Lords Sitting of 25 April 1983

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The Lord Chancellor on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Hereford.

European Air Fares
Lord Braye: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is now possible to discuss reductions of fares on the short haul flights to the Continent from the United Kingdom.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, any reduction in the level of air fares is in the first place a matter for the commercial judgment of the airlines. However, we have for some time past played a leading role in discussions within the European Community to develop measures which would give the airlines greater freedom to follow their own judgment and to introduce new or lower types of fare. We also do our best to support fares initiatives by British airlines through bilateral discussions with the individual Governments concerned. Progress has been slow but I can assure my noble friend that we will continue to press the matter.
Lord Braye: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for is very kind Answer. I do hope the Government will be able to open some discusssions now on this matter. The difference or variation in air fares at the moment is completely out of proportion.
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Braye: My Lords, I suppose it is, yes,
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I have some sympathy for my noble friend's questions; and, indeed, he is quite correct in suggesting that air fares on many of the European routes are very much out of proportion. The Government have been loooking at the "on demand" fares for the longer European routes and in particular for those services to Italy, Greece and Scandinavia.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, can my noble friend do rather more than look at these fares? The British nation and other nations have put up for a very long time with swingeing fares on short hauls to places such as Stockholm and Denmark—even to France and elsewhere. It has been rather left to private people, sometimes using their own money, to campaign for greater fairness and for greater value for money regarding EEC air fares. Would it not be a good idea if the Government, instead of looking at it, took the initiative in trying to introduce fares which were more reasonable compared with world air fares?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, it is of course for the Government to do what they can to help; but I am sure that my noble friend of all people is aware, together with
718
many of your Lordships, that neither the Government nor the Civil Aviation Authority have powers to require airlines to reduce their fares. Secondly, even if this were possible, it would still be open to Governments at the other end of particular routes in any particular case to block the reductions.
My noble friend will no doubt be aware that the terms of our international agreements enable us to refuse increases in fares where these are not justified. I would also tell my noble friend that I have personal experience of appalling fares. It cost me three times more than it normally costs to get back from Geneva yesterday—that is an area of particular concern to my noble friend, with all his sporting connections.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, as this has gone on for years, and while accepting that both British Airways and the Government have done their best on this particular matter, would the noble Lord—or, in other words, the Government—feel able to have a look at the fares which are offered by the bucket shops and the other bureaux in London? Could they present a paper on the wide variations in fares to Europe offered by these agencies?
Lord Lyell: My Lords, of course we shall look at this. We are very grateful to the noble Baroness for that information, since she is a mine of information on most of the fares all round the world. However, certainly I could give no commitment on producing a paper.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord can tell the House how it is that if all these airlines are charging so much money—all of them over-charging, is the allegation—they all contrive to be making such big losses!
Lord Lyell: My Lords, the noble Lord will certainly be aware that the British Government take the lead in encouraging more competitive air fares in Europe as well as in the rest of the world. The noble Lord will be interested to know that we held back from any action on requiring reductions in existing fares in 1982 because of the extremely heavy losses which were sustained by airlines throughout the world.

Thames Valley Demonstrations: Policing Costs
2.41 p.m.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what extra costs will fall on the Thames Valley Police Authority as a result of the anti-nuclear demonstrations in that area during the Easter holiday period.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, we understand from the Chief Constable of the Thames Valley Police that he estimates that the additional manpower costs incurred by his force in policing the major demonstrations on 31st March and 1st April, together with

719
minor, isolated events on 2nd to 4th April, were of the order of £252,000. These costs are shared between local and central Government in the usual way and attract 50 per cent. specific grant.
Lord Beloff: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord the Minister for that reply, may I ask him two supplementary questions? First, is he aware that the loyal and patriotic citizens of the Thames Valley strongly disapprove of these activities, which are largely conducted for the benefit of Soviet television, and believe that it adds injury to insult to expect them to pay for them? Secondly, will the noble Lord agree that the investigations by his department into the possibility of making the instigators of such demonstrations pay for them should not be inhibited by false references regarding the freedom of speech, which is in no way involved?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I have always thought that the inhabitants of the Thames Valley, in which I was born, are particularly prone to good sense in judging such matters. As to the requirement to pay for this sort of demonstration, we are considering the suggestion that those who demonstrate should contribute. In our review of the Public Order Act 1936 and related legislation we sympathise with the feelings that often lie behind the suggestion, but the practical difficulties seem formidable. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary hopes to announce the conclusions of the review in the not too distant future.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether he agrees that, apart from sporadic incidents, this demonstration, however much he and I may have disagreed with its objects, was an entirely lawful occasion? Could he please go on and help us by advising us what each Member of your Lordships' House would have to pay if we had to bear the cost of the police on the scene at the time of the opening of Parliament?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary I endorse. It was a lawful demonstration, apart from a few sporadic occasions, and I should like to put on record my admiration for the way in which, in the face of some considerable stress, the police force controlled it peaceably. As to the question about what it costs to open Parliament, I am not at all certain whether in some indirect ways the noble Lord may not already contribute, if only at lunchtime.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether it is true to say that, whatever the cost, it is a compliment to our democracy that we have the freedom to demonstrate in this way?
Lord Elton: My Lords, that is perfectly true, even when one does not always agree with what is being demonstrated for.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, can the Minister advance any reason why his noble friend, who, of course, is always tolerant and impartial, should query the cost of policing an anti-nuclear demonstration, but not, for instance, the policing which is quite properly done at the Cenotaph? Will the Minister reflect on this,
720
in order to avoid his noble friend tabling a Question on this matter in the future?
Lord Elton: My Lords, my noble friend is entitled to ask any Question which he wishes, particularly of a sensible nature, which he has just done.
Viscount St. Davids: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell me whether it is true that certain countries are already contemplating and trying this? If it is true, would it not be a very good idea if we looked over their shoulder to see how successful they were being?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am not certain what it is the noble Viscount is asking me to look over the shoulder of these people to see. If it is staging demonstrations where 14½ miles of people hold hands, I am not certain that we have a great deal to learn. If it is a question of getting the people holding hands to pay for that, then, obviously, we should be interested to see what other people's experiences were.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there is some difference between national events like the opening of Parliament, which is clearly in the national interest, attendance at the Cenotaph, which is clearly the wish of the whole community, and entirely partisan events like this particular demonstration which the Question is about? Is it not reasonable that public funds generally should pay for the former, and that there should be some consideration of whether the individuals who are particularly involved should pay for the latter?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I cannot anticipate the results of the reflections of my right honourable friend on this matter. I will certainly place my noble friend's views on this matter before my right honourable friend. It covers a very wide field, and I would remind your Lordships that both the Pope's visit and the London Marathon could be regarded as national occasions, too.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, will the noble Lord ask his right honourable friend, when he is considering this matter, to consider whether there is a matter of principle involved here? If this new principle were introduced, would it not be very dangerously close to insisting that only those with money available would be able to have the right of free speech?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I think that the administrative difficulties, to which in part I referred, would look after that issue. There is another principle, of course, which is the principle of the independence of individual police forces.

Limited Nuclear War
2.48 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Questions was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that tactical nuclear weapons are now

721
deployed which have three or four times the yield of the Hiroshima bomb and whether they will reject the idea of a limited nuclear war.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Belstead): My Lords, we are aware that many nuclear weapons below the strategic level, including those aimed at Western Europe, have a larger yield than the Hiroshima bomb. We have always made clear our abhorrence of any nuclear war, limited or otherwise. The purpose of our deploying nuclear weapons is to ensure that the Russians do not risk starting any form of war.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, while it is possible to think of strategic nuclear weapons as deterrent, battlefield nuclear weapons are designed and deployed to be used in war? Having regard to the inevitability of escalation, will the Government place more emphasis on conventional defence and less on a nuclear response?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned battlefield nuclear weapons. The noble Lord may not have noticed that the Americans have recently withdrawn 1,000 warheads from Europe. I have not observed any response from the Russians.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, while recognising that it is essential for the West, in principle, to have adequate nuclear weapons in order to deter the use of nuclear weapons by the other side, would not the Government agree that any attempt by us to make first use of nuclear weapons—in other words, to initiate a nuclear war—would be both absurd and self-defeating?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, we go, in a sense, further than that. NATO has always said that it would never use any weapons, except in response to attack.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, was not the Hiroshima bomb, which put Japan out of the war, strategic to Japan? If it was, in what sense are larger weapons now aimed at Europe not strategic to Europe?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the expressions "strategic" and "intermediate" are expressions which have been used. I think that they derive from SALT I. But they are used to divide up the talks which are taking place in Geneva at the present time.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that my noble friend has been very modest in referring to bombs with only three or four times the yield of the bomb on Hiroshima? Have the Government noted the report of the experts to the United Nations that a nuclear weapon has now been created which is 4,000 times as powerful as that which fell on Hiroshima? Will the Government at least support the policy of ending underground tests and revise the judgment at the United Nations December meeting which led them to abstain even on a motion which advocated verification of such tests?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, at the moment we are a very long way, I am afraid, from the objective which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, wants. I wish that that were not the case.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that nuclear weapons, by and large, are too powerful to be credible and that making them more so does not render them more credible?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, that may be right, but let us, if we may, come back to the original Answer of the Government to the original Question: the purpose of our deploying nuclear weapons is to ensure that the Russians do not risk starting any form of war, nuclear or conventional.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, in order to put the matter in perspective and allow us to judge the amount of support behind this Question, could my noble friend say what is the strength of the SS20s deployed, as compared with the Hiroshima weapon, allowing for the fact that there are three nuclear warheads in each of the 320 SS20s deployed by the Soviets against Western Europe?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I am sorry, but I cannot answer my noble friend's point in that particular question. It has been the policy of successive Governments not to answer questions on details of nuclear stockpiles, including yields. However, I am anxious to be as helpful as possible to my noble friend. Therefore, perhaps I may simply say to the House that we are talking at present about the Soviet Union having about 1,140 intermediate range nuclear missiles facing Europe. There are none in return.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that if the Government were to abandon the policy of a nuclear response to a conventional attack and to concentrate, as I suggested in my first supplementary, more on a conventional response to a conventional attack, they would be responding to a wide body of opinion which is not confined either to these Benches or to this country?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, NATO must maintain a sufficient range and balance of weapons, both conventional and nuclear, in order to present a convincing deterrent. The point on which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, does not agree with the Government is, I emphasise to the House, that this policy of deterrence has kept the peace in Europe for nearly 40 years.
Lord Ellenborough: My Lords, would it be possible for my noble friend to ascertain the attitude of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, and leading supporters of CND to the dropping of atom bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 and whether they would—as presumably they would—have been prepared to sacrifice the lives of a million allied troops and of perhaps three or five million Japanese before the Japanese surrendered?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, that is a question which I neither can nor should answer.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that, as I was one of the troops concerned at the time, I am very aware of the situation which the noble Lord has described?

Gibraltar: Spanish Comments on Use of Naval Base
2.54 p.m.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what reply has been sent to the Spanish Government's comments on the use by ships of the Royal Navy of the naval base in the British colony of Gibraltar.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the statement on 11th April by the Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs was issued publicly and was not addressed specifically to Her Majesty's Government. Her Majesty's Ambassador at Madrid has, however, made clear to the Spanish authorities that, as my right honourable friend said on 13th April in another place, a visit of warships to Gibraltar during the annual Springtrain exercise is quite normal.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, in thanking my noble friend for that wholly satisfactory Answer may I ask him whether he will also suggest to the Spanish Government that outbursts of petulant temper of this sort do nothing to ease international relations and perhaps give some reason for Her Majesty's Government to strengthen the garrison at Gibraltar?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, it is the desire of Her Majesty's Government that our relations with Spain should be as good as possible. So far as the garrison at Gibraltar is concerned, I can assure my noble friend that the present defences of Gibraltar are adequate for the need.
Lord Boothby: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether he and Her Majesty's Government will bear in mind in any forthcoming negotiations that if the Gibraltar naval base and dockyard had not existed it would have been quite impossible to mount the expeditionary force to the Falkland Islands in time? Secondly, will my noble friend bear in mind that if we now close the naval base and dockyard at Gibraltar there will be no British naval presence of any kind in the Mediterranean for the first time since the Tudors reigned over this country?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, certainly I accept the point which the noble Lord makes about the proved enormous importance of the dockyard at the time of the start of the Falklands crisis, but may I emphasise to him that we have outlined measures which we would be prepared to take to help to establish in its place a commercially managed dockyard.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that the desirable objective is the fulfilment of the Lisbon Agreement of 1980? Can the noble Lord tell the House what prospects there are for the implementation of the agreement? Is he aware that a very sensitive situation existed in Gibraltar? And could the noble Lord say whether on this occasion there were talks of any kind on Springtrain between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of
724
Spain, in view of the special circumstances obtaining this year?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, in answer to the first part of the noble Lord's question may I say that he knows that the Spanish Foreign Minister, Senor Moran, visited London in March. It was agreed that my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and Senor Moran should keep closely in touch. They will in any case have occasion to meet each other in the next month or so. I say that in reply to the first part of the noble Lord's question about the prospects for the implementation of the Lisbon Agreement, which Her Majesty's Government want very much indeed. I am not entirely sure that I took the thrust of the second part of the noble Lord's question, but may I say, hoping that it answers it, that as a matter of courtesy the Spanish Navy were informed beforehand of the visit.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that whereas this visit was indeed normal, our relations with Spain at present are unfortunately not normal? Will the noble Lord give the assurance that in future these visits will or will not take place with proper reference to the state of our relations with Spain?
Lord Belstead: No, my Lords. These visits take place because of operational necessity. I cannot give the noble Lord the assurance for which he asks.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: My Lords, would my noble friend add to his Answer about the adequacy of the defences of Gibraltar by explicitly confirming that the anti-aircraft equipment on the Rock has been brought up to date?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, the Gibraltar Regiment now has Blowpipe.

Business Statement
Lord Denham: My Lords, I think it might be for the convenience of your Lordships if, with the leave of the House, I make a short statement about next week's business. It has been agreed through the usual channels that the first day of the Committee stage of the Telecommunications Bill should be on Thursday 5th May, instead of on Tuesday 3rd May as indicated on the Order Paper. It has also been agreed that if the Committee stage of the Housing and Building Control Bill is not concluded on Thursday 28th April, it should be continued on Tuesday 3rd May after the Report stage of the Energy Bill. It will be followed by the Second Reading of the Social Security and Housing Benefits Bill.

British Museum Act 1963 (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the British Museum Act 1963 to extend the powers of the trustees of the British Museum so that international resolutions and

725
obligations may be complied with. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(Lord Jenkins of Putney.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Agricultural Holdings (Amendment) (Scotland) Bill
Having been brought from the Commons on Friday last and printed pursuant to Standing Order No. 47, Bill read a first time.
Commons Registration (Glamorgan) Bill
Read a second time, and committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

Telecommunications Bill
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Telecommunications Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:—

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2 to 9,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 10 to 70,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 71 to 90,

Schedules 4 to 7,

Clause 91.—(Lord Trefgarne.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Nuclear Material (Offences) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Plant Varieties Bill [H.L.]
3.2 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons Amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons Amendments be now considered.— (Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[References are to Bill [67] as first printed for the Commons.]
1 Clause 3, page 2, line 39, leave out from "from" to end of line 40 and insert "endeavour to secure" onwards there shall be substituted the words "have regard to the desirability of securing".
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. Subsection (1) of Clause 3 of this Bill provides that, when considering applications for compulsory licences from someone who is aggrieved at the refusal of a breeder to issue an acceptable licence, the Controller of Plant Variety Rights "shall endeavour to secure", among other things, that, where there is an export market for a plant variety, it "is supplied from the production of the variety in Great Britain". This wording was designed to take account of the increasing tendency of some foreign holders of plant breeders' rights in the United Kingdom to impose severe restrictions on the export of seed of their varieties from this country in order to protect their domestic seed producers.
Since your Lordships last considered the Bill, representatives of the United Kingdom plant breeding industry have expressed concern that the wording in the Bill could disturb the long established practice in the industry whereby a breeder, who hopes to sell a new variety in a foreign country, helps his agent there to launch the variety by temporarily restricting the issue of licences for the export of seed by other people to that country. They complained, with some justification, that the effect of the amendment would be to oblige the controller to grant a compulsory licence to any applicant who could demonstrate the existence of an export market for a variety.
This was not the intention of the original amendment. To meet the industry's concerns this new amendment alters the wording of Section 7(3) of the 1964 Act from "endeavour to secure" to "have regard to the desirability of securing", in order to allow the controller to have greater flexibility. This change is welcomed by the industry, and it meets the Government's objectives, too. I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
2 Schedule 1, page 4, line 30, leave out from beginning to "there" in line 31 and insert—
"(1) In subsection (1) of section 15 of the 1964 Act (interpretation of Part I), in paragraph (d) for the words "ornamental plants and parts of ornamental plants when" there shall be substituted the words "plants or parts of plants of any ornamental variety when plants or parts of plants of that variety are".
(2) After that subsection".
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2. During our consideration of the Bill in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Walston, tabled an amendment which was intended to clarify the application of the term "reproductive material" in Section 15 of the 1964 Act. He was particularly concerned that the term should not be applicable to such things as fruit which is sold for eating. He was good enough to withdraw his amendment on my assurance that we would re-examine the point which he had raised. I gave the gist of the legal advice which we received on this when the Bill later returned to the House at Report stage.

727
Since then we have examined the wording of this section again in the light of further legal advice. It has become evident from this that, while the present wording does carry the meaning which I described, and which it was intended to do, it is not entirely free from obscurity. This amendment is designed to make it clearer. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
3 Schedule 1, page 4, leave out line 39 and insert "in the definition of "plant variety" for the word "means" there shall be substituted the word "includes" ".
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3. Amendment No. 4 is consequential upon Amendment No. 3, and it might be to the convenience of your Lordships if I were to speak to both amendments at the same time.
During the Committee stage of this Bill in this House on 14th December, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, expressed concern at the proposal to delete the definition of the term "plant variety" from the Plant Varieties and Seeds Act 1964, and asked whether we could, in his words, "re-think the possibility of producing some definition of plant variety". Similar anxiety was also expressed during consideration of the Bill in another place. In view of these representations, the Government have reconsidered the matter and tabled this amendment in another place, where it was agreed.
The present definition of plant variety was not considered sufficiently comprehensive to embrace all the botanical species which could be covered by the term. As it had not been possible to devise an all-embracing alternative, it was decided to omit what was an inadequate definition. The amendment before your Lordships would restore a definition, but it would make the definition indicative rather than exclusive. This should provide sufficient flexibility against the likelihood of future developments in plant breeding. It will also, I hope, meet the reasonable concerns of those who saw the need for a definition in the Act. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Earl Ferrers.)
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, I should just like to thank the noble Earl the Minister and the Government for meeting this point. I believe that it is a worthwhile one and I am delighted that the Government are able to do this.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
4 Schedule 2, page 6, leave out lines 21 to 23.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4, which is consequential upon Amendment No. 3.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Miscellaneous Financial Provisions Bill
3.8 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Apart from the fact that they are all connected with finance, there is no obvious connection between the clauses in the Bill; if there were, it would not be called "miscellaneous". But that is not to imply that the clauses have no value. I commend them to the House as good, sound, administrative measures; the sort of thing which a Government have to bring before Parliament from time to time. For convenience we have grouped seven such measures in the present Bill. I shall explain what the clauses do, and why the changes they bring about are desirable, and I hope that these essentially administrative measures will commend themselves to your Lordships.
Clause 1 concerns the Development Commission, which was established by Lloyd George shortly before the first world war with the task of identifying and tackling the various problems of rural areas. Following a review of the work of the commission my right honourable friend the then Minister for Local Government and Environmental Services announced in another place in March last year that he believed that the commission still had a distinctive and necessary role in bringing economic and social assistance to rural areas of England. The Government accepted that the commission should have a greater degree of independence and should, for example, itself choose the areas in which to concentrate assistance.
At present, the commissioners advise Ministers on how money in the development fund voted by Parliament should be spent. This is an archaic and possibly unique arrangement, so the Bill seeks to establish the Development Commission as a grant-aided body, able to spend directly the money provided by Parliament, and accounting for it directly to Parliament, on the same basis as other grant-aided bodies. The Secretary of State and the Treasury will continue to have a duty to supervise financial matters, and a power to give broad direction of policy and practice.
The Bill also gives us an opportunity to resolve a recent legal doubt whether the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas, which is the principal commercial agent of the commission, has been acting ultra vires in helping profit-making commercial undertakings. Since the doubt arose the matter has been covered by authorising the relevant sums under the Appropriation Acts. This should not be allowed to continue indefinitely, and the Bill, when enacted, will regulate the position.
Clause 1 establishes the Development Commission as a grant-aided corporate body, defines its purposes and, together with Schedule 1, sets out its powers, duties and financing. The purposes of the commission are substantially unchanged from what they were when it was set up in 1909, although the terminology used in this legislation is different from that of 1909. In

729
specifying some of the areas of activity of the commission, the Bill reflects the special role that the commission now plays in the social and economic regeneration of rural communities in England. These provisions, then, are to bring the statutory basis of the Development Commission into line with its present-day role—not to change that role. The Commission's objective remains the economic and social development of rural England, and I hope that your Lordships will welcome this clause as enhancing its ability to carry out or assist others to carry out such a development.
Clause 2 similarly introduces no new principle. It represents a piece of necessary tidying up, in providing statutory authority for the Secretary of State for Industry to make grants, out of money voted by Parliament, to English regional development organisations. At present, authority rests on the Supply Estimates and the confirming Appropriation Acts. Successive Administrations have paid grant-in-aid to the four organisations listed in the clause. The money supports their work of helping to attract new industrial and commercial development to their regions, which include the main assisted areas in England. Similar promotional bodies, supported by both central and local government, exist in Scotland and Wales.
The English regional bodies and their overseas campaigns are co-ordinated with the promotional activity on behalf of the United Kingdom as a whole. Although the main purpose of the clause is to regularise the payments to these existing bodies, we think it right also to provide for the possibility that other similar bodies may be supported in this way, for the benefit of other regions in future. I should stress that the clause makes no change to existing policy. It simply regularises the parliamentary authority for the existing expenditure. As your Lordships will be aware, neither the Comptroller and Auditor General nor the Public Accounts Committee of another place are willing to endorse the use of Supply Estimates and the confirming Appropriation Acts as the sole authorisation of expenditure of a continuing nature.
Clause 3 is different. Its object is to write-off debts of £13.4 million owed by Zimbabwe to the Consolidated Fund. The debts stem from obligations contracted by the Government of Southern Rhodesia towards Her Majesty's Government before the unilateral declaration of independence in November 1965. The debts included liability to reimburse the Government for payments made out of the Consolidated Fund under Treasury guarantees when Rhodesia defaulted on five loans from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development.
Following independence, Mr. Mugabe stated that his Government intended to honour these obligations. However, discussions were held in May and June 1980 about Zimbabwe's capacity to service debt obligations in the light of prospects for the country's economy, and under the terms of the Zimbabwean debt settlement which was announced in Parliament on 2nd July 1980 the Government agreed to write-off the sums owed in respect of three of the five guarantees. On 7th November 1980 the then Financial Secretary stated that it was our intention to provide for this by legislation in due course. This is necessary because the debt is an asset of the Consolidated Fund.
730
Clause 4 widens the range of financial liabilities of public bodies which the Treasury may guarantee under its existing statutory powers. At present these powers generally extend only to guaranteeing the repayment of principal and interest on a loan, although there is a considerable disparity among the industries. The bodies covered are listed in Schedule 2 to the Bill. The Bill does not add to the number of bodies covered, nor should what is proposed add to the cost to public funds—indeed, rather the opposite.
Lenders offering attractive terms to our public bodies have occasionally insisted on additional obligations beyond the undertaking to guarantee the repayment of principal and payment of interest. For example, they may ask for repayment of certain fees in respect of a loan. It is clearly in the taxpayer's interest to guarantee these additional obligations if this is a way of ensuring that the best terms can be obtained, especially as this can be done without the guarantee adding significantly to our liabilities. Clause 4 permits that. A guarantee will be given only if the Treasury considers that the loan is worth making on the terms demanded. This is exactly what happens now. Thus, we shall continue to ensure that the best possible rates are obtained, with minimal liability for each loan that our public bodies take on.
Clause 5 amends Section 3(2) of the Crown Estate Act 1961 so as to extend the maximum statutory period for which the Crown Estate Commissioners may grant leases from 100 to 150 years. The background to this is that the commissioneers are not normally in a position to be able to finance major site developments as they have no borrowing powers. They therefore look to institutional investors to finance commercial projects. However, in the field of commercial property nowadays institutional investors favour leases of 125 to 150 years' duration, because that allows sites to be redeveloped about half-way through the lease—after 60 years or so, which is reckoned to be the life expectancy of a building.
The commissioners judge that their present inability to grant leases for periods as long as 150 years means that they cannot make the most of the earning potential of the Crown Estates. The revenue surpluses from the estates are surrendered to the Exchequer in accordance with the Civil List Acts. I hope that your Lordships will agree that we should not tie the commissioners' hands unnecessarily and should therefore extend the period of leases, as the Bill proposes.
Clause 6 gives the Treasury the power to redeem, upon the payment of compensation, certain small periodic payments at present charged direct on the Consolidated Fund or on Votes under old legislation. These payments are expensive to administer, and it has therefore been decided that it would be sensible to discontinue them, subject, of course, to the payment of reasonable compensation. The compensation is to be so calculated that if it were invested in an appropriate Government stock it would provide an income equivalent to the redeemed annuity.
The Treasury is already empowered under the Consolidated Fund (Permanent Charges Redemption) Act 1873 to agree that any perpetual or non-life annuity charged on the Consolidated Fund or Votes should be redeemed on certain terms and subject to

731
certain conditions. In the years immediately following the 1873 Act, redemption terms were agreed for many annuities. In some cases, however, this proved impossible, and the annuities have continued at increasing administrative cost. The new clause will empower the Treasurey to redeem unilaterally small annuities which have been payable since before 1873, or, to put it another way, in 1873 the Government of the day took powers to deal with these matters where a voluntary agreement could be made. We are now in 1983 and hoping to take power to deal with those where voluntary agreement has not been possible.
Clause 7 is designed to amend the provisions of the Local Government Act 1972 so as to provide a greater degree of flexibility to local authority members when making use of the option that is available to them under Section 24 of the Local Government, Planning and Land Act 1980 to receive financial loss allowance when they perform the approved duties of the council, instead of the attendance allowance which is generally offered.
At present, the legislation provides that councillors can make this choice, or revert to receiving attendance allowance after making an earlier choice to receive financial loss allowance, only three months prior to the beginning of a financial year—or, in the case of newly-elected councillors, at their election or re-election. This created difficulties for those councillors who have chosen financial loss allowance and who lose their jobs during the year. Under the present arrangements, such members would presumably not be able to show financial loss, yet they would be unable to receive attendance allowance instead until the next financial year. That could mean a prolonged period—possibly up to 15 months—without any allowances other than those for travelling and subsistence expenses. I think your Lordships will agree that this is a very desirable adjustment to the existing arrangements. The proposal has been pressed by the local authority associations, which welcome the change.
In conclusion, the Bill contains seven measures, some to tidy up or modernise existing arrangements and the last one to remedy a hardship caused by the operation of the present rules. All can be justified on their merits. I commend the Bill to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
3.20 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for explaining this Bill to us. It is well entitled "miscellaneous" and although its Explanatory Memorandum tells us that it is not expected to have any material effect on public expenditure in the long term and should provide minor administrative savings in public service manpower, it would be a great mistake to assume that the "miscellany" is unimportant. The Bill covers matters of the utmost significance, as the noble Lord himself indicated in his opening speech. I think I should say at the outset that we support the Bill and welcome a number of its provisions. Some of the clauses do not call for extensive comment and I will first deal with those.
732
Clause 3, which deals with the debts of £13.4 million owed by Zimbabwe to the Consolidated Fund, is an equitable measure. It would not be right to saddle Zimbabwe with the burden of debts on which the Rhodesian Government had defaulted after UDI. However, perhaps the Minister will deal with one point. I understand that, although Clause 3 specifically mentions three debts, there are, in fact, five debts and the two that are not included in the clause are greater than the three that are specified.
We all in this House hope that Zimbabwe will develop into a stable and prosperous country and that the current unhappy divisions will soon be resolved, but it does need economic help and this is a small additional contribution. Perhaps the noble Lord will say something about the other two debts which remain.
We support Clause 4, which enables Treasury guarantees to be provided in a more flexible way. I believe that there is still an area of some uncertainty as to whether the guarantees do, or do not, form part of public expenditure. This has obvious implications for the public sector. I believe that the noble Lord referred to the Public Accounts Committee. As I understand it, the Government are considering this question at present. When the noble Lord winds up, by leave, perhaps he will give us some guidance as to the way in which this is now being interpreted by the Government. Are these guarantees regarded as part of public spending?
On Clause 5, and the Crown Estates Commissioners, I assume I am right that their leases and tenancies are subject to the Rent Acts. I have no comment on Clause 6, which seems to be desirable. I warmly welcome Clause 7, which resolves the anomaly whereby councillors can lose their allowances if they become unemployed during their tenure. There has been a great deal of pressure for this, especially as unemployment has risen, and I am glad that the Government have taken the necessary action.
I must now return to Clauses 1 and 2. In the context of unemployment generally and of the rural areas in particular, these are of great significance. In a sense I wish that these clauses could have been introduced in a Bill of their own, because I believe that they are sufficiently important to be considered apart from the other matters in this Bill. Anyone who reads Clause 1 and Schedule 1 will appreciate why I say this.
In Clauses 1 and 2, we are dealing with the problems of the rural areas of England. The Government propose to repeal Part I of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act 1909 and to set up a new Development Commission for rural England. The composition and powers of this commission are set out in Schedule 1. As the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said, the 1909 Act was one of Lloyd George's imaginative attempts to help the rural areas, but after 1914 the measure was neglected. My right honourable friend Sir Harold Wilson resurrected it when he was President of the Board of Trade in the late 1940s. Rural areas were not included at that time as development or assisted areas, and I well remember that small factories were built in places like Blaenau Ffestiniog and in other remote parts of rural Wales under the provisions of the 1909 Act.

733
We welcome Clause 1 and we wish the new commission every possible success. It is felt by many that there is nothing for rural England which matches the Scottish Development Agency and the Welsh Development Agency. The North of England and parts of the South-West are particularly in need of constructive assistance. There are black spots in the countryside with very high unemployment and where no special assistance is available. In some instances, assisted area status has been withdrawn. We hope that this clause will fill that gap.
I am glad that the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas—CoSIRA—is to continue its excellent work as the commercial agent of the commission and that the legal doubt which has existed is being removed by this Bill. This council has an impressive record, as anyone who reads the annual reports of the development commissioners will know.
I have one small question about CoSIRA. At present it operates in England, in Wales and in Scotland. It has offices in the three countries. It fulfils a very important function in Wales in that part of the country which is not covered by the Welsh Rural Development Board. That is very extensive and includes, for example, the whole of Snowdonia and Anglesey. Although the commission will no longer operate in Wales—nor will it operate in Scotland, for that matter—will CoSIRA continue to operate in the two countries possibly under the aegis of the Welsh Rural Development Board or the Welsh Development Agency and the Scottish Development Agency, as appropriate? Alternatively, as a result of this measure, will CoSIRA now be confined to English rural areas alone? That is an important practical matter with which the Minister will wish to deal.
There is one final but crucial point. Will the new commission have adequate resources to do its work? I shall be glad if the Minister will tell us what funds it will have available in a full year. Its powers under Clause 1 and Schedule 1 appear to be adequate but it will also need funds and we need to know what they are likely to be. The commission, therefore, needs resources and sufficient independence to take initiatives without ministerial interference.
I have always believed that small industries—and, by "small", I mean workshops, activities ancillary to agriculture and country garages—which employ up to 10 people or so make an enormous contribution to the rural economy. That contribution is far greater than is generally realised. When we talk about industry, we think about big or medium-sized industry employing 100 or more workers. But the countryside relies not only upon our primary industry of agriculture but also on these other small industries that I have mentioned. If every one of those small industries employed one or two more people, it would make a great difference in the rural areas and to the unemployment situation in our countryside. This is where the new commission and CoSIRA can have a fresh impact on rural England.
Clause 2 is in a sense related to Clause 1, and we support this, too. This is a useful provision which enables grants to be paid to the regional bodies mentioned in Clause 2(2). Can the Minister say whether there is any significant area of rural England which is not now covered by the four organisations in
734
this subsection? I note that Clause 2(2)(e) leaves the door open for additional organisations. I think that that is right. I wonder whether this is not the appropriate time to help areas which are not specifically provided for by the Bill as it now stands. There are, for example, parts of East Anglia which are very hard hit in these times.
Furthermore, how is it proposed that the new Development Commission shall operate in relation to these organisations? What will the relationship of the new commission, whose status and functions are described in Schedule 1, be with the four organisations? In some areas there may be four authorities which are potentially interested: central Government, the local authority, the new Development Commission and one of the four bodies referred to. In theory at least, each of these has some funds available.
Personally I should prefer to see rural England carefully covered by an appropriate regional body with the regional commission having a co-ordinating role, but the provisions of Clauses 1 and 2 can be helpful at a crucial time. With the reservations that I have touched upon, we wish this Bill a speedy passage.
3.32 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I very much welcome the opportunity to address your Lordships' House today because I speak as a development commissioner. For many the Development Commission is perhaps one of the unknown quangos, but in fact it is one of the oldest in this type of operation. I remind your Lordships that it was set up by David Lloyd George as long ago as 1909. Its job was then, as it is now, to assist English rural areas, and particularly to advise the Government on the spending of the Development Fund—a sum which is voted annually in Parliament. In general terms this money is spent on any project which will benefit rural areas provided that no other statutory assistance exists.
During its 70 years of existence the commission has supported a wide range of rural activities. In the early days it was also concerned with afforestation and fisheries, and even promoted infrastructure, such as the improvement of roads. There is here a rather nice family connection. It also set up the Road Board, which is no longer with us but of which my father was one of the first members. So there is some family tradition in my being with the Development Commission. The original purpose of the commission was to reduce depopulation, to improve the economic and social structure in rural areas and to create employment. That remains unchanged. Today, the need is as great as it was in 1909.
Perhaps your Lordships will forgive me if I give a few facts as to what the commission does nowadays. In the current financial year the commission plans to spend over £22 million on building rural factories, promoting small industries, community development and other work. There are, broadly, three main areas of work. There is, first, factory and workshop building, involving some £11 million. These are built in consultation with district councils, and it involves financing small factories and workshops, mainly in small towns and villages which are suffering from depopulation or other disadvantages. These areas are currently termed

735
special investment areas, but the commission is in the process of reassessing them, and in future they will be known as rural development areas.
Wherever possible, existing buildings are utilised. For example, at Buckfastleigh, in Devonshire, an old woollen mill, which closed in 1973 with a loss of 300 jobs, is now being refurbished and adapted for cheese-making and engineering. Three new terraced units have been completed. More than 100 new jobs have been created there, and there are more to come. By February of this year 654 units had been completed in the country, with another 773 units under construction or planned. Of these, 520 have already been occupied or allocated. Then there is £1 million or so spent in 50 per cent. financing to enable more buildings to be converted for use by small firms, particularly in remote locations.
Secondly, there is the assistance to small rural industries, which Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos talked about, through CoSIRA, which I suppose is better known than the commission itself. CoSIRA's job is definitely to assist small firms in rural areas. At the moment there are nearly 13,500 small rural firms, employing 72,000 people. Of these, incidentally, 2,000 are new starters. CoSIRA has a network of 31 local offices which provide a full range of free information and advice to rural firms, and so on. There are 20 business managers, because things like accountancy, costing and marketing are often just as important as giving assistance financially. There are also training schemes which are well known. CoSIRA has its own loan fund for small industries, and works in cooperation with the banks and organisations like ICFC.
I have no doubt, and nor do the commissioners, that CoSIRA's assistance and the commission's factories have a catalytic effect on the community by strengthening the rural economy, which, in turn, leads to more jobs being created in other firms. For example, in North Yorkshire in the village of Hunmanby the rate of unemployment in 1975 was 8·5 per cent., but by 1980, by building a small factory and providing intensive help to small firms, it had been reduced to 3·6 per cent. There is no doubt that this new factory site provides income for the parish council, which has been able to develop its own community centre and sports field. Even a bank is now open three days a week.
Thirdly, the commission also pays great attention to community development work: in other words, financing county-based rural community councils and such organisations as the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and, indeed, the National Federation of Women's Institutes. The commission has a legitimate concern about the level and range of services and facilities available to people living and working in rural areas. It can, by lobbying, influence Government and public and private bodies to have regard to the particular needs of rural areas. Examples of this are the recent discussions that we have had with the Department of Education and Science about school closures and the alternative uses for redundant school buildings; with British Telecom about the loss of telephone kiosks; and with the Post Office over the need to maintain a network of sub-post offices.
736
There must be an increasing level of awareness and increasing initiatives. This is done by the sponsoring of conferences and studies. For instance, the commission acts as a trail-blazer through funding experiments. Our most recent one, which I am sure your Lordships will be interested in, is to reimburse part of the cost of travelling to hospital in remote rural areas for people who otherwise could not visit their relations.
The commission and CoSIRA are currently concentrating the bulk of their resources obviously on their special investment areas. These rural priority areas were originally designated by the Government, but following a recent Government review the commissioners have now been given the task of designating their own areas. This is something that we welcome. Naturally, the Government have laid down some sensible criteria, such as the level of unemployment, employment opportunities, age structure and so on. But the Government have made it clear that it is not necessary for all the criteria to be satisfied all the time, and this we welcome. The work on redesignating the rural development areas is well under way. We hope that they will be fully designated perhaps by the middle of 1984.
Of course, the commissioners are well aware of the importance of research where we consider it to be practical in dealing with rural areas. Redundant buildings are something in which, again, the commission has taken a great interest. We are delighted that the Government have recently introduced the 100 per cent. write-off against tax for the construction of workshops. Despite initial doubts, the Inland Revenue have confirmed that the allowances will apply to the conversion of any redundant building, whether agricultural or industrial. This will be a great help. The commission's partnership workshop plan to bring into use redundant buildings is going well. The plan includes former schools, places of worship, farm buildings, and so on. It is indeed a good thing that the grant scheme will be available for all suitable buildings—not just farm buildings.
For some years the commission has supported local housing associations, and it is now particularly concerned with craft homes. These will provide residential accommodation and a small workshop space in a single unit, and will thus enable a small, self-sustaining one- or two-man business to start up and operate from home. We hope that this will bring back skilled craftsmen to rural areas.
As pehaps the report of CoSIRA will show, in recent years there has been a slight reduction in staff, but I can assure the House that this has not been due to any arbitrary cut by Government. We have cut down on the bureaucracy of the headquarters and have put more staff into the "sharp end" of the country, where they are really needed. Therefore, we welcome the assurance given by Government that the commission staff will not be adversely affected by the commission's change to grant-in-aid status, and in fact we shall take on more staff when the DoE gives up some of its staff.
On behalf of the commission I warmly welcome the Bill. It certainly gives the commission a modern, legislative framework. It makes it more flexible, and it removes the doubt which has been expressed about the lending of development fund money to profit-making concerns. The Bill certainly removes existing

737
restrictions, while preserving very wide powers. I believe that it also recognises the commission's advisory role on rural social and economic matters. So on behalf of the commission, I should like to say how warmly I welcome the Bill, and I am sure that it will do much to help us carry out what is a very vital task.
3.42 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful to your Lordships for your constructive response to the Bill, and in particular to my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu for his quite full explanation of the functions and role of the Development Commission, speaking, as he does, from a position of very considerable knowledge and experience of these matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, asked me about a number of detailed points. I should like to answer as many of them as I can now, and if I fail to answer any of them I shall be happy to deal with them by correspondence or at a later stage in the Bill. At one point the noble Lord asked me about the coverage of the Development Commission. The commission covers the whole of England's rural areas but, as my noble friend explained, we shall expect it to concentrate its assistance in those areas which it identifies as being in the greatest need. The noble Lord asked me what is the sum of money that we can make available. I understand that for the year 1983–84 it is £21·29 million. It is right, is it not, that when the sum of money is finite it should be concentrated, at least to some extent, on the areas of greatest need, for if it is spread too widely the layer is very thin indeed, and that is not I believe necessarily the best way to spend the funds available.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked me about the operation of CoSIRA. It operates only in England. Nonetheless, the Welsh Development Agency and the Scottish Development Agency have their own comparable organisations which give the same kind of advice as CoSIRA gives in England.
The noble Lord also asked me about two other loans outstanding by Zimbabwe, which perhaps he felt ought to have been included within the provisions of the Bill. I understand that the Zimbabwe Government are continuing to service the two other loans, and therefore the question of writing them off does not at present arise. As for the guarantees which are referred to in the Bill, I am informed that they do not in fact count as public expenditure, at least not at the point that the guarantee is given. If and when the misfortune arises and the guarantee is called, it then becomes a charge on public expenditure.
The noble Lord also asked me about the application of the Rent Acts to the arrangements under Clause 5, where there is a reference to leases granted by the Crown Estates Commissioners. I understand that the Housing Act 1980 provided that, broadly speaking, with perhaps I think one or two exceptions, the Rent Acts should apply to these leases. As I say, that was provided for by the Housing Act 1980.
I believe that those were the principal points, though perhaps not all the points, that the noble Lord put to me. I shall certainly follow up any of the others when I have had a chance to study what he has said. As I say,
738
I am grateful for your Lordships' reception of the measure, which I commend to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

The Water Industry: Report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology
3.45 p.m.
Lord Sherfield Lord Sherfield rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the Science and Technology Committee on the Water Industry.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. After this wettest of winters, and more precisely in a month which bids fair to be the wettest April on record, it seems appropriate that the House should have spent so much time on the affairs of the water industry. Even so, some of your Lordships may at times have felt inclined, metaphorically, to put on your sub-aqua suits to save yourselves from drowning, if not in water, at least in words about water. Nevertheless it was perhaps timely to produce this report, which deals with the performance of the industry as regards research, development and technology, and touches only tangentially on political matters.
The state of our water mains and sewers was brought forcefully to the notice of the public by the recent unhappy strike in the water industry. Indeed that illustrated, and brought home better than could any written or oral evidence, some of the points made by your Lordships' Committee. I wish here to express my thanks to all who have contributed to this report: to our witnesses, to our hosts on our tours, our specialist adviser, and to the Committee staff.
Even after all the recent spate of words about water, important issues remain, and I hope to introduce them briefly to the House today.
Your Lordships' Select Committee set out to discover whether the water industry was taking full advantage of science and technology in the discharge of its functions, and for this purpose we chose to look at the engineering side of the industry. Generally speaking, we were not concerned with pollution, water quality and sewage treatment, important though these are. We looked mainly at the storage and distribution of water, control of leakage, and the condition of the sewers. This proved quite a heavy enough agenda.
We expected our inquiry to flow smoothly, and without agitation—but far from it. Within a month of our starting, the Government announced an inquiry by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission into the sewerage functions of two water authorities. Half way through the inquiry they anounced the abolition of the National Water Council and the reorganisation of the English water authorities. Then one week after we reported came the national water strike.
We selected six main topics. The first was primary water storage and the alternative methods which are available for storing water above and below ground before it enters the distribution system. Then there was the distribution system itself and the efficiency with

739
which water is transferred from primary storage to the consumer. The third topic was the condition of the sewers and the steps which are being taken to improve them, and the fourth was the safety of reservoirs and the non-implementation of the Reservoirs Act 1975. Then we looked at the level and organisation of research and, finally, at education and training. We were aided by some extremely helpful evidence from people inside and outside the water industry. This made a major contribution to the outcome of our inquiry. I am grateful for this.
I welcome the indications that I have received that the water industry, the agents and the research councils concerned, are all responding well to our recommendations. I am also grateful to the Government for their initial responses. Our recommendations on the safety of reservoirs, on research and on training were discussed during the passage of the Water Bill, and the Government indicated general agreement with what we proposed. Accordingly, I shall not dwell on these last three points today.
I shall only say that the Government's announcements had to be made late at night and rather briefly. I think that the Minister might wish to elaborate a little on the announcements he made on reservoir safety and on research. In particular, I am sure that the House would be glad to have further clarification of the Government's intention to ensure that the water authorities carry out their research obligations, especially on an industry-wide basis.
I shall now deal in turn with water supply, water distribution and sewerage. First, I take water supply and the question of demand for water. The increasing difficulty of getting planning permission for storage reservoirs is well known. There are so many competing interests for land in this country that resistance to flooding large areas of it is inevitable. The water authorities face problems in fufilling their statutory duty to provide an adequate supply of wholesome water. Part of the trouble is that they have done their job so well that most people in this country take the availability of mains water for granted. Few people living in towns have had any experience of water being fetched or pumped from another source.
But I suggest that the time has come when consumer attitudes to water supply will change. The introduction of direct billing by the water authorities is slowly giving consumers a quite different appreciation of water. They may not be aware of the engineering required to get water to their houses or factories but they are becoming aware of the cost. As soon as water is recognised to have its price, demand for water becomes susceptible to management.
Industrial consumers are metered and have already started to save water as part of the cost-cutting forced upon them by competition and recession. I believe that this trend can, by tact and skilful management, be extended to domestic consumers as well. If there were a way in which domestic consumers could reduce their water rates easily, they could, I am sure, be persuaded to take it. We suggested in our report that optional metering should be made more attractive to them. Experience during the drought of 1976 showed that demand for water is not fixed. It can be reduced. So the
740
Committee said that attention should now be given to demand management.
As I have mentioned, the water industry is obliged to provide an adequate supply of wholesome water. But an adequate supply is not a limitless supply. Research should be undertaken to assess more precisely what the limits of an adequate supply might be, and whether some part of supply could be regarded as super-abundance rather than as a necessity. If this research shows that demand for water is amenable to management by education or pricing, which I feel certain will be the case, the water authorities should be encouraged to regard demand restraint as one of their options in assessing water resources. They should decide whether they intend to meet all future demand for water before going on to take decisions about additional supplies.
In this context, the Committee noted with interest what has happened recently in the case of the Roadford reservoir in Devon. After prolonged planning inquires extending over about six years, outline planning permission was eventually given by the Secretary of State last month but for a smaller sized reservoir. Without going into the reasons for this reduction, I suggest that this case highlights both the difficulties of reservoir contruction and the scope for modifying the water authority's response to demand.
Once a decision has been taken that resources must be increased, the question of storage arises. Should it be a reservoir or some other form of storage? The committee had no wish to say that one form of storage is superior to others. No option is superior in all circumstances and it was not our job to offer a "best buy". But we did feel that more work ought to be done now to establish the facts on which to assess the alternative methods of storage for the new resources which will be needed in the early years of the next century. We mentioned, for instance, several areas of research into the use of groundwater. We also called for a full economic assessment of the case for reducing leakage as an alternative to new storage. Estimates of water lost by leakage vary but the figure is very high. Almost one-third of all the water put into supply in this country cannot be accounted for.
At this point I wish to ask the Minister to take special note of chapter 2, paragraph 30, of our report about the difficulty faced by the water industry in tackling strategic questions of demand management, groundwater behaviour and the economic assessment of leakage control. The water industry's structure, especially the virtual autonomy of the water authorities, will be an obstacle to such research, which must be done industry-wide. Will the Department of the Environment exercise its undoubted responsibility to take the lead on ensuring that this research is carried out?
My second topic is water distribution. To begin with, I should like to say how impressed the Committee was by the progressive work of some sections of the industry in introducing automation to the distribution network. Examples are the Wessex Water Authority and the Rickmansworth and Uxbridge Valley Water Company, both of which we visited. There are other cases, of course, but I mention these as examples which I hope less advanced sections of the industry will be prepared to follow. Automation of the distribution

741
system offers financial savings, greater efficiency and a better service to customers.
The efficiency of the system, however, is threatened by the condition of water mains and service pipes. In England and Wales alone, these have a total length of over 50,000 kilometres and more than half are over 40 years old. Their condition is not good. The number of bursts repaired every year is about 80,000; that is, 220 on average every day. This number is likely to rise if nothing is done about it. During the recent strike, everyone, I feel sure, had experience of burst water mains in their neighbourhood or, if they were more unlucky, of being cut off altogether. Perhaps it is worth mentioning that in areas with automatic pressure control, such as is being introduced in the Wessex Water Authority, the number of bursts was significantly reduced below the national average and this is one of many reasons why we urge the industry to press ahead with automation. Bursts most frequently occur during the night when little water is being used and so pressure in the mains rises. If surges in pressure can be eliminated the number of bursts drops.
It might of course be said that since water is cheap and most bursts are unobtrusive, things can be allowed to go on much as they are at the moment. The committee dismissed this. Corrosion is the main cause of trouble and failures due to corrosion are likely to grow in number, primarily as a result of changes in pipe materials over the last century and their susceptibility to corrosion. The conclusion being reached by the Water Research Centre—a conclusion which the committee share—is that substantial increased investment is needed now to introduce planned maintenance of the distribution system, in place of the crisis maintenance which has been accepted practice for many years.
This leads me to my third and last topic: sewerage. The problems here are very similar to those of the water mains, only the problems are, if anything, worse. Crisis maintenance is again the practice for sewer repair and, as the committee said in paragraph 4.15, we found:
"enough evidence to believe that there is a significant risk of decay in the sewerage system getting beyond the water authorities' control".
Substantial increased investment in sewer repair is called for as a matter of urgency. The problem will not go away. The longer it is left, the bigger the bill will be.
Our report explains how we think the problem can be tackled best and I will not repeat that now. Nor do I need to repeat the discussion about agency arrangements and their effectiveness for sewer repair because this was satisfactorily covered in the Water Bill. I would merely like to make two related points. First, sewer collapses and repair work involve social costs, that is, the disruption to industry and commerce and the daily life of residents in town centres where the main collapses tend to occur. They are a reason for pressing ahead with maintenance to prevent collapse from taking place. They must also be included in the cost benefit equations for sewerage repair. Research needs to be carried out into assessing these costs. The outcome is, I suggest, likely to confirm the committee's view that more effort will have to go into remote control work underground and tunnelling. The
742
objective should be not to dig up any busy road when a reasonable alternative is available.
Secondly, it is essential to ensure that the investment is well spent. An interesting debate took place at the Institution of Civil Engineers last month, on "Water and Sewerage Services: a case for spending more or less?" Those who argued for more spending had no difficulty in making their case. The case for spending relatively less was also argued. It amounted only to this: more would have to be spent on sewer repair but the extra costs should be kept within bounds and so should be less than extravagant. Naturally, I agree with that and the point to which I would direct the Government's attention is the need for a comparative evaluation of renovation and replacement as options for repairing sewers.
Renovation, which is the fashion at present, consists of prolonging the life of the existing sewer. It has the great advantage of a low short-term cost in cash terms. However, there are cases where sewers are being renovated for half the cost of replacement and are achieving only one-third of the life of a new sewer. The committee would like to be satisfied that a true comparison of costs has been worked out and that this takes full account of the social costs to which I have already referred.
Whatever the outcome of these calculations, a very large increase in spending on the sewers is called for now. As a capital investment for the future, the case seems to be unaswerable, and so I urge the Government and the water authorities to tackle sewer dereliction urgently.
I have spoken long enough and still have only covered parts of the committee's report. But I hope that other members of the committee will carry further what I have said. I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply this evening and to receiving an assurance that in due course the House will receive the Government's considered reply to the recommendations in your Lordships' Select Committee's Report. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the Science and Technology Committee on the Water Industry (1st Report, 1982–83, H.L. 47).—(Lord Sherfield.)
4.6 p.m.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, I rise to speak with some trepidation in this debate because the report we are debating is the end product of a long and detailed study by a distinguished Committee of this House. It has complex technical and scientific aspects, and I propose to confine myself to some administrative and political considerations and leave the other matters to those who are better qualified than I am to deal with them.
I note that I am being followed by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, who is well qualified to speak in this debate in the light of his experience and expertise over many years. I would like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, and the members of his Committee and the specialist adviser, Professor Isaac, upon what is a first-class report which is of the utmost importance to the country. Their analysis of the six topics enumerated by the noble Lord in his

743
speech has given us all a great deal to think about. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, for his opening speech, which set the scene for our debate. His Committee decided to concentrate their attention upon the engineering side of the industry and its infrastructure, and this was, I believe, the wiser course. They did not regard the water industry solely as a "pipe and sewer" industry, but as one which has far wider reponsibilities. Perhaps I may comment upon a few of the more central matters, starting with question posed in paragraph 1.10 on page 3.
The question posed here is an important one—namely, are the statutory water undertakings an industry or are they a public service? I would argue that the difference claimed by the Scottish Development Department in the evidence, which says that water supply and sewage disposal in Scotland is a "public service" to be exercised by local government, whereas that in England and Wales is discharged by regional water authorities on a "quasi-nationalised industry basis", is a purely artificial distinction and that a "public service" is in fact given by regional water authorities. If this was not so, then many of the smaller rural communities throughout England and Wales which at present receive a treated water supply and are connected to the main sewerage system would not be enjoying these facilities.
Having said that, I regard the service given by the regional water authorities as a "public service", and I consider that it will always be regarded as such. It may be that the Select Committee stops just short of the real question, which is: how do we ensure that the community is getting the best value from the resources made available? We should ensure that it is maximum value and not maximum expenditure which is achieved. Political judgments will have to be made from time to time to satisfy some urgent local need not easily accommodated within any system of priorities, but the water industry must strive for better management, greater exploitation of existing resources and application of existing and new technology in order to ensure that it is obtaining maximum value. The Government must not expect miracles. The authorities should be efficient, but they must also have adequate resources to give the public the services to which I have referred; they must be given the tools to do the job.
On the question of water storage, I endorse the views expressed in paragraphs 1.11 and 2.13 about the interaction of land uses. I think that this is an important point in the report. The committee recognised that, while increased afforestation in catchment areas provided greater profits to the forestry industry, such profits might be obtained at a cost penalty to the water industry, because afforestation can impair the quantity and quality of the water draining from such catchment areas and the biological communities of the streams and reservoirs receiving such water.
The balance of profit and cost should be carefully established and should also be considered in planning the use of upland areas, whether it be for increased afforestation on the one hand or for intensive grassland use on the other. The committee also rightly stressed
744
the need for the forestry industry to consider conservation interests.
In considering this question of land use, I should like to take the opportunity to express my doubt whether existing planning procedures are adequate to control changes in upland land use. Until Section 51 of the Control of Pollution Act 1974 is brought into force in July 1984, water authorities have few legal powers to control afforestation or increased agricultural use of upland catchments. Even when Section 51 is brought into force, the water authority will have to ask the Secretary of State to serve a notice on the occupier of the land forbidding the use of that land for a specific purpose which has either caused pollution or is likely to do so. In their defence, the developers will have to demonstrate that their proposals are in accordance with approved codes of practice. I believe that the water industry should be given the opportunity to help in the preparation of these codes of practice, because authorities are already experiencing some of the problems arising from increased afforestation. When he replies, I shall be grateful if the noble Lord will comment on that possibility.
On the question of storage options, which is dealt with on page 6 of the report, I think that the views of the committee must be right. Certainly since 1974 steps have been taken by regional authorities to integrate the use of water resources so as to avoid the necessity for providing new water sources and to provide additional security of supply to their consumers.
As the House is aware, there is considerable Welsh interest in this matter. Water has always been an inflammatory subject in Wales, and I took the precaution of discussing this with the Welsh Water Authority, which told me that the integration of resources is beneficial to the industry for the following reasons. It said, first, that reservoirs have different drawdown and refill characteristics; thus, when one reservoir is severely drawn down, another reservoir can be drawn upon to support the depleted reservoir. The benefit can be realised either in terms of additional safe yield or of additional security of supply.
Secondly, the authority said that surplus water exists at new sources and thus can be used to augment overloaded resources. Thirdly, it said that, during all but drought years, each source contains surplus water; during the surplus years the system can be operated to overdraw the cheapest sources. I think that that is a very significant point. Lastly, it said that alternative sources can be used during periods when water quality problems exist.
The water authority also made the point to me that the extent of conjunctive use will depend heavily upon topography and distribution of population, but its value is considerable. It gave me one example, which is the only statistic that I propose to give. In South Wales and South-East Wales the water system supplies some 450,000 cubic metres per day. This has been operated as an integrated unit, which has increased the security of supply in drought periods and saved on average about £300,000 per annum in pumping costs, and I think that that was an important contribution.

745
The noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, dealt fully with the question of water distribution and leakage control, and I shall not dilate upon it. I believe that it is being taken more seriously by the authorities at the present time, and I also understand that, with the increasing cost of excavation and reinstatement, the ability to pinpoint leaks with great accuracy is becoming an ever-increasing factor of importance in leakage control. I read in the report about a noise correlator. It seems to me that this is something which might be introduced in certain parts of this building! But I believe that this is likely to play a role of increasing importance in the industry.
Clearly, leakage control is not a "one-off- exercise, but requires regular monitoring, regular detection and regular repair work to maintain losses at a low level. The degree of effort to do this varies from district to district and area to area, and thus the effort expended on leakage detection must be adjusted continuously to achieve the appropriate allocation of resources. I believe that the recommendations in paragraph 3.51 are both constructive and urgent, and I hope that the Government will take them very much to heart.
Again, I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, dealt with the important question of sewerage fully and effectively in his speech. Undoubtedly, the age of many sewers and also water mains makes it essential that appropriate resources of finance and manpower are made available to ensure the security of these services. Without reasonable cash to embark on a phased programme, the authorities will not be able to do the job. In view of the decline of the older industries, many of which were heavy users of water and dischargers of considerable quantities of effluent, and their replacement by newer industries with smaller demands for water and smaller discharges, the income base for the water authorities has also declined. This makes it inevitable that the authorities should concentrate on improving the security and performance of their existing resources and providing new ones only where industrial development and/or population growth dictate. Paragraph 4.52 of the report makes this quite clear.
I would ask the noble Lord who is to reply to address himself particularly to paragraph 4.53. I shall merely read the first two recommendations on page 43, which state:

"(1) a sense of urgency should be introduced into tackling sewer dereliction;

(2) the NWC's call for additional investment in sewer renovation and renewal should be acted upon".

Here are specific recommendations from a committee of this House which I hope that the noble Lord will convey with as much weight as he can to his right honourable friend.
On Section 5, which deals with the safety of reservoirs, the Government have already announced that they will implement the Reservoirs Act 1975. I was particularly glad when, during the Committee stage of the Water Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, made an announcement to that effect, and it was very welcome news indeed
The final two questions that I wish to ask deal with research and development programmes. Are these being fully utilised? While I accept that the Water Research Centre will remain the major research
746
organisation for the industry, I would suggest that consideration be given to subcontracting appropriate research projects to other appropriate centres of expertise, whether it be another research institute, a university department, a firm of consulting engineers or a water authority. The WRC should know where the best expertise on a particular topic is available, and should commission that individual or organisation to carry out work for the industry or for the Government.
It is also appropriate to point out in reply to the strictures of the Select Committee on the amount of funding provided by the water industry for research that the water industry is a capital intensive industry, and Table 2 indicates that the industry has the smallest return of income per unit of capital expenditure when compared with other public utilities. This must reflect the low cost of the product and service provided by the water industry.
The report discusses the implications of the Wildlife and Countryside Act for regional water authorities, and lays great stress on the need for river corridor work. I do not think that we perhaps gave quite as much time and care to this aspect when we were discussing that Act, then a Bill, in Committee. The river corridors are the rivers themselves and the bankside vegetation, and, as such, form important conservation areas. I am delighted to say that in Wales the importance of these corridors was realised, and in July of last year, on behalf of a number of collaborating organisations, a report entitled Conservation of Wildlife in River Corridors was published. This is not only an interesting publication but an important one as well.
This report described the co-operative work carried out in the catchment of the River Teifi by the University of Wales Institute of Science and Technology, the RSPB, the Outer Haven Project, the Nature Conservancy Council and the Welsh Water Authority. The work was funded principally by the Manpower Services Commission, with Powys County Council administering that funding. This was a very commendable exercise.
The last section of the report of the Select Committee deals with education and training in the industry. Here, again, the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, made a constructive contribution. I think that we must support the recommendations, including the proposal that suitable young staff members should be given the opportunity to undertake post-graduate study. We are, however, living in difficult times, and if leave of absence is required for a year or two then problems may arise, especially as authorities are under pressure to reduce staffing levels at the present time.
Perhaps the Minister will comment on this, because the provision of properly trained staff is essential to the future of the water industry. Is an extension of the day-release system with the addition of intensive courses a possible interim substitute? At least this is worth consideration, and perhaps the Minister may wish to consider it. Finally, may I repeat that the report is a very important document, and ask the Minister whether he will indicate which of its more crucial recommendations the Government will encourage the authorities to implement over the next year or so.
4.23 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I am very happy to add a word to this debate on this interesting report. First, I should like to thank the committee, who were kind enough to invite me to be a member of it for this particular inquiry. I should also like, from my relatively detached position, to congratulate them on choosing this subject for inquiry. I follow the distinguished Leader of the Opposition: distinguished not only for his position now, but, of course, as a Welshman, and therefore knowing more about water than anyone else in the House. As he rightly says, nothing creates greater heat in Wales than water. I can well remember, from my days as chairman of the National Water Council, that whatever water problem we had there was always a Welsh dimension which was different from that in any other part of the country. There was plenty of water in Wales, but there were always some difficulties about getting it across to England—even if it was only paying for it. It was most interesting to hear the noble Lord making such authoritative comments on this valuable report.
From my position of detachment I can congratulate the committee on choosing this subject; and also our noble chairman, Lord Sherfield, on this admirable report—and, I am sure he would agree with me, our superb secretary, who did so much in looking after us during the preparation of the report and in helping to draft it. The reason I would congratulate the committee on the choice of subject of water research is because I think it would be true to say that if you asked the man in the street what he thinks about water research he would say, "Water research? Why do you bother to do that? Water is something you use and throw away when you have used it. What is the point of researching into it?"
Compared with the other great national utilities, like electricity, gas and telecommunications, where it is obvious that research is needed for these highly technological industries, the topic of water research seems an esoteric affair. "Why do you bother to do it?", it is asked. Therefore, it was very discriminating, if I may say so to our noble chairman, to choose this subject, because it is a major problem. As the report reveals, there are some major problems of research which have been highlighted and brought to the attention of my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale.
I am glad that there is this continuity because, as my noble friend Lord Sherfield said, my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale gave us some rather emollient words in general terms rather late at night about what the Government were going to do. Now he has hours and hours in which he can tell us at length and precisely what he is going to do, and we look forward to that with great interest. I should like to mention two major problems in research which are being looked at, and there are many to which my noble friend has referred.
The first one is undoubtedly water purity. In this country we are richly blessed, in a way we do not really fully appreciate, in having, I suppose, the purest, or one of the purest, water supplies in the world. We know that we can drink the water from the tap anywhere in this country with absolute safety. We have enjoyed that blessing not all that long—only for perhaps the last 80 or 90 years—but the horrors of
748
typhoid and cholera were horrors of the last century. You have only to travel around Europe to know that there are not many countries where you can drink from every tap with absolute confidence. Purity of water is a tremendous blessing, and that we have achieved to a splendid degree.
Now water purity is not achieved by accident. It requires constant vigilance to achieve it, and constant research. There are two major elements. First of all there is the inorganic, and then there is the organic, from the environment. Of course, both of these may make direct and indirect contributions. Take the direct contribution first. It is well known to all of us here that there is a great deal of re-use of water that goes into the water supply. For instance, our old friend the River Thames has a big element of re-use in it—up to a third, I should say, in summer months. This means that it has passed through treatment plants higher up the river.
It is of absolute importance that we should know precisely what effluents are going into the river and therefore into the water supply. That means that the effluents from the many industries on the banks—many sophisticated industries on a trading estate like Slough—have to be carefully monitored in order that we may know precisely what is there, so that these effluents can be cleaned up; that is, partially cleaned up before they hit the river and completely cleaned up before they get into the supply. All that requires a great deal of scientific effort to make sure that there is no danger when it reaches human beings. All the time in these technological processes new inorganic problems are coming along.
Then there is the other aspect, the ground water supply. About a third of all our water supply comes from underground, from the aquifers. There is a growing problem, which has been much reported on, of nitrates percolating into the aquifers and getting into the water supply, partially from nitrogenous fertilisers used by farmers in heavier and heavier applications nowadays for good commercial reasons; and probably there are other contributors, too. It is not absolutely known precisely what happens then: how long it takes before these nitrates build up and actually come out in the supply which is pumped out, or precisely what they do in the form of nitrosomes in the human frame. But here is an area where continuous research is needed in order to make sure that the human frame is not endangered by this major contribution to our water supply.
Then, of course, on top of that there are other waterborne viruses coming along which we do not even know about. Some of them come from overseas, with foreigners coming here from Asia and the Middle East. Along they come and their effluents go through the sewage works. The virus may survive and come into the water supply. Here is an area where research has to be absolutely continuous. Very large sums of money have to be spent if we are to be sure that no unknown really dangerous new virus comes along. I will mention one new virus—infective hepatitis.What about that, my Lords? That can pass into the water supply—and, believe me, you can get it very easily abroad. Only continuous research on a large scale protects the assured purity of our water.

749
The other major aspect, of research which has been partially referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, is the problem of the maintenance and, indeed, the repair of the sewerage and water mains systems. As noble Lords will know, there are about a quarter of a million kilometres of each system. That is quite a great length, is it not? The two systems total half a million kilometres. They have to be maintained. Most of them are quite small, but for the big mains the distances are pretty long, especially in the big cities in the North and the Midlands, where the sewerage systems and the water mains are both in a pretty rickety condition.
They desperately need an effective system of inspection and renovation, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, rightly said, techniques are being developed rapidly by the WRC for in-site inspection and in-site renovation, to avoid having to dig the whole thing up. This can be done to some extent very effectively, but much remains to be done. There is another major area of problem which needs further research, both into methods of approach and into methods of structure.
Then, of course, if this has to be dug up and rebuilt, what do we put in its place? Especially in the North and the Midlands where there are problems of subsidence and coal mines, there is an endless problem of how you build major sewers which will be strong enough to stand the test of time when the ground underneath is shifting. So I make the general point that despite its apparent simplicity water has major expensive research problems.
The point was wisely made by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, that for its capital expenditure the water industry is remarkably un-cost-effective. The annual capital expenditure mentioned in the table in the report is £834 million in the year. This in itself underlines that there is a very major expenditure on capital; but that immediately makes the point that if an industry has such a huge capital expenditure it ought to have a major research programme behind it to ensure that its very big expenditure really is cost-effective. Such a research effort does not exist.
When I turn to paragraph 6.33 I see that the report is emphatic that the water industry is not spending enough on research, and this is amply confirmed by the table on page 55, which shows the annual capital expenditure of the other major national utilities—electricity, gas and telecom—compared with the annual capital expenditure on water, and that in these other major national utilities their research expenditure is some 7 to 10 per cent. of capital expenditure, whereas in water it is only about 2 per cent.
So here is a striking disparity in the size of the research capacity behind this enormously important industry. Let me say immediately that the "mini" size of the research effort is no fault of the Water Research Centre—far from it. The present chairman of the WRC and his director work like heroes to strengthen the relationship of the RWAs and to raise sufficient finance. The fault of inadequacy by way of a research programme—and this is the major point in my speech; I have built up the case that research is needed on a large scale—is due to the fact that there is an endemic weakness in the existing structure set up in the 1973
750
Water Act. Instead of placing the responsibility for research squarely on the shoulders of the industry, as happens in all the other great nationalised industries, this strange concept of an independent research centre was invented, mainly dependent for finance on the regional water authorities and the complementary water companies, a diminishing grant from the Department of the Environment and small contributions from other bodies, but all on an entirely permissive basis, none of them a statutory obligation.
When I was first invited to be chairman of the NWC 10 years ago I strongly advised against this structure as being much too frail to support the needs of the industry, but the die was cast. We had to go ahead as it was, but we on the National Water Council worked very hard to get the centre functioning effectively, with disparate bits brought together. We had a strength, of course. The NWC had a statutory responsibility to give advice on research, and this gave us some authority. We appointed an admirable man who was chairman of the Yorkshire Regional Water Authority and who had been an executive director of ICI—he thoroughly understood all about research—as chairman of the management committee, and he did a prodigious job getting bits of research together, surveying what they were doing, redeploying resources to deal with the major problems that we had, and generally making the best of our resources.
Undoubtedly, the work of the WRC became more related to the needs of the industry; but despite this we had a continuous struggle to get the regional water authorities to "up" their annual contributions. The climax was reached when a major water authority refused to pay anything at all, and we had no powers to make them. After a very lengthy arm-twisting process by Ministers themselves, the water authority was finally persuaded to pay up and the crisis was over. That is all convincing evidence that this is a very frail structure, far too frail to provide for the research resources of a major national industry.
In the face of this handicap, the good work of the Water Research Centre, especially in recent years with the present director of research, John Van de Post, has really been first-rate. He succeeded in opening the new engineering research laboratory at Swindon which we all visited and which is making a particularly valuable contribution to these major problems of renewals in water mains and sewers.
So our report makes some cogent recommendations in paragraph 6.37 for strengthening the financial structure of the industry: in particular, to lay on the regional water authorities a statutory responsibility to provide for research, instead of there being a mere permissive power. This is the point. I am bound to say that I hoped, and I think we all hoped, that my noble friend would accept it. However, he felt he could not. The Department of the Environment naturally preferred its own solution—Governments always do—but my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale did give us some encouraging words, as I mentioned earlier. I would suggest that my noble friend has a much stronger obligation now to take effective action in this field because he has abolished the National Water Council, which at least had some power in the matter of a national programme of research, particularly for long-term research, which is so badly needed. He has

751
abolished that, so now the responsibility for the research programme rests squarely on the shoulders of the Secretary of State for the Environment, and therefore on my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale.
So I look forward to hearing what my noble friend has to say on how he is going to provide for increased expenditure on research, which is one of the things he said he would do. I am referring now to the Committee stage, the first day, columns 921 and 922. I am sure they are inscribed on my noble friend's heart in letters of blood by now. I look forward to hearing how my noble friend will provide for long-term research. Therefore, it remains to my noble friend to tell us what structure he is going to set up which will stand the test of time, because, after all, Ministers change and civil servants change. This, to my mind, is the most important aspect of the whole report if out of it the advice the report is giving to my noble friend ensures that for the future there really will be an effective research capacity in the industry to meet the very great needs that fall upon it.
4.41 p.m.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, I share with the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, a certain trepidation in rising to speak in this debate in the company of experts in this field such as the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, who has just spoken and the members of the Select Committee on Science and Technology. It is partly as a result of my membership of the now defunct Select Committee on Unemployment, which reported in May last year, that I came to read the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology on the Water Industry; and I am very glad that I have done so. In addition to its expertise and authority, it is succinct, pithy and eminently readable. But it was not merely for pleasure that I read this report. I did so because I seemed to remember that the unemployment committee had said something about sewage, and indeed it did not take me long to find the relevant passage in that far bulkier report. After warning that investment-led job creation can be very expensive and that projects, whether of a public nature like the Severn Barrage or the Channel Tunnel, or subsidies to private industry such as the De Lorean Car Company or the Invergordon Smelter, should certainly not be undertaken, if at all, on job-creation grounds, we went on to say in paragraph 14.71:
"On the other hand, where there is a good investment case for capital projects or carrying out long deferred maintenance, for example, in housing, sewer renovation, or road maintenance, we consider that extra expenditure now on projects that cannot be indefinitely delayed is justified, in order to realise their job creation potential when jobs are most urgently needed. It is very difficult to give reliable figures on this job-creating potential, but the estimates by Cambridge Econometrics Ltd. for the construction industry are indicative. These suggest that additional Government expenditure of £500 million p.a. on either increased public sector house building and rehabilitation or on increased capital spending on road networks, water and sewerage could create 62–64,000 jobs at a net annual cost of £2,300-£3,400 each. The Government indeed have announced an additional construction programme costing £240 million in the 1982 budget"—
this, of course, was written last year.
"We recommend that this additional programme should be trebled. In contrast to jobs created which add to public services and fill long standing needs, most forms of investment-led job creation, of the kind outlined above, are required for a limited period until a
752
given project is completed. For this reason investment-led job creation can be phased out if, as the economy recovers, pressure in the labour market makes it desirable".
I said it was partly because of my membership of that committee that I came to this Select Committee's report, but there is also another reason, which is that this is one of the major points in the programme of capital investment which forms part of my party's employment programme. In fact, we have specified this in our Green Paper on the subject. We have spoken of a major programme of public works over a five-year period to replace worn-out water and sewerage systems.
This, of course, is to approach the water industry from a different point of view from that of the authors of this report, who have very properly conducted their inquiry to discover whether the industry is taking full advantage of science and technology in the discharge of its functions. At the same time any programme, whether of renewal or replacement or a combination of both, has obvious employment implications, and I set out to discover from the report what these might be.
In Chapter 3 on water distribution and leakage control, I found in paragraph 3.38 that manpower shortages were creating obstacles. One authority which used three leak noise correlators—I must say that I thought these might in fact be persons or individuals when I first read that, but by reading on I discovered that they were instruments—had found 9,000 leaks in a year and employed outside contractors to repair those with which they could not cope themselves, thus providing additional work for the private sector. Another authority used only one noise leak correlator because their workforce could not repair any more leaks than this instrument could locate. Manpower is therefore a significant factor, and in chapter 3.49 the committee writes—and I quote:
"At a time of high unemployment coinciding with a need for labour, it would be opportune to take on additional manpower where this could be justified by long term economic savings and in the Committee's opinion this should be done".
This opinion is the basis for their recommendation in 3.51 (8) that,
"additional manpower should be employed for leakage control".
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, himself who told us that something like one-third of all the water pumped through the system simply disappears into the ground; so this is obviously a matter of some urgency.
Turning to the even more urgent question of sewerage, one discovers from paragraph 4.16:
"As 80 per cent. of sewer construction costs lie in excavation and reinstatement, it is almost invariably cheaper to renovate a sewer by relining it than to replace it altogether."
Therefore, it says in 4.22:
"Most of the water authorities favour renovation whenever suitable".
However, in 4.23 Mr. Donald Rees is reported as saying in evidence:
"It is all very well lining a sewer at half the price that it would cost to build a new one but in fact it may only last a quarter of a normal funding life and may therefore be uneconomic".
Also the Association of Metropolitan Authorities questioned whether it makes economic sense to spread the available money thinly on renovation with perhaps

753
a fairly limited life, or to spend more money on replacements. They and other authorities called for a cost benefit study of the whole problem. On the financial side, we learn from the report that the NWC called for the expenditure of an additional £100 million per year in sewers and water mains, while the manufacturers' interest was strongly upheld by the Concrete Pipe Association, who were concerned—and I quote,
"at the slow response of the Government to the clear need to act on sewer renovation and replacement with sufficient alacrity".
The very revealing graphs on pages 37 and 38 of the committee's report show first the increasing financial cost over time of crisis maintenance (crisis maintenance is simply current practice) and then the even wider gap over time between the cost of the committee's proposed strategy and the total engineering and social costs to the country, including disruption to transport and business, if present policies are pursued. In the opinion of the Committee, it is made clear in 4.43 that,
"the dereliction of the sewers is serious and that action is essential".
They also say in 4.44 that,
"the DoE in particular have adopted a relaxed attitude which accords badly with collapse data".
Paragraph 4.49 warns that,
"the vogue for renovation, spurred on by its short-term cash advantages, must not be accepted uncritically. There are certainly cases where sewers are being renovated for half the cost of replacement and the end result is one third of the life of a new sewer".
Their recommendations therefore call for a sense of urgency in tackling the problem, for additional investment in sewer renovation and renewal, for selective inspection and repair and for greater attention to the manufacturers' need for a sustained programme.
What would be the employment effects of such a programme? It is, of course, impossible to quantify them. But is is quite clear that the committee's proposed strategy involves increased expenditure over the next six to eight years which would obviously be positive in employment terms and would come at a time when jobs will be desperately needed. Though the point is made in the report that disruption through excavation should be avoided where possible—the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, referred to this—it will obviously be necessary in some cases and it is better that it should take place as part of a plan than as an ad hoc response to an emergency.
This would clearly give rise to an additional need for semi-skilled labour in the construction industry. If such labour is drawn from the unemployment register or a redundancy is prevented in the private sector, unemployment costs of about £5,000 a year are avoided; and even if jobs are created in the public sector it is worth drawing the Government's attention to the calculation in paragraph 14.71 of the Unemployment Committee's report that such jobs would have a net annual cost of between £2,300 and £3,400 a year, which is very cheap job creation.
I should therefore like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, when he comes to reply, to say whether he agrees that the pressing public need for sewer renovation, combined with the job creation aspects of this need, make a persuasive case for increased public
754
investment. We are not talking about anything grandiose, like the Severn Barrage or the Channel Tunnel, or anything as dubious as De Lorean or Invergordon. We are talking about the renewal of a vital public service.
We have here two reports from committees of your Lordships' House—one very concrete, very specific and very expert; the other much more wide-ranging and concerned with one of the great social problems of our time. When both coincide in the urgent need for investment in the country's antiquated system of water distribution and sewerage, can the Government really persist in the "relaxed" attitude which the Committee on Science and Technology rightly criticises? This is not, or should not really be, a party matter, so I hope that the Government will see their way to responding positively to this report in the public interest. My party would—and, if called on, will—give high priority to the recommendations contained in this report.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Todd: My Lords, we must all thank the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, for the admirable summary that he gave of this report in opening the debate. We should also thank him even more for the tremendous amount of work that he put into the production of this report, as chairman of the committee which carried out the study. He did a tremendous job there, and I think we would all agree that he has produced a report which is not only well-composed, but is of very considerable importance. As a result of his admirable summary and what other speakers have said, I do not propose to detain your Lordships very long. But I should like just to underline, and perhaps amplify a little, some of the things which the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, said about this problem of sewerage and sewer dereliction.
It is not just a large problem, although it is very large. Many of your Lordships may be as surprised as I was to discover that we have something like 130,000 miles of sewers in this country, and that about 15 per cent. of these sewers are more than 100 years old. So the problem in not only large, but is one which is very important from the standpoint of public health.
Until about 10 years ago, we heard very little about sewers and the problem of sewer dereliction. To some extent, that is because sewers are largely underground or mostly out of sight, and correspondingly out of mind. But during the last 10 years the physical condition of these sewers and the accelerating deterioration have brought the subject of dereliction very forcibly to the attention of the water authorities and, indeed, of the public. Sewer failures are now costing us about £100 million a year to repair, and that is quite apart from secondary costs and social costs of the disturbance which usually accompanies the repair work.
In general of course the problem of sewer dereliction has so far been pursued on the basis of crisis maintenance; that is, you wait until a sewer collapses and then you do something to patch it up. That might be all right; but it has been estimated—and the estimates seem to me to be quite sound—that the number of collapses in sewers that are going to call for maintenance will increase by about three per cent. per annum for the next two or three decades. If this is indeed so, we are not very far from the point where the rate of collapse will exceed our capacity to cope with it.

755
The only answer lies in our starting forthwith with a much enlarged programme of renovation or renewal on a continuing basis. This would involve very large sums of money. I know that in a period of economic recession such as presently exists we must plan our expenditure carefully, and perhaps proceed a little more slowly than we would like. But we simply have to face this problem of sewer dereliction and I think that the committee's call for the expenditure of additional sums rising to about £100 million per annum after five years, to be spent on sewers and water mains, is very far from being extravagant.
This really is a matter of urgency, and in my view it is essential that the Department of the Environment now provide the backing and the money needed by the water authorities to develop adequate programmes of renovation and renewal. The water authorities are all well aware of the urgency of the problem, and are already doing everything possible with the limited resources which they have, so that what is really needed is more money.
The problem of getting money for something like this is perhaps particularly acute in Scotland, where the water authorities—as I think the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos, pointed out this afternoon—are simply the local authorities. The water authorities are not separate; they are part of the regional councils or local authorities. The trouble is that in local authorities a problem like this has to compete with all the other demands on local authority money.
It is generally held that there are "no votes in sewers" and therefore nobody wants anything to do with them. I am not sure that it is correct that there are "no votes in sewers". I think that if nothing is done, there will be a great many "votes in sewers" in a year or two's time. In any case, I would urge these authorities to take matters more seriously than they have done. After all, I do not think that future generations will hold, for example, the present Strathclyde Council in very high esteem if it allows Glasgow's sewers to become derelict, as they surely will do unless vigorous action is taken quite soon, and the longer that action is delayed the more it will cost.
Even given the money that is needed, we should not underestimate the difficulties involved. In many areas, our knowledge of the location, let alone the condition, of our sewers is grossly inadequate. For example, the committee was told by one water authority that it had adequate knowledge of only 8 per cent. of the 22,000 kilometres of sewers in its area, although well over 50 per cent. of them had been built since 1945.
Our problem incidentally is not just with the old sewers. Poor workmanship in the years after the second world war has led to many instances of premature failure in sewers which were laid during that period. An additional trouble has come through frequent failure to supervise adequately the connection of new drains to public sewers. Certainly, there has been sufficient bad work there to have exaggerated the problems very greatly in certain areas.
But it is the old sewers that are really the main headache at the moment and, since these exist mainly in urban areas, the difficulties encountered in dealing with them in the good old-fashioned way are often
756
daunting. However, we should remember that, as a result of research in recent years, there have been some remarkable advances made which show the way ahead very clearly. These are still in the course of development, but they are already in many cases sufficiently advanced for them to be put to practical use. Closed circuit television for inspection, the relining of sewers without new excavations, the removal of obstructions and proper attachment of side drains—these and other operations, all done by remote control, have already made renovation of sewers a very much more practicable proposition than it was, and in a number of cases they have already been employed with considerable success. For these advances we must thank not only the places like our Water Research Centre but also industry.
We should remember that we in this country were the first major exploiters of the industrial revolution. For that reason our sewerage systems are just a bit older than those of the other industrialised countries. The troubles that we have today with our sewers are the troubles which these countries are going to have tomorrow. Here, I believe, is a real opportunity for British industry to capture a very large overseas market. But, if we are to take advantage of it, these firms have got to be given, through evidence of continuity of approach and appropriate contracts, encouragement to keep on and to promote more and more research and development. Money spent by us on developing methods to renew our sewerage system will certainly not be wasted. It will lead in due course to the increased prosperity of our manufacturing industry.
As has been mentioned by several speakers today, the problem of sewer dereliction is not only a live one at present. There is also a great deal of debate as to whether one should go for renovation or renewal. Renovation tends, on the whole, to be favoured because it is much cheaper. But surely we ought to have something like a cost benefit analysis in each case before we decide which of these alternatives we are going to adopt. After all, even if it costs only half as much to renovate as to renew, one must really consider the relative life of a renovated as against a new sewer.
In view of the developments which have occurred recently in research and development, I do not believe that we should overestimate the environmental disturbance that might be attendant upon sewer replacement in urban areas. We all know that at present there is a great deal of disturbance. As it happens, personal experience in Cambridge, where I live, has recently underlined that fact. For several weeks there has been traffic chaos in Cambridge because of two vast excavations in main thoroughfares in the centre of the city. When one sees chaos of that kind one realises the terrible problems which arise if one starts to dig up old sewers, which are mostly in urban, heavily used thoroughfares.
However, I do not believe that that kind of disturbance need be so great as it is. It could be minimised by development and the better use of tunnelling and micro-tunnelling, as opposed to digging holes in streets. I am quite certain that improved methods for that, for underground void detection and also, perhaps, for rapid sewer mapping, using

757
something like infra-red radiation, could all be developed by industry, given adequate encouragement and the realisation by industry that a big market for this kind of thing is going to develop.
This is not the occasion to go further into technical detail, but I hope I have made clear my view that to tackle sewer dereliction is not only a national duty; it provides a real opportunity.
5.4 p.m.
Baroness White: My Lords, as a member of the select committee presided over so admirably by the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, I feel that I should say a few words in support of our report. I need hardly say that in his most lucid exposition the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, has covered all the major points. As he is no longer chairing this particular sub-committee, perhaps I may be permitted to say what a considerable pleasure it has been to work under his chairmanship and also to have the assistance of our excellent clerk and our specialist adviser. In other words, it has been a thoroughly satisfactory committee.
On the whole, we have produced a very satisfactory report, in the sense that I believe we have gone to the heart of matters which are of genuine concern and real practical importance and which should be faced by Government and by the other institutions concerned, as I think they are being, with the genuine intention of doing something about them.
The only thing which is wrong with our report is that we call it the first report on the water industry. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, said about the importance of purity and quality of water, that was not the subject with which we were primarily dealing. We were dealing primarily with the physical infrastructure through which the pure water may be expected to flow.
Coming to this subject as somebody who knew a little about water management, in the sense of water quality, water control and trying to keep in touch with the EEC directives, and so on, I found it quite fascinating to consider the physical equipment which is needed in order to maintain our water supply and our sewerage system. I was very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, mentioned in particular one fact which I found absolutely astonishing. If anybody had asked me 12 months ago what proportion of our water supply, when collected, was unaccounted for and which therefore, in some shape or form, ran to waste, I should have said, at a guess, 6 to 7 per cent. Therefore I was absolutely staggered to learn on good authority—the most recent figures for 1981 have been worked out—that the aproximate proportion is very nearly one-third. The public must be quite ignorant of the proportion of our water supplies which run to waste in one way or another, some of it through our own dripping taps but larger quantities because of leaking pipes, junctions which do not fully fit, and so forth.
There is plainly, therefore, a problem. Nevertheless, one has to keep it in proportion. We as a committee naturally examined the problem and came to the conclusion that there are situations in which it is not cost effective to try to deal with even a known and identified leak. Nature is bound to cause problems in
758
certain parts of the country, including the Principality of Wales. It is not always sensible to spend time and effort upon it, the moment you find a leak. On the other hand, it was encouraging to find that modern technology and particularly pressure control can be used advantageously and relatively economically, not entirely to overcome the problem but to mitigate it to a very considerable degree. This is just one of many areas where a lay person was both interested and encouraged to discover that modern technology is making an enormous difference to the potential for meeting the problem of the growth of supply of water and of the sewerage system.
But there were other areas about which we were less happy. Several of them were dealt with in our discussions on the Water Bill. In some ways the timing of the Bill was slightly unfortunate, in that we were unable to discuss this report before the Bill came before us. It would have been advantageous had the Parliamentary timetable permitted otherwise. It meant that we had an unstructured discussion of the Water Bill, in the sense that certain matters would have fallen much better into place had this debate taken place before the Water Bill came before this House.
One such matter, which was discussed at some length and to which I myself made a contribution, was the dissatisfaction we found among a number of water authorities with their relationship with local authorities over the agency position in relation to sewerage. I was interested to receive—as I believe my fellow members of the committee also received—a letter from the president-elect of the Association of Chief Technical Officers of the Association of District Councils, which is, of course, the body representing local authorities concerned with agency sewerage arrangements.
I do not wish to go over all the arguments that were put during the discussions on the Water Bill but I was glad that we at least managed to galvanise this particular association into making a response, in which they claim that their members are only too anxious to co-operate in using all the most up-to-date technological methods and expressing their willingness to co-operate with the water authorities in this area. I quote from Mr. Wood's letter:
"I would like to reiterate the commitment both I and my members have to securing improvements to our decaying and exhausted sewerage systems, the introduction of new technology and the achievement of capital expenditure".
That is admirable, and if we have done nothing else, we have drawn attention to an area where there has been some genuine difficulty.
Had I not been laid low by influenza last week, I would have moved an amendment at the Third Reading of the Water Bill, to ask the Government exactly what they meant by suggesting that water authorities' sewerage systems, taken as a whole, should be efficient. One would hope that they would be efficient, whether wholly or in part. Unfortunately, I was not able to take advantage of the opportunity which the Third Reading of the Bill would otherwise have offered. But if the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, is able to explain exactly what the Government meant by that phrase—to which I believe

759
the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, referred at an earlier stage—it would be very helpful.
One of the main areas in which our committee was dedicating its efforts was in line with our general commitment, as a Select Committee on Science and Technology, in the direction of research. My two noble colleagues Lord Sherfield and Lord Todd are entitled to speak on such matters with great authority and have done so, and I would only add that there was a general feeling in the committee that, although much of the work being done by the local authorities was admirable—particularly that done by the Water Research Centre—there was a lack of a sense of overall direction. That is why I was particularly interested to receive, again in common with all the other members of the Select Committee and possibly with other Members of your Lordships' House, the immediate reactions of the National Environment Research Council and the Science and Engineering Research Council on some of the comments made in the Select Committee.
Again, it is gratifying to find that, within a very short space of time following the publication of the report, these bodies—as with the local authorities—have felt it important that they should take note of the recommendations of the Select Committee. It is quite clear from the comments of these two research councils that they too are concerned, about both the amount of support that has been going into research in those areas and its strategic direction. In fact, it is made quite clear that there has been a reduction of Government support for strategic research in these areas and this, in the opinion of the research councils, has resulted in major gaps in the programme, which is aimed at providing a link between basic and applied research.
It is also clear that the research councils share the general view of the Select Committee that there is need for a strategic oversight on research in these areas. The National Water Council is shortly to be dissolved. I believe it would appear to everyone that the department itself must take a much livelier responsibility than it has done in the very recent past. If it does not do so, then where is the strategic direction to come from? I hope very much that the Minister will address himself to this matter because we in the Select Committee felt that the department had withdrawn from any urgent sense of responsibility for strategic oversight in this particular area.
We are all concerned also with the very important aspect of education and training of the professional staff engaged in an area where so many new techniques are being developed—some of them, with considerable rapidity. Many of us were not entirely convinced that training—particularly of the older generation of engineers concerned in this matter—was broad enough to give them an adequate basis for directing activities where some of the new technology would be of particular value. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to say something about the need for updating and invigorating the training and experience of the professionals involved—particularly on the civil engineering, water engineering and production engineering sides. I believe that at the Water Research Centre there is a very keen interest in this, but it does
760
mean that the water authorities—and in some instances, local authorities—must themselves take advantage of this and be in a position to do so, and to encourage their staff to do so. They must also keep in touch with the university research work which is continuing.
Finally, I am very glad that my noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos referred to the recommendation in the report concerning the environmental consequences of some of the work that is done under the direction of water authorities—not least, the land drainage authorities. I see that for this purpose at least my noble friend Lord Cranbrook is to speak after me, and he is much more of an expert than I am on these matters. As my noble friend Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos said, the report drew attention to the need to take seriously the enlarged responsibilities of the water authorities under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.
As I mentioned when discussing some of these matters during the progress of the Water Bill, I had an opportunity of discussing this particular aspect of their responsibilities with the Welsh water authorities and they were in some doubt as to precisely how far they were entitled to use their resources in terms of manpower and finance for the purposes of these enhanced responsibilities under the Wildlife and Countryside Act. Some of us pointed out that by enhancing the authorities' statutory responsibilities, presumably Parliament intended also that they should devote some resources to them. I hope that my noble friend Lord Cranbrook will enlarge upon this aspect because it is not only in the Principality—although we have been pioneers in this respect—that these matters are of interest.
I am sure that all of us who worked on the Select Committee are glad to find that our report has been generally welcomed. We now hope that we shall have assurances that the means to implement our recommendations will be forthcoming from Her Majesty's Government.
5.20 p.m.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, following on the lead very kindly given to me in her admirably interesting and reflective contribution by the noble Baroness, Lady White, I think it is perhaps right that I should take this opportunity to expand somewhat on the one theme in which she and I share a very strong interest—that is to say, environmental issues. Although, as has been remarked by noble Lords who have spoken earlier, the terms of reference of this inquiry were very broad indeed, in fact attention was concentrated particularly on the engineering activities of water authorities, and this approach is reflected, as the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, has indicated, in the topics chosen as the main subject headings of the six chapters.
One consequence of this approach is that any reader will find that environmental issues are not conveniently grouped in a single section of the text, but are treated in different parts of the report wherever environmental considerations impinge on other aspects of the activities of the water authorities. Nonetheless, the report recognises very firmly the overall significance of the environmental impact of

761
those activities of the water authorities in every phase, as is stressed in paragraph 1.11. I hope your Lordships will find it useful if I discuss briefly certain important environmental issues relevant to the Select Committee's report.
First of all, I want to follow the noble Baroness, Lady White, in emphasising the Select Committee's view on the overall co-ordination of long-term strategic research in the environmental field as much as any other. This point has already been made by the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, during the Second Reading of the Water Bill and in amendments moved at Committee stage. That is to say, it was clear to the sub-committee that there is a need for a centralised review of strategic research priorities. It seemed to the sub-committee that the operational responsibilities of water authorities inevitably focus their attention on shorter-term research subjects. In my view, it is not reasonable to expect the water authorities, or even the Water Research Council, to provide the forum for the broader context of strategic research planning. This must be the duty of the Department of the Environment, in consultation with the water industry and the research councils, and with academics whose research subjects fall into this field. To this end, in chapter 6.35 the Select Committee call on the Science and Engineering Research Council and the Natural Environment Research Council—incidentally, perhaps I should mention that I am a member of the latter council—to create an effective liaison involving also academic scientists and engineers and the water industry in its widest sense.
As the noble Baroness has mentioned, and as my noble friend on the Front Bench doubtless already knows, these meetings have taken place, and SERC and NERC, to use the acronyms, have submitted a joint paper, copied to the Department of the Environment, as a direct response to the Select Committee's report. I look to my noble friend for assurances that he recognises the links that already existed between the two research councils and that he welcomes the strengthening of the relationship in this instance, and I hope will seek to integrate Department of the Environment participation at a high level into future meetings of this nature.
Chapter 2 of the report discusses water storage and emphasises the environmental objections to any large new inland surface reservoir which were touched upon by the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, in his speech. One solution to this problem is to combine a number of sources of water in an integrated scheme. The Select Committee visited the North West Water Authority and were impressed by the excellent example of the managed use of different water sources in the Lune Conjunctive Scheme. It is likely that future developments elsewhere will also follow this scheme in taking advantage of the potential for underground water storage that appears to exist in natural geological formations in many parts of Britain. Paragraphs 2.31 to 2.35 discuss the associated research topics.
There exists a most important source of basic data on regional hydrogeology, including information on the quantity and quality of natural groundwaters. This is contained in the National Well Record Collection. This is an archive maintained by the Institute of Geological Sciences. The IGS bears a statutory duty to
762
record details of all new wells. These details have to be provided by the well sinker under statute. The IGS has also actively gathered information about the enormous number of existing wells throughout the country, some of extreme antiquity, and has so provided a unique centralised collection of valuable data for groundwater research. Because the Department of the Environment has, over successive years, first run down and now, I believe, completely withdrawn financial support, the Well Record is currently maintained by NERC at the minimum level of activity. In view of the likely emergence of underground water storage as a favoured technique in conjunctive schemes, such as Lune, this I believe is a short-sighted economy. I ask my noble friend to urge his right honourable friend the Secretary of State to restore in full the departmental support for the National Well Record Collection wherever it happens to be sited.
Another option, briefly mentioned in the report at paragraph 2.16, is estuarine storage. As the Select Committee observed, this is unlikely to be adopted as a viable scheme on its own, but on reflection I myself do believe that it might prove valuable in multiple use water storage schemes. For instance, information which has kindly been supplied to me by the GLC leads me to believe that, although at the time there were strong overriding counter indications, if, at the time when the Thames barrier was originally being thought of and the design formulated, this option had been given a degree of priority, we could possibly now have not only protection from the very rare hazard of tidal flooding but also a hugely valuable resource for daily use in the form of a high-level freshwater Thames running through London. If other barriers elsewhere ever come under consideration, I believe it is important that design research should be directed towards the maximum number of compatible uses.
Where existing inland water sources are concerned, multiple uses are already commonplace. These include water sports, fisheries and wildlife protection. Several important environmental aspects still require research. These include continuing studies of basic biology of different fish species, especially in relation to water quality and to variations in water flow. The critical period in the year for aquatic life is, of course, the summer season, when temperatures are high and water flow is at its lowest. Research is needed also into factors affecting animal life under these conditions. More needs to be known about the associated cycles of algal growth, which can become a serious nuisance in the summer. There are opportunities for improvement in the design and management of reservoirs which would help to lower the cost of manipulating the activity of aquatic plant and animal life at critical seasons.
Paragraphs 6.23 and 6.26 of the report deal with the statutory responsibility imposed by the Wildlife and Countryside Act on water authorities,
"so as to exercise their function … as to further the conservation and enhancement of natural beauty and the conservation of flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest".
This point has been repeatedly stressed in amendments and in debates on amendments during the passage of the Water Bill through your Lordships' House.

763
However, in order to fulfill these statutory obligations, knowledge must be acquired at least at two levels of research. First, there are the basic studies which are suitable for research institutes or university research teams. I would include in this category the long-term environmental and hydrological effects of water abstraction, the effects of land drainage schemes and the effects of changes in the plant cover of catchment areas, such as the afforestation schemes which were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos.
At the second level, the lower level perhaps, there is the practical applied investigation of the distribution and vulnerability of features such as areas of high landscape value, rare or protected plants or animals and relevant geological or physiographical features. Some indication of the cost of carrying out adequately, on the ground, a full ecological assessment was given to the Select Committee by the Thames Water Authority in relation to one land drainage scheme in the valley of the River Stort in Hertfordshire. The cost was estimated at between £20,000 and £25,000.
At present, we in England, I assure those noble Lords who are of Welsh extraction, can do it, too. As the Suffolk Trust for Nature Conservation indicated in its evidence, the County Naturalists' Trusts and other voluntary amenity societies are shouldering the main burden of an enormous labour which is properly the duty of water authorities. In Suffolk, in fact, the membership of the county naturalist trust is about equal to 1 per cent. of the county population. In my view it is unfair that this small fraction of the community should carry the burden when the entire population of the county, or indeed of a wider area, ultimately enjoys the benefits.
It follows that to meet their obligations under the Wildlife and Countryside Act, water authorities collectively, through the appropriate institutes, should commission the basic research that needs to be done. In addition, each authority must also ensure that it employs sufficient staff with appropriate training and expertise in field studies to carry out environmental impact assessments of major projects.
The Natural Environment Research Council has estimated, in the papers circulated to the Select Committee, that the cost of fundamental research in environmental subjects needed now by the water industry is of the order of £2 million per annum. My own rough guess at the extra salaries and overheads needed now to fulfil the statutory obligations to conserve wildlife and the natural environment might be about £100,000 per authority each year. In relation to the costs of sewer renewal, these sums are small, I also believe that, in relation to the value of the irreplaceable environmental resources at risk, these sums are small and that the money should be found.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Adrian: My Lords, I was privileged to be a member of your Lordships' Select Committee and to take part in its work. I add my tribute yet again to the skills and wisdom of our chairman the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield. It was a thoroughly enjoyable experience and I learnt a very great deal about an important and, to a great extent, hidden subject.
764
We have taken our sewers and our water mains too long for granted and we are now finding out how many distressing ways they have of making their presence and their derelict state felt. I do not suppose that John Simon's great reports on the sanitary state of the City of London are widely read nowadays. They should be. They date from 130 years ago, in the middle of the last century, when cholera was only the worst of the very many epidemic diseases common in London and when London's drainage and water supply were wholly inadequate. At the time they received enormous interest and great publicity. They were printed in full in The Times, which I regret is more than our own report received. They gave urgency and impetus to providing clean water for the City and to completing the sewers. We need to renew that sense of urgency today, for without maintenance and renewal of the country's sewers and water mains, public health will surely suffer.
I know that water quality was not our most urgent topic and I must plead my own medical bias as an excuse for mentioning it. I make only two points. First, I was struck by the very wide differences in the application of technical advances in different authorities. Making, I hope all due allowance for the different resources and the different problems faced by each authority, it seemed that some authorities more readily see the advantages of technical advances and some authorities more readily see the disadvantages. The result is a wide variation across the country in the technical up-to-dateness of the water undertakings. I am sure that much of this stems from the friction which inevitably attends the exchange of ideas between large autonomous undertakings.
I find it difficult to judge how far the various joint councils, the National Water Council—now to be suppressed—and the Water Research Centre have in the past succeeded in overcoming this difficulty. I am sure that the situation is, in fact, much better than before 1973, but I cannot help feeling that there is some further room for improvement. In this connection, it was good to receive the assurance from the Association of Chief Technical Officers, which has already been referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady White.
My second point concerns research in the water industry. The noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, has dealt with this point already and I shall be brief. It is certainly immensely important to identify short-term applied problems which require a solution. It may be difficult and expensive to find solutions and the problem is mainly one of resource allocation. Within existing resources we were certainly impressed by the progress of the work at the Water Research Centre. The work, as has been described, mainly concerns the many engineering problems of the renewal of water mains and sewers. It is plain that these are seen as common problems for the water authorities, to which they now appear glad to contribute jointly.
But there are other, strategic problems which concern the wider acquatic environment—hydraulics, drainage, the environmental impact of water schemes on other land users and work on the water cycle—which will anticipate future problems. All these at the moment, although they do not lack advocates,

765
seem to lack anyone who sees them as their special responsibility. Therefore, they lack adequate resources.
The Science and Engineering Research Council, in the document already referred to, states that it has a programme of research in hydraulics and drainage, safety of reservoirs and geotechnical studies relating to underground systems. It also has new initiatives in pollution and public health engineering and in the repair, maintenance and operation of sewage. These they are co-ordinating with the Water Research Centre, but they say that the scope of these programmes will be heavily dependent on the extent to which additional funding can be made available.
The Natural Environment Research Council says that there is a need for an additional £2 million per annum to fill gaps in forward-looking research in hydrological and environmental fields. But, although it is widely admitted that these needs exist, the research councils, the water authorities and the Department of the Environment all imply that the responsibility for finding the money does not lie with them. The noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, has already referred to this situation in much more detail than I can. It is a wholly unsatisfactory situation and should not be allowed to persist. It is a damaging one, because it means that the water industry will once again be forced into crisis management, just as it has been forced to do with sewer repair. In the long run it is less expensive to anticipate problems by acquiring knowledge than to finance crash programmes of applied research to repair years of neglect.
We may have learnt just in time how to prop up our sewers, but that should not make us feel with any confidence that we could, for instance, reverse heavy metal pollution of our ground waters if we let it, by inadvertence, occur. No doubt in the past we neglected the bricks and mortar and iron pipes, but that is no reason for now neglecting to find out how best we can conserve and care for our water resources. It seems logical that the Department of the Environment should shoulder the co-ordinating role in these essentially environmental problems. It would be very good to learn that the apparent void at the centre, which was indentified by the Select Committee, is indeed to be filled.
5.42 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, unlike quite a number of earlier speakers, I was not a member of the Select Committee. I think I can therefore congratulate the committee on its work and on the excellence and expertness of the report without any hint of self-congratulation. The report owed a great deal, I think, to the expertise of the members of the committee, to the work of its clerk and also in no small measure to the support given by its expert adviser, Professor Isaac of Newcastle University. I think that we should place that on record here as well as in the report itself.
Before I take up the four points which I hope to deal with briefly, let me say that I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Cranbrook, who spoke a few moments ago, and also disagree with him in the same breath, if a Scotsman can do such an Irish-like thing. I strongly
766
agree with what he said in general terms about the future use of estuarine water resources, but I am afraid that I cannot go with him in supporting what I think is the over-enthusiastic advice that he was given from the Greater London Council in respect of the Thames and the possibilities of what might have been done in regard to the Thames Barrier. I say this because I was concerned in the engineering of the Thames Barrier right at the very beginning, in the mid-1950s. We thought of things of that nature, but to have produced an estuarine water solution in the Thames and a barrier to deal with floods and to cope with up and down river traffic flow was not, I think, very likely.
The Earl of Cranbrook: My Lords, I should be misleading the noble Lord and your Lordships' House if I left any impression that the Greater London Council was in any way enthusiastic for the scheme. It was my enthusiasm and interest in it. I was given a very clear briefing on all the reasons why it was perfectly impossible at the time that the planning took place.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I am not sure that we thought anything was impossible in those days, but perhaps it was not quite the thing to go for. I think that the future of estuarine water might lie not in the Thames but in obvious places which have been examined before, like the Wash, Morecambe Bay and perhaps the Solway. I certainly hope that these possibilities for water supply will not be forgotten or overlooked.
I now want to turn to those aspects of the report which have interested me most. The major one was the recommendation of the committee that the Reservoirs Act 1975 should not be permitted to lie upon the statute book unimplemented. In his interesting introductory remarks today, Lord Sherfield touched upon this matter but did not go into it in any detail. I think I should like to touch on it rather more heavily than he did. The committee recommended that the Act should not remain unimplemented and suggested that certain of its provisions should be brought into operation fairly rapidly. They suggested that the Water Bill, which fortuitously was passing through the House at the appropriate time a few weeks ago, was the best occasion for bringing this about. In the course of our debates, amendments were put down along these lines. To our great joy and no little surprise, the Government undertook during the Committee stage to implement the 1975 Act. That was something in the nature of a U-turn. I do not cavil at that in any way. I rejoice in U-turns when they are brought about for a good reason, as this one undoubtedly was. The Government have undertaken to meet the recommendation of the committee, but, as I understand it, by instalments, and that is really what I want to talk about today.
Since the Committee stage, I have received a letter from the Minister, Lord Skelmersdale. It is a very nice letter. In it he says the following:
"The phased implementation of the Reservoirs Act 1975 and the orderly transition from the provisions of the Reservoirs (Safety Provisions) Act 1930 require careful consideration of the overall programme and detailed provisions".
He goes on to say that discussions are being held and suggests that they will require wider consultation and the issue of a circular. The letter then goes on:

767
"It is thus too early to set out a detailed timetable but, as already announced, it is the Government's intention to give priority to those provisions which require the enforcement authorities to compile a register of reservoirs in their areas and other aspects that give an early contribution to safety".
So far so good, but I think we should refer back to what the Select Committee actually recommended in its report. The recommendation states:
"so much of the Reservoirs Act 1975 … should be implemented forthwith"—
I emphasise the word "forthwith"—
"to provide the following for large raised reservoirs

(a) supervision

(b) independent inspection

(c) the effective enforcement of safety measures

(d) safety precautions in the case of discontinuance or abandonment".

These recommendations of the Select Committee seem to me to go rather further than the Government have intimated in their letter to me, unless the words in the letter, "other aspects", can be held to include such things as are asked for by the committee. I sincerely hope that they can.
But let me say what I think the major priorities ought to be. I believe that priority ought speedily to be given to Sections 6 and 7 of the 1975 Act, which among other things define certificates of construction and go on to say:
"the reservoir shall be under the supervision of the construction engineer until he gives his final certificate for the reservoir".
That is very important, because the 1966 Institution of Civil Engineers report from which the 1975 Act initially sprung, in criticising the 1930 Act, stated:
"it is significant from a study of the record of slide failures suffered by earth dams in all parts of the world that a quarter of these failures occurred during the first year after construction, a quarter during the next four years, and the rest fairly uniformly over the next 35 years".
It is extremely important that arrangements should be made speedily to ensure that the inspection and control of dams in the early years of their lives, immediately after construction, is brought into operation right away. That was one of the weaknesses of the 1930 Act, and it was one of the more important strengthenings which appeared in the 1970 Act. I hope that the Minister will be able to turn these matters over in his mind. He need not reply to me at the end of the debate, but I hope that he thinks about these matters in the coming weeks.
I should like to mention one other point about the Water Bill, and I do so with a certain degree of regret. During consideration of Clause 5, which relates to guidelines and other matters under which the water authorities would be empowered or permitted to work overseas, we had a very considerable discussion, largely led from the Liberal Front Bench by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, and supported from the Conservative Back-Benches by the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein. Those noble Lords and others asked that the guidelines should be inserted in the Bill; and the Government said, "No". In the end we yielded to that, with considerable disappointment.
Our disappointment was compounded when, at the later stages of the Bill, during the interesting debates on Clause 7, which deals with consumer matters, the Government eventually decided that the guidelines in that part of the Bill should not in fact be included in it,
768
but should come before Parliament. I am left with a strong feeling that what was sauce for the goose ought to have been sauce for the gander; not, let it be said, that the consumer as well as the water authorities should have been excluded, but that both of them should have been included in some way. Perhaps it is now too late for that to be done, since the Bill has passed through our procedures; but I speak at this moment merely to place on record my regret that the same procedure was not followed on both occasions.
Another point that I wish to take up, very briefly, was raised and commented upon by the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield. It is the use of water meters in assessing charges for water. This is by no means a new subject; I can recall being involved in debates upon it over at least the last 20 years. I shall tackle the matter from a much more domestic aspect, a much more painful aspect, than the aspect from which the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, approached it. He mentioned a recent symposium at the Institution of Civil Engineers which dealt with various matters relating to the water industry, including the subject of today's debate. In the course of the discussion one of the speakers, who is an official of the Severn-Trent Water Authority, remarked that the average household pays
"something around 20p a day for a 24 hour service, not only of water supply in, but taking foul water away, and dealing with prolonged rainfall on roofs, the yard outside and the highway, plus a variety of environmental services".
I heard that being said, and I found it a very reassuring remark until, by coincidence, on the very same day I received my water rate demand from the Thames Valley Water Authority, and I discovered that for these services I was being asked to pay not 20p a day, but something in excess of 70p a day. I know the egalitarian theory which lies behind this mode of charging for water, and I do not in essence object to it; but I must confess that when I pay my water bill I rather object to paying three-and-a-half times the average. I should be perfectly happy to pay the average, and to pay twice the average might be painful, but permissible. But three-and-a-half times the average seems to me to be rather much.
A system of paying for water (which is a commodity like electricity or gas) which seemed appropriate under a certain egalitarian theory, at a certain time, now seems to me to have got out of sync. It is now time to give very serious consideration to the introduction of metering for water, not only for me but for everyone else, just as we meter electricity and gas. I believe that the disparity in payment has now become too wide for things to be left as they are.
The last point that I want to mention arises from the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady White, when she referred to training. In the same symposium to which the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, referred, one of the speakers, who is one of the training officers of the Institution of Civil Engineers, drew attention to the number of young engineers taken into the water industry in England and Wales from the beginning of the water industry in 1974—that is, the water industry as we now know it—up to the present time. He said:
"It is clear that from a level of somewhere round about 40 or 50, which I believe is the level required for simple replacement of civil engineers in the industry, we have now declined to a point where last year only three graduates were taken on under agreement in the whole water industry in England and Wales, and this year only one so far".

769
That is to some extent a reflection of the decline in construction work which has afflicted the water industry, just as it has afflicted so much of the rest of the construction industry. It gives rise to what will be a very serious situation in the not too distant future. If the replenishment of the engineering resource in the water industry requires 40 or so young engineers a year, and we are now down to bringing in a handful—three last year, and only one so far this year—that is a very serious situation which in the future will give rise to problems which might well be unsurmountable.
5.58 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Hadfield: My Lords, I should like to speak on the section of the excellent report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology, entitled The Water Industry, which deals with sewers. Your Lordships have had a splendid and very wide-ranging debate, and I shall be brief. First, I wish to declare my interest as a shareholder in, and president, founder, and director of, Taylor Woodrow PLC. This company is interested in repairing sewers, and sewerage work of that type, as indeed are many other contractors, too. Secondly, I should like to declare my interest in free enterprise which, in my humble opinion, enables the people of this country to have the best possible standard of living, and is responsible for 90 per cent. of our exports.
The noble Lord, Lord Todd, gave a figure of 130,000 miles of sewers in our country; I have a figure of 140,000. We are not very far apart, and whichever figure is correct, nevertheless the length of sewers is very considerable. Some sewers in our country, where the stone was suitable, were simply drilled through the stone and never lined. There is no doubt that many of our sewers are in a very dangerous state and require immediate attention.
The report is excellent. It highlights the urgent need for attention but it is sad that it had to be written at all. It does not tell a new story. It is, in fact, the latest in a series of reports warning successive Governments of the increasing urgency and the serious nature of our sewers. A duty is laid down for the water authority to try and appoint agencies for work to be done. I propose that the best, the quickest and the least expensive method would be to appoint reliable, competent and financially sound private contractors on a fixed price contract. Two or three contractors would be invited to state the methods that they would use, and their specifications, for carrying out repairs, maintenance or preventive maintenance of sewers in need of attention.
This method of using contractors throughout the country would speed up the execution of essential and urgent repairs. It would call upon an enormous amount of knowledge and expertise that exists among contractors. It would avoid the water authority or the local authority having to recruit more employees. It would also spread the work so that a small section of employees could not hold the water authority to ransom, as was experienced recently.
I should like to refer to the system of financing in the United States. The state governments authorise five-and ten-year low interest bonds with taxation concessions. In this case, they would have a charge on the
770
extent of sewer for which the bond had been issued. In some sections the private contractors would be prepared to provide the finance. An enormous amount of private money is available. I am sure that this would be a good and efficient method of financing. In closing, I thank and congratulate the Science and Technology Committee on an excellent report.
6.3 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, we have listened to a stimulating debate. It is a tribute to the excellence of the report that 10 noble Lords should have been moved to speak. Half of them, I think I am right in saying, are members of the Select Committee, while one, my noble friend Lord Nugent—I think that I paraphrase him accurately—said that he was semi-detached. In this connection, if the definition of an expert really is a drip under pressure, then the last time we discussed this subject, I was halfway there.
I am confident that the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, who so ably chairs the Select Committee, will be as gratified as are the Government that this has been a constructive debate even if it has concentrated on sewerage and water mains which relate to only a part of the Select Committee report. Before responding to the report I should like to make a general observation to Lord Cledwyn, who posed a fundamental question about the objectives of the water industry. His question was: is it a business or a public service? The noble Lord knows as well as I do that this is extremely difficult to answer. However, in the objective statement, recently agreed between Ministers and chairmen, it is indicated that authorities, consistent with their statutory duties, should conduct their operations in a businesslike fashion to achieve a satisfactory balance between the quality of the various services that they provide and the cost borne by their customers as a result.
Another general subject that the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, raised was that of planning. The Government recognise that land use planning is a subject that will arouse, and has done, continued public discussion not just in regard to the water industry but in agriculture, roads, wildlife and practically any subject that we can mention. I understand that your Lordships' Select Committee on the EEC will devote a little time to this matter in the near future. The Government will await its report with great interest.
As we have heard this afternoon, the committee discussed four main subjects in its report. It discussed first in chapter 2 water demand and the ways in which this can be met and/or constrained. Next, your committee considered, mainly in chapters 3 and 4, the technology of water supply and of sewerage, the scope for technological advance and the requirement for investment both in the renewal of the existing physical capital and in the improvement of performance through the most modern techniques of analysis instrumentation and control. Thirdly, chapter 5 of the report deals with the safety of reservoirs. Fourthly, your committee devoted considerable attention in chapter 6 to the organisation and funding of research. That is not an exhaustive list of the matters discussed in the report, but I hope that it identifies the major topics.

771
Your Lordships will recall from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Howie of Troon, that the Government have already made commitments in response to this report on the safety of reservoirs. In the Committee debate on the Water Bill, speaking for the Government on 8th March, I said that we had decided that the time had come to move forward from the Reservoirs (Safety Provisions) Act 1930, the legislation in force for requiring owners of reservoirs to attend to their safety, and now intended to bring into effect the Reservoirs Act 1975 with its stronger and more effective requirements in order more fully to achieve the same purpose.
I am not going to become involved in the subject of U-turns, S-bends or even Z-bends because it would not be appropriate. I should, however, like to say a few words about the background. There are thought to be about 2,000 or so reservoirs in Great Britain that come within the scope of the 1930 Reservoirs Act. From the results of a survey addressed to district councils by the Department of the Environment last year, it is apparent that two out of every three reservoirs recorded by district councils are satisfactorily documented. Many of these are owned by substantial organisations and public bodies and there is little concern about their safety.
However, for about one-third of the reservoirs known to exist, some 600 in all, either it was not known if there was documentation under the 1930 Act or the owners were unknown. As a very rough estimate, there are thought to be some 200 additional reservoirs of which the district councils have no record. It is these two groups of reservoirs, possibly some 800 in all, probably all over 100 years old and not recently, or possibly never, inspected, which give cause for concern.
For these reasons, the Government accept that the Reservoirs Act 1930, with powers but insufficient duties, is not adequate for the supervision of the reservoirs of this country. The Government have decided to follow the Select Committee's recommendation and to implement the Reservoirs Act 1975. This will ensure for reservoirs, the necessary supervision, independent inspection, effective enforcement of safety measures and the use of safety precautions where a reservoir is discontinued or abandoned, that were recommended by the Select Committee.
While it is the Government's intention that the Act should be implemented as soon as possible, your Lordships will appreciate that legislation of this nature affecting both public bodies and private citizens, as reservoir owners, needs careful consultation so that a complex piece of legislation can be activated in a logical manner and that all are aware of their powers and duties and obligations and are able to meet them.
It is therefore the Government's intention to consult representatives of those affected on the timetable for implementation. Nothing I say now should be taken as prejudging the outcome of those discussions. But I can say that most of the provisions should come into effect on 1st April 1984 and that the fewest possible will be left until no later than 1st April 1985 before they are brought into effect. However, it is to be hoped that those owners who have not had their reservoirs
772
inspected within the period prescribed within the 1930 Act, will not delay in complying with the existing legislation. Implementation at an early date of emergency powers under Section 16 of the 1975 Act should ensure that powers to avert danger are available if necessary to county councils.
No one listening to my noble friend Lord Nugent could doubt the value of research in the water industry. At the Committee stage of the Water Bill I informed your Lordships that the Government accepted the responsibility for the existence of a long-term research strategy. Before the abolition of the National Water Council under the Water Bill, which your Lordships finally despatched after 24 hours of debate—was it only that long? it seemed much, much longer—it was the National Water Council's duty:
"to promote and assist the efficient performance by water authorities of their functions, and in particular their functions relating to research'.
I positively agree with the noble Baroness, Lady White. With the abolition of the NWC, the department must equip itself to take a view of the adequacy of the industry research and the strategic issues for which research activity is timely and requisite. I regret that I am not in a position today to tell the House how we will do this, but do it we must and I promise that we will inform the House in due course.
In the debate on the Water Bill, I said that we accepted the Select Committee's recommendation that each water authority should include in its annual report an account of the research it has carried out. I also told the House that we believe the position of the Water Research Centre to be assured without recourse to legislation to make it compulsory for water authorities to be members. Adequate legislation already exists to maintain the current membership of all water authorities should its use ever be necessary. I was also able to say that the Government accept that there are requirements for research indicated in the Select Committee report which will require a higher level of spending on research.
The noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, asked if research and development programmes are being fully utilised. An increasing and demanding effort on the part of the Water Research Centre is being devoted to the implementation of the results of its research, even to the extent, on occasion, of inhibiting progress on new research. This is an issue of great concern to the Water Research Centre Council, which is considering it closely as it develops a further five-year strategy.
On the subject of research, noble Lords were concerned about the Natural Environment Research Council and its liaison with the water industry. The Government are satisfied that the council has arranged effective liaison which will be of benefit to the water research effort. My department will organise a meeting to which the Nature Conservancy Council and the water authorities will be invited, along with other organisations, which could include the Water Research Council and NERC, to develop a common approach to the carrying out of surveys and to agree funding arrangements. It may be necessary for this group to meet annually to monitor progress, as it is expected that the survey work will take several years to complete.
I turn now—
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, before my noble friend leaves the topic of research, may I raise a matter? I noted carefully that he said that he cannot tell us how he is going to implement his undertakings that more will be spent on research and that long term strategic research should be more adequately coped with. I remind him that he told us that two months ago. Therefore, his department has had two months in which to think the matter out. If he cannot tell us the structure and what the arrangements will be in order to carry out these undertakings, I think that he should tell us today when he will be able to give us a statement on this matter.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, my noble friend is pre-empting me a little on further remarks that I intend to make in my speech. I shall return to that point a little later on, if I may.
I was going to turn immediately to the questions of technology and investment in infrastructure raised by the committee. Although we enjoy excellent water services, it is not surprising that in systems laid down in Victorian times deficiencies are to be found both in the fabric and the conception of those systems. Recognition of these deficiencies within the water industry led in 1979 to a major shift of strategy at the Water Research Centre, which, by the creation of the engineering laboratory at Swindon—of which we have heard mention this evening—gave new emphasis to the technology of sewers and water mains and made way for the great adoption of instrumentation, control and automation of operations.
Your Lordships called for more investment in water services and especially in sewer renovation and renewal. My noble friend Lord Taylor of Hadfield gave his own particular gloss to this and I shall read most carefully what he has said. The Water Act 1973 places upon water authorities the responsibility to survey their areas and produce plans for capital investment. The water authorities are in the best position to assess need and to develop programmes, whether for new works to meet new demands or for renewal or replacement of existing assets. But I can tell your Lordships that the Government have been very concerned about the problems of dilapidated sewers which exist in some parts of our older towns and the more widespread problem of deteriorating water mains. We have supported the work of the Water Research Centre. And we have taken full account of the identified needs in our public expenditure decisions. Over the last three years, allocations have been more than sufficient to meet total expenditure. In the North-West particularly we have consistently encouraged the water authority to achieve increases in the level of investment, both to deal with underground dereliction and to clean up the Mersey. An additional allocation was made in 1981–82 for these purposes.
When my department gave evidence to the Select Committee a year ago, we pointed out that water authority allocations were not being fully spent. I am pleased to say that remedial action has been taken so that, although final figures are not yet available, the indications are that expenditure in 1982–83 was close to the cash allocation and, because inflation was less than predicted, the volume of construction may actually have exceeded that programmed in most areas.
774
The needs for manpower for leakage control are best determined by each water authority and water company themselves. While Government policy has been, and continues to be, to effect a reduction in overall manpower consistent with efficiency, where any undertaker has taken all steps possible internally to recruit and retain existing employees in control techniques, then any shortfall in requirement must be met either by outside recruitment or by contracting out. The Government consider that manpower implications must not deter undertakers from applying the measures recommended in paragraph 26.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that subject, I should like to raise a point. I am extremely grateful to him for the helpful way in which he is dealing with the entire problem. He will have heard noble Lords on all sides of the House say that the replacement of dilapidated sewers is a matter of extreme urgency. Is he now saying on behalf of the Government that the Government are prepared to provide additional resources to the water authorities and to local authorities to enable new schemes of replacement to be undertaken immediately?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am about to say that they have. The noble Lord is also pre-empting me. I shall reach that point later. Specifically on sewers, as a result of the Water Research Centre's work, water authorities are moving towards a strategy which concentrates upon those places where the risk of failure is high and the consequences of failure are greatest. The strategy will take some time to develop fully as it depends upon the progress of survey work, but that will not prevent water authorities from continuing to make repairs and renovate or renew sewers in the normal way, as they have done in the past. We shall be discussing their annual plans with them shortly and will be looking at this aspect of their plans particularly closely. We shall urge a vigorous approach, and we shall continue to seek to ensure that our public expenditure decisions make available sufficient external finance to enable the water authorities to carry out the investment that is needed and which can feasibly be implemented. We shall encourage maximum use of private sector design and engineering contractors to ensure a satisfactory rate of progress.
It is axiomatic that the development and subsequent refinement of investment strategies should take account of technological development. The report deals at length with the technology of water services and I can assure your Lordships that it has given rise to considerable debate within the water industry in both the public and private sectors, and I am sure it will stimulate fresh developments and applications of technology.
The lack of good information about large parts of the sewerage system is a matter for great concern and the Government are giving every encouragement to the Water Research Centre's programme of survey work. We expect authorities to press ahead with this urgently and to take account of the results in formulating their capital programmes. But noble Lords will be pleased to know that in many cases the surveys can be reassuring about the state of sewers.

775
Where the needs are obvious—as in the North-West—the Government have consistently sought to ensure in their public expenditure decisions that those needs are recognised. So the urgent need in the short-term is to press ahead with surveys and to develop the tools needed to inspect and repair existing sewers with minimum disruption, and to enable manufacturers to have the opportunity to test in the field their new materials and equipment for this purpose.
In this connection the public expenditure White Paper, published in February—Cmnd. 8789—provides an increase (and I think that this is the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn) in the regional water authorities' overall capital investment from £677 million this year to £820 million in 1985–86. This has been arrived at after considering the plans that water authorities put to us; planned increases for the North-West and Yorkshire Water authorities fully reflect their problems with underground dereliction. We shall do even more than this by considering very carefully the plans that authorities are just putting to us now, and future plans. When these show that there is a well justified case for more investment in renewal, taking acccount of their sewer surveys and development in renovation techniques, I can assure the House that we shall respond appropriately.
The noble Lord, Lord Todd, and the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, asked about the Water Research Centre's strategy on sewerage. The basic suggestion that the strategy for sewerage expenditure should be based on selective inspection and repair is, of course, sound. This is a more satisfactory way of determining expenditure needs than estimating current replacement costs and dividing by standard lives, which incidentally is the approach used by the committee in paragraph 4.2. But it would not seem wise for authorities to increase expenditure where the need has not been demonstrated by survey or other evidence. The Water Research Centre's strategy has yet to be published. Meanwhile, authorities are pressing ahead with survey work and the existing public expenditure provision, which allows for some increase in water service investment, appears adequate to meet the identified needs at the present.
I agree that comparative evaluation of renovation and replacement by the Water Research Centre is desirable, taking account of social costs, to the extent that suitable methods can be developed for doing so. The relative infancy of renovation techniques points to the need for further work to prove these techniques in practice and to overcome some of the remaining problems. It is for this reason that the Secretary of State has written to all authorities urging them to include in their capital programmes a number of innovative projects for sewer renewal.
By this the House will see that we in the department seek to encourage innovation, for we see the possibility not only to improve quality and efficiency in our water services at home, but also to enhance opportunity for our consultants, contractors and manufacturers to sell their expertise and products overseas.
I was going to expand quite dramatically on what I said in Committee, but perhaps I can write to the noble Lord, Lord Howie, on this subject of guidance
776
and guidelines, and the difference between them. Time is now running a little short, but the Government are, of course, extremely keen and are watching with interest the exciting subject of instrumentation control and automation. With one or two exceptions, the water industry has been slower than some industries to seize the opportunities of this new technology. But I am happy to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, that they are getting off the ground and we are delighted to see this and hope to see a great deal more progress in the very near future.
The committee gave close consideration to water resource planning, water demand forecasting, and so on. The Government have much sympathy with this approach, but believe that the search for new ways to meet and constrain the demand for water can be more selective. The crucial point is how fast and, indeed, whether demand for water is increasing. The committee referred to continuing demand growth at the rate of about 1 per cent. per annum; but the fact is that for three years now there has been virtually no growth. The demand for water from those whose supplies are metered has declined since 1973 by 16 per cent. because the structure of industry is changing away from the older, heavier manufacturing industries, which were intensive water users, towards new industries and services which are not great consumers of water. Industries are also more cost conscious where water is concerned. It is true that domestic consumption continues to rise at about 1 per cent. a year. Nevertheless, greater efforts to control leakage—as the committee strongly urges—should postpone substantially and perhaps indefinitely the need for some of the more costly and controversial measures to avert a scarcity of water.
In the compass of a speech such as this I have not been able to do full justice to your committee's report and the points which noble Lords have made in the debate today. Both the debate itself and the report have ranged over several distinct and important subjects and the Government have reached only a provisional view on many of the recommendations made in the report. Indeed, it has been my purpose to listen to this debate before reaching final conclusions. In spite of the pressure put upon me earlier by my noble friend Lord Nugent, this is the position in which I find myself today. I agree that two months has been quite a long time in which to consider the structure of research in the water industry, but the Government wanted further time and also wanted further advice from your Lordships before they made up their mind. The Government intend to present a memorandum to the Select Committee's report in the near future and I would hope, although I cannot give any promises on this, that it will be done in a good deal less than the two months we have already had.
I can assure your Lordships that we shall be looking closely and with interest at what has been said today before responding formally and by memorandum to your Lordships' Committee. It only remains for me again to thank the committee for their stimulating report and to thank the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, for initiating this fascinating debate upon it.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I am sorry to press him, and he has

777
had a very wide subject to cover which I think he has covered with very great care, but can he say just a few words about the important matter of training raised by the noble Baroness, Lady White, and later commented upon by me during the debate?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the Select Committee report says that the water industry should pay attention to the case for broadening the expertise of water engineers with particular emphasis on process and systems engineering. The department is currently seeking a view from the industry on this issue, but will encourage the water industry to pay regard to the recommendation for itself, and seek to maintain the appropriate education and training of chartered water engineers. This general premise also covers the other points on training which were identified particularly by the noble Lord himself and by the noble Baroness, Lady White, which are what I would define as junior training, day release, and so on. The Government intend to continue to press the water industry on this subject, but of course it is for the water industry to identify their own needs.
Lord Sherfield: My Lords, my first task in replying to this debate is to thank the members of the committee who have taken part in this debate for their contributions, and also to thank the other noble Lords, not members of the committee, who have helped to make the debate less "endogamous" than it might otherwise have been. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for his comments this evening. They encourage me to hope that the Government's definitive written response to the recommendations of the report, which he has undertaken to provide, will be a positive one; that it will not be long delayed; and that it will cover the important points just referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, relating to the provision of resources for long-term strategic research.
Perhaps I might again express on behalf of the committee considerable satisfaction at the reception of its report by the interests outside this Chamber who are concerned with its conclusions. Judging by the correspondence and reports which I have received and which were referred to in greater detail by the noble Baroness, Lady White, they are, notwithstanding some criticisms here and there in the report, responding positively to our recommendations. The committee will, I am sure, wish to keep this nationally important subject on its agenda, but I hope that the Government will use their influence to ensure that the momentum which may have been imparted by the report is maintained and accelerated. I commend this Motion to your Lordships.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Educational Institutions: Information and Propaganda
6.33 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is their policy to send unsolicited material on the disarmament debate to schools and other educational institutions.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, those of us accustomed to participate in political science in the United States are well aware of the continuous debates about the separation of powers. I believe that that phrase aptly describes an important issue which is becoming more important day by day in this country, but this separation of powers is of course very different from that of the United States. I am talking here about the separation of the powers of party and of government.
It seems to me that a party in this country has the right, indeed the duty, of publicising its propaganda, its ideology, and its specific policies. The Government, on the other hand, have a different responsibility, and that is to give an explanation of policies and of Government actions, but, particularly when these are controversial, all the alternatives should also be explained.
In the exchange which the noble Baroness the Leader of the House and I had on 8th December, which no doubt the noble Lord who is to reply has looked up, the noble Baroness, Lady Young, stated at col. 174:
"I … believe that sensitive subjects must be presented in a balanced way for children in schools".
"Balanced" is a difficult word, and I would prefer that the accent here on sensitive subjects should be on the presentation of "different" policies rather than balanced policies, because the word "balanced" itself can be used subjectively, whereas "different" is better described as objective. I suggest strongly that it is not the Government's responsibility nor indeed their right to put over propaganda on controversial subjects. Indeed, this is a right of neither the national nor local governments, using the revenues which they have collected from taxation.
I believe—and this is a philosophical point, I agree—that this is an essential distinction in our party system of parliamentary government, and, if that system is to be preserved, we must see where this distinction lies. I hope that the noble Lord will address himself to this. It is particularly important when we are dealing with sensitive subjects among schoolchildren. Your Lordships will note that, in the exchange of 8th December to which I have referred, I was asking about peace studies for senior schoolchildren, and I stress the word "senior" because, as we shall find out later on, the documents to which I refer have been sent to schools for children between 11 and 16. I do not believe that they are to be classified as senior schoolchildren.
The reason for putting down this Question very much arises from the exchange I had with the noble Baroness. Particularly I must make it clear that in her final reply to me she did, in my view, suggest that I had misled the House. Her words at col. 176 of the Official Report of 8th December 1982 were:
"May I say that the noble Lord"—
that is me—
"is quite wrong about what has happened with regard to material sent from the Foreign Office. What happened was that the National Union of Teachers suggested to Foreign Office Ministers that there was a need in schools for balanced factual material about disarmaments. After giving notice to the local education authorities, the Foreign Office distributed such material, linking it to the recent Union Nations Special Session on Disarmament."
This arose out of the fact that I was somewhat irritated by the constant reference that the noble Baroness had made in this and previous questions to peace studies as "indoctrination". I suggested that if you wanted to look for indoctrination you had only to look at the pamphlets that the Government were sending out, unsolicited, to schools. The noble Baroness said that I was wrong. That suggested that I had misled the House, and I should like Government Ministers to take note that, when I put down a Question, I always make sure that the evidence is cast iron.
Let me take these issues raised by the noble Baroness in order. First of all, let us get rid of the question of the National Union of Teachers which she referred to in the answer which I have just quoted. This is the answer of the National Union of Teachers to the reply which was given to me. The senior official of Press and External Relations of the National Union write to me on 1st February 1983 as follows:
"When the Union's representatives met Douglas Hurd in December 1981 they stated that they would welcome the dissemination of balanced, factual teaching materials on arms control and disarmament"
and this next section is underlined—
"provided that teachers had an opportunity of making a professional input into their development".
That is the end of the underlining. Then:
"The Union's delegation suggested using the agency of the Schools Council to develop suitable materials.
"When Mr. Hurd forwarded examples of the leaflets, 'The Balanced View' and 'Peace and Disarmament' in March 1982, these documents were in final form and in any event were not specifically designed as teaching aids for schools. The Union was not in a position to comment on their suitability as teaching materials before the materials began to be sent into schools.
"When a second meeting was arranged with Mr. Hurd in July 1982, a meeting held at Union headquarters, members of the Executive made it quite clear that they did not consider the materials suitable as teaching aids.
"The Union considers that there is a serious difference between letting schools know that certain Government materials are available and sending them unsolicited into schools as appears to have happened in Cleveland.
"It is the Union's view that organisations with vested interests, such as central government departments should not be involved in the production of curriculum materials".
That answers the first part of the noble Baroness's reply; that is, the part dealing with the participation and apparent approval of the NUT. I would like the noble Lord to reply to it.
Secondly, the noble Baroness was kind enough to engage in some correspondence with me following those exchanges, and in her letter of 14th December 1982 she said:
"As far as the publications themselves are concerned, I cannot accept for a moment that they are, as you said in the House, pro nuclear. They are, it seems to me, balanced presentations of the need for serious and sustained efforts to bring about multilateral disarmament".
That was again a quotation.
May I now simply quote a number of extracts from one of these three publications, about which I have no doubt the noble Lord knows, because he was looking at them beforehand? Obviously I can only give selections, but I do not think anybody would accuse me of being unfair in making these selections. Clause 3 of The Balanced View states:
780
"Given the Soviet Union's massive nuclear and conventional military power, the West must maintain nuclear weapons to do the job of deterrence effectively".
Clause 15 states:
"Unilateral disarmament by Britain and its allies is clearly not a safe or sensible alternative".
Clause 17 states;
"If a nuclear-weapon-free zone were created from the Atlantic to the Urals, as has been suggested, the effect would be one-sided".
Clause 19 states:
"So Britain has a straightforward choice. Either we decide on unilateral disarmament and neglect our defence, as in the 1930s"—
when, I might say in parenthesis, it was the Conservative Party that was supporting Hitler and Mussolini, not the Labour party—
"with all the resulting risks. Or we go for multilateral negotiated disarmament".
Let me stress that I am not arguing the case for nuclear disarmament. I am not arguing any case for or against nuclear disarmament. I have put down this Question to find out the Government's views about their responsibilities and rights in presenting sensitive material to school children.
Let me deal with the third point of the noble Baroness when she said that I was wrong and, again to quote her:
"After giving notice to the local education authorities, the Foreign Office distributed such material".
I would not have put this Question down, I would not have intervened in this way if that had been the case and if I had not had clear evidence, checked and re-checked and re-checked, as late as this afternoon, that what I was asking was based on the authority of the education authorities of Cleveland which I mention specifically in my Question. This arose, as noble Lords on the other side would know if they had read the Guardian at the end of November, from a letter from one of the county councillors, a member of the Cleveland authority. Let me deal with this because here is a case in which both sides cannot be right. Somebody must be right and somebody must be wrong, and I claimed on the occasion of my exchanges with the noble Baroness that I was right; she claimed that I was wrong. I was not able to challenge her view on that occasion and that is the reason for my putting down this Unstarred Question tonight.
In further examination, after sending all the documents, the original Question, Hansard, my letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and her reply to me, to the Director of Education for the County of Cleveland, this was his reply on 21st December 1982—and I quote:
"I stressed in my September report that we did not receive the letter stated to have been sent out by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on 30th April and, although we did not conduct a systematic investigation, we have been unable to trade any County Education Officer who did".
He then goes on—and this is another quote:
"I note that it is now stated in Lady Young's letter that the Central Office of Information sent the publications to 63 Cleveland Secondary Schools and 7 colleges of further education. Further checks have confirmed that the publications were received by seven of our secondary schools only and one of our further education colleges".
But another quotation towards the end of the letter states:
"The statement on the last page of Lady Young's letter that extra copies had been ordered by some local education authorities include-

781
ing Cleveland may be intended to imply that there was a demand for the publications by our schools.
"In fact, the only reason I asked for extra copies was to distribute them to members of the Committee with my report, and, as far as I am aware, no additional copies have been ordered for use at any secondary school or further education college in Cleveland, particularly bearing in mind that the publications originally distributed were not considered by the head teachers concerned particularly suitable for classroom or any other educational use".
Again I would emphasise to noble Lords opposite—and I wish it was the noble Baroness the Leader of the House who was replying to this Question, which would be much more suitable—that I am not debating the rights and wrongs of nuclear policies; that is not the issue I am raising. I am raising the issue of how such sensitive, important matters should be introduced into our schools. I believe they should be for senior school children only and for further education students; certainly not for the 11 to 16 year-olds for whom they were sent. I believe that they should be discussed. After all, some of the senior school children are voters, and in any case it is their world that they are considering when discussing nuclear policy. But I am not discussing the rights and wrongs of nuclear policy; I am simply discussing the way in which such a matter of cataclysmic importance should be discussed and introduced into our schools and our other institutions of education.
So I want to conclude by asking the noble Lord specific questions which are based on matters of fact. First, does he agree, following the quotations I have given, and no doubt also his examination of the pamphlets concerned, that these pamphlets put a particularist policy forward?—particularist in the sense that this is the policy of the present Government and of the party that forms that Government, but totally opposed by the official Opposition. Is it therefore right that revenues which are gathered from the taxpayer should be used for putting forward a particular Government point of view, whether it be a Conservative or a Labour Government? I would be saying just the same if a Labour Government were using taxation revenues to put forward their policies on the EEC, on nuclear power or any other issue.
Secondly, was the director of education in Cleveland informed before these pamphlets were sent to the schools? Thirdly, were there seven schools and one further education college selected by the Foreign Office, where these pamphlets were distributed, as stated by the director of education, as reported to the education committee and to the full council; and, if so, why? Was it seven or was it 63, as the noble Baroness, Lady Young, has suggested? They cannot both be right. Fourthly, were the pamphlets sent to other districts as well as Cleveland? If so, were they unsolicited or were they asked for by the schools concerned?
Finally, why was the NUT quoted in this context when, according to the NUT officers themselves, that quotation was misplaced and their interpretation of their discussions with the Minister of State at the Foreign Office was on a totally different basis and when their proposals for the support of this material were never fulfilled by the Foreign Office?
I leave aside what has now developed into Mr. Heseltine's personal campaign against CND and those who believe in nuclear disarmament or those who
782
believe in unilateral nuclear disarmament and the activities of such organisations as Secretariats 19 and 17. Of course, they come into this debate and I hope that other noble Lords will raise them, but my specific point was to get the record straight, and I believe it was my responsibility, after being in touch with the Cleveland authorities and with the National Union of Teachers.
Is it the policy of the Government to send propaganda supporting their policies, their Conservative policies, their controversial policies, into the schools in this country? If it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to do this, does not the noble Lord agree that this is really indoctrination and quite different from the many alternative viewpoints that are put forward in branches of universities, polytechnics and further education colleges, such as the School of Peace Studies in Bradford University, which I have already mentioned?
6.54 p.m.
Baroness Cox: My Lords, I should like to begin by saying that I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, in that I, too, am worried about unsolicited material in the form of political propaganda of any kind being sent to schools and other educational institutions. This is because I, like him, am deeply averse to schools and colleges being used as bases for political indoctrination. Again, this is because I believe it is antithetical to the principle of pluralism which underpins the traditional concept of education in a free society. By "pluralism" I mean that on controversial issues pupils and students should be provided with the evidence and arguments associated with different positions, and should be encouraged to make up their own minds.
However, in considering the Question asked by the noble Lord, my main worry is somewhat different from his. It is whether, in some schools and colleges, pupils and students may be being given such a one-sided and prejudiced case in favour of unilateral disarmament that it is difficult for them to gain enough information to form a balanced opinion of the alternative arguments. My concern is based on two kinds of evidence. They are indicative, not conclusive, but they reinforce each other. The first is inevitably anecdotal, and consists of examples from schools and colleges. I will offer just three such illustrative examples. I will not name the schools because the pupils might suffer, but I have every confidence in the integrity of the informants.
In one school three well-known CND speakers were invited to address a meeting. No one was invited to put any alternative view, and it was up to one of the pupils to find the courage to go to the microphone to challenge the experienced speakers on the platform. In another school, a week was devoted to what were called "Peace studies", which involved various activities of a very one-sided nature, supporting the unilateralist position and including a visit to Greenham Common. There were no comparable activities supporting the multilateralist case. The third example refers to a school where the school assembly repeatedly promoted a CND line, and it was again up to some pupils to ask for an alternative view to be put.

783
I readily admit that these instances, and others like them which I could quote, are only straws in the wind. We do not know how typical they are, and I am naturally ready to acknowledge that in many schools teachers are doubtless presenting the complex issue of disarmament in ways which are beyond reproach. However, I am worried because although we do not know the details of what is happening we do know that many teachers are not impartial on these issues. Many are committed CND members, and much of the material being made available to teachers has a unilateralist bias. For example, Teachers for Peace is an organisation which started out at a CND conference. It now claims around 1,000 members; it offers a "starter pack" to teachers; and, according to a report in The Times Educational Supplement of 4th April this year, it has a unilateralist bias. About 50 teachers a week write for advice to this organisation, and they are sent this pack of allegedly biased information.
I suggest that this one-sidedness cannot be excused by the claim that there is a shortage of material putting an alternative viewpoint. For example, the Institute for European Defence and Strategic Studies publication, Protest and Perish, provides a well-documented and readable critique of unilateralism.
Another indication of possible developments with a unilateralist bias in our schools can be found in plans to develop a CSE examination on the threat of nuclear war. According to another report in The Times Educational Supplement of 11th March this year, this proposal is the result of collaboration between Teachers for Peace and an organisation called Scientists against Nuclear Arms—a 300-strong group which advises the Greater London Council. Although this latter group has no formal links with CND, its chairman is a vice-chairman of CND; and one of the people involved said that the syllabus of the proposed CSE examination would be questioning the reliabililty of Government statistics about the balance of nuclear weapons in Europe and would challenge official claims about the effectiveness of civil defence plans for nuclear war.
While I am very happy to see young people being encouraged to think critically, I wonder whether this course will give pupils working at CSE level the information and the opportunity necessary to weigh up the complex issues involved, and thus a genuine freedom to make up their own minds. I was particularly interested in the reservations expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, when he suggested that these are very complex issues for young people to discuss and to decide, and I remind the House that the CSE examination is certainly for younger pupils.
I suggest that the combination of anecdotal evidence, known facts about the commitment of many teachers to CND, and proposals such as this planned CSE examination, all add up to a possibly very disturbing picture which suggests that, in some—and we have no idea how many—of our schools and other educational institutions, pupils and students may be receiving political propaganda rather than the balanced information which is the prerequisite of "education" as we are privileged to understand that word in free democratic societies.
784
It is also relevant to emphasise that children and young people are being exposed to unsolicited and unilateralist propaganda in other ways, too. I refer very briefly to my own borough of Brent, which recently allowed a CND library exhibition. However, I understand that, when the British Atlantic Committee asked permission to put on an exhibition showing the alternative position, this was refused. The council allowd the CND exhibition because that was in line with their unilateralist views, but they would not permit any other viewpoint to be shown to visitors to the libraries. That, I suggest, smacks of totalitarianism.
I should like now to turn very briefly to the important general point raised in the noble Lord's Question—the wider problem of any unsolicited political material being sent to educational institutions. There are at least two issues at stake here. The first relates specifically to politicisation; the second to the use of public money. On the first point, distribution of unsolicited material by our own Government is a matter which I agree may be open to question, although I understand that a policy has now been agreed with the National Union of Teachers and with others concerned. However, I am even more concerned about the unsolicited distribution of Russian books to our schools.
I understand that over 50 different books, all highly propagandist and produced in the Soviet Union, have been distributed to British schools. At least one of these discusses disarmament, and I hope that the noble Lord may be concerned about the distribution of this unsolicited material, as well as that to which he refers in his Question.
On the issue of the use of public money, as someone whose family is regularly inflicted with unsolicited copies from the GLC of The Londoner, which I find contemptible in its blatant propaganda, I should be happy to see some wider discussion of the whole question of the use of public money for the printing and dissemination of unsolicited political propaganda.
In conclusion, I have been at pains to emphasise that I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, has drawn our attention to an issue which is of great importance, both in principle and in practice. I am conscious of the fact that the concerns which I have expressed are not as well substantiated by hard evidence as I should wish. I should, therefore, like to suggest that the whole question of politicisation of education, especially on this complex subject of disarmament, is so important that it should become a priority for research. Let me stress that I am not suggesting that this research should be intended to pave the way for the forcible introduction of political education in our schools, as some people understandably fear may follow from the ILEA proposals which were reported in this morning's Daily Telegraph. Rather, I suggest the reverse.
The reverse would be to establish just what is happening in our schools and colleges in terms of the material available on the whole topic of disarmament, and what is being taught, both formally in CSE and other syllabuses—especially those entitled Peace Studies—and informally, in general studies, assemblies and other activities. The situation could then be assessed and parents and the public could

785
judge whether our educational institutions are being used as bases of political indoctrination, and, if so, discuss on an informed basis what should be done. The whole issue is far too important for our young people, and for us as a nation, to be left in the present haphazard state.
7.6 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I should like to express my regrets to my noble friend Lord Hatch that I missed the first few sentences of his Question, owing to the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, was so brief in replying to the previous debate that he took me by surprise. But I think I gathered the whole substance of my noble friend's Question, and I hope that I shall be able to contribute something to it.
I am not proposing to follow in any detail the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, mainly because she did not spell out chapter and verse as to what precisely are her accusations. She felt that she had to leave out the names of the schools in case of doing some harm to them. I do not think it would. I think that it will give greater strength to any examples that she has to give on another occasion if she feels able to spell out exactly what it is she is talking about.
For myself—and this, again, is only anecdotal evidence—I have spent some 30 years in the peace movement, in one form or another, and during the whole of that time I have spoken in many educational establishments. But I cannot recall any single occasion on which I have ever spoken there without being opposed. I have been opposed by Members of this House, by Members of the other House and by Ministers, but I cannot recall any occasion on which I have spoken to pupils, scholars, graduates or undergraduates at any level, without the discussion taking some form of debate in which the issues were fairly—at any rate, I hope it was so—examined on both sides.
On the Question, I would, however, agree with the noble Baroness to this extent—and it is a very big extent—that these issues are of tremendous importance, and that they should be discussed, and can be discussed, at all educational levels. Perhaps I am exaggerating. I do not think one would want to go down to primary schools, but they can be discussed at most educational levels.
In that respect, I should like to commend the publications of Longman's. These are hardly Left-Wing publishers. The Longman's resource unit does a very balanced examination and a series of publications is put out. They seem to me to be rather biased against the arguments in which I believe, but I rather suspect that this may merely go to show that they are impartial. So I would commend these publications of Longman's to noble Lords and also to the Government, if they really wish to let our pupils and our educational people at all levels have documents which do their best to set out these issues on an absolute "pro" and "con" basis.
I think that I can anticipate something of what the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, will reply to this Question. I suspect that he will say that this is not party political propaganda; this is just spreading Government information and, surely, there can be no objection to that. That, I take it from previous replies to Questions
786
which the noble Lord has made, is likely to be his response to my noble friend.
The noble Lord will recall that, in a recent Question, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked the noble Lord, Lord Elton, whether he was pretending to be obtuse. He received the rather stunning reply that Lord Elton did not find it necessary to pretend; it came naturally to him. This was obviously untrue. Lord Elton is a bright spark on a Government Front Bench which is not notably quick on its feet—so much so that his quip was received with laughter. Lord Elton emerged from the question and answer procedure well in charge of the situation on that occasion, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, would agree.
But I am not so sure about the noble Lord, Lord Belstead. For some time the noble Lord has been pretending—or let us hope he has been pretending—that he does not understand that Government propaganda and information is a sensitive area. He has been pretending that he does not grasp the difference between Government information which is obviously a proper subject of public expenditure—for example, reminders to people to apply for benefits due to them or to renew a licence—and Government material, spending on which is obviously an improper use of public funds for party political advantage. An example would be if Mr. Heseltine were to use Government funds for an attack on CND and were to put anti-CND propaganda on to the defence Vote.
Between these two extremes, the one being proper and the other being, I would suggest, improper, there is a grey area. This grey area is one of party political contention. The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, does not understand that, he says. To him there are no greys; everything is clear black or clear white. But I have a suspicion that Lord Belstead's perception of black and white is not constant and that what is to him white now that he is in office would go all black if Labour came to power. For example, I expect that he would tell my noble friend that it is entirely proper to send Government information to schools, whether they want it or not, and at public expense, providing it is Government information—that is, whiter than white. However, if it became Labour Government information, I suspect that it might become as black as pitch. I think the noble Lord might be the first to accuse a Labour Government which did that. I do not think a Labour Government would. I believe they are more scrupulous on the point than the present Government. But if they did, the noble Lord would, I believe, be among the first to accuse a Labour Government of using public funds for party political purposes.
This mobility of perception, deliberate or assumed, is a serious matter, for it means that, when the noble Lord replies to questions, we must ask whether he is speaking as a Minister of the Crown or as the spokesman of the Conservative Central Office. Therefore we are entitled to ask the noble Lord whether or not he is doing it deliberately. Is his role that of the intelligent person's Heseltine? Is that his position? Or is he just another party spokesman?
Before I sit down let me give one more example. In a Written Answer, at col. 392 on 14th April, the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, said:
"I do not accept that it is difficult to distinguish between … "party political propaganda" and the proper explanation of the policies of Her Majesty's Government".

787
Civil servants are engaged every day, as every noble Lord who has had any experience of office will know, in drawing precisely that difficult distinction to the attention of Ministers, whichever Government are in power. I venture to suggest that hardly a day passes without a civil servant saying to a Minister, "I feel, Minister, that on reflection it will be your decision to leave those striking phrases out of the ministerial statement and reserve them for some more political occasion".
This goes on all the time. But perhaps it does not occur at the Foreign Office or at the Ministry of Defence. It certainly does occur in other departments. Perhaps there, if we are to believe what the noble Lord seems to be telling us, anything goes and civil servants are employed on party political propaganda. We know that it occurs at Defence. They, I am told, have a small department which is concerned most of the time in seeking to suggest that the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament consists of a lot of unpatriotic persons who are, I will not say in the pay of the Soviet Union (although even that has been suggested) but who at least are warmly and strongly sympathetic towards the Soviet Union and who are therefore on the other side rather than on the side of this country, instead of saying—which would be the honest thing to say—that they have a different perception of what constitutes the interest of this country. That is the true difference which lies between us. It is not which of us is on the side of a foreign power, which of us is in the pocket of America, which of us takes the Soviet view of matters. This sort of thing, as I say, does occur at Defence and perhaps the Foreign Office has fallen for it, too.
Let us suppose that Labour were to win the next general election—not such an impossibility as certain noble Lords may feel—that we immediately put civil servants on to writing leaflets for distribution in schools, advocating our policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament and that we told the Central Office of Information to distribute the film "The War Game" and a new film now going into production, for the Peace Film Fund, of which I am treasurer. I suspect that then the scales would immediately fall from the noble Lord's eyes and that he would soon discover that one man's Government information is another's party political propaganda. That, my Lords, is the truth of the matter.
Indeed, if he really does not understand now, the question must arise as to whether the noble Lord is—I find this hard to believe—incapable of understanding these differences, or whether he takes the view that in Government anything goes. I do not believe that he does. I look forward to what the noble Lord is going to say in reply to my noble friend's Question. As has been said generally, it is an important issue. I believe we have to be careful that when in Government we do not assume that what we say is our policy and therefore is generally acceptable and must be acceptable to all and sundry. I readily agree that this is a temptation on both sides, but it is one which ought to be resisted. I hope that the noble Lord is going to tell us that in future the Government intend to resist this temptation.
7.18 p.m.
Lord Gridley: My Lords, in considering what I should say about the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, I have asked myself what really is the motive which lies behind his asking it. I was entirely confused by his speech, which for many minutes described various letters which had been written by him to my noble friend the Leader of the House, and her replies. I understood him to complain about documents which allegedly had been sent by her Majesty's Government to certain educational establishments in Cleveland. I was not aware of that.
However, to return to the terms of the Question, it asks Her Majesty's Government,
"whether it is their policy to send unsolicited material on the disarmament debate to schools and other educational institutions".
If the purpose behind the Question is political and has to do with nuclear disarmament and with the different policies between the party of which I am a member and that of which the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, is a member in respect of nuclear disarmament, then that is a serious matter. Allegations have been made—and the noble Lord says that certain documents have been sent to educational establishments in the North of England—that this was propaganda emanating from her Majesty's Government. I cannot pass any opinion on that particular allegation, but I am sure my noble friend the Minister of State will do so when he winds up in reply to the noble Lord's Question.
I should like to give my personal opinion on the issues before us and the reasons why I consider that it would be an unmitigated disaster if the policy of Her Majesty's Government or of the Opposition was to send unsolicited material on the disarmament debate to schools and other educational establishments—which, so far as I am concerned, is the Question posed to my noble friend. In saying that, I have no idea what my noble friend the Minister will say in reply to this Question because I have not discussed with him the questions which this issue poses.
I am not against the interplay of ideas. I am for free speech. I believe in democracy, and I would go to great lengths to defend it. This is an important point and one that is, I believe, understood by noble Lords on all sides of the House. But the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, does not say, if schools were to receive material on disarmament, how our schools would deal with the issues which were then laid before them. What is the noble Lord's idea on this? Presumably the issues have been debated on the differences between the Government's policy on disarmament and that of the Opposition, and could probably form part of that section of the school curriculum known as social studies. Would this issue, whether in the form of social studies or in debate in our schools, be considered constructively and objectively? I doubt it, for these reasons.
It was in 1981, on information I had and which I received about certain teachers in our schools—and which was substantiated in documents which I laid before the House—that, on 22nd October, I asked an Unstarred Question. This Question was debated (Hansard, cols. 878–892) in your Lordships' House. I

789
believe it was generally accepted that in regard to social studies (and I will quote an example from one of the many documents I produced in that debate in 1981) the teaching of social studies was such and is such as to be orientated by certain teachers in a way such as not to invite their pupils to consider local, political and international problems in a constructive sense, but to blame our society for the situation which was operating in our country at that particular time.
I will now produce the document which I mentioned a few moments ago—only one of many similar documents which I received some months ago. At the top of this document, which teachers had in their schools and which their pupils were considering, there are drawings of four television sets on which four different pictures appear. Above those television sets are these words:
"It's easy to share problems. Our TV screens are full of them".
The television screens show pictures of vandalism, national disasters, war with bombs falling, and poverty. Below those pictures are the words;
"It's easy to find people to blame".
There are then shown drawings of eight people in the dock of a court. These are supposed to be those people accused, and to be blamed. They are a boss, a trade unionist, a churchman, a politician, a terrorist, a teacher, an ad-man, and a parent. It is stated in writing that they are responsible for the problems which exist and for being obstructive with regard to change. Moreover, each of them is said to be guilty for the dropping of bombs in war.
If that is a typical example of the way in which our youth are being invited to come to their own conclusions with regard to the local, political and international problems which face us, I do not believe that any benefit can be obtained for them or for us if material of this sort is disseminated to our schools, to be considered as part of social studies. The people who are considered as being suitable to consider these issues of great complexity are, I believe, students and school children of 16 or 17 years of age. They have not yet had experience of life. I am not in any sense suggesting that in a superior way, but I can only say in conclusion that it would be wrong to take the great issues of this international debate for consideration in schools as part of their social studies or in any other way.
7.28 p.m.
Lord Bishopston: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hatch of Lusby for raising this important matter and for the opportunity it provides, not for more confusion but, I hope, for clarification. I want to endorse as my view the view he expressed at the beginning of his remarks: that this is not a matter of considering whether a unilateral, multilateral or any other point of view should be put forward in the literature concerned, but it is a matter of considering the merits of how the views should be expressed. We are indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and to other noble Lords who have spoken for putting a view, because this should warn the Government—indeed, any Government—that once a view is put on matters about which people of any opinion feel deeply, there is a danger of opposing views being encouraged and
790
generated so that controversy and not clarification results.
Defence is a matter of life and death, and one concerned with great dangers. This is what impels people to do something about it. It is not surprising that there is concern. Of late, the Government have shown a lack of sensitivity—to put it mildly—in dealing with important defence matters which are the cause of real concern to millions of people of all parties—including Conservatives. The Government should recognise—and I have made this point many times—that we are all searching our consciences and challenging long-held assumptions, and are desperately seeking a way and a policy which, at the end of the day, will save mankind. The Government should be pleased that a debate is going on, encouraging people to look at this matter in a balanced way.
When the matter of peace studies and related disciplines was last raised in your Lordships' House, there was general acceptance of the need for a balanced view being put. But, as my noble friend Lord Jenkins of Putney asked: who is to determine what is factual and acceptable and what is doctrinaire and unacceptable? These matters were once known as "international affairs", but they have much greater relevance and importance today because of the escalating dangers facing mankind. There is need for clarification as to whether the material referred to by my noble friend Lord Hatch was unsolicited. If so, it seems very unwise to send out such material, which could at the very least be counter-productive, and it is discourteous, to say the least, if local authorities and education officers are not consulted first. But apart from that, if education officers and other educational authorities do not know what material is being sent out direct by the FCO and the COI, how can they ensure that a balance is kept?—and I think we would expect them to do that.
Can it be that the Government will not trust some local councils and education authorities, with democratically elected members, to pass on Government literature and so they seek to send it direct to schools? We come back to the problem raised by the noble Baroness: once this kind of lack of confidence and trust is engendered, then, of course, we run into real problems. The Government too often show a lack of wisdom and indeed sensitivity in this matter, as they have on several other matters of late which I will not detail on this occasion, when their view is not accepted without question.
My noble friend has shown great persistence in this matter, and well he may in seeking the facts, not least because educational authorities, parents and other wish to have these matters of defence considered in a calm and balanced way. So the need is not only to inform students of the issues but also to inculcate in them the ability to weigh the merits of things put to them. And not only on the matters before the House at the present time. This surely is a vital part of education and preparation also for responsible citizenship.
I would like, if I may, to put one or two questions to the Minister. May I ask him whether it is usual for the Government to send out material of any kind direct to schools rather than through education authorities? Secondly, if so, how do education officers and

791
committees and those concerned with the education of students know what material is sent, what is received, and what more, if anything, is required to ensure a balanced point of view? Does the Minister recall the policy of a former Labour Government on the issue of the EEC, when the case to be in or out was issued officially by the Government—but at least the two points of view were clearly put? Some may say that this matter of defence and the future of mankind is no less important than the debate on that occasion.
Finally, I believe the Government have little to fear, if they accept that defence policy is a life or death matter of grave concern to millions of parents, albeit with differing views held quite sincerely by members of all parties. I am sure Britain does not want a Conservative Government here to follow the example of some other Governments whose practices Conservatives so often quite naturally deplore. If the Government believe in democracy—and I am sure they do—I believe they will also encourage responsible debate on this very important matter; indeed, not only encourage debate, but also do all they can to help those who have another point of view to be able to put it.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I think it best to begin my reply to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, by referring to the resolution on the education service and disarmament which was carried at the Annual Conference of the National Union of Teachers at Easter 1981. That resolution, among other things, called on Her Majesty's Government:
"to pursue in international relations a policy which seeks positive agreements, however limited, that can lead to continuing negotiations in order to halt the arms race and bring about phased disarmament".
Representatives of the NUT met my right honourable friend Mr. Douglas Hurd, the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office with responsibility for disarmament matters, in December 1981 to discuss that conference resolution. The union stressed the need in schools for balanced factual material on disarmament negotiations which could be used by teachers and read by older pupils, and they criticised some of the material being circulated in schools, particularly that which aroused exaggerated fears of nuclear war in the minds of students. In the light of the evidence given in the speech of my noble friend Lady Cox, I must say I am not surprised that this cause for concern was voiced at that meeting in December 1981.
Then, following consultations between Government departments, it was concluded that the apparent gap in the material available to the teaching profession could be filled by distributing to schools copies of some of the material already produced for general use, on multilateral disarmament efforts and current negotiations. So in March 1982 the Foreign and Commonwealth Office sent specimen copies of three publications, the leaflet entitled The Balanced View, the booklet Peace and Disarmament and the wall-sheet Arms Control and Disarmament, to the National Union of Teachers and to other professional organisations. I must tell your Lordships that no objection was raised by the NUT to the suggestion that
792
these documents should be made available to schools and colleges.
At the end of April 1982, copies of the three documents were sent to each of the Directors of Education in England and Wales, under cover of a letter from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which listed the documents and went on to say:
"Following discussions with the Department of Education and Science and the Standing Conference on Education for International Understanding, we have decided to make these publications available to schools. We propose to ask the Central Office of Information to distribute copies to schools and colleges. We hope that they may be of value as an aid to teachers of current affairs, civics, modern history, and related subjects".
I think that approach answers the question which the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, put to me as to whether the Government would think it right to give out information without doing so through the channel of Directors of Education. The answer to that question is, of course, that I agree with the noble Lord that it is correct to go to the Directors of Education first, and this is what we did.
At that stage, no local education authority offered any objection to the distribution of the documents to schools and colleges, and they were sent out in May 1982 to 9,600 secondary institutions in England and Wales. The procedure and the timing were determined by the nearness of the second United Nations Special Session on Disarmament, which opened on 7th June last year, The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has since received complaints from only three local educational authorities of the 105 in England and Wales about the way in which the documents were handled, and a substantial number of additional copies have been ordered by schools.
My right honourable friend Mr. Hurd had a further meeting with the International Relations Committee of the National Union of Teachers in July 1982, at their request, to discuss the progress of the current disarmament negotiations, a meeting mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, in his speech. At that meeting, my right honourable friend explained the procedure adopted for the distribution of an information pack, and he welcomed the suggestion that there should be a continuing dialogue on the preparation of material for disarmament education, if I may call it that. If I may say so, that disposes of the quotations from correspondence which the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, was using to try to show that my right honourable friend Mr. Hurd was in some way disregarding the views of the National Union of Teachers; unless, of course, the noble Lord is seriously suggesting that no one should be allowed to offer any written material to educational establishments at all.
That, in brief, is the sequence of events at issue. But I should say something more about the material distributed. Since 1979 the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has produced a range of publications on the international arms control and disarmament negotiations for distribution to the many non-governmental organisations and individuals who take a special interest in this subject. We were the first country to introduce a regular disarmament newsletter, in August 1979. This was supplemented in 1982 by the information pack to which I have referred, as part of the Government's preparations for the

793
second United Nations Special Session on Disarmament.
By making this information widely available, we are complying with a recommendation in the Final Document of the first United Nations Special Session on Disarmament in 1978, that Governments and non-govermental organisations should give priority to publicising international disarmament efforts.
The recommendation was not to parade a series of different policies, as the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, apparently would wish us to do. Therefore, I do not accept that the pamphlets distributed represent a particularist policy. That, I think, answers the first on the list of questions which the noble Lord put to me at the end of his speech.
This material is balanced and factual—a prerequisite of education, as my noble friend Lady Cox remarked. It is intended as an official contribution to public discussion of the issues. It presents the need for serious and sustained efforts to bring about balanced arms reductions by agreement, under the auspices of the United Nations, and it describes the progress of the various negotiations. To describe the search for multilateral disarmament as being either propaganda or indoctrination—both words which have been used by noble Lords opposite—is absurd.
Perhaps I should break off here for a moment and answer the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins of Putney, who suggested that if a future Labour Government distributed information about their policies I would consider, on behalf of the Conservative Party, that it would be improper. If the policies of the Labour Party in this matter remain as they are at present then indeed the answer to that point is: yes, I would consider it improper. The policy of the Labour Party as we know it now would lead to no negotiations at all in that the Labour Party would indulge in disarmament on one side alone—our side—and so would create a situation in which the Soviet Union would have no need to come to the disarmament negotiating table. If the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, believes that information about a policy like that would be balanced, let alone face the true facts of the world, then the noble Lord is further out of touch with reality than I have so far thought possible.
There is another point to which I should refer and which arises to some extent from the noble Lord's speech. Since there has been some confusion on this issue, I should point out that Foreign and Commonwealth Office material is not concerned with defence policy, including nuclear deterrence, which is the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence. The publications and films of the latter department are made available to the general public, but are not sent to schools except at the specific request of a teacher.
I have gone over the ground in some detail because it seemed to me to be important to place the facts on record. It is, of course, for individual schools and individual teachers to decide what use, if any, to make of the material they receive, from all sources. But I believe that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office documents are of value to teachers who wish to raise these issues in discussion. The demand for additional copies indicates that a considerable number of teachers have indeed found them useful.
794
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, asked wehether it is our policy to send material about disarmament to schools unsolicited. Indeed, the noble Lord repeated the same point in the fourth of his list of questions. Perhaps I may draw the threads together. The answer is that on this occasion the Government had available for public distribution some information material relevant to concerns about disarmament, especially those raised by representatives of the National Union of Teachers. It seemed eminently sensible to make this material available to the teaching profession at the time of the United Nations Special Session. There was no intention on the part of the Foreign and Commonwealth office to go behind the backs of the local education authorities, and that is why they were sent copies of the material first.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, has referred in the past, and again today, to reports that some local education authorities did not receive the material at that stage. I have had inquiries made and I understand that all authorities were on the list of addressees. However, I accept the statement which the noble Lord made and placed as second on his list of questions at the end of his speech, that the Director of Education for Cleveland clearly did not receive a copy. I regret that fact. However, there is no readily apparent cause for directors of education not receiving the material personally. The general way in which the exercise was conducted seems to me to have been perfectly proper.
The third of the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, was about the schools, I think in Cleveland, which were selected. My advice is that the secondary schools and colleges were selected by the Central Office of Information from a standard reference work—The Education Authorities' Year Book. This volume lists 63 schools and seven colleges of further education in Cleveland. The records show that the material and letters were despatched in cardboard tubes, and it is thus not wholly impossible that schools searching for a letter may not have been looking for the right missive which came through the post.
I have one more point to make. We have no plans to produce disarmament material specifically for schools. If we did wish to do so we would naturally want to consult the local education authorities first. We are aware of the need for a more informed public debate on the real issues of arms control and disarmament, and I must tell the House that we intend to ensure that the British people are kept informed of the true facts. I hope that the noble Lord and I can at least agree that a better understanding of those issues is something which all of us would want to see.
House adjourned at twelve minutes before eight o'clock.