Perhaps I may consider what the noble Lord has said and write to him a little more expeditiously than I did following the last occasion on which I promised to write to him and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Banks.
      Clause 35 agreed to.
      Clauses 36 to 38 agreed to.
      Schedules 1 to 5 agreed to.
      House resumed: Bill reported with an amendment.

      Marriage (Enabling) Bill [H.L.]
      4.45 p.m.
      Read 3a.
      Clause 5 [Short title, citation and extent.]:
      Baroness Wootton of Abinger Baroness Wootton of Abinger moved Amendments Nos. 1 to 3:
      Page 3, line 40, leave out ("and") and insert (", so far as it relates to the Marriage Act, 1949, may be cited together with").
      Page 4, line 1, leave out ("may be cited together")
      Page 4, line 3, leave out from ("Act") to ("as") in line 4 and insert (", so far as it relates to the Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977, may be cited together with that Act").
      The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the three amendments standing in my name are all part of the same whole. They are drafting amendments and they have been produced by the parliamentary draftsmen of the Home Office and the Scottish Office in consultation. Their object is to make more consistent the citation of the Bill, so that those parts of the Bill which relate to Scotland will appear in conjunction with the existing marriage laws relating to Scotland, and the same will be true of England and Wales. With the consent of the House, I should like to move the three amendments en bloc as drafting amendments. I beg to move these amendments en bloc.
      On Question, amendments agreed to.
      Baroness Wootton of Abinger: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. The Bill has had a curious and unusual history. It has had three Second Readings, two successful and one unsuccessful, and it has had two Committee stages and one Report stage; it has now arrived, at last, at a final Third Reading. I am sure that your Lordships will be relieved to know that I do not propose to make a fourth Second Reading speech. I think that the substance of the Bill and any objections that may be raised to it are by now familiar ground to those of your Lordships who are collected together today.
      During this long journey the appearance of the Bill has been very considerably altered. It looks somewhat battered. It is very much longer and to all appearances very much more complicated. However, I should like to assure your Lordships that in substance there have been only two changes in what the Bill would accomplish if it were passed into law. The first change is that those marriages which the Bill would validate would be validated only in the case of persons who had already reached the age of 21 or over. That was an amendment introduced and accepted by all parties at the Committee stage.
      The second change is geographical, and I do not propose to discuss the reasons for, or the origin of, that at this moment. The second change is that this Bill, like others in the sequence which preceded it, would apply to Scotland as well as to England and Wales. If this matter is raised in debate I shall deal with it then rather than anticipate what may be said. I think that it would be more satisfactory to answer any points that may actually be raised.
      I shall say only a few words about the origin of the Bill. The origin of the Bill was a letter that I read in The Times several years ago from a man who was greatly distressed because he was not able to marry his stepdaughter in circumstances in which I feel sure that your Lordships, if you were acquainted with the particulars of that case, would react as you did to the personal Bill promoted a month or two ago by Mr Berry and Mrs Ward. Your Lordships accepted their personal Bill and application to marry without a single dissentient and with practically no debate.
      In the same way this Bill will bring happiness and relief to a great many couples. I cannot give any kind of accurate estimate of the number; I can only say that after I had got in touch with the writer of the letter to The Times and introduced the Bill for the first time in February, 1979, a number of people got to hear of it and started to write to me; people who were in somewhat the same circumstances. If a handful of people have written to me—and I have followed them up and got in touch with them and got to know some of them very well—it seems reasonable to suppose that there will be some hundreds, if not thousands, in the country in like case who have not written to me but who are faced with the same troubles.
      They have nearly all expressed a sense of frustration if they have refrained from fulfilling their desire to live together as though they were married. Those who have yielded to that desire and who do live together as though they were married have all said how much they deplore the feeling that they are living a lie, and how ironic they feel that it is, in an age when young

      649
      people are habitually living together outside matrimony and this is widely deplored by the Churches, they who wish to live in matrimony are unable to achieve that status. It seems ironic that this contrast should prevail at the present time where there is no blood relation between any of them. I can only say that if this Bill were to become law it would bring great happiness and relief to an unknown number of people in that situation.
      I would also say that this Bill seems to me to be the logical conclusion of a process which has been going on for about three-quarters of a century. I can remember the beginning of it. That was the Deceased Wife's Sister Act 1907 which, for the first time, permitted the marriage between affinities; that is to say, persons connected by marriage and not by blood. That Act applied, exactly as it says, only in the cases of a deceased wife's sister; it did not apply in the reverse case of the deceased husband's brother.
      Some years later, not until 1921, equal rights were given to a woman in the same situation. But they could not be given in the same terms because at that date only men could marry women and women could not marry men. Therefore, the title of the corresponding Act that gave a woman the right corresponding to the man's right to marry his deceased wife's sister was called the Act enabling a man to marry his deceased brother's widow. We have moved on since then.
      By 1931, when the next enlargement came, the Act took the form of giving permission for a marriage between two parties, and the term "spouse" came in to cover the difficulty of always having to say "man" or "woman". The Act of 1931 enlarged the validity of marriages between affinities to include the deceased spouse's nephew or niece, aunt or uncle. That was the next stage. Thereafter, a Marriage Act of 1949 covered a great many aspects of the solemnisation of marriage and brought the whole law of marriage more or less into one Act. It was not exactly a consolidating Act because it contained new material, but it did not enlarge further the marriages with affinities. The Act of 1960, which was based on the recommendations of the Morton Commission on Divorce, went a great deal further. All marriages that would be valid between a deceased spouse's relative would also be valid in the event of the spouse not being deceased but being divorced.
      That was the story. It appears to me that by adding those relatives or affinities which are covered by this Bill we should be bringing the whole process to its logical conclusion. My original Bill stated this very simply in language which anybody could understand. My original Bill stated simply—and I wish to repeat this—that the Bill would enable any two persons to marry who were of marriageable age and who were not blood related, with the exception of cases of people marrying their adopted children.
      I should have said earlier that there is one other substantial difference in this Bill from the original one, because the marriages which will be validated by this Bill will apply only to persons who have attained the age of 21. For all others the marriageable age remains as it is at present, at 16. Those two differences, that the Bill will apply to Scotland, which it did not originally, and that it will apply only to persons over 21, are
      650
      the only differences from the original Bill as produced in 1979.
      With those few remarks, which I hope do not constitute a full Second Reading speech, I ask your Lordships to confer upon the other couples in cases like that of Mr. Berry and Mrs. Ward, now Mr. and Mrs. Berry, the same privilege as you conferred upon that one couple; that is to say, to enable them to marry and enable them to produce, if they are of age, legitimate children. Another difficulty encountered by these couples is that not only are they unable to marry, but if they beget children their children are illegitimate and can never be legitimised, for the simple reason that their parents can never marry. I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
      Lord de Clifford: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, may I point out that she was slightly inaccurate in what she said. I opposed the Berry and Ward Bill. I also stated at the time that the noble Baroness would use it to introduce another Bill. Is the noble Baroness also telling us that the report in the Daily Express today, that Berry and Ward are not married, is incorrect?
      Baroness Wootton of Abinger: My Lords, may I reply to the noble Lord's intervention? I did not hear the second part of it, but I may say that I did not hear a single dissentient voice, and no vote was recorded against the Berry and Ward Bill.
      Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Wootton of Abinger.)
      4.58 p.m.
      The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, I think we all recognise the tremendous amount of trouble that the noble Baroness has taken, and this has been a considerable strain to her. Nevertheless, I think we should remember the stage we have reached and how we have reached it in this Bill. At the Report stage the noble Baroness brought amendments which virtually constituted a completely new Bill. I agree that half of it was largely redrafted, but an entirely new area was brought in affecting Scotland. I invited the noble Baroness to re-commit the Bill, and she declined to do so. I invited her to omit the Scottish clauses, and she declined to do so. So the noble Baroness accepts full responsibility for what the Bill stands for.
      I object very strongly to tagging Scottish elements on to an English Bill, just as I am quite certain that English Members would object very much to having their Bills tagged on to a Scottish Bill. It is intolerable to tag on large provisions on Report, when we have no time or ability to have a free discussion of the details or the meaning of certain passages. When it spreads on from there into the criminal law, then as a matter of principle that is most objectionable. It is a precedent which your Lordships' House should regard as quite unsatisfactory.
      The Motion we are debating is, That the Bill do now pass. For my part, I do not want the Bill to pass and I believe we should have a proper examination of the Scots element in it. I do not know, for instance, why there is no clause dealing with Ireland; there is no reference to that. If the noble Baroness is really

      651
      concerned with what I call the Gretna Green position—a position which has never worried us in Scotland very much—all she has done is to remove the position of Gretna Green. The situation still exists in certain respects and I think she will be the first to recognise that the clauses dealing with Scotland are not the same (I will give an example if necessary) as those which apply to England.
      There are several points I would make in regard to the amendments which deal with Scotland. First, it is sad that the draftsman was not encouraged to introduce what is called the Renton recommendations. This is a very personal Bill and it is important that people should fully understand what it means. Frankly, the Scots elements in it are not comprehensible or understandable as they stand without reference to a number of other matters. That is a great pity and a matter which should have been dealt with. Another element which I would mention—there may be more and I do not know whether they are right or wrong because we have not had a Committee stage—concerns Clause 3 where it says in subsection (1A) (b) that a marriage is void if solemnised
      "at a time when either party is domiciled in Scotland".
      That gives this very odd position: if a young man domiciled in Scotland goes abroad and, say, marries a lady of affinity under the age of 21—it may be one of the cases which the noble Baroness mentioned where the marriage laws are different—and he returns to Scotland then, according to the Bill, he will first of all find that his marriage is void (and Heaven knows what will happen to the children, if any) and, secondly, find he is guilty of incest. That cannot be a satisfactory situation. Indeed, I would go further and say that so far as Scotland is concerned, the proximity of incest and marriage is far too close.
      For those reasons we need to examine very closely indeed in Committee, where the meaning of each clause can be explored, what it all means, but at present it is clearly unsatisfactory. We are a revising Chamber, but we have before us a Bill which we have not properly revised, yet the country is being asked to accept it and in my view that is entirely wrong. Indeed, it is hardly worthy of your Lordships' House that we should pass Bills which have not been thoroughly examined. I do not believe there is any evidence that the people of Scotland want the measure, and such evidence as we have is to the effect that they do not want it. They do not understand it and I am by no means satisfied that the Bill is well drafted so far as Scotland is concerned. For that reason we should not accept the Motion.
      5.4 p.m.
      The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, spoke with admirable brevity and I shall follow her example. But I feel I owe it to your Lordships to explain why, even at this late stage, those who sit on these Benches feel they must oppose the Bill. We are grateful for the amendments which were passed; we are sorry the amendment about the child of the family was not passed; we greatly admire the tenacity with which the noble Baroness has constantly defended her position; and
      652
      we realise how deep is the affection and respect in this House for her and how noble Lords would for her sake like to see the Bill passed. However, those are not reasons for passing a bad Bill, and as an aide memoire I wish in a few sentences to summarise the main objections to the Bill, apart from the Scottish issue, as I see them.
      I believe, first of all, that it will further erode the concept of the family as an extended network of relationships. I say "further erode" because it has been eroded in a variety of ways, some legislative and some other, over the last decades. The family has traditionally comprised more than the nuclear family of husband, wife and children and more than blood relations, and it is because of the existence of this extended family, and indeed the laws which buttress its existence, that there can be freedoms of relationship within that family which I believe would be compromised if our law moved further in the direction in which the noble Baroness would like to take it. There is a freedom of relationship between members of the same family which is possible precisely because marriage is not an open option to them. That as I see it is the first and main objection.
      The second—much debate has concentrated on this—is that the Bill will introduce a further element of uncertainty into the relationship between step-parents and stepchildren, and it is a difficult enough relationship already. I believe it is highly undesirable to make it more difficult, especially now that divorce is relatively easy and the number of stepchildren correspondingly large. Indeed, one of the major factors which has changed since the long progression of legislation of which the noble Baroness has spoken is of course the advent of relatively easy divorce.
      A third objection is that the Bill would put us out of line with the great majority of European and English-speaking countries. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, has already tabled a paper summarising the law in European countries from which it is obvious that the overwhelming number of them have some remaining prohibitions as regards marriage between affinities. There is further evidence now from Canada, from half the states in the United States—the other half have not replied—from India, Pakistan and Japan; and, so far as I know, the world situation is that, with the exception of Australia and Sweden, every country has some prohibition on marriage within the degrees of affinity. In some countries it is absolute, in others there is provision for dealing with special cases.
      That leads to my fourth point: we are all of course moved by the hard cases which the noble Baroness and others have brought to our attention in the course of these many debates. I believe there is some better way of dealing with those hard cases than through this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Boston, has pointed out on many occasions and at considerable length the legal difficulties there might be in some alternative form of legislation. But if other countries can retain laws prohibiting marriage within the affinities, and yet allow it in certain circumstances, why cannot this country? What is so strange about the law in our country which would not enable us to do what is apparently perfectly possible in other countries? I wish to stress—because some hard things have been said in the course of this debate—that the Bishops are not unsympathetic towards

      653
      these cases; but we do not believe that sufficient arguments have been put forward to justify sweeping away the law in this wholesale manner.
      Nowadays everybody is constantly stressing the importance of the family, and I believe that it is too fundamental an institution in our society to tinker with in this piecemeal fashion. I believe that the Churches and many other bodies would welcome the opportunity for more widespread consultation both on this issue and other issues related to it. We would welcome ways of exploring the legal safeguards for family life and for dealing with genuine hard cases. But, my Lords, we do not welcome this Bill.
      The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, before the right reverend Prelate sits down, will he answer the following question? Has family life in Australia been harmed by such legislation, and, if it has, will he give us some examples, please?
      The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, I am not fortunate enough to have personal knowledge of what goes on in Australia. I am simply arguing on the basis of what happens when one removes existing safeguards from the law. We have seen it again and again in this country, when so-called liberalising legislation, passed with the best of intentions, has put all kinds of ideas which were not there previously into the minds of all kinds of people. I do not know what was, or what is now, in the minds of our friends in Australia.
      5.11 p.m.
      Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, it is with some hesitation that I intervene this afternoon in the debate, and I do so primarily for one reason. I have some sympathy with the point of view of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, when he raises the question of the Scottish situation and when he says that this aspect of the matter was not before your Lordships at Second Reading or during the Committee stage, but only on Report. In that respect, I have some sympathy. But I think that we must bear in mind that this is not an occasion for further Second Reading speeches. In the past your Lordships have expressed yourselves very strongly about Second Reading speeches being made at Third Reading or on the Motion that the Bill do now pass, and if I may say so with the greatest respect, I think that today we have had such a speech from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. In view of the fact that he has nine other bishops supporting him, I am hoping that we are not to have nine other Second Reading speeches. That would be totally contrary to the good practice of your Lordships' House.
      Therefore, I do not myself want to fall into that trap by making a Second Reading speech today, even though I have not previously made a Second Reading speech on the Bill. I was present during the whole of the Second Reading and all the subsequent stages of the Bill, and at the Report stage my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger pointed out, and accepted, that the Scottish aspect had been introduced at that particular point. If my memory serves me correctly, she made the point that she had been encouraged to introduce it by the Scottish Office and the Home Office. I
      654
      think I am right in saying that the amendments were drafted by the Scottish Office—
      The Earl of Selkirk: My Lords, if I may say so, I think the position is as follows. Both the Home Office and the Scottish Office said that they would help the noble Baroness if necessary, but without giving any encouragement.
      Lord Wells-Pestell: My Lords, I should be very surprised if my noble friend asked for amendments relating to the Scottish situation, but she can answer for herself. The point that I really want to make is this: I accept that it is a new situation, but should this new situation, for which I have expressed my understanding, be allowed to defeat the Bill, when at Second Reading it was accepted by a substantial majority and when only three bishops were present? Apparently they did not consider it important enought to have more bishops present. The Bill was substantially accepted at Second Reading by 49 votes to 20. After this House has at some length considered a Bill, a Private Member's Bill, has given it a Second Reading, and has passed the amendments at the Committee stage, is it right that at this stage the Bill should run the risk of being defeated?
      I want to say the following to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. As I understand it, the Bill has not yet been to the Commons. Why not let it go to the Commons in its present form, and then, if it is desired that the Scottish aspect should be removed, let that be done there? But I would ask your Lordships not to place the Bill in jeopardy, which is what you will do if you use this occasion as another Second Reading debate and then go into the Lobby to defeat it. I say that it has already passed its Second Reading in your Lordships' House and it has got through the Committee stage. We really ought to accept that. As I say, I accept that the Scottish aspect adds to the Bill a new dimension, but it is a dimension which could be dealt with in another place.
      5.16 p.m.
      Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, has mentioned the Home Office, quite properly of course, because we, together with the Scottish Office, were the Government departments which were most interested in the Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton. During the course of the several debates that we have had on the Bill I have, on behalf of the department of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, tried to point out the implications of its proposals and I wish, briefly, once again to mention three of the implications.
      The first implication, it seems to me, is that the House now has to decide whether in principle it wishes to pass the Bill. We must weigh the concern which has been expressed again today by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and by many noble Lords during the debates about the interests of family life against the compassion which I think we all feel, and which has been expressed today by the noble Baroness, for the individual cases in which the application of the law produces disappointment and indeed can produce great unhappiness.

      655
      The second implication of the Bill I think is that at the Committee stage there was much discussion about the possibility of an alternative approach, lying somewhere between the complete derestriction that the noble Baroness advocates and the complete prohibition enjoined by our law as it stands today and indeed by the law of many other countries.
      However, during the Committee stage we learnt that there are difficulties about an alternative approach, involving the exercise of discretion by the courts, especially in countries whose jurisprudence has a common law basis. There are (to mention only two of them) problems of identifying appropriate criteria which would in practice be not only justiciable but neither too time consuming, nor too costly. Further there was the distaste, that was mentioned by many noble Lords during our debates, of having a situation in which adult couples would be required to submit to the judgment of others on matters that are highly personal and that involve the right to marry. So, to put it in a nutshell, I think that your Lordships agreed that it was not any good going down that road.
      The third implication arises from the speech of my noble friend Lord Selkirk; this is concerned with the extension of the Bill to Scotland. As my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate made abundantly clear at Report stage in the debate on what are now Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill, the Government did not—and do not—depart in the slightest degree from an attitude of strict neutrality to the principle of the Bill in relation to either the marriage law of England and Wales or that in force in Scotland. What the Government have done has been strictly limited in character. First, after your Lordships had given the Bill a Second Reading, we provided drafting assistance to the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, so as to ensure that the Bill would be in a state of technical correctness compatible with the general body of marriage law.
      Secondly, we advised that it is desirable for this House to consider this Bill in the context of the established practice of keeping the laws of England and Scotland substantially in line in the matter of capacity to marry, having regard in particular to the contiguity of these constituent parts of Great Britain and the movement, temporary as well as permanent, between people in both directions. Your Lordships will recognise that these are practical considerations for the avoidance of distressing complications consequent upon any disparity between legislative provisions in this personal and sensitive area of our law. That is the reason why my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate at the previous stage of the Bill said that it would be highly inconvenient and very wrong that the law of Scotland and the law of England and Wales in this matter should be different. But I repeat lest there remain any lingering doubt in the minds of noble Lords that the Government have not lent their support to the principle of the noble Baroness's Bill as forming part of the marriage law in England or Wales or Scotland. I remain consistent in that attitude to the Bill at its final stage.
      5.22 p.m.
      Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, I should like in a moment to follow the noble Lord, Lord Belstead,
      656
      in some of the points he has made to your Lordships about our earlier proceedings on this Bill; but, first, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lady Wootton on the way she has steered this Bill through this House so far. She has steadfastly adhered to the principles enshrined in this Bill. Whatever decision your Lordships take tonight on this Bill, there can be no doubt that in the way she has promoted this Bill and conducted it through the House she has, once again, demonstrated and lived up to her wholly justified reputation for compassion and for caring about people and their problems which are so vitally important to them.
      I do not want to speak at length. Like other noble Lords and right reverend Prelates, I have intervened before in the proceedings on this Bill and the similar ones that my noble friend has introduced in the two previous Sessions. But I should like to make some brief observations on our consideration of the Bill and then to join with other noble Lords in bringing us back to the Bill's central purpose. First, I feel that it is important to emphasise that the main aims of the Bill have become very familiar. It is now some two and a quarter years since we first began considering this matter in the form of a Bill along these lines in this House, so no one can claim properly that they have been taken by surprise or that there has not been time to consider it fully. There has been ample time—much more so, one might observe, than with some much more major and controversial Bills which Governments, not confined to one party, sometimes place before us. There has been ample time for those inside and outside this House to become familiar with the proposals.
      To that point I would add this. We all appreciate that there are some noble Lords who hold strong views against the Bill. We understand, too, that there are some noble Lords from Scotland who are among them and who have not favoured the proposed extension of the Bill to Scotland. But, without entering again tonight into the debate about the Bill's extension to Scotland—for, as the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, made clear just now, we considered those implications on Report—I think it right to add this. There has been for some time clear public notice that the Bill had implications for Scotland and that amendments would be proposed concerning Scottish law.
      This was made clear in our debate on the Second Reading of this Bill on 25th February this year and it was made clear by the Minister the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, who said—and I think part of it is worth quoting—
      "There may be an argument that in a matter of this kind the law should be consistent throughout Great Britain. As drafted, the Bill does not extend to Scotland and if it makes progress the House might like to consider amendments to amend the law of Scotland as well as that of England and Wales. I am told that it would be necessary to amend the Scottish law of incest which is somewhat more extensive than that obtaining in England and Wales".
      There were also pointers about the possible need to consider amendments relating to Scotland as long ago as 13th February 1979 in our Second Reading debate then on an earlier and similar Bill of my noble friend and again on 15th March of that year, 1979, when we were considering that same Bill in Committee. It fell to me to give to your Lordships notice of the possible

      657
      needs—although we did not go into it in detail—for considering amendments concerning Scotland. Therefore, I submit that it is fair to say that there have been quite long-standing warnings about this and that noble Lords and others can be said to have been alerted and put on inquiry, if they wished to be, about it. There remains the fact that the basic principles of the Bill, anyway, have been known and clear for a long time.
      There is another point about our proceedings which I would make. It is this. In the course of our extended deliberations on the Bill, we have considered with great care various proposals made by noble Lords (some of which have been referred to in today's proceedings) for quite major amendments to the Bill. One of those which has been referred to at least by my noble friend Lady Wootton if not by other noble Lords tonight, was to limit the minimum age for marriage of either party to 21 years. That is now part of the Bill and was accepted by my noble friend. There were other proposals such as that which would have required the court to grant consent before a marriage could take place under the Bill—and which has been referred to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and by the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, tonight. Although well-intentioned that amendment, for various reasons, was found wanting and was rejected by your Lordships. The same happended to other quite major and, if I may say so, similarly well-intentioned proposed amendments.
      I mention this because it shows, in my submission, that your Lordships have taken this task very seriously, as always, and have considered thoroughly probably all the possible implications arising from this Bill. The point I would suggest now is this. We are still left with the fact that there is a problem affecting not a vast number of people but some people, a problem which is a very real and major one for those whom it does affect. We are still left with the widely-held view that the present situation, in the absence of this Bill as an Act, is unsatisfactory, that the only course at present open to a couple related by reason of affinity only who wish to marry is to promote a personal Bill—with all that that involves in terms of cost, time, parliamentary time, exposure to public view and examination of the couple's private and personal circumstances.
      The view that the system is unsatisfactory is held and acknowledged by some who have not been supporters of the present Bill itself. We are also left with the widely-held view that not only should these matters of deciding about individual couples, cases not be ones for Parliament but, indeed, should not be ones for the courts either, a view expressed, for example, by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor when he took part in a debate last May on the Berry and Ward Bill.
      We are driven back in my submission to a central point which some of us have sought to make before and which your Lordships' House can be said to have accepted in granting this Bill a Second Reading: that there is a problem; that it is one which Parliament are capable of solving; that it needs to be solved in some cases at least as proved by the fact that Parliament passed such a personal Bill as that of the Berry and Ward Bill last year. We have sought to find alternative ways of solving the problem. We have not found any
      658
      other satisfactory means despite strenuous and exhaustive endeavours. Therefore, I submit that we should use my noble friend's solution to solve the problems of those unfortunate couples who are affected by the present law. I hope very much—although as I have pointed out before I cannot commit any of my noble friends let alone any other noble Lords—that your Lordships will endorse the decision which was taken on 25th February this year and will pass this Bill.
      The Earl of Longford: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, would he make it plain that there are those among his "flock" who disagree totally with his line of persuasion that he has unfolded from the Front Bench?
      Lord Boston of Faversham: My Lords, I think what my noble friend has just proved is that he is well able to speak for himself.
      5.32 p.m.
      The Duke of Norfolk: My Lords, may I take two minutes to say that we absolutely agree that there is a problem, and that it was an anachronism that Mr. Berry had to have a Private Bill to marry his stepdaughter, Mrs. Ward. However, the Bill of the noble Baroness does not answer the problem in the way that it should be answered. It more or less abolishes all affinity except for under 21 and so on. That will leave the door wide open to many assaults on the family. For instance, if this Bill is passed it will be possible for a father to divorce his wife so as to marry his stepdaughter. It will be possible for a father to divorce his wife so as to marry his daughter-in-law. All these things are examples of how that sacred unit, the marriage unit, the family unit, would be weakened.
      Many people have asked me to say—and I am speaking, naturally, as a Catholic—that what we think should happen to remedy the situation is that there should be a conference of the Christian churches, the Jewish church and the other religions to decide on a comprehensive attitude that should be incorporated by a Government Bill to amend the Marriage Act of 1949. I beg your Lordships not to let this blanket Bill pass this House.
      Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, 20 years ago I might have thought that passing this Bill could have had an adverse effect on the institution of marriage and the family, and I might have voted against it. Today I believe that just the opposite is true. Most of the people that we have in mind will simply live together, hardly something which helps promote the sanctity of marriage. The persons who will suffer if this Bill is not passed are those with high moral or religious principles and the children who may be born out of wedlock. Rightly or wrongly, we no longer try by legislation to make people conform to what we may think is right. Only when their actions adversely affect others or the nation as a whole is this now considered acceptable. We should not try to do this by opposing this Bill which now gives freedom only to mature persons over 21 years old.
      I am afraid that the suggestions of the last speaker—good in theory though they may be—will simply mean that no agreement will be reached and that nothing will

      659
      be done. Without meaning to be unkind, and with all due respect to the right reverend Prelates who have made in the past some very powerful speeches indeed, one must ask them to search their consciences. I venture to suggest that they are really in part at least trying to rationalise an understandable prejudice against making changes in something which has been the Church law for so long.
      5.38 p.m.
      On Question, Whether the Bill do now pass?
      Their Lordships divided: Contents, 79: Not-Contents, 124.

      CONTENTS

      Amherst, E.

      Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

      Ardwick, L.

      Lovell-Davis, L. [Teller.]

      Auckland, L.

      McNair, L.

      Beaumont of Whitley, L.

      Mais, L.

      Bernstein, L.

      Maybray-King, L.

      Blyton, L.

      Merrivale, L.

      Boothby, L.

      Monson, L.

      Boston of Faversham, L.

      Mountevans, L.

      Brockway, L.

      Ogmore, L.

      Byers, L.

      Onslow, E.

      Chelwood, L.

      Oram, L.

      Chorley, L.

      Peart, L.

      Collison, L.

      Phillips, B.

      Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

      Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

      Cranbrook, E.

      Redcliffe-Maud, L.

      Davies of Leek, L.

      Ritchie-Calder, L.

      Davies of Penrhys, L.

      Robbins, L.

      Elibank, L.

      Roberthall, L.

      Elwyn-Jones, L.

      Rugby, L.

      Foot, L.

      Selborne, E.

      Fulton, L.

      Shepherd, L.

      Gaitskell, B.

      Shinwell, L.

      Gardiner, L.

      Stedman, B.

      Goronwy-Roberts, L.

      Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

      Gosford, E.

      Stewart of Fulham, L.

      Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

      Strabolgi, L.

      Gregson, L.

      Taylor of Mansfield, L.

      Hale, L.

      Tweeddale, M.

      Hall, V.

      Vaizey, L.

      Hanworth, V.

      Vickers, B.

      Henley, L.

      Wade, L.

      Houghton of Sowerby, L.

      Wallace of Coslany, L.

      Jacobson, L.

      Walston, L.

      Jacques, L.

      Wells-Pestell, L.

      Jeger, B. [Teller.]

      White, B.

      Killearn, L.

      Wigoder, L.

      Kilmarnock, L.

      Wilson of Langside, L.

      Leatherland, L.

      Winstanley, L.

      Listowel, E.

      Wootton of Abinger, B.

      Llewelyn-Davies, L.

      NOT-CONTENTS

      Abinger, L.

      Craigmyle, L.

      Airey of Abingdon, B.

      Croft, L.

      Alanbrooke, V.

      Cross, V.

      Alexander of Tunis, E.

      Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

      Alport, L.

      Dacre of Glanton, L.

      Avon, E.

      Daventry, V.

      Balfour of Inchrye, L.

      de Clifford, L.

      Banks, L.

      Duncan-Sandys, L.

      Barrington, V.

      Dundee, E.

      Bessborough, E.

      Dunrossil, V.

      Buxton of Alsa, L.

      Durham, Bp.

      Cairns, E.

      Eccles, V.

      Campbell of Croy, L.

      Eldon, E.

      Carlisle, Bp.

      Ellenborough, L.

      Chelmsford, Bp.

      Elliot of Harwood, B.

      Chichester, Bp.

      Energlyn, L.

      Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

      Faithfull, B.

      Coggan, L.

      Falkland, V.

      Cork and Orrery, E.

      Ferrier, L.

      660

      Fortescue, E.

      Northchurch, B.

      Gainford, L.

      Orr-Ewing, L.

      Galpern, L.

      Oxford and Asquith, E.

      George-Brown, L.

      Pender, L.

      Gore-Booth, L.

      Perth, E.

      Gowrie, E.

      Peterborough, Bp.

      Grantchester, L.

      Porritt, L.

      Greenway, L.

      Portland, D.

      Gridley, L.

      Rankeillour, L.

      Grimston of Westbury, L.

      Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

      Guildford, Bp.

      Renton, L.

      Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

      Robertson of Oakridge, L.

      Rochdale, V.

      Halsbury, E. [Teller.]

      St. Aldwyn, E.

      Hillingdon, L.

      St. Davids, V.

      Hunt of Fawley, L.

      Saint Oswald, L.

      Hunt of Tanworth, L.

      Salisbury, M.

      Hylton, L.

      Sandys, L.

      Hylton-Foster, B.

      Seafield, E.

      Iddesleigh, E.

      Selkirk, E.

      Janner, L.

      Sempill, Ly.

      Kinloss, Ly.

      Shannon, E.

      Kinross, L.

      Sharples, B.

      Lauderdale, E. [Teller.]

      Sherfield, L.

      Lichfield, Bp.

      Sinclair, L.

      Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

      Skelmersdale, L.

      Long, V.

      Sligo, M.

      Longford, E.

      Soames, L.

      Loudoun, C.

      Southwell, Bp.

      Lucas of Chilworth, L.

      Spens, L.

      McFadzean, L.

      Stamp, L.

      Macleod of Borve, B.

      Strathclyde, L.

      MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

      Strathspey, L.

      Mancroft, L.

      Sudeley, L.

      Marley, L.

      Swinfen, L.

      Massereene and Ferrard, V.

      Terrington, L.

      Mersey, V.

      Torphichen, L.

      Milverton, L.

      Trefgarne, L.

      Minto, E.

      Truro, Bp.

      Mowbray and Stourton, L.

      Vivian, L.

      Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

      Waldegrave, E.

      Newall, L.

      Ward of Witley, V.

      Noel-Buxton, L.

      Winchester, Bp.

      Norfolk, D.

      Worcester, Bp.

      Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

      ECC 17th Report: Asbestos
      5.46 p.m.
      The Earl of Cranbrook The Earl of Cranbrook rose to move, That this House take notes of the Report of the European Communities Committee on asbestos (17th Report, H.L. 122).
      The noble Earl said. My Lords, I beg to move that this House now takes note of the 17th Report of the Select Committee on the European Communities for this Session. This concerns the subject of asbestos. The report concerns two draft directives, one produced by DG3 and one by DG5, respectively No. 5682/80, restricting the marketing and use of asbestos, which was presented to the Council in March 1980, and No. 9953/80 on measures to protect workers from risks due to exposure from asbestos, which was presented to the Council in September 1980.
      The report before your Lordships was prepared by Sub-Committee G of the Select Committee. Oral evidence was taken on two occasions, in August 1980 and in February 1981, from representatives of the Health and Safety Executive. Each session related separately to one or other of the draft directives and I hope that this temporal separation will be clear to your Lord

      661
      ships in the transcript as it appears in the report. I should like to express the thanks of the Sub-Committee to Mr. C. D. Burgess of the Health and Safety Executive and his colleagues for their assistance. Written evidence was also received from the chairman of the Health and Safety Commission and from other bodies of persons concerned with the problems of asbestos, and is published with our report.
      As your Lordships will know very well, the dilemma posed by the use of asbestos, which of course exists in various forms each with somewhat different properties, is a very clear and important one in society. If inhaled, airborne asbestos dust is a serious hazard to health. In relatively massive quantities over long exposure it leads to the acutely crippling condition known as asbestosis. But worse than this, even slight exposure has been linked statistically to the onset, much later in life in some cases, of malignant diseases such as cancer of the lung or mesothelioma.
      The report before your Lordships, largely including detailed evidence from the Health and Safety Executive, deals with the nature and causes of these diseases in some detail. On the other side of the coin, the fibrous structure of asbestos and its mineral nature provides it with distinctive properties which have led to its very widespread use in the past, particularly as an insulating material and in construction products. Whether we like it or not, a vast amount of asbestos is already in the man-made environment. It is at present incorporated in domestic buildings, in industrial buildings, in vehicles and in many other places.
      I do not pretend for a moment that there can be an equation in human suffering, and it must be remembered that as against the deaths and the crippling diseases that have been caused by asbestos there must also be many occasions on which injury has been prevented or life saved by an asbestos product, especially in connection with fire risks. On balance, there is therefore an incentive to continue to permit the use of asbestos until equally effective substitutes can be found, provided that its injurious characteristics can be contained and its use can be safe.
      In the United Kingdom the most important national review of the problems posed by the use of asbestos has been provided by the reports of the Advisory Committee on Asbestos, three of which were produced, the last of them (the third) in 1979. I hope that the noble Earl who will in due course answer this debate, my noble friend Lord Gowrie, may feel that this occasion is a fit one on which to report on the progress which has taken place in the implementation of the advisory committee's recommendations.
      At the Community level, there have been close links between the Commission and the Health and Safety Executive, as will be apparent to any of your Lordships who are to read the evidence. As a consequence, in the main, the proposals of these two draft directives are in line with the ACA's recommendations. None the less, there are certain issues that are potentially contentious which have been identified by Sub-Committee G, and it was thought right to bring these issues before your Lordships' House in debate.
      The first that I shall touch on concerns, broadly speaking, the definition of "asbestos". On the grounds of available evidence in the United Kingdom, one form of asbestos—that is to say, crocidolite, which
      662
      is known more conveniently as blue asbestos—is treated as a significantly greater hazard to health than other forms. This approach is also followed by the Commission. But in some other member states of the Community, these distinctions are not made in their national regulations. On the other hand, as a result, presumably, of initiatives from these other states, the draft directives also propose to control two minerals that are little used in the United Kingdom; that our own Health and Safety Executive do not, in fact, consider hazardous as ordinarily encountered in the United Kingdom. These are the minerals known as actinolite and tremolite. A discussion of their nature is to be found in the report.
      So far as blue asbestos is concerned, the United Kingdom at present operates a voluntary ban. The Advisory Committee on Asbestos has recommended that this should be made statutory. In the give and take of Community discussions, the committee feel that it is important to ensure that the power to impose a statutory ban on the importation of blue asbestos, or of products containing it, is not eroded. Recent proposals to amend the draft directive 5682/80 have been put forward by the Netherlands Presidency. In this respect, these particular proposals would strengthen the United Kingdom's position. Where other forms of asbestos are concerned—for instance, actinolite and tremolite, which I mentioned a moment ago—I suggest that it would be wise if United Kingdom representatives could take a broad, rather than a narrow, definition of asbestos in order to have something to give, as it were, in debate.
      On the problems of the differential toxicity of the various types of asbestos, the committee, in paragraph 40 of the report, take the view that there are no levels of exposure to asbestos dust of any kind that can truly be considered "safe" at our present state of knowledge. At the best, these very low levels should be termed as those that are "presumed non-injurious". Any regulations that are ultimately imposed by these directives must clearly incorporate flexibility, to accommodate any future changes in knowledge of the toxicity of asbestos dust as a result of future research.
      Other points of concern relate to the place of work, or the place at which the danger of exposure to asbestos dust in the atmosphere can exist. The draft directive 9953/80, in its present form, takes a very broad view of the place of work. This is probably desirable, but is also likely to be contentious. In the committee's view, it is likely to be fairly easy to impose safety regulations in places where products containing asbestos are manufactured. In such places, management, workers, their representative unions and all concerned are sure to be well aware of the hazards and of the methods available to control them.
      But difficulties are much more likely to arise when contact with asbestos is sporadic, unexpected or secondary to the main occupation. This is particularly so in cases of dismantling or altering existing buildings, or of dismembering or, in other ways, disposing of products which contain asbestos. The committee would support any measures to disseminate information on the hazards of asbestos. This would include appropriate labelling and clear instructions on the precautions that are necessary to prevent the inhalation of asbestos dust. In the committee's opinion, anyone

      663
      who has been made alert to the potential consequences of exposure to airborne asbestos dust is likely to approach the material with the necessary degree of caution and responsibility that it deserves.
      The committee also felt concerned over medical matters, as expressed in the draft directives. There are proposals for annual medical assessments for workers involved in the asbestos industry, broadly speaking, or for workers who are liable to be exposed to asbestos. The committee understood that medical inspections of this kind are already routine in industrial circumstances in some member states, although they are not so, necessarily, in this country, but proposals of this nature would accord with existing procedures in such states.
      The committee took note of the Health and Safety Executive's opinion that annual health assessments cannot necessarily improve health or prevent disease. Obviously, certain predisposing conditions—among which I personally would assume that asthma or chronic bronchitis would be numbered—would probably make it inadvisable for a person to work even in a controlled atmosphere. It is clear from the evidence before your Lordships' committee that any habitual smoker would also be ill-advised to risk exposure to asbestos dust, because of the synergistic effect of tobacco smoke with asbestos.
      In a case where there has been a breakdown of control and a harmful release of asbestos dust, there are proposals for maintaining health records of the workers concerned. These are to be maintained for a minimum of 30 years after exposure. In the report, the evidence from the Board of Faculty of Occupational Medicine draws attention to the difficulties of maintaining such health records, particularly if they are to be based on doctors' records. Given that people are likely to change jobs and to change doctors more than once in subsequent working life, it appears that this may be an excessive burden to throw on to the medical profession alone. Furthermore, given the doubts which have been expressed as to the efficacy of annual medical assessments, it must be questioned whether the extra costs falling on United Kingdom industry if some such system were to become mandatory would be usefully matched by commensurate benefits to employees.
      Another topic which particularly attracted the attention of your Lordships' committee was that concerning the method of counting airborne fibres. This is central to any monitoring system. In the draft Directive 5682/80 the term "harmful release of fibres" is not precisely defined, but I presume that it would be assessed by the use of detection systems such as those proposed by the other Directive, No. 9953/80. This method involves the collection of an air sample by a suction apparatus in which there is a filter. This apparatus is carried by the individual for a fixed reference period during his work time. The filter is then treated with an appropriate solvent and the trapped dust that has been caught on the filter—including asbestos fibre if it is present—is deposited on a slide. This slide is then inspected visually and counts of the fibres are related to air-flow to obtain a value for fibre concentration.
      The optical method which is recommended in
      664
      Article 8 subsection (8), is time consuming and fatiguing for the operator at the microscope. Only a small number of samples can be handled in a day, and the committee were told that the range of variation—apparently reflecting operator-related factors—is very wide indeed. We were told that this variation could amount to 50 per cent., and I personally have some doubts that statistically meaningful results could be obtained from anything but a moderately larges series of samples collected in the course of any one exercise. With this background information your Lordships' committee was interested by the alternative method offered by a counter which was demonstrated to Sub-Committee G by Vickers Instruments. This counter takes advantage of the capacity of asbestos fibres to align in a magnetic field, which are then counted by mechanical means. We were told that this machine gives more consistently reproducible results on identical samples than any human operator working by standard optical procedures. On the face of it, this machine appears to offer a more reliable sampling method. In the opinion of the committee it would be useful to ensure that proven methods of sampling air other than the optical method should be permitted as alternatives.
      There were other valuable and positive suggestions for minor alterations and improvements to the draft directives made by other witnesses, which will be found in the report. These suggestions affect one or other, or both, of the draft directives. The committee naturally hope that they will be noted by the Government and brought forward in the negotiating process. It is the opinion of the committee that Community-wide progress is likely to proceed more smoothly if regulations are introduced by stages, on a progressive basis, and it is considered especially important to permit further modification in the light of future research where technical matters are concerned. Most important of all, it is necessary to ensure that at no time should the United Kingdom's national capacity to impose stricter regulations than those suggested by the Community where these are considered necessary by our own Health and Safety Executive, be jeopardised. My Lords, I beg to move.
      Moved, That this House takes note of the report of the European Communities Committee on asbestos (17th Report, H.L. 122).—(The Earl of Cranbrook.)
      6.04 p.m.
      Lord Hale: My Lords, my first duty is to apologise to the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, who has just delivered an extremely able and remarkable speech covering a whole series of problems with clarity and brevity. It is something I could never do and cannot anticipate doing now. I apologise to the noble Earl for having put down my name to speak the moment that this debate appeared on the Order Paper but I felt it was something of a duty to speak to this debate, although at the time I was not in a condition to think that I would be able to speak at all. In fact I do not propose to be controversial, particularly since I have heard nothing from the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, with which I would disagree.
      My problem is, what is all this about? I was surprised to learn that we have got into a situation whereby the admirable report of the advisory com-

      665
      mittee—which is apparently now out of print so that some members of the committee did not even have an opportunity of reading it in full—has not been implemented in any detail and that the Government are still considering their attitude to it. I presume that this is because the Government knew that the directive and that this whole matter would have to be legislated on. If I remember correctly the advisory committee's first report was published in 1979, the committee having been appointed in 1976. The report was widely distributed and commented upon and received a very good reception in general. We are now told that there is even an argument about the order in which it would be desirable to take these two Bills in pursuance of the directive. The noble Lord spoke about the dilemma which one faces when one attempts to harmonise Continental measures on a matter of high complexity; on matters in which asbestos is used for only very limited purposes in some countries but for considerably more purposes in other countries. This seems to raise one of the real problems faced by the Government; how long can we go on endeavouring to find the lowest common denominator of Continental opinions on one matter and the highest common multiplier on another, in order to try to apply to varying operations and types of use, as well as to varying opinions, the merits and demerits of different types of asbestos? What is the advantage? What advantage is likely to come from all this?
      It has been said from time to time that this can be monitored and that can be monitored. I do not want to go back into what was a very dark and dismal past, when there were some very dreadful cases, or even to the Ombudsman's remarkable report on the operations at Hebden Bridge. Out of all the cases of abuse there has come the problem of the factory inspector or the officer who is carrying out analogous duties. Those of us who have had experience over a good many years of attempting to enforce industrial laws of this kind know that it is virtually impossible for a factory inspector, however distinguished, however gifted, however honest (they are very talented and very gifted personnel) to carry out these monitoring duties. It used to be a rule that the decent thing was to make an appointment in advance of each visit. This seems to be perfectly reasonable. However, in the Cape Asbestos case, which went to the Court of Appeal and which was won by the workmen—the first case of its kind—an immense amount of evidence showed that the workers had cleaned up the place in the few hours before the visit of the factory inspector.
      If you make an appointment in advance, this is what happens. I recall that when I was in the Army I received, in my capacity as bombadier, a notice that the War Office would be visiting our No. 3 and No. 5 sites on the following day. Within 24 hours, all the charming little hits of decoration outside each gunsite had been rallied together and planted at judicious intervals around No. 3 site and No. 5 site, ready for the visit. Indeed, the major commanding me, a gallant man who I believe is happily still alive, collected little Christmas trees, possibly on my advice, to plant and decorate around the sites.
      The dangers of the old type of factory have, I hope, gone. In some of the older factories, however, no precaution of any kind was taken long after it was
      666
      known that this was a grave and a serious poison. The danger of Common Market harmonisation is that the EEC countries carry out some of the rules, but not all. If anybody has read, as I have, the history of the explosion at Seveso, which was a totally different poison and had no connection at all with asbestos, they will know of the extent to which almost every industrial rule was ignored. The fact is that harmonisation does not produce a harmonised effect.
      I think I would not be unfair in saying that one or two members of Sub-Committee G asked questions which did not seem to be fully answered by the distinguished and gifted witnesses from the advisory committee and the Health and Safety Executive. The noble Earl has cleared up one doubt which was expressed about medical inspection. He referred to the recommendation that there should be a medical inspection of persons who are to be exposed to the risk of asbestos for the first time. In three or four words the noble Earl explained what he meant. He said that if a worker has got asthma or bronchitis to a great degree, an asbestos factory is not really the place for him, and he should be fully advised accordingly.
      This commentary on the directives and the advice of the committee is a very clear indication that in this House there is a family tradition. I remember the noble Earl's predecessor in title, his father, performing fantastic feats. One was his last performance, which I saw. He produced during the course of a Bill which related to ecology a series of scraps of paper, one after the other, delivered a brilliant and informative speech and sat down with a Bill which went through a further stage without opposition. It was one of the most remarkable feats which I have seen in either House. We have reason to be grateful to the noble Earl and his committee for performing well an extremely exacting task in, I think, unusual circumstances. In later debates we shall be looking for more information.
      6.18 p.m.
      The Earl of Gosford: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, for giving your Lordships' House a chance to discuss this important subject. I am grateful to him for covering the ground so scrupulously in his speech. I must also say that I share the emphasis which the noble Lord, Lord Hale, has expressed.
      It is clear that the hazard to human health presented by the use of asbestos is acknowledged by the need to harmonise, because of the abundant and detailed evidence from all parties and countries concerned. Regulations in the United Kingdom, and those proposed by the Commission, would appear to be sound and sensible, but how sound and how sensible are these proposed directives? What is it we are trying to achieve? What do we want?
      As I understand it—I believe that there is a doctor in the House—asbestos (I am not going to discriminate between the harmful effects of different types) is a mineral, the fibres of which thread and mould together. Thus its Latin name serpentaria. It is for this reason that it is useful. It is for this reason also that it is dangerous. Whereas other minerals are absorbed into the body, asbestos does not dissolve. Because of this, the fibres are trapped in the body and not excreted,

      667
      causing a build-up of fat which brings the body's immunity level down. The build-up produces the carcinogenic effect. Thus unless there is total protection at all times, asbestos remains lethal.
      The evidence is clear, that no asbestos fibre is without danger, therefore we should not be lulled into a false sense of security that by restricting the use of the most dangerous, crocidolite or blue asbestos, and imposing a mandatory ban, where a voluntary one has existed for some years, on the import of raw crocidolite, we have tackled the problem. Nor must we be lulled into thinking that if we harmonise asbestos regulations "to remove the disparities between the legislation in force in the member states" we have solved the problem and have done all that is possible.
      The report makes this clear, as do the draft proposals. In fact harmonisation may indeed be a retrograde step for the United Kingdom, as is evidenced by the exchange between the chairman, the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, and Miss Newton of the Health and Safety Executive. The chairman asked:
      "Did other member states produce documents which you would have considered of comparable weight and significance?"
      The answer was
      "No, no other member state as far as we know has had a type of committee on the same scale as the Advisory Committee or which has carried out the kind of systematic investigation that the Advisory Committee has carried out".
      But, as I applaud the Government for tackling the lead issue, they, like the report and the directives that we are discussing today, do not appear to have the commitment to make a ban on these substances. Why is it that this country would rather say, "Well, we are doing better than so and so", than take a lead, as, outside the Community, the United States of America and Sweden have in effect done, for which we would be respected?
      With all the best intentions, we know that none of these proposed directives will be foolproof. While the law may be adequate in the United Kingdom it cannot be enforced; there are not enough inspectors, as is evidenced by two local occurrences which have come to my notice recently. First, at the Morgan Crucible site in Battersea Church Road, a 250 ft. asbestos-lined chimney was brought down with explosives, causing asbestos dust to travel eastwards with the wind. Of what use is monitoring when hundreds of local people have already inhaled the dust? A building on the same site clad in corrugated asbestos roughly in excess of 500 square yards was broken up, allowing the fibres to escape with little or no dousing with water, no protective clothing for the workers involved and no transporting from the site in sealed containers, all as witnessed by the local people.
      Recently, just down the same road, but concerning the Latchmere Baths, a statement under sworn affidavit was made in court by the managing director of the demolition firm concerning the breaking up of the asbestos-lined boiler room, that a prohibition notice was served on him by the factory inspectorate due to public pressure.
      On the open market—and I believe that the draft quotes about 3,000 items—there are no restrictions on the use of short fibres called "talc" (to name but one item) as binding agents in tablets, to make white rice
      668
      white and to make cooking pads which can deteriorate and the fibres enter the skin; and babies can still be covered in talcum powder.
      Even if a worker can be protected at work—and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hale, and the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, have already pointed out, it is advised by the draft that he is physically fit first, in order to become contaminated afterwards—I do not believe it possible to be as scrupulous as is necessary over a period of years. So, while a ban must be pressed for, I should like to ask the Government to give some assurance that proper education on dangerous substances will be introduced in schools: then people will be truly educated into demanding their right to be free from these dangers. The total cost of monitoring and safety equipment must be prohibitive and I shall not even ask Her Majesty's Government for figures. I believe that better protection and devices like the M88 for automatic counting of asbestos fibres are, in the end, a red herring. We cannot get away from the fact that it is the person least able to protect herself or himself who suffers the most. What worker could turn down a job in the asbestos industry—and this includes demolition—when unemployment is the alternative? It has been proven, too, that local communities cannot protect themselves against commercial interests.
      The taking down of asbestos buildings, asbestos-lined chimneys, and so on, in the recommended way would not be prohibitive; it would only slightly dent the profit margin in any land development deal. Article 4.1 proposes,
      "that, as safer and suitable substitutes become available, the use of asbestos should be phased out".
      But no time-scale has been laid down.
      At this point I should also like to draw to the attention of Her Majesty's Government—and I must apologise for not giving prior warning of this—the Department of Employment's precautions about the use of asbestos in the construction industry, printed in 1974. Under the heading Demolition they say:
      "Demolition processes were judged to fall within the subcommittee's terms of reference and there was general agreement that over the next 20/30 years the removal of asbestos lagging, extensively used in the past for thermal insulation of steam and chemical plant, will be a major hazard, especially since much of this material is likely to contain crocidolite (blue asbestos), which is believed to be far more dangerous than other forms of asbestos".
      We have discussed the other forms and I think it is clear that no one can be sure that the other forms are, in the end, safe.
      Someone must take the lead. I would hope that it would be a courageous Government in this country. And what of the responsibility of the European Community towards those who are mining asbestos? Italy mines 130,000 tonnes per year and the majority of asbestos used within the Community is imported, to the tune of 800,000 tonnes per year. It is acknowledged that little or no adequate protection is possible for the miner. When there are now alternatives for asbestos the welfare of those miners must weigh heavily on the European conscience.
      So much detail—having to do with evidence of inhalation levels, et cetera—is discussed in these documents, which is well-meaning, that I have an alarming feeling that, until a country has the courage to promote

      669
      a ban, all the people will just be used as guinea pigs as the submission by Alan Dalton of the Work Hazards Group of the British Society for Social Responsibility in Science states. I quote:
      "Since 1935 it has been known that exposure to asbestos dust can cause lung cancer—lung disease, asbestosis, caused by asbestos was noted by the factory inspectorate in 1898! Yet production has soared since that date … each year more is mined and used than in all the years before 1930".
      Without a commitment to ban asbestos, certain words and phrases in the draft's proposals, and, T am afraid, the committee's report, take on a sinister ring— "when properly used", "reasonably practicable", "it is essential however that the UK's competitive position within the EEC is not eroded", "it is the conditions in which crocidolite is used, not the use itself".
      6.31 p.m.
      Lord Ironside: My Lords, first I should like to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, on his excellent introduction of this subject of asbestos, which has an ongoing concern and interest for everybody in this country, or in fact everybody in the world. I am also very grateful to him for allowing the asbestos counter to be demonstrated to the committee, because the development of this particular counter was supported by the EEC. I want to talk about this later, and also to declare an interest. I was very interested also in what the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, had to say, because I think he touched on a number of points that do concern us. He talked about enforcement. He talked about the position of this country in the way it can lead developments in asbestos. He also talked about a ban. I hope that what I have to say will help him to understand the present situation in better perspective.
      My Lords, we are dealing with two directives here which have originated from two different directorates in the Commission at different times. But they do not cover the whole of the asbestos saga. I should just like to complete the picture for your Lordships, to show what I believe has turned out to be a very good example of how Community funds can be used effectively to serve industrial purposes.
      Also we must bear in mind that asbestos is mostly imported into the Community and Canada has a specific trading interest to preserve in this respect. The Canadian Government are closely involved with the EEC through the Framework Agreement for Commercial and Economic Co-operation signed in October 1976, which is designed among other things to maintain the flow of trade between Canada and the Community.
      Matters of concern in the minerals sector with asbestos have been identified, and these include harmonisation of asbestos fibre definition—and this, as the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, said, was of very great concern to the Committee—and the techniques of measurement in the workplace as well as epidemiological studies. The issues there are, therefore, being taken seriously by the supplier and the user. I will come back to these points later. Also the Simpson Report from the Advisory Committee on Asbestos assesses the risks to the workplace and the economics of protection. I welcome the worldwide lead taken by the United Kingdom in this subject.
      I have been personally involved on the asbestos
      670
      scene acting as a contractor to the Commission in the development of a rapid asbestos fibre counter for monitoring the workplace. I do not believe that it is really necessary to declare such an interest to your Lordships as we are all on the same side when it comes to the EEC. But it is significant to note that the Commission now manage some 250 million units of account per year in the research sector, and I have always taken the view that it is important for the United Kingdom to secure an adequate proportion of the available funds in the free market, despite the fact that quite a lot of them are earmarked for disposal through specialist centres such as the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority working in the nuclear field. However, it is becoming more difficult to compete for funds because of the exchange rate. From the Commission's point of view research and development work supported in England costs them more as they get less sterling per unit of account now than they used to. The rate has now altered from 66 to 52 per 100 units. This is not compensated for by the decline in other Community currencies. If exporters here have to face the high value of sterling, the Commission face the same hurdle when they come to consider contracts in the United Kingdom.
      In the particular case of asbestos the fibre counter is based on fundamental research carried out by the Medical Research Council Pneumoconiosis Unit in Wales, and with the help of the Commission a highly effective product has now been introduced which can meet the requirements laid down in the asbestos regulations now being proposed by the Commission. It can therefore be seen that the regulations proposed in document 9953/80 can now be enforced, and therefore it is sensible, I think, to introduce them.
      Asbestos is a material with important industrial properties. Its tensile strength and resistance to heat and chemicals give it a high added value in product form in relation to the resource cost. Substitutes are being sought, but I do not see the arguments for banning all asbestos types when effective safety measures can be employed. Mercury and lead processing, for example, have their attendant dangers, but are regarded as practically safe when certain precautions are taken. The same with asbestos. It is perhaps a matter of degree, but I believe that there are new and effective ways of sampling and monitoring the workplace for this pollutant and that it is not necessary to go for a complete ban just because of the deficiencies in the monitoring techniques. We can see that the Commission are supporting the development of new techniques and I think we should support ways of permitting asbestos to be used with the necessary safeguards. Evidence suggests that there can never be an absolute cast-iron safe minimal level of exposure, but equally this can also be said of other things, such as lead, and even the natural atmosphere is not 100 per cent. pollutant free. To say of a victim that he was only a little exposed is meaningless, because I think the critical point is that he either has the disease or he does not. Equally you cannot say that somebody was just a little pregnant; either you are or you are not.
      A complete ban would theoretically leave no doubts—no exposure, no disease. This may be over-simplification perhaps, but the point I want to bring out is that I think there are no practical grounds for a total

      671
      ban. The evidence also draws attention to the fact that there is a credibility gap in the test procedures. The tedious optical counting techniques are analyst-dependent and may be subject to large errors, particularly at the more hazardous end of the scale where fibres may be too fine to be seen by the expert and alert eye. The work supported by the Commission in developing a fully patented instrument within the British technical domain which increases accuracy, eliminates human error and automates the examination process is a very important element in being able to look at these two directives sensibly now.
      The case, too, for tightening the limits over the years is, I think, justified if new and more effective testing techniques are adopted. The sensitivity of the test is crucial in the context of setting the limits. A highly sensitive "go, no-go" test is wasted if the limits are too loose. Equally a low sensitivity test may keep the statistics looking good but may fail to alert operators and inspectors to any dangers. A very simple example of "go, no-go" tests is of course the one used at airports before boarding an aircraft. The alarm is set to trigger off when the level of disturbance across the screen registers a mass of metal which is compatible with a fire-arm. If the sensitivity is too high every 10p piece, bunch of keys or, conceivably, metal hip joint, will give the alarm, but this does not cast more suspicion on the individual or mean that the security men are doing a better job. It may give the public a greater sense of confidence, but in fact high sensitivity in this case merely shows that the test is not matched to the need and is more likely to be regarded as a nuisance.
      From the detailed evidence given by the Health and Safety Executive, I think that it is very interesting to see that the Commission have taken careful note of the recommendations of our Advisory Committee on Asbestos in the Simpson Report who have been reviewing the Asbestos Regulations 1969. Whether the Commission did this because no other member state had tabled for discussion any report of the same calibre, I do not know, but I am very glad to see that the review of the Community regulations by the Commission is proceeding in parallel with the review here by the Health and Safety Executive of our own 1969 regulations.
      I think that the Health and Safety Executive must be congratulated on the firmness with which they have presented their case in Luxembourg and I hope that in co-operation with the Commission they are able to reach successful conclusion. This is an example, I think, of the Commission being able to do an acceptable job if they take the best and most experienced advice in the first place on formulating directives.
      As I understand the situation now, the Social Questions Working Group of the Council of Ministers is still involved with proposals covering the risks of lead in the workplace and the decks will not be clear for dealing with asbestos for a month or two yet. The important point which has been emphasised by the Health and Safety Executive is that although there may be differences of opinion as to safe levels, reference periods, and sampling times, the regulations must be looked at as a whole so that an acceptable package can be arrived at.
      The committee was told that the differences between
      672
      ourselves and the Commission are largely over points of detail such as over the Commission's preference on meeting continental requirements for annual medical checks. I do not think that in any sense it can be construed that such checks would help the prevention of disease, but the arguments for medical checks in the United Kingdom are related to compensation procedures legislated for in the Compensation Act 1931 rather than prevention procedures, and if the proposed Commission regulations are concerned with prevention rather than compensation then medical checks do not make sense and merely have nuisance value especially at yearly intervals. The Health and Safety Executive felt that two yearly intervals would be much more acceptable and that this is compatible with the keeping of adequate records, which I think are necessary in this case.
      There are many different ways of protecting the worker in the workplace, but it is highly important that any preventative measures should be effective and seen to be effective. The Commission has now taken steps to support the development of effective sampling and monitoring techniques by which the proposed regulations can be properly enforced. When implemented they will reduce the medical hazards of working with asbestos to an absolute minimum which can be regarded as 99·9 per cent. safe and the risks remaining will be those which involve a failure of the new procedures to work.
      However, we must remember that the introduction of asbestos substitutes may introduce new hazards in the workplace and the action of the Commission in supporting further work with my own company to look at the way asbestos fibre counting techniques may be improved, and to look at the feasibility of continuous monitoring of the workplace is very important. I can say also that techniques for doing this are now being evolved and will be available in the foreseeable future.
      The whole question of fibre technology I believe now needs to be looked at far more seriously as similar needs for control arise with all new substances now being used in industry, a lot of which are used in fibre form including such things as glass and polypropylene. There is a recurring pattern of fibres usage in industry which now demands consistent measurement techniques which can be adopted by the operator and by the competent inspection authority.
      Out of all the evidence presented to the committee I felt that the greatest concern was registered over Article 8 of 9953/80 and the question of definitions and sampling, and measurement standards. This comes out again and again in the evidence and, as I said at the beginning, asbestos fibre definition and measurement techniques are regarded by the Commission as being vitally important in the context of the Canada/EEC framework Agreement. If the Commission are in a lead position internationally, then I think that they should show more interest in this aspect of standards work and the idea of setting up a reference laboratory or unit certainly would make sense. However, the Commission's dilemma is that their involvement in setting standards can be criticised as an interference with the work of the International Standards Organisation who are involved with setting performance standards for products incorporating fibre reinforce

      673
      ments. Basically it is wrong for the Commission to try and pre-empt the International Standards Organisation. If there is a need to ensure harmonisation within the European Community for other reasons, then this is a different matter and the issues should not be confused with the ISO ones.
      Standardisation is vital for the working of the regulations which have now been proposed by the Commission and to the best of my knowledge the United Kingdom and Canada are the countries which are most concerned with the standards work in asbestos. The Health and Safety Executive take the view that the Commission does not specify the asbestos standards accurately enough in the proposed regulation. Luckily the standards involving sampling and measurement appear not to fall within the area of the International Standards Organisation and there may be other ways of dealing with this problem. Using the words of the Health and Safety Executive,
      "there are many ways of skinning this cat".
      For example, the British Occupational Hygiene Society defines asbestos fibre as being anything between five and one hundred micrometres long, yet the Commission define fibres as being longer than five micrometres. So there is an example of a small discrepancy which could give rise to many doubts.
      I think that there is a case for looking more closely at the idea for an EEC reference laboratory to be established perhaps as a unit attached to one of our own laboratories. We could, for example, consider how the Institute or Faculty of Occupational Medicine in Edinburgh could be used for this work. The IOM which was started by the National Coal Board to look at the incidence of pneumoconiosis and silicosis in coal mines could be established as a reference laboratory for asbestosis for the European Community and I would ask the Government to encourage the Commission to provide financial support so that this can be put into effect as soon as reasonably possible. I think that we in this country are in a leading position to do this. Also, the Dutch proposals which have just briefly been outlined by the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, concerning asbestos materials and the way in which asbestos must be firmly fixed in the materials before it can be acceptable as a product in the market-place is a subject which could also be looked at by the reference laboratory.
      The principal factor which I think has emerged from our inquiry is that the Commission are proposing to introduce regulations in an area where there is a genuine requirement for them to deal with what is crippling disease. They have also taken steps to support the development of effective sampling and monitoring techniques to ensure enforcement of the regulations and to ensure that all workplaces, including both sites and factories, are covered. The wording of some of the articles, particularly Articles 8 and 11, needs to be carefully re-drafted so that there is no confusion over the question of standards and that inspectors are allowed a degree of discretion compatible with the Health and Safety at Work Act allowing defects to be remedied when they are brought to light.
      I think it can be said that the Commission's proposals concerning asbestos are fully justified and that they are taking the right steps in supporting the development of safety techniques. There is much more work to
      674
      do, but I hope that the Government will give full support to the Health and Safety Executive in its work with the EEC to fight for the best regulations.
      6.50 p.m.
      Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, first, I should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, for introducing this report and, indeed, for chairing the committee which produced the report. In his introduction the noble Earl highlighted many of the points which I would have wished to bring to your Lordships' attention this evening and, indeed, I have no intention of wearying your Lordships at this hour—which I suppose is a relatively early hour compared with some of the hours to which your Lordships have been sitting recently—by repeating the points which he made. Other points which I had thought of raising this evening were drawn to your Lordships' attention by the noble Earl, Lord Gosford.
      This report, of course, deals with the health hazards of asbestos, and particularly of those people who have to work with asbestos. As your Lordships will no doubt by now he aware, this is a highly technical report, but it is a report which highlights the danger of asbestos and the crippling effects and death which can be caused to those who come into contact with it. As the noble Earl said in introducing this report, one always has to balance the savings made by the use of asbestos in many different circumstances with any lives which may have been lost in the production of the material. As always, one must strike a balance between these two sides of the balance sheet.
      I think that it is undoubtedly right that, in a sense, one of the reasons behind this directive, and behind so many other directives from the EEC, is an attempt to get uniform standards within the European Economic Community as a whole. There are obviously many reasons for the establishment of equal standards throughout the Community, but certainly one of the reasons, which must always be important in the question of the establishment of standards, is that unless you have equal standards, you can in fact have a situation where unfair competition exists between the different countries of the Community. Indeed, you would have a situation of countries imposing lesser standards and then competing unfairly with us.
      On the other hand, we must consider whether the standards proposed by the EEC meet the standards which our own Health and Safety Executive considers necessary. Clearly, dangers are increased or decreased by the setting of standards at any particular level. However, what has become clear in the debate this evening is that at no level of standards can one be absolutely sure that the possibility of danger has been eliminated. Indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, was leaning towards the suggestion that the whole question of standards was a red herring because, in fact, you could never be certain, however stringent the standards you set, that you were creating an absolutely safe environment.
      The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, spoke of the introduction of substitute materials. Clearly, we should be looking for the introduction of such substitute materials in the future, and hoping that they will come along in the reasonably near future. The noble Earl, Lord Gosford, rightly pointed to the dangers caused by the

      675
      demolition of buildings, and he referred specifically to a number of buildings recently demolished just south of the river in Lambeth, where, in fact, danger had been created by the atmosphere being polluted with asbestos dust.
      The Earl of Gosford: My Lords, I was in fact referring to the Battersea area, not Lambeth.
      Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, Battersea is in the borough of Wandsworth and I apologise if I have lumped the whole of the southern area in the word "Lambeth". Of course, concern was expressed by the TUC to the committee, and this is the only point that I had underlined which was not mentioned by other noble Lords. The TUC was very concerned about the proposals, and particularly the proposals in relation to blue asbestos. It thinks that if the importation of blue asbestos is allowed, even though it be in the form of manufactured goods—pipes and so on—it would be a retrograde step and should be resisted.
      The noble Lord, Lord Ironside, thought that there was no case for a ban because of inadequate monitoring procedures. I think that it may ultimately come to that, but in the meantime I think that we shall have to live with the existing situation, that we shall have to ensure that the highest standards are enforced; and we shall be able to use the new technical forms of counting the danger as and when they become available. But in course of time, when substitutes are developed, we may find the use of asbestos slowly fading out. However, for the present, I am sure that the way ahead is to ensure that adequate standards are enforced, that those standards are maintained and that we are satisfied that the standards enforced in the Community and in this country are adequate.
      6.59 p.m.
      The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, Sub-Committee G of the European Communities Committee is rightly very much respected for its careful scrutiny of the environmental aspects of proposals received by the European Council of Ministers. Its report on the two draft directives debated tonight and the presentation of it to this House by my noble friend Lord Cranbrook reflected this close attention. If I may, I should like to congratulate my noble friend not merely on his presentation but also on his whole conduct of the proceedings of the committee. Evidence received and heard from organisations and individuals—again, to whom we give our thanks—directly concerned with the manufacture, use and potential health risks of exposure to asbestos, has now been helpfully supplemented by this debate this evening and by all who have contributed to it.
      In initiating the debate, my noble friend outlined the inter-relationship between the two draft directives now before the Council of Ministers and their necessary links with the recommendations made by the Advisory Committee on Asbestos, particularly in its first and final reports. When preparing the draft directives, the Commission itself took the view that exposure to and control of asbestos in respect of workers, consumers and the general public must be looked at
      676
      together. The two proposals under debate have been put forward as part of a set of measures intended to fulfil, in part, the Action Programme on Safety and Health agreed between member states in July 1978. Further draft directives are envisaged to reduce the contact of food and drink with asbestos and to minimise exposure to asbestos in the general environment.
      The Government share the sub-committee's view that discussion of the draft directives must be coordinated with each other and with the development of policy on asbestos in the United Kingdom. The Government regret that negotiations on the draft directive on the protection of workers, with more detailed provisions, could not have preceded those on the marketing and use of asbestos. With discussion yet to begin on the former, it is not possible to be certain in all instances what the European Commission had in mind in the draft provisions, but this does also mean that the views of this House can be taken into account at the start of negotiations in preparing a United Kingdom line. With this interesting debate tonight we in the Government are better placed to use to advantage this otherwise condemnably slow progress on the draft directive on the protection of workers.
      The unique properties of asbestos which led originally to its widespread use have made it difficult to replace with suitable and cost-effective substitutes which might not, after several decades, be shown to have similar risks to health. As a general principle, the Government agree with the advisory committee that the control of a useful if hazardous material is preferable to its prohibition but believe that a ban is appropriate where the risk is demonstrated to be serious, and present or likely future controls are unlikely to be satisfactory. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Ironside for clearly putting a view of that necessary balance, and also to the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, on behalf of the official Opposition, for also appealing that a balance be struck.
      The speech of the noble Earl, Lord Gosford, was perhaps more critical, but it was a very informed and clear one. He asked me a specific instance about the demolition of the Morgan Crucible chimney. My advice is that this act of demolition was carried out following consultation between the company and the construction inspectors of Her Majesty's Factory Inspectorate. Levels of emission were measured and found to be predictably low, and any exposure also very short. But I have to acknowledge to the noble Earl that what was disquieting was that through ill luck, if you like, the chimney was demolished on the day of the Fastnet yacht race—that awful day which your Lordships will recall—and it was a very windy day, and therefore had that been known the inspectorate might have thought differently; but my advice is that the levels of emission measured were found to be low.
      The Earl of Gosford: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, for answering that question. I did not really make it clear, but the question in fact was not on the Morgan site. However, I am pleased that he has been able to answer that. The question was on the report of 1974 from the Department of Employment concerning the 20 and 30 years in the future that lagging was going to be taken away from places like hospitals, schools, et cetera, and they did

      677
      not foresee that there were any adequate precautions for maintaining safety in this removal. I was wondering whether since 1974 there had been any news on this.
      The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, the noble Earl was kind enough to explain that he had not been able to give me notice of that question. If I may, I shall write to him, or if he cares to put it down for Written Answer I shall return to it.
      The Advisory Committee concluded that the application of asbestos in thermal and acoustic insulation and by spraying should be prohibited. With confirmation of this recommendation during consultations, the Health and Safety Commission is to publish for comment draft regulations to ban these uses of asbestos and to license work to remove the coatings already in place when this is judged to be necessary. The Government agree with the sub-committee that the limit value for crocidolite presently in the draft directive—
      The Earl of Gosford: My Lords, I must sympathise with the noble Earl. I believe that I quoted it three or four times quite incorrectly.
      The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I should have done my homework orally as well as visually.
      Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, if the noble Earl used the words "blue asbestos" it would be simpler.
      The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, and I hope he will be as helpful when we return to the telecommunications Bill.
      On the subject of the ill effects of exposure to blue asbestos and the availability of suitable substitutes for almost all its uses, the advisory committee recommendation and the uncertainty of the eventual text of the draft directives all suggest that there could be merit in a qualified statutory ban on the use of raw blue asbestos fibre. The desirability and practicability of extending this statutory ban to imported products containing blue asbestos is also under close examination. For other types of asbestos, the Government are taking careful note of the differences between the limit values included in Article 9 of the draft directive on the protection of workers and those recommended by the advisory committee, with special reference to exposure to amosite.
      The sub-committee's concern to avoid a reduction in present standards of health and safety through harmonisation is recognised by the Government. It therefore continues to be our aim in negotiations to ensure that existing United Kingdom standards of protection can be maintained while taking account of the provisions of the draft directives, the Government's reaction to the advisory committee's recommendations and the implications for United Kingdom industry. There is provision in Directive 80/1107/EEC (under which the draft directive on the protection of workers is made) for individual member states to adopt more stringent standards than those established in the directive, and subsequent directives on individual substances, for the purposes of improving health and safety. However, the trading advantages of har-
      678
      monisation—to which many speakers referred-mean that the United Kingdom would prefer to secure agreement to a directive from which no derogation would need to be sought.
      The practical considerations of compliance and enforcement must also be taken into account when considering when, where and how the draft directive should be applied. For example, as worded at present, all the provisions of the draft directive on the protection of workers would apply to all workers exposed directly or indirectly to any listed single type of mixture of asbestos for any length of time at any exposure level. Many commentators on the proposal have said that this is neither necessary nor practicable and it does seem excessive to require, say, full medical examinations and records for a person who may be assembling ready-cut asbestos cement sheets on a building site for a fraction of his working day or week. In consultation with representatives of employers, workers, scientific and medical interests the Government are therefore examining whether a clearer concept of controlling personal exposure to asbestos dust—the purpose of both the draft directives—can be offered.
      Lord Winstanley: My Lords, as one who for many years had to carry out medical checks on workers potentially exposed to asbestos in one of Her Majesty's Royal Ordnance factories, it seemed to me that the main effect of those regular medical checks was to induce a sense of false safety, as it were. If one found anything, one could not do anything for the individual; the real safety came from the controls on the use of the material rather than from the regular medical examinations. My experience was that once one carried out those examinations, the individuals concerned went away feeling the risks had all gone and they need not apply the various safeguards which were urged on them.
      The Earl of Gowrie: I am grateful to the noble Lord, with his great experience as a doctor, for confirming the point I was making; namely, that it might seem excessive to require full-time medical examinations on site—not only excessive, but possibly not efficacious, either.
      The encouragement of substitution and a review of the directives' implementation should help achieve a progressive reduction in the exposure of workers to asbestos. Under the general duties of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974, employers are already required to do all that is reasonably practicable to ensure the health, safety and welfare of their employees. The Government would favour future ministerial reconsideration of the limit values, together with other provisions of the two draft directives, if there are any technical or medical developments.
      Progress in these fields will also be important in guiding the choice of monitoring methods used, for instance to assess compliance with the limit values. As my noble friend knows, the advisory committee in its second report recommended that until better methods were available, the phased contrast microscope should be retained as the standard analytical tool. It also recommended that there was a need to reduce variations in count obtained by the development of a standardised microscope technique and that this work should be conducted by a central reference

      679
      laboratory. That was set up in 1978 at the Institute of Occupational Medicine and jointly funded by the Health and Safety Executive and the Asbestosis Research Council with the participation of major United Kingdom manufacturers of products containing asbestos.
      My noble friend will be interested to know that a report from the Central Reference Laboratory has been received by the Health and Safety Executive. Among other things, that report contains recommendations for new counting rules which are suitable for use with manual and certain automatic counting devices which the advisory committee saw as a means of easing routine estimations of airbourne asbestos in the workplace.
      As a result of two recent meetings involving hygienists from the United Kingdom, other member states, from Canada and representatives of the European Commission, it is planned to conduct a series of trials to evaluate various counting methods, including the Central Reference Laboratory method to which I referred, in order to develop an agreed method for use on the draft directive on the protection of workers. It is anticipated that the Institute of Occupational Medicine will be closely involved in that important work.
      Lord Ironside: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend to comment on the idea for a European reference laboratory and say whether the role could be taken over by the Institute of Occupational Medicine?
      The Earl of Cowrie: My Lords, I can comment to the extent that it is certainly an interesting notion. Of course, we in this country are very fortunate in our Institute of Occupational Medicine, and if it can give a lead or become the model for European procedures, that would be excellent. What one would not want is that at high cost to us all, we duplicate the procedures needlessly.
      The harmonised rules should be designed to be used by automatic as well as manual counting and whatever method is used, an agreed procedure is necessary to help ensure that each country and laboratory is adopting the same approach to assessing compliance with agreed limit values. The Government welcome the attention paid by the sub-committee to the development of automatic counting methods but believe it would be premature in the near future to seek their specific inclusion in the draft directive on the protection of workers. To insist that each employer covered by the directive, especially as presently drafted, should use automatic counting as the standard method of monitoring atmospheric concentrations of asbestos for all work operations, would be fearfully expensive. However, the method of counting should be reviewed regularly within agreed general rules appropriate to all accepted methods. Counts obtained of airborne concentrations of asbestos provide one aspect of
      680
      information essential to managers, workers, doctors and hygienists to enable them to assess the need for and correct type of precautionary measures.
      The old adage that prevention is better than cure is very appropriate in the case of asbestos-related diseases. The sub-committee noted that information from individual medical examinations was, because of the progressive nature of the illnesses, usually too late to help the individuals concerned. However, combined with dust measurements and knowledge of hygiene controls, they can and should provide valuable epidemiological data and are an important element of preventive medicine. We would therefore wish to see less specific attention paid in the draft directive to unnecessarily detailed head-counting and more on placing individual examinations in the case of the epidemiological work. That way forward would combine well with provisions in both draft directives for greater information on the possible health risks for workers and consumers from exposure to asbestos dust.
      The Government accept fully the value of co-ordinated instruction, training, health surveillance, atmospheric monitoring, workplace controls and planned substitution as a package of complementary elements in reducing the incidence of asbestos-related diseases. All those elements are present in the two draft directives before us tonight, but the contributions to this useful debate have confirmed our view that the blend is not yet right. I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in the debate, in particular my noble friend and his colleagues on the Environmental Sub-Committee of the European Communities Committee. The views expressed will help to guide our decisions on the advisory committee's recommendations and our negotiating line on both proposals with the aim of achieving a harmonised and effective framework of controls on exposure to asbestos in all member states. The Government's procedures and intentions on lead in petrol show that we are acutely conscious of health and safety issues. I thank all noble Lords who have paid tribute to the work of the Health and Safety Commission.
      On Question, Motion agreed to.

      British Transport Docks Bill
      Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
      Statute Law (Repeals) Bill [H.L.]
      Returned from the Commons agreed to.
      Judicial Pensions Bill [H.L.]
      Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments; the said amendments to be printed.