Lords Sitting of 22 November 1984

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

Energy Efficiency: Research Expenditure
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what was the level of reseach and development expenditure in 1983 on nuclear energy, non-nuclear energy, and energy conservation.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin): My Lords, expenditure by Government departments, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, the research councils and the energy nationalised industries in 1983–84 on research and development is as follows: energy efficiency, £44.8 million: non-nuclear sources of energy, £210.5 million; and nuclear, £265.5 million. Total research and development expenditure in the private sector is estimated to be on a scale similar to the overall public sector effort. Most of this spending is concentrated on non-nuclear research and development, notably in the oil and gas sector, and on improving energy efficiency.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Would he not agree that too little is being spent on energy efficiency and conservation? This is an area to which the Government are devoting a great deal of attention. Does he not believe that the efforts being made by the Secretary of State for Energy to spread the concept of energy efficiency could be supported by a greater allocation of research and development expenditure?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I know, of course, of the very great interest that the noble Lord takes in these matters. I would suggest to him, however, that the efforts being made in this field by the Secretary of State for Energy are very considerable. In September, he announced plans for the energy efficiency demonstration scheme to be expanded to a total of over 500 projects at a cost to government of £65 million. This scheme is aimed at achieving £800 million a year savings on fuel bills. Indeed, it has already achieved its first target of stimulating £60 million a year in savings, and it is well on its way to reaching its December 1985 target of £120 million a year in savings.
Lord Taylor of Hadfield: My Lords, it may interest the House to know that Britain has accumulated the equivalent of 300 years of experience of nuclear electric power stations without one single incident, and that the knowledge of Britain on the nuclear side is
678
predominant in the world. Indeed, today, in addition to the Government, many private enterprise companies are spending a lot of time and money on nuclear research.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. Of course, I agree with him that the contribution made to the whole power industry by nuclear power is significant and will continue to be so in the years ahead.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord two questions? First, is it not a fact that the amount of money we spend on research into renewable energy is very small indeed in relation to that spent by other countries, and is it not necessary, in spite of our huge reserves of fossil fuels, to have a balanced energy programme that includes a good portion of renewable energy? Secondly, in relation to nuclear research, is it the intention of the Government to shift the burden of funding work on the fast breeder reactor and nuclear safety from the Department of Energy to the CEGB? If that is so, would that not be loading the bulk of the cost of nuclear research on to electricity consumers through increased electricity prices?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, on the first point that the noble Lord has raised, I am sure he appreciates that the amount of research and development funding for renewables is essentially less than that for nuclear power. One of the reasons for this is that a great many of our renewable sources of energy have simply not yet reached a stage where they could absorb vast injections of funds, whether from the private or the public sector. Nevertheless, there is a continuing programme taking place of research into renewables. When we look at what is happening in relation to various substitutes—for example, natural gas and gas liquefaction projects—there is a considerable amount being done. We shall benefit from those in due course, in the future.
As to the funding of nuclear energy, we have a major nuclear energy research programme into which we have pumped money for many years. This is unquestionably successful. We are not as far ahead as we should or could be with our nuclear programme, but we are, I think, in a situation in which we are now able to capitalise on the earlier research. We have been in the fortunate situation that, because of our abundance of fossil fuels in the form of coal, oil and gas, we have perhaps not needed to pursue our nuclear programme in the way that, for example, the French have had to do. Nevertheless, we have made substantial progress and we shall continue to do so.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am sorry, but I do not think that the noble Lord answered the question. Is it the Government's intention not to fund the nuclear research programme through his own department but to swing the expenditure on to the CEGB? Is the CEGB to carry a far greater proportion of the expenditure on research in the future than it has done in the past?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, the CEGB obviously has an important part to play in research. The amount that it spends on research is very largely in its own hands, as to how it feels it should use the funds available to it for research. There is certainly not any plan at the moment to divert from the Department of Energy to the CEGB the responsibility for research that is presently being carried out by the department.

Garbage: Disposal at Sea
3.8 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their policy on the disposal of garbage by ships in the North Sea and the Channel.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the Government's policy is to stress to the shipping industry the need to avoid disposal of garbage at sea and to recommend voluntary compliance with the provisions of Annex V of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, known as MARPOL 73–78. It is our policy also to seek at the International Maritime Organisation to amend the content of Annex V to a form more acceptable to the United Kingdom, so as to enable the United Kingdom to ratify this annex at the earliest possible time.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that information, may I ask whether he is aware of the research carried out by the Keep Britain Tidy group, with which I happen to be connected, which has proved conclusively that most of the litter on our beaches, particularly bordering the North Sea and the Channel, derives from the dumping of garbage by ships at sea? In those circumstances, why is Great Britain one of the few maritime nations that has not signed Annex V of the convention to which the noble Lord refers?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we are very concerned with the disposal of garbage at sea. We admire the work that the Keep Britain Tidy group does. The reason that we have not ratified Annex V is that the problems of garbage disposal for operators of large cruise liners result from a shortage of shore reception facilities in potential special areas abroad.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that other parts of the British coastline are affected, besides those mentioned in the Question? I have in mind, for example, the west of Wales and the Gower coast, which almost every other day is polluted by this criminal activity of garbage being dumped on the high seas which then swills ashore? Can the Minister tell us, following upon what he told the House a moment ago, what action has been taken, who has been brought to court, and who has been given a penalty for committing this grievous offence against the coasts of our country?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we are well aware that it is not only the North Sea and the English Channel that are affected by this practice. As to the noble Lord's point about disposal, it is garbage we are talking about at this moment. The noble Lord may well be referring to the disposal of other items, such as containers and drums of dangerous chemicals. These are covered by another annex of MARPOL—Annex III. Already 99 per cent. of the activities covered in that annex are against the law in this country.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, with the greatest respect, would the Minister not agree that all of it is garbage? Some parts of it are more venomous than others. If the Government do not see that, I am quite prepared to come along and give them a hand. I want to know what action has been taken. In any part of the coast of our country it is only when there is a great wreck and something terrible happens, and we see it on our TV screens, that we are aware of it. Is the Minister aware that there is hardly a part of our coastline which for some reason or another is not affected by this activity? Can we be told whether action has been taken, what action can be taken, and who takes it to defend the coast of Great Britain?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have said that we hope to agree to the annex of the international convention as soon as possible, when we get the amendments which we are looking for to protect our own shipping industry when they go to other parts of the world where the facilities are not as good as they are in this country.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, bearing in mind that the UN Law of the Sea Convention deals, among many other issues advantageous to Britain, with pollution of the seas, why are the Government so reluctant to sign this convention, in the negotiation of which, to my personal knowledge, the UK has played so active a role? Are we going to sign this convention, or are we not?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I hope that we will. I come back to the point that until other parts of the world can produce the shore reception facilities that our liners would require—this would refer particularly to the special areas, such as the Mediterranean—we do not want to jeopardise our trade until we can get those amendments through. We are working for that at the moment.
Lord Morris: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the disposal at sea of vegetable matter and, indeed, any other edible matter is greatly welcomed by both oysters and bottom feeding fish?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as a lover of oysters, I welcome my noble friend's remarks.
Lord Oram: My Lords, is not the deadline for signature of the treaty 9th December? Can the noble Lord give us any hope that the undertakings that he is seeking will be received before 9th December?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am afraid I was not aware that the deadline was 9th December. I

681
would point out, though, that in order for Annex V to become law it requires, I believe, to be signed by 50 per cent. of the gross tonnage shipping of the world. Even if we signed it now, it would not reach that figure. Two of the largest ship-owning countries—Liberia and the United States—are not yet signatories.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, would it not be advisable if members of the Government were a little cautious about answering questions always in the affirmative, as if they can do something about it? Is it not a fact—I say "a fact"—that those areas in the Channel, any part of our coast, any part of the seas throughout the world, where garbage is disposed of are the best fishing grounds?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am aware that we cannot always do something about it. What we can do is to try to do the best we can.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that when he is asked by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, what the Government are doing, and so forth—quite reasonable on one point of view—considerable difficulties lie in the path of Her Majesty's Government in taking any action outside territorial waters in the absence of the convention to which he has referred?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am well aware of this. Even if we signed Annex V, we would only be able to get at shipping either under our own flag or which called in at our ports.

Seat-belts: Road Accident Figures
3.15 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: 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 the statistical analysis of lives saved and serious injury prevented since the introduction of compulsory seat-belts is now completed; and if so whether they will make a statement.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, recently published figures show that fatal and serious injuries to front-seat occupants of cars and light vans in the first six months of 1984 were 20 per cent. fewer than in the first six months of 1982. The department will continue to publish information throughout the three-year period of the regulations. The 1983 edition of Road Accidents Great Britain and a specially prepared report by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory will both be available shortly.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that helpful Answer and observe that I shall look forward to seeing those statistics published shortly. Can my noble friend say what progress is being made in achieving uniformity of fastenings and whether there is an intention by Ministers to propose
682
in the EEC that this uniformity should be made general throughout Europe by a suitable regulation being proposed by the Commission?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am afraid that my noble friend has got me there. I am not aware of any progress being made in the uniformity of fastenings, or of what the EEC have said. If I may, I shall write to my noble friend when I get this information.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I am anxious for information if the Minister has it now; if not, perhaps he will follow the new procedure and make it available. I should like to know whether any progress has been made in adding back seat-belts to the regulations covering front seat-belts.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, in regard to rear seat-belts, we are awaiting the report from the Select Committee on Road Safety, which is expected in mid-December, about the compulsory fitting of rear seat-belts. However, we have no plans at the moment to extend compulsory wearing to rear seat-belts.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is the Minister able to confirm that the figures for observance of the seat-belt wearing law are as high as they were the last time we were given this information, which was then most encouraging? Also, are there any figures as to the number of prosecutions for not observing the seat-belt law? If so, how many of those were by direct action and how many were as a result of motorists being stopped for other offences?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we are pleased that, as far as we know, the observance is still 95 per cent. In 1983 there were 6,826 prosecutions. I gather that nearly all, if not all, of them arose from stopping for another offence at the same time.
Lord Monson: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that since seat-belt wearing became compulsory preliminary statistics show that many more cyclists and pedestrains have been killed or injured by over-confident motorists, as many of us feared would happen and indeed as anyone with the slightest knowledge of human psychology could have foreseen?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: No, my Lords; I would not agree.
Lord Spens: My Lords, are there any statistics on the number of persons who have been killed in accidents as a result of wearing seat-belts?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have no statistics with me. This will be a subject in the report when it is published, but at this stage we do not believe that there is any significant number that could be attributed to wearing seat-belts.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that his answer about the possibility of uniformity in fastening was somewhat disappointing, and that this is an important aspect of seat-belt wearing both for the convenience of wearers and for

683
their safety in the event of an accident where a quick release is important? Would he be good enough to give an assurance to the House that he will as a Minister pursue this matter and in particular look at the possibility of promoting it as a regulation in the EEC?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not sure that I can give the second assurance the noble Lord is requiring. I will certainly give the assurance that we shall look at the matter.
Lord Soames: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind in this context, before he writes to my noble friend Lord Nugent, that what matters is that the fastenings should be effective? To invite the Commission to make every member country of the Community have exactly the same fastening seems to me to be encouraging the Commission to make just the sort of regulation which it is often brought into ridicule for making.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I will certainly bear in mind the noble Lord's remarks.

Pound Note: Withdrawal Consultations
3.20 p.m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: 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 which consumer organisations they consulted before deciding not to continue the issue of £1 notes after 31st December next.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, over 80 organisations were consulted before the coin was introduced, including representatives of the elderly, handicapped and blind. Consumer attitudes were also tested. It was implicit in these consulations that the coin would eventually replace the note.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, is the Minister aware that that is no Answer to my Question? But I shall leave that for the moment because there are two other points which I wish to raise. Does the Minister recall that last week his noble friend Lord Gray of Contin (who is himself a Minister of State at the Scottish Office) told us in what high repute the Government hold consumers and about which opinion I felt a certain amount of scepticism? But does he recall that during those remarks his noble friend mentioned the great importance which the Government attach to the views of consumers? If we are to believe that, does the Minister not agree that consumers should have been consulted on everyday matters like these, because surely shoppers know better than Whitehall what effects this will have on them?
684
Moving on from that point, will the noble Lord the Minister ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House whether he can help on this matter? I wonder whether the noble Lord recalls that on 6th November last the noble Viscount very proudly spoke to us about being a Scotsman, saying that he was still a Scotsman? Is the noble Lord aware that the Bank of Scotland has stated quite simply that it intends to continue the issue of £ 1 notes on what I should have thought was the very good ground that people like them. Can the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, and the Leader of the House get together on this matter and change the decision for us?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I must confess that I am not totally aware of my noble friend's comment when he spoke earlier, but in due course I shall make myself aware of them. However, I must tell the noble Baroness that the Consumers' Association the National Consumer Council, together with the National Consumer Protection Council, were consulted before the £1 coins were issued. They were invited to make comments, and in fact at that time they showed little interest. I have to tell the noble Baroness that none of the organisations was specifically asked to comment on the coin once it had actually been issued. As regards Scotland, of course it is up to the directors and shareholders of the banks to decide whether or not they want to keep the note. Speaking as a Scotsman, I suppose that I ought to declare an interest and say that I am glad that they have said the same as the noble Baroness has said. However, the fact also remains that the costs of the original note compared with the costs of a coin means that there will be savings to the taxpayer by adopting the coin instead of the note in this country.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister confirm or otherwise correct my impression that the consideration leading to this decision which has been taken must have been by people enviably youthful and possessed of very keen clarity of vision? Will he kindly give sympathetic consideration to the views of that not inconsiderable number of our citizens who are not possessed of these desirable characteristics and who have difficulty in distinguishing between these coins and, for example, the 20p and 5p coins? Following that sympathetic consideration—which I am sure he is about to say that he will give—will he recommend to Her Majesty's Government the desirability of continuing the issue of the popular and acceptable £1 notes?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, in recognition of the special problems to which my noble friend refers, the organisations for the elderly, the handicapped and the blind were consulted as part of the consultation process before the coin was issued. Tests were carried out by Nottingham University for the Royal Mint using blind and disabled people who, through their organisations, volunteered to help with these tests. That is a fact, and that shows that the decisions which were taken reflect their view.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, the noble Lord has said that there was consultation at the time when the £1 coin was introduced. Was there consultation with

685
organisations such as the disabled and the elderly about the idea of totally withdrawing the £1 note? The noble Lord implied that there was not. Can he please clarify the matter for the House?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I said that it was implicit in the earlier consultations that the coin would eventually replace the note. I think that the noble Lord is right; I do not think that there were specific consultations after the decision had been taken to introduce the coin. The fact is that three years or so was the time-scale envisaged and that is why the decision has now been taken.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that the withdrawal of the £1 note discriminates against men because heavy coins do great damage to pocket linings? Does he not think that this is likely to lead to an extension of male handbags, and in this case will male handbags be permitted in the Chamber?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I suggest that if my noble friend has a problem, he changes his £1 coins into perhaps a £5 note or even a larger denomination note.
Lord Kilmany: My Lords, arising out of the original reply, may I ask whether my noble friend has read in The Times of yesterday's date a letter from a person who lives in Hong Kong stating that a two dollar note in Hong Kong has a circulation life at least 10 times as long as a £1 note appears to have here? If the question is asked, "How can this be?" the answer is that better quality paper is used in the printing process. Can Her Majesty's Government not consider following that example?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, at the end of the day it boils down to a question of cost and the fact that the way in which £1 notes are being used has changed considerably since the 1970s. I do not think that my noble friend's suggestion would help.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, does the Minister think that continually to repeat "wrong" information makes it right? The Minister has not answered the Question that I asked him. From what he has said, am I correct in assuming that no consumer organisations were consulted immediately prior to the decision to withdraw the £1 note? The fact that they were consulted when the coin was issued is nothing whatever to do with the matter. Can the Minister please look at his Answer again and see what else he can say?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, I said that I do not believe there was consultation before the decision was taken to phase out the £1 note. The important point is that the consultations took place beforehand. However, I think that there is a balance to be made in all this and that is that the coin is not as totally unpopular as perhaps this particular exchange of views indicates. There are those who find that the coin is a better means of exchange than the note. In fact, the circulation of the coin for this year has risen steadily as people are getting used to it.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, as there is an Ünstarred Question on this very subject on the Order Paper for next Tuesday, I think that we have probably taken up enough time on it now.

Oxfordshire Bill [H.L.]
3.29 p.m.
The Chairman of Commmittees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Aberdare.)
Lord Underhill: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a few points on this Bill. I am advised by the Oxford City Council that this matter involves a principle for which 1 and a number of other noble Lords have indicated our support in recent years. When this Private Bill was deposited it included a clause which was disallowed at the Unopposed Committee stage. That clause—it was then Clause 31—would have authorised the Oxford City Council to make arrangements for travel concessions for the unemployed and for those involved in youth training schemes.
I am informed that evidence submitted on behalf of the city council pointed out that there were some 4,300 unemployed in the city and some further 800 persons involved on youth training schemes. Bus fares within the city of Oxford are among the highest in the United Kingdom. The average city bus fare is no less than 31 p; and an analysis of the residential distribution of those persons unemployed and of the particular journeys they might have cause to make would entail fares ranging from 32p to 75p, which noble Lords will appreciate is a lot of money to take out of unemployment and other benefit.
Should it be argued that special assistance is given to meet the cost of journeys to seek work—we have discussed this before—I must point out that letters were presented in evidence from the manager of the DHSS local office and also from the Manpower Services Commission which make clear the limited nature of these particular arrangements. The Department of Transport submitted a written report with regard to this clause. I understand that this was considered when the department's representative came before the committee. It was stated that the Secretary of State objected to the clause on various grounds. May I draw attention to these? First, although Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 gives a local authority power to incur expenditure up to a 2p rate, it was argued that this provision is specifically designed not to cover areas which are already the subject of other legislation.
The second point was that Section 138 of the 1968 Transport Act provides that concessionary fares shall be limited to certain groups—those of pensionable age and the disabled. The third point was that on four occasions in the last two years Parliament has rejected similar proposals in Private Members' Bills, and also that such proposals were debated during the 1983

687
Transport Bill. The fourth point of the department was that the clause would create a precedent for other authorities, and the cost of such extended concessions could have possible implications for local government expenditure generally. Finally, it was said that the unemployed are only one of such groups to which assistance could be given.
I also understand that before the committee the department's representative put forward another point: that the department would have no objection to the promotion of schemes for travel concessions for the unemployed on a self-financing basis; and that the department were aware of a number of schemes promoted by local authorities and public transport undertakings which enabled unemployed persons to travel at off-peak times at concessionary rates on the ground that the seats occupied would otherwise be vacant. It would be interesting to know whether consideration was given to making this proposal to the Oxford City Council.
On the points mentioned by the department in their written evidence, certainly the 1968 Act, in Section 138, gives an authority the power to arrange concessions for persons of pensionable age and the disabled, but surely it must be stressed that it is the purpose of a Private Member's Bill to endeavour to get parliamentary approval for matters which otherwise are not in legislation.
I and other noble Lords are fully aware of the decisions taken, including those in your Lordships' House, on the question of concessionary fares for the unemployed. May I explain what happened in your Lordships' House? To the 1983 Transport Bill I proposed an amendment on behalf of the Opposition which received support from various parts of the committee. It was to give this provision to all unemployed persons and those in training. On that occasion the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, questioned whether that was the appropriate means by which to secure the desired objective. On that basis I said that I would withdraw the amendment, but would consider bringing it forward at Report stage.
Before the Report stage my noble friend Lord Molloy introduced a Private Member's Bill to achieve the same objective. On that occasion the Government said that their principal objection was the consequence to public expenditure of this being generally applied. The Second Reading was refused on an amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, which he said was on procedural grounds and not on the principle. That amendment to defer the Second Reading was agreed.
At the Report stage of the Bill I proposed the same amendment. On that occasion we were told that a Private Member's Bill was not the way to handle the issue. The Minister has tried to have it both ways up to this stage. All that the Oxfordshire Bill was seeking under Clause 31 was that only the Oxford City Council would have this extra provision to have concessionary fares for the unemployed and those in training.
In addition to the points already made I ought to mention that the Oxford City Council makes available—and I think that everyone will applaud this—sports facilities free to the unemployed, those on youth training schemes and those claiming various
688
social service benefits. I have here a photostat of the brochure issued, with the list of all the sports amenities in the city of Oxford which are available free to the unemployed.
Noble Lords may recall when we discussed the general principle for the whole country that I made the point that what we were seeking were not just facilities for the unemployed to travel to seek work but so that they could live proper and full lives. The Oxford City Council gives these free facilities for sports, but many of them are such a distance that they would incur the type of bus fare to which I have referred, which is outside the pocket of those on unemployment benefit.
The Oxford City Council is not seeking to add expenditure beyond that for which it has authority. It intended, if this clause had been allowed, to meet the cost of the proposed arrangements from the proceeds of the 2p rate permitted under Section 137 of the 1972 Act. It has pointed out that the product of a 2p rate in Oxford is some £421,000. The only item currently provided under that provision is some £185,000 spent principally upon highway and traffic management schemes. It is estimated that if the clause had been allowed the cost of the proposal for concessionary travel for the unemployed and those on training schemes would have been £105.000. That could have been taken out of the 2p rate provision which the council could have used up to that figure if it had this permission.
I hope I have managed to convince your Lordships that there are sound arguments why this clause should have been allowed. The Oxford City Council are anxious for these views to be made known, and say how much they deeply regret the clause was disallowed. On behalf of the Opposition I should like to add my support to that. I am certain that other noble Lords who supported the principle when we discussed the issue in your Lordships' House would likewise regret that this clause has been disallowed.
3.37 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I wonder whether I may be allowed to give the Government's view, briefly. We of course share the general concern for the unemployed felt on all sides of the House, but we do not believe that the measures of the kind proposed in that clause of the Bill represent the most sensible or effective way of coming to their assistance. On the contrary, we believe that by increasing the burden that subsidies impose on the ratepayer and the taxpayer they are more likely to inhibit the economic growth which represents the best hope for reducing present levels of unemployment.
Both your Lordships' House and the other place have considered these arguments on a number of occasions in recent years, during the passage of the Transport Act 1983, to which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred, and in relation to Private Members' Bills introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, and in another place by Mr. Alf Morris, MP.
The proposals for the introduction of concessionary fares for the unemployed have not, however, been accepted in any of these contexts. In view of these decisions at national level we did not believe it appropriate that the present Bill should contain

689
provision for the introduction of these fares in Oxford City, since there would seem to be no way in which the position in Oxford is different in this respect from that in other parts of the country.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, your Lordships have heard exactly the same arguments this afternoon as were put to the members of the Select Committee when they listened to the promoters' and the Government's view on this particular clause. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has put forward the arguments that were made on behalf of the Oxford City Council and the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, has put the contrary arguments that were put by the Government to the members of that committee.
I cannot quite agree with the terms in which the noble Lord. Lord Underhill, defined private Acts, but what I would say is that promoters of private legislation have to show need for all the powers that they seek. Where a proposed provision in a private Bill seeks to amend public general legislation, especially legislation involving important considerations of public policy, the onus of the promoters to show that there are exceptional local circumstances justifying the amendment is particularly high.
The committee on the Oxfordshire Bill was not satisfied that the promoters had discharged that onus in the case of this clause, especially as the powers that were sought to allow travel concessions for the unemployed had—as both the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, mentioned—been rejected by Parliament four times in the last two years in Private Member' Bills. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, also reminded us, in the course of the proceedings on the Transport Act 1983 he himself moved amendments to this effect and 1 think that both were withdrawn at the Committee stage and the Report stage. I would only add that in this case there was a strong report against the clause from the Department of the Environment and, although of course committees are not bound to give effect to such reports, in this case the committee had no hesitation in accepting the force of the objections to the clause which were contained in that report.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Sound Broadcasting: Select Committee
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Select Committee on Sound Broadcasting:—

Ardwick, L.

Cathcart, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Phillips, B.

Winstanley, L.

That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place and to report from time to time;
That two be the quorum of the Committee;
That the Committee have power to appoint Specialist Advisers;
That the Committee have power to join with any Select Committee on Sound Broadcasting that may be appointed by the Commons;
That the Committee have power to agree with the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman for any joint meeting.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to; and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Hybrid Instruments: Select Committee
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Select Committee on Hybrid Instruments:—

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Beswick, L.

Brandon of Oakbrook, L.

Cawley, L.

Collison, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Fletcher, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Sligo, M.

Stamp, L.

Teviot, L.

Wise, L.

—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Lochaber Water Power Order Confirmation Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Legal Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1984
3.44 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone)The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone) rose to move, That the four sets of regulations laid before the House on 31st October be approved.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the four Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper and, with the permission of the House, I

691
shall move them en bloc. The first two Motions relate to legal aid and legal advice and assistance in England and Wales. The other two relate to Scotland.
On this occasion last year I said that I had decided to make a November uprating for the financial limits as administered, since it was more convenient to uprate the legal aid limits at the same time as the increases in supplementary benefit. This is because the dependants' allowances for legal aid are automatically increased in line with those for supplementary benefit, and it is not only more convenient but also less confusing for applicants to have all the increases coming into effect at the same time.
The first two Motions increase the income and upper capital limits respectively for civil legal aid and for legal advice and assistance. The increase is 4·7 per cent. This maintains the present relationship between legal aid and supplementary benefit. But there is no increase in the lower capital limit for legal aid. Alignment of this limit with the supplementary benefit capital limit was introduced last year. Since the supplementary benefit limit is to remain the same as last year—that is. £3,000—it seemed preferable to keep the legal aid lower capital limit unchanged also.
The Legal Aid Regulations raise the lower disposable income limit (that is, the level of disposable income below which no contribution is payable) from £2,050 a year to £2.145. The upper income limit (that is, the level above which legal aid is not available) increases by the same proportion from £4,925 a year to £5,155. As I have said, the lower capital limit is to remain at £3,000; the upper capital limit above which legal aid is not normally available is, however, to be increased from £4,500 to £4,710.
The Advice and Assistance Regulations raise the upper disposable income limit for the green form scheme from £103 a week to £108 a week. The capital limit above which assistance is not available increases from £730 to £765.
The two sets of Scottish regulations—the Legal Aid (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1984 and the Legal Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1984—make the same increases in the financial limits for Scotland.
The House will also be aware that I have made a further set of regulations for which an affirmative resolution is not needed. These are the Legal Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (No. 2) Regulations. These increase the lower disposable income limit for the green form scheme from £49 to £51 and revise the scales of contribution which an applicant for advice and assistance may be required to make. A similar increase in the lower disposable income limit and a similar revision of the scales of contributions, relating to Scotland, is contained in the Legal Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) (No. 2) Regulations 1984.
I am also proposing to increase the financial limits for criminal legal aid. The Criminal Proceedings (General) (Amendment) Regulations 1984 increase from £42 to £44 a week the disposable income above which a person receiving legal aid in criminal proceedings under Part II of the Legal Aid Act 1974 is required to pay a contribution; the regulations also
692
amend the scale of contributions. These are subject to the negative resolution procedure.
I should also inform the House that I have made, and placed before it under the procedure subject to negative resolution, three instruments which have the same effect on the legal aid and legal advice and assistance provisions for Northern Ireland.
At the time of the last uprating I informed the House that I proposed to increase the capital limit for assistance by, way of representation (which is an extension of the legal advice and assistance scheme and provides representation for certain specified proceedings before courts and tribunals) to £3,000; that is, to the same level as the lower legal aid capital limit. As this requires primary legislation, I have had to wait for an appropriate opportunity; that opportunity will arise with the Administration of Justice Bill, which is to be introduced during this Session, and I intend that Bill to contain an appropriate amendment to the Legal Aid Act 1974. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1984, laid before the House on 31st October, be approved.
Moved, That the Legal Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1984, laid before the House on 31st October, be approved.
Moved, That the Legal Aid (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1984, laid before the House on 31st October, be approved.
Moved, That the Legal Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1984, laid before the House on 31st October, be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord for introducing and explaining these legal aid (financial conditions) regulations. Two sets of them relate to England and Wales and another two sets relate to Scotland. Indeed, it would be very astonishing, and a very dangerous course for the Government, to differentiate between the respective scales for Scotland as compared with those for England and Wales. They are the same; and the need for the continued existence of legal aid and advice is of course common throughout the country. We shall be interested to see when the Northern Ireland provisions arise that they conform to the same financial scales as apply to those that are being introduced today.
With regard to the financial limits for criminal legal aid, I confess I was not aware that those changes were being made. As I understand it, they do not arise on the regulations that we are considering today. But of course it is equally important—if not more important—that the financial arrangements in regard to criminal legal aid should be just as beneficial—if not more so—to those seeking the help of legal aid in the criminal courts as in the civil field. Your Lordships may think that it is essential that eligibility limits should be raised regularly and realistically and should keep up with the rate of inflation, otherwise those needing and entitled to receive legal aid and advice would diminish in number as long as inflation continued.

693
I am interested to note the percentage increase in the financial eligibility which is provided for in these regulations. Last year it was 6–25 per cent.; but the noble and learned Lord says that these regulations provide for an increase of 4·7 percent., and perhaps he will give us an explanation. It may well be that the difference is explained by the different rate of inflation in the respective period.
Another figure which perhaps the noble and learned Lord can also give to us is what percentage of the whole population is covered by these provisions of eligibility for legal aid. Last year I think that the figure was about 70 per cent. of the whole population, which is gratifying so far as it goes. It does not mean that the legal aid is free. On the contrary, contributions above the levels that are indicated in these regulations will be expected from those who become eligible for legal aid. But as a matter of interest it would be reassuring to know that the coverage for the whole population is substantial.
As I have said, we welcome the extension of availability of legal aid. It has provided a great service to the community and it is one of the most important social services. I am not making a party political point of this; I very rarely make party political points. The scheme was initiated way back in the 'forties, when my noble friend Lord Shawcross and I, with full all-party support, had some part in introducing it. A great deal of benefit has accrued to our people at large by the existence of these regulations, and I think they are probably unparalleled in any other equivalent society. So let us keep on with them, maintain them, and earn enough money to increase an extension of them even more to our people as a whole.
3.53 p.m.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, these are extremely modest proposals and it is therefore not surprising if I extend a somewhat modest welcome to them. They do not seek substantially to increase the number of people who are eligible for legal aid or advice or assistance. They merely seek to ensure that the number is not reduced as a result of the effects of inflation. That is in itself to be welcomed, but it is a very limited step forward. It is not easy on that particular narrow issue to make a passionate or enthusiastic speech, and I do not propose to do so. I should like, however, very briefly, to raise two closely associated matters.
First, when we are discussing—as we are at the moment—the eligibility of people for legal aid, it is crucially important to ensure that those who are eligible for legal aid in fact receive it. I am concerned particularly about the procedures in relation to criminal legal aid before some of the magistrates' courts, not those presided over by metropolitan magistrates in London, where it has been known—certainly throughout all my time at the Bar and indeed even in more recent years—that there are some courts, particularly in London, that are extremely reluctant to grant legal aid even to people who are obviously eligible for it. Whether they take the view that they are in some way contributing to the national economy by declining to grant legal aid, I do not know. I know that occasionally and unhappily those who appear before those courts get the impression that the courts are taking the view that it appears to them, before a case has been tried, that the defendant ought
694
to be convicted and therefore they are reluctant to expend public funds in order that the defendant might be given the opportunity of raising any doubt about his guilt.
The noble and learned Lord is very well aware of what are called the Widgery rules, as to guidance to courts as to when legal aid, particularly criminal legal aid, should be granted. There have been recent figures produced in the press, as the noble and learned Lord may have seen, which show the most remarkable variation in the granting of legal aid in some of the London courts. Although the noble and learned Lord will appreciate the difficulty of any direct intervention to those courts, he might consider that it would be helpful if the attention of the courts was drawn very forcefully to the Widgery rules and the courts were invited to adhere perhaps rather more strictly to them than one or two have been doing in London.
The other matter that I draw to the attention of the noble and learned Lord—though I know it is never far from his mind—is whether it is possible in the near future to extend to some extent the categories of people to whom legal aid or advice or assistance might be granted. I gather from all the speeches on the gracious Speech that were made from the Government Front Bench that the economy is now booming and it may well be that there is just a very limited amount of money to be available so that legal aid and advice and assistance might be extended. If that is to be so, I respectfully urge the noble and learned Lord to consider in particular the tribunal system of this country, and the possibility that some citizens who appear before that body might be given legal assistance.
I know there is always the possibility that having lawyers present before a tribunal may add to a totally unnecessary degree of formality in the proceedings. On the other hand, there are very many tribunals in which the orderly presentation of evidence is important. There are many tribunals not presided over by a legally qualified chairman or with the aid of a legally qualified clerk where points of law may arise, and in those circumstances there are strong arguments to be made for extending our legal aid and advice system to as many tribunals as possible as soon as it is practicable in expenditure terms. I would not want to suggest at this stage that it might be possible to do so to all tribunals; but I invite the noble and learned Lord to consider in particular those tribunals where the liberty of the subject may be at stake, or where the health of the individual may be in issue. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will be able to indicate that he views with approval, for example, the report of his own Legal Aid Advisory Committee, which has urged that legal assistance should be available in particular for those who are asking for bail in front of the immigration appellate authorities.
I would suggest for my part, too, that just as assistance by way of representation has been of very great help to people appearing before the mental health review tribunals—an advance much appreciated by everyone concerned with those tribunals—that might be extended as soon as possible to the vaccine damage tribunals, where again there is a strong case for helping the ordinary citizen to make out his case.

695
I add two other priorities: they are the social security commissioners, who deal with matters of great moment to individuals, and the industrial tribunals, which, similarly, have to take decisions of great gravity. However, I accept that those latter two categories of tribunal deal with a very large number of cases and, unless it were possible to provide some sort of preliminary sieve, it would be financially impracticable at this stage to move forward in that direction.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to give a little encouragement to those who welcome the present operation of the legal aid and advice and assistance procedures and who would like to see its extension, as soon as possible, to many citizens in this country to whom it would be of the very greatest importance.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, from this Bench I express, as it were, the Scottish interest and extend a welcome to these measures which is, not surprisingly, similar to that of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. I always enjoy the statutory joke of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, on these occasions about the importance of ensuring equality of benefit to Scotland and to England. This I do welcome.
I share, too, his reminiscences about the introduction of the legal aid scheme in 1949 by the Labour Government of which I was then something of a supporter, albeit as a humble activist. Indeed I remember that the scheme was greeted with such hostility by the Scottish Bar that only two of us—I was surprised at my own courage because I was a very junior member of the faculty at that time—were prepared to speak for it. The paradox of that is that the Bar could not have survived without it. Were any attempt made to take it away today there would be a revolutionary situation in Edinburgh.
For my interest and from my experience I have only one remark. I speak only from knowledge of the Scottish position. I hope that the Government are carefully monitoring the operation of the criminal legal aid scheme—I confine my observations to the criminal legal aid scheme—to ensure that the benefits of this great scheme go in the first place to those for whom they were intended—that is to say, that they go to secure an improvement in the administration of criminal justice and to protect the innocent against the possibility of guilt. I have made enemies in my own profession by saying this, but there was a feeling—just a feeling. I put it no higher—that perhaps the legal profession was too much the beneficiary of the scheme.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in this discussion for the knowledgeable comments they have made. I make only two remarks of a general nature. One is that all three schemes—the green form scheme, the aid scheme and the criminal scheme—are among the most rapidly growing and I think actually are the most rapidly growing of all the social services. Demands to increase them in the light of that fact and in the light of the kind of constraints to which all government departments are subject are not likely to reach very
696
extensive degrees of acceptance. I do my best and I do not think that I have done badly in keeping the coverage about the same, keeping it in line, roughly speaking, with the inflationary targets set year by year. If I were to ask for a larger range of applicability I think that I should almost inevitably have to spread my butter rather less thickly on the places where it is most needed. That is my first general observation.
Secondly, I refer to the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, and of the noble and learned Lord. As they correctly stated, the original 1949 scheme was introduced under a Labour Government, but it was produced as the result, I believe, of the Rushcliffe Report. My late friend the first Lord Dilhome was on that committee. It was never a matter of party controversy as such.
In reply to the noble and learned Lord, yes, 4.7 is the figure to keep in line with the supplementary benefit figures. It is the same. Therefore inflation is the basic yardstick by which it is measured. Yes, 70 per cent. of households is the right percentage which is supposed to be covered if these regulations are now passed.
I am not altogether in agreement with what was said about magistrates' courts. As the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, raised the subject and the noble and learned Lord also mentioned it, though it is not entirely relevant to the present discussion, it is an important question and should be answered in broad terms. In the Lord Chancellor's Department, we entered into quite an extensive survey of the grant of criminal legal aid in magistrates' courts. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, was quite right in referring to the Widgery criteria. By and large they are conformed with.
The pattern of work in the different courts is not necessarily the same. One does not, as a rule, give criminal legal aid, for example, for a parking offence. The first of the criteria relates to danger to reputation or to liberty and the others are covered considerations such as, "Does the defendant speak English sufficiently well to understand what is going on without professional help? Has he some impediment in speech, sight or hearing?" That would be common to all courts. I do not think it could be made a general charge against magistrates' courts that the merits of the case heard in advance of the hearing have anything to do with the grant or withholding of legal aid. I think that would be unjust to them. I think they try conscientiously to apply the Widgery criteria.
I accept at once that the study which we introduced indicated disparities which suggested that there might be differences of interpretation between one court and another, attributable to what constitutes a criminal offence and so on. As a result, we gave guidance in a rather long document which was sent out. Whether and how far it will be successful, one does not know, but it was supposed to be couched in fairly intelligible language to tell magistrates, roughly speaking, how the Widgery criteria should be construed and applied.
As I said at the outset, we operate under the constraint of the kind of financial limits to which all Government departments are subjected and one has to choose very largely between keeping the aid on a sufficient level for those who already get it and trying to extend it. I am not very much in favour of extension. Take for instance defamation cases.

697
Logically speaking, one can see very little answer to the demands that defamation cases should be within the scope of legal aid. However, they never have been so, and I can see reasons quite different from the pure financial constraint which have led successive Lord Chancellors to say "No" to the siren voices of those who want to add them.
As regards tribunals, that is of course a very much more difficult matter because there is such a wide range of tribunals about which one has to speak. There are some to which legal aid in the ordinary course is given. I think that the Lands Tribunal is one, unless I am mistaken. There, the process is virtually one of an ordinary litigious process before the ordinary courts. But a great number of these tribunals were introduced in the first place precisely in order to render professional representation unnecessary and there always is a strong lobby of laymen at any rate—lawyers are rather less keen—to say that you ought to simplify the procedure in front of these tribunals so that the ordinary man or woman can speak for himself or herself and that the lawyers should be kept out of it. I gather from something that he let fall in his own speech that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, might be of that school of thought. But in the main we will consider individual cases subject to what I have said about resources if and when a demand can be successfully put forward towards it. However, the more you introduce lawyers, the more formal the procedure will get and the more expensive it will become for the taxpayer.
Having said that, I should like to say to the noble Lord. Lord Wigoder, that one has to remember in relation to criminal legal aid that the criteria are not always exactly the same. For instance, the civil legal aid applies to potential plaintiffs; criminal legal aid applies solely to actual defendants. They can go to the green form scheme in advance of the case but it does make a difference to the nature of the grant. Again, in matrimonial cases—and I remember that I complained (I think probably wrongly) at the time when legal aid was withdrawn from the main divorce proceedings—the parties to a divorce case are there because they have to be there. There is inevitably a virtual necessity for lawyers to come into it at every stage once you get to the stage of questions relating to custody and access, care and control, and ancillary relief, maintenance and division of property. As long as people are above the financial limits, they more or less have to have it.
Having said that, my Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for what they have said. I hope that this is not too controversial a matter and, unless there is something that I have inadvertently left out, I should like to beg to move that these four Motions be agreed to.
On Question, Motions agreed to.

Food and Environment Protection Bill [H.L.]
4.13 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move that the Food and Environment Protection Bill be read a second time.
698
This Bill deals with three subjects—contamination of food, deposits in the sea, and pesticides—each of which is relevant to protection of food and the environment. I hope that this legislation will underline the major environmental role of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in these and other areas of its responsibilities.
Environmental issues have a tendency to become more complex as time goes by. This reflects in part our success in tackling some of the more obvious aspects of the legacy from Victorian industrialisation. It reflects our growing knowledge of the subject and our scientists' ability to measure effects which were previously overlooked; and it reflects the growing public interest in these questions.
It is here that a Bill of this kind has to face a difficulty which is inherent in many environmental issues. It would be impossible for Government, however lengthy their legislation might be, to eliminate every single aspect of risk from our lives. We have to focus on issues as they become clearly identified, assess their relative priorities and do our best to deal with them specifically.
The priorities in the Bill are to safeguard our food supplies (that is Part I), to protect the marine environment (Part II), and to set up a new statutory framework for approval and use of pesticides (in Part III). I emphasise that we shall see all these exercises, and particularly that relating to pesticides, as part of a continuing dialogue with all the different responsible interests concerned, whether those interests identify themselves mainly with the environment or with industry. Indeed, I do not think really that the distinction between industry and environmental interests is particularly helpful, as usually each is aware of the need to take account of the interests of the other. What Government have to do is to listen and in due course to put proposals to Parliament. So in the part of this Bill dealing with pesticides this proposed legislation would establish a framework, to be supplemented with regulations.
I would emphasise equally that this Bill is not designed to restrain trade. A basically free market system can work best within a fair regulatory framework. This Bill is intended to set higher standards for protection of food and the environment without obstructing the industries concerned.
Perhaps I may say a few words about Part I of the Bill. This would provide greater protection to the public in the event of food becoming unsuitable for consumption following a release of harmful substances. I would make it quite clear that the powers here would be activated only in the most serious of emergencies where there was a threat to the safety of food. In the past we have relied on voluntary arrangements, which have worked well on the very few occasions they were used. The fact that we are taking statutory powers does not mean that we expect a serious incident. We do, however, regard immediate counter-measures as a prudent insurance policy.
Your Lordships will recall the terrible accident at Seveso in Italy in 1976, involving the release of highly toxic chemicals which widely contaminated the surrounding districts. We have, thankfully, never experienced an accident of such magnitude in this

699
country. We have had serious accidents involving harmful chemicals, but none has affected the safety of food to the extent that emergency prohibitions under the Bill would have been introduced.
A good example is the sinking of the "Aeolian Sky" off Portland Bill in November 1979. The ship was carrying highly toxic chemicals. In the event, the cargo was securely stowed and was not breached, and the accident did not occur in an area of major importance to fisheries. Your Lordships will appreciate, however, that the circumstances could have been very different if the accident had involved the spillage of highly toxic substances in the rich North Sea fishing grounds at the height of the fishing season.
One of the most important features of Part I is that the procedures could be operated very quickly if the situation demanded, within hours of an incident. Clause 1 provides for emergency orders which would prohibit any or all of the activities listed in Schedule 1. Emergency orders would come into effect immediately but would require affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament in order to continue beyond 28 days.
After an emergency order has been made, Clause 2 gives Ministers the power to give directions as to how unsuitable foodstuffs should be dealt with. The power to give directions would continue beyond the expiry of the emergency order in case food that had been rendered unsuitable subsequently came to light.
Clause 3 deals with the authorisation of investigating and enforcement officers. Investigating officers would give advice following an incident—whether an emergency order should be made, and what restrictions should be imposed. Enforcement officers would enforce the emergency orders and Ministers' directions. A distinction is made between the two functions because investigation would require greater powers; in particular, the power to act before an emergency order was made.
Similarly, in Clause 4 and Schedule 2, which deal with the powers of entry, I hope your Lordships will feel that care has been taken; and in particular paragraph 7 of Schedule 2 provides that entry to a dwelling can be effected only by means of a magistrate's warrant.
Part II of the Bill extends and inproves the controls in our existing legislation—the Dumping at Sea Act 1974—while retaining the basic principles underlying that Act. The changes are those which 10 years' experience has shown to be necessary to improve the protection of the environment.
Your Lordships may recall that legal control of dumping at sea began with the Oslo and London Conventions, both signed in 1972. The Oslo Convention, related to the North East Atlantic—an area which covers all the seas round our shores—while the London one is worldwide. They otherwise have broadly similar provisions, which were implemented in the United Kingdom by the Dumping at Sea Act 1974.
Control is exerted by means of a licensing system. Applicants have to submit full details and a sample of the material they wish to deposit, and these are scrutinised closely by scientists working for the
700
licensing authority. Only if the authority is quite satisfied that the operation can safely be carried out is a licence issued.
I know that concern is sometimes expressed about the safety of dumping at sea and the possible long-term consequences. The Government believe that the state of the seas around our shores is generally good and that dumping, if properly controlled, does not pose a threat to them, either immediately or in the longer term. Dumping in fact accounts for only a small proportion of the total inputs of contaminants into the sea, and it has to be said that in general rivers and land-based discharges account for a much higher proportion.
In Part II, Clause 5 sets out the activities which are to require a licence. The framework here is similar to that in the 1974 Act, but there are a number of changes. First, deposit from floating containers and the scuttling of vessels, together with their related activities of towing and propelling, are included for the first time. Secondly, deposit by foreign vessels loaded in the United Kingdom would now be licensed out to British fishery limits, rather than just within territorial waters. This is an additional control which I hope your Lordships will welcome.
Clause 6 extends a very similar system of licensing control to incineration at sea; another activity which was not mentioned at all in the 1974 Act. Marine incineration is used to dispose of liquid industrial wastes, especially organochlorine compounds, whose composition makes them less suitable for disposal by means of land-based incineration or treatment. In order to ratify the Protocol which the Oslo Convention agreed in 1983, the United Kingdom needs to be able to lay down detailed conditions on those matters, and we should be able to do this by using Clause 6 and the provision to impose conditions in Clause 8.
There is just one other aspect of Part II to which I would draw particular attention. Although Clause 8, together with Schedule 3, deals with licensing procedures on similar lines to the Dumping at Sea Act, there would be broader discretion for granting licences or imposing conditions, so that the fullest appraisal could be made of applications for deposit or incineration. Ministers would also have power to broaden the basis of the licence fees to include the costs of monitoring, a change which was recommended by a Rayner Scrutiny of the Ministry of Agriculture's research and development.
In Part III of the Bill the proposed controls over pesticides are again inspired by the search for safer standards of environmental protection. The present non-statutory control system—the Pesticides Safety Precautions scheme—has provided us with a good safety record in the use of pesticides over the 27 years since it was first introduced. However, it has come under pressure in recent years because of the import of uncleared pesticides and from criticism by the European Commission about its trade implications. It was these pressures which first led us to decide that we should come to Parliament with statutory proposals concerning pesticides. But we have taken this opportunity also to review the whole scope of pesticide controls, and in our review we have been greatly assisted by comments and advice from all quarters with an interest in the way pesticides are used.

701
Following the debate on this issue prompted by the Seventh Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, we are committed to ensuring that United Kingdom pesticide use is the minimum necessary to ensure the efficient production and distribution of food and to safeguard human health. In doing this we seek to reconcile what are sometimes two contradictory needs.
On the one hand, the use of crop protection products had made the old hand-sower's rhyme of,
"One for the rat,
One for the crow,
One for to rot
And one for to grow"
a thing of the past. We have achieved, as we all know, high levels of productivity, and we depend to a degree on pesticides to maintain that productivity. On the other hand, we need to protect the environment from the risks arising from the use of pesticides.
So Clause 15 provides the powers to ensure that all pesticides intended for use in the United Kingdom will be required by law to be submitted for scrutiny before being marketed. Until now, we have been largely dependent on the good will of the pesticides manufacturing and distributing industries to enforce similar provisions under the voluntary scheme; and I think that their co-operation in, and support for, the PSPS has been ample evidence of the responsible attitude which they have taken. Nevertheless, the scheme's dependence on a restrictive agreement between manufacturers and suppliers—that they would handle only products cleared under the PSPS—created a conflict of loyalty for suppliers. They were faced on the one side with that agreement and on the other with the possibility of supplying customers with products from overseas, which are sometimes cheaper. This situation was not really tenable.
This clause would also allow us to impose conditions before pesticides are approved under a statutory scheme. Many of these conditions will be familiar to those who operate within the existing schemes, but for the first time we shall be demanding of all products evidence not simply of safety, but of efficacy as well. Under the conditions of approval we intend to ensure that no pesticide will be released on to the United Kingdom market unless it is demonstrably beneficial to agriculture, horticulture or public health.
The clause would also extend pesticide controls to the field of use—and this is a major change. At present safety often depends upon the user adhering to recommended conditions of use on the label, and the record of pesticides in human safety demonstrates the care with which the great majority follow the recommendations. We are, however, faced with an increasing range of concerns, from water and wildlife interests to residue levels at the point of consumption of food; an increasing range of pesticide types; an increasing range of systems of application; and, very likely, an increasing degree of competition for market shares. In these circumstances it does not seem feasible to control the environmental effect of pesticides at the approval stage alone, and that is why it is intended that the new scheme will exert statutory controls over use.
It is not, of course, our intention to create a straitjacket for the farming industry, and I am
702
confident that we can develop ground rules for the application of pesticides which are sufficiently strict for the risk involved but permit the development and use of new and more effective practices and application systems. I know that some people are concerned that third world countries may import pesticides which are banned or restricted in use in the source country. This Bill proposes to take powers to require information from producers and exporters which will enable us to meet any international obligations in this area.
Many people have expressed concern that, as far as they can see, this Bill will not provide powers to control particular aspects of pesticide supply and use, despite what I have endeavoured to say to your Lordships already. Examples often quoted are aerial spraying, product labels and packaging, and application rates. I should like to give a reassurance to your Lordships today that the powers in Clause 15 are sufficiently broad to cover the full range of conditions which might affect safety and efficacy. It is noticeable, for instance, that Clause 15 would also enable maximum residue limits to be set for pesticides in food crops and animal feedingstuffs, which, once again, represents a move away from dependence on approval alone, for our safety arrangements.
As regards the regulations to be made under this clause, I should like to emphasise two points. First, the Bill requires us, as is proper, to consult the Health and Safety Commission on any regulations affecting worker health or safety. We shall also consult, in detail, all groups or organisations with an interest in pesticides use before settling the details of these regulations. Secondly, and even more importantly, these regulations will be made by the affirmative resolution procedure, thus affording opportunity for debate in both Houses before they are made.
The remaining clauses in Part III provide what one might call "good housekeeping" powers, in that Clause 16 would enable Ministers to charge fees to persons seeking approval in order to recover the costs of scrutiny and assessment, and Clause 17, together with Schedule 2, provides the powers necessary to enforce the provisions I have described. In this context, I am sure the House will wish to note that we envisage a requirement for additional staff in both the Health and Safety Executive and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in order to ensure that we can and do achieve the improvements and environmental protection which we seek.
In the remainder of the Bill, Clause 20 provides a defence of "due diligence", which applies generally to the offences throughout the Bill, and mitigates the otherwise strict liability which would apply. This will protect people who have taken steps to avoid the commission of an offence, but who, through no fault of their own, have committed a certain act.
I apologise for a rather long introductory speech on what is a three-part Bill. It is not without some complications and, if it is acceptable to your Lordships, I shall distribute Notes on Clauses after the weekend.
The Government believe in the highest standards of environmental protection that we can achieve. In the three areas of food safety, marine pollution and

703
pesticides this Bill identifies major issues or concern and introduces practical legislation to deal with them in each of the three areas of the Bill. I think it goes a long way to reconcile the twin demands of a safer environment and maintenance of prosperous commerce and industry, and in doing so it will introduce a higher standard of safety for all concerned. My Lords. I beg to move.
Moved. That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Belstead.)
4.35 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, the Minister has made a very good job of introducing this Bill. He has apologised for taking rather a long time. Quite frankly, he indicated to me that he might be longer, so it is a surprise that he took less than 20 minutes, which I shall do my best to emulate. It is amazing how brotherly love spreads across political parties.
The noble Lord made a very good introduction, particularly of the background to the Bill and the necessity for it. He finished by saying that it is only a three-part Bill, but it is not without considerable complications—and he can say that again! The Bill does not give us a lot to get our teeth into, as it is basically an enabling Bill giving the Government power to enforce certain regulations which I think we are going to know something about before the Committee stage. I note that we are to get some Notes on Clauses from the Minister after the Second Reading. However, in an effort to help the Government—and we are alway anxious to do that, because they need help—we had better have look at it.
Looking at Part I, we note that:
" 'designating authority' means the Ministers or either of them".
Looking at the interpretation clause and schedules, it appears that this means the noble Lord and his Minister. There is a point later on in the Bill where it says. "Ministers may jointly". Does that mean that they have to agree, and what happens if they disagree? I have been in Parliament for the best part of 20 years, and official interpretations of things sometimes puzzle me even now.
Anyhow, what about the environment Ministers? This Bill is entitled the Food and Environment Protection Bill. Are the environment Ministers not to have any say in this? I thought that there were too many Ministers enjoying (if "enjoying" is the right word) some say in this Bill. If there is a crisis situation they may take a while to come to a decision, so we should know exactly what is the position there.
The power which this designating authority is given is to take emergency powers and ultimately to revoke these powers. Under subsection (8) of Clause 1, the revocation of these powers seems to be slightly complicated, and, again, parliamentary language and wording has rather bemused me here. It seems to me that if there were an occasion, which is mentioned in the Bill, where a crop might be affected by bad spraying, or one thing and another, under Part I, the area or the farm itself could be closed down. If this should happen and the period of 28 days starts at the beginning of a recess, does this mean that it might be anything up to a couple of months or so before that
704
farm could be cleared? Points like that are a little difficult to understand.
There is a rather amusing point—if I may say that about the Bill—in subsection (9) of Clause 1, which reads:
"An order under this section which—

(a) wholly or partly revokes an emergency order; and

(b) does nothing else".

That seems to be rather a peculiar way of putting it. If there is an emergency, can this be done as quickly or as efficiently—and the noble Lord mentioned today what has been done as regards Part I—as a local authority could do it? I very much doubt it. Why not give the enhanced powers, which this Bill is giving to the Ministers and designating authority, to the local authorities, who already do the job? Have they ever failed? I think the Minister admitted that they have never failed to carry out this job very well in any of the situations that have arisen. Perhaps I could mention my own town of Aberdeen where there was a very bad case of food poisoning caused by tinned meat. The poisoning spread all over the town. The local medical officer did his job so well that he was made not only Man of Year but was given an MBE, too.
We ought to look very carefully at whether all these powers should be given to the Ministers in question. Has there ever been an incident which warrants the draconian powers contained in the Bill? The Minister mentioned his fear that a ship which was carrying poison might go down. Do the Government fear that there may be a major disaster which would affect food and that therefore these regulations are required? That is quite apart from all the idiots who have recently been trying to poison Mars Bars. The Minister has a duty to answer the point about whether it is necessary for Ministers to have all these powers when local authorities have done the job satisfactorily until now.
Turning to Part II of the Bill, I believe that the Government undoubtedly have a part to play. Pollution of the sea is a world-wide problem. I have two points to make on this part of the Bill. Severe restrictions had to be placed upon the total allowable catch of fish in European waters. We know that these restrictions are necessary, largely because of the overfishing which has taken place in the past. There is no doubt however that pollution has also played a big part. I am sure that our fishermen will welcome greater control of pollution around our coasts. Regarding the poisoning of salmon in river mouths, may I ask the Minister whether this is dealt with in Part II or Part I of the Bill? Salmon poisoning is widespread. A great deal of marine fish farming takes place in the sea lochs. I should like to know whether Part I or Part II of the Bill deals with this problem.
I note that the Bill will repeal the Dumping at Sea Act 1974. However, the Bill states that the Government may—I repeat the word "may"—continue to make payments to international organisations. As I have already mentioned, pollution of the sea is a world-wide problem. I hope that the Government will not withdraw from their international obligations, however voluntary those obligations may be. I am not sure whether an obligation can be voluntary, but I trust that the noble Lord understands what I mean.

705
I turn now to Part III of the Bill. To judge from the amount of lobbying that I have had—already enough to fill a fairly big waste paper basket, though I am not suggesting for a moment that that is where the material should go—it is obvious that the general public are very interested in this matter, as well as the farmers, chemical companies, sprayer manufacturers and the environmental lobby, which the Minister emphasised. I began spraying in the summer of 1927. I applied bordeaux mixture—copper sulphate and lime—to prevent blight in potatoes. The sprayer was horse drawn. It consisted of just a barrel on two wheels. The barrel was filled by buckets. Such a sprayer was to be seen on very few farms in our area—in fact, in very few parts of the country at that time. Sprayers are now to be found upon nearly every farm in the country. Every crop is sprayed for one reason or another. Last year we sprayed one crop, for various reasons, five times. In 1948, 216 pesticide products were approved for efficacy. At 1982 values they were worth just over £70 million. By 1982—my figures are not up to date—these products had increased in number to 700 and contained 200 different chemicals which represented a value of £542 million, of which home sales were about £270 million. As I have already mentioned, I do not possess up to date figures, but they would show a considerable increase upon those that I have just quoted. I mention these figures in order to demonstrate the magnitude of the spraying programme and its obvious importance to agriculture. The Minister rightly emphasised this point.
Part III of the Bill sets out to
"provide general powers to control the supply and use of pesticides or"—
as is mentioned elsewhere—
"to ensure their safe and efficient use".
All this is to be carried out by regulation. Therefore, until we see the regulations I shall make no comment. All I would say is that naturally we support the general principle that spraying has to be controlled and must be looked at from every angle.
There are one or two points that I should like to make about spraying. The PSPS—the Pesticides Safety Precautions Scheme—which has been in operation for the past 27 years has been very successful. There have been very few spraying accidents. This does not mean that we should not try to prevent any accidents. The PSPS has been very successful. There is also an independent body, the Advisory Committee on Pesticides. One hopes that full use will be made of these bodies, with all the experience that they have accumulated over the years. I should like to make the same point about testing. Any company which produces a new or improved product tests it exhaustively. Surely an observer at these tests would avoid double testing, as is suggested in the Bill, and would therefore save a great deal of money. Spraying is an expensive operation. Therefore any saving is to be welcomed.
I note that the word "pesticide" is interpreted as covering all the sprays which are used, whatever they may be. The pesticide controls pests. Fungicides are used to control fungus diseases, and herbicides are used to kill weeds or, as the Bill says, "undesired plants". As my American friend said, there is no such thing as a weed; it is only a "plant in the wrong place".
706
I am glad that the Ministry appreciate that point. However, when one looks at paragraph (c) of subsection (7) of Clause 15 one has to ask what "harmful creatures" means. This phrase could cover a whole host of pests other than insects on our crops: rats, mice, squirrels, sparrows, wood pigeons. A much better definition is needed than simply "harmful pests". Is rat poison going to be included? One could go on. The definitions seem to me to leave much to be desired. There is much that one could say about the technicalities of spraying and the efficacy of sprays which could be affected by the regulations. There is the argument about hydraulic sprays versus controlled droplets and electrostatics. Until the regulations appear we can say little about the matter. Therefore we had better wait until they do appear.
I have not dealt with the environmental problem caused by spraying. I shall leave it to the good sense of those who are to speak about the environmental factors during our debate, and also to my very sensible colleague who is to wind up for the Opposition. However, I should like to mention two of the points which have been raised frequently in the lobbying: aerial spraying and spraying alongside public footpaths and public roads. There is a case (I say this advisedly) for saying that if a farmer wishes to spray from the air—whether by means of a fixed wing aircraft or a helicopter, although the helicopter is much more accurate than a fixed wing aircraft—he should have to justify it. However, aerial spraying should not be banned completely. Forestry requires aerial spraying. Bracken on the hillsides also requires aerial spraying. Therefore I could not suggest that aerial spraying should be banned. If however a farmer wishes to carry out aerial spraying of arable land, I believe that he should have to justify the need for it.
On the question of spraying alongside public roads and footpaths, this is a difficult subject. I have five bridlepaths or footpaths running through my farm of 430 arable acres. If I were banned from spraying either side of those paths, nearly half the farm could not be sprayed. Any regulation along those lines would put me out of business, nearly. So we look forward to a meaningful Committee stage of this Bill and to receiving some of the regulations and explanations for which I and other noble Lords have asked and will be asking. Meanwhile, we give this Bill our blessing as it is a necessary Bill, and we look forward to learning further particulars.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Walston: My Lords, at the outset I have two interests to declare. The first is as a farmer and a substantial user of sprays; the second is as a director of a company manufacturing such sprays for use throughout the United Kingdom. I hope that in spite of that your Lordships will acquit me of any undue bias in those things which I have to say.
First, we on these Benches support this Bill. I speak for the Alliance, and when my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie winds up I do not believe there will be much difference between us. So far as it goes, it is a good Bill. The general approach is correct. What it is attempting to do is correct. There are certain points in the Bill which we feel could be strengthened and improved, but perhaps we can pursue some of these in rather more detail at the Committee stage.

707
So far as Part II of the Bill is concerned, which deals with the dumping of toxic waste at sea, undoubtedly it is something to which we give our full support. It is absolutely right that it should be enacted, and I believe this Bill sets out to achieve what is necessary in a very reasonable and adequate way. There is one question I should like to put to the noble Lord on this matter. It is one thing to control the actual dumping of waste—and a most important one—but there is always the danger (and we have seen this recently in a much-publicised case) of an accident or a collision at sea where toxic products may be on board and they may be sunk together with the vessel, or pushed overboard in the event of a collision.
Provided those toxic substances are properly packaged in approved containers, little risk, if any, occurs. But if they are improperly packaged and the containers are unsubstantial, there can be considerable risk of pollution. Is it outside the scope of this Bill to include provisions, at least so far as toxic substances emanating from this country are concerned, to ensure that the packaging is adequate to resist any normal form of corrosion from sea water, immersion in sea water, or the impact of a collision? If it is possible, will Her Majesty's Government initiate action, at least among our Common Market partners, to ensure that they implement similar provisions in order to prevent any danger of this type arising?
I turn to Part III of the Bill, which, as the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, rightly said, is the one which has caused the most interest and which is the most significant. I have a series of questions and comments on this part of the Bill. First, under the existing arrangements of the Pesticides Safety Precautions Scheme, the objectives of that scheme are very clearly stated. They are, as I am sure the noble Lord remembers,
"to safeguard human beings (whether as operators applying products, as food consumers or otherwise), livestock, domestic animals, beneficial insects, wildlife (i.e. non-target flora and fauna) and the environment generally (e.g. soil, air and water) against risks which could arise from the use of pesticide products".
That is fairly comprehensive and a pretty good statement of the objectives. Would it not be of value to include in this Bill some general objectives, either in the exact terms of the PSPS or possibly modified and amplified in some way to suit the modern conditions we are now experiencing?
Secondly, it would strengthen the Bill considerably if it incorporated a clause which made it illegal to give advice on the use of pesticides contrary to those conditions which have already been approved. There are a growing number of advisers who visit farmers. They are very valuable people, and, in the main, very knowledgeable. But it is essential that those people should give advice in conformity with the rules which the manufacturers and the Government have laid down, rather than say to the farmer, "You are supposed to do this, but I shouldn't bother about that because if you increase the volume a little or spray a little differently you will probably get better results". Would it not be a strengthening of the Bill to make any form of advice of that kind illegal?
Thirdly, such accidents as have occurred in the use of pesticides—and, fortunately, they have been very
708
rare over years gone by, and I hope and am sure will continue to be rare—have to a large extent occurred because farmers have decanted pesticides from the appropriate container bearing full instructions into an oil can, a Coca-Cola bottle, or something of that kind, and have then taken it home for use in their garden or for a friend or neighbour to use in their garden. It is then put in a garden shed and nobody knows what it is. This is an extremely dangerous practice, although, as I have said, it is rare for accidents to occur. Nevertheless, they can occur, and it would be a safeguard for human users at least if such practices were made illegal and the pesticide had to remain in its original container until it was all used.
Turning now to the spray equipment that is used to apply the spray solutions, we are now on the verge—and the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, has mentioned the electrostatic system of spraying—of a considerable breakthrough. It will be one of great advantage to farmers in that it will reduce the use of ingredients in a spray. This will have very great benefits for the environment, not only by reducing the use of sprays but by ensuring that a much higher proportion of the pesticide that passes through the sprayer finishes up where it is meant to be; in other words, on the plant, rather than evaporating into the atmosphere, being carried into the upper atmosphere at times, and certainly into neighbouring fields, hedges and gardens.
This development is something that must be encouraged. I should like the assurance of the Minister that there is nothing in the Bill which will in any way inhibit the use of new equipment of this kind. I suggest it might be valuable—not that it should be included in the Bill itself—that there should be very close contact indeed between those within the Ministry of Agriculture responsible for the use of pesticides and the manufacturers to ensure that the lines on which the manufacturers are working are approved and will be of benefit to the solution of the general problem of pesticides.
The Bill is to a very large extent, again as the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, pointed out, an enabling Bill. It is right that it should be. It is impossible to incorporate into the Bill all the regulations which are necessary at present and which will become necessary as time goes on. But the regulations which the Minister will in due course provide are the essence of the Bill as it affects pesticides. I hope the Minister will be able to let us know in draft form what is proposed in these regulations before the Bill actually becomes law. It would be far more valuable if we had the chance of discussing the proposed regulations as they are expected to be as soon as the Bill becomes law, rather than that we should wait to discuss them, probably far more briefly, at some later date.
As regards aerial spraying, here I would go somewhat further than the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie. From the purely farming point of view I believe it is perfectly possible, with the advent of the modern type of sprayer—very large for the big farms and small for the smaller farms—to spray adequately without having recourse to aerial spraying of any kind. I am not discussing forestry, but am speaking solely from the agricultural point of view. We on this side would be very happy to consider very seriously,

709
hearing arguments from both sides, the complete prohibition of aerial spraying of farms. It would have the very great advantage of enabling the spray to be concentrated on those areas where it is most needed. While I feel that some of the opponents of aerial spraying grossly exaggerate their case on the damage that is done, there is no doubt whatever that there is the grave danger of drift, not only to neighbouring crops (on the whole, other farmers can look after themselves) but to gardens and allotments, where damage can be caused.
Occasionally—very occasionally; far more rarely than some people assert—a human being has been sprayed by a pesticide. That danger would be obviated; and, possibly more important, and certainly of far more widespread significance to those concerned with the general flora and fauna, such a prohibition would prevent the indiscriminate spraying of hedgerows and footpaths mentioned by the noble Lord in his speech. It would prevent the destruction of flora and fauna; of the wild flowers, butterflies and beetles; and of the birds, too, who live their innocent lives in the shelter, as they think, of the hedgerows but who, when the aeroplane zooms overhead, become just as much of a target as the noxious weeds, aphids and the rest of it that the farmer quite reasonably wishes to dispose of.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, mentioned exports to third world countries. I am very glad that he did. We have a responsibility in this respect, but I do not think that we should put any firm prohibition on exports. We should insist that any pesticide which is exported from this country has a full description of what it is and what its contents are; and if it contravenes the regulations of the country for which it is destined the export should be prohibited. If the pesticide does not contravene the regulations, even though we may not like it in this country, the responsibility must be on the receiving country to ensure that the pesticide conforms to its own regulations. We do not want to inhibit or make it difficult for our own manufacturers to export, but we do not want to be party to the export of noxious substances, as to the effects of which the receiving country, particularly if it is in the third world, may be entirely ignorant.
When I say that there must be full notification of the contents of these pesticides, that does not mean that the precise patented formula should be made available. It is obviously necessary for the manufacturer to be safeguarded, though not against competitors within the Community because its patent laws apply equally whether it be France, Germany, Italy or the United Kingdom. But we know that there are certain manufacturers in some third world countries which do not subscribe to any of these international conventions who, if they were able to get hold of formulae, would undoubtedly make use of them without having to spend the very considerable sums of money which have to be spent in producing effective substances.
My last point is to ask the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, to affirm that under these regulations, or any regulations likely to be promulgated, farmers will still be free to import if they so wish from other countries, provided the substances that they import are clearly designated and have conformed already, or will conform, to any regulations which we lay down in this
710
country. There have been occasions in the past when, due to a whole variety of circumstances, very largely currency movements, it has been possible for farmers in England—I have myself benefited from it—to go to France or Belgium and buy identical pesticides at very much lower prices than can be obtained in this country. As members of the Community, farmers should still be free to do that without any hidden impediment or non-tariff barriers put in their way.
With those, I hope, not insignificant but relatively minor points, I repeat that we support the Bill, and we shall do our best to ensure its passage, perhaps with some improvements, through this House.
5.8 p.m.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, my interest in this Bill is focused on Parts II and III. Therefore, if I may, I shall devote my few remarks to them. As regards Part II, I am bound to say that I view it (as I dare say noble Lords, and my noble friend, might appreciate) with somewhat mixed feelings because throughout 1973, 11 years ago, I was heavily involved with consultations at the Ministry of Agriculture and in answering questions in another place about the Dumping at Sea Bill. The number and range of questions with which I was confronted showed the very great interest taken in the forthcoming legislation.
That Bill was introduced into this House by my noble friend Lord Ferrers, and passed prior to the general election in February 1974. Like other measures, it fell with the ending of that Parliament. But in its case I think that the fall was really more of a stumble. Two months later it was introduced in its original form by the new Government. I remember one political correspondent of the day describing it as,
"the only measure which the new Government had yet seen fit to bring forward".
I then suffered what for me was some embarrassment. I had to lead the official Opposition to it. I think that I can say that there is not so much understanding in the other place of one's position as there would have been here.
But these nostalgic recollections are tinged with a certain amount of sadness at the short life which that parliamentary child has enjoyed. However, I am comforted when I see that on the Second Reading debate in another place in May 1974 I described the Bill as:
"a most significant and highly desirable awakening of interest in what is generally called the environment".
When I see that, it is all too obvious why a new Bill may now be needed. People are no longer waking up and showing an interest in the environment. They are wide awake and demanding action, and it is hard to believe that anyone can be blind to that.
As my noble friend said in his opening speech, the measures proposed in Part II of the Bill are stronger, and they are more comprehensive, than the Dumping at Sea Act. Minor examples are to be found in many of the clauses; but I suppose that the outstanding additions to the list of activities requiring licences are scuttling and incineration.
There is only one, I think quite notable, omission from the Dumping at Sea Act (which is being totally repealed), unless I have missed it or misunderstood

711
what is in Part II before us. Section 5 of the present Act is re-written into Clause 11 of the Bill. It deals with the powers of British officers to inspect any ships, aircraft or hovercraft within the United Kingdom or inside British fishery' limits; and they can inspect British ships anywhere. But the Dumping at Sea Act contained Section 6 which I thought, and still think, is equally important. It allowed British officers to inspect the ships of states which had signed the London or Oslo conventions outside United Kingdom waters if dumping was suspected. Officers of those states were allowed to reciprocate by inspecting British ships. That followed a practice which had been accepted for many years in the fishing world with regard to the inspection of gear and nets. I should like just to ask my noble friend whether that right of reciprocal inspection is no longer to hold good when vessels deposit things in the sea outside our waters.
As far as Part III of the Bill goes, I look at it from a farmer's angle, and with some considerable horror following the way in which I have allowed the pesticide wagon to turn into a virtual express train, despite the fairly old-fashioned rotation of grain and grass which I operate. I grow 300 acres of cereals. In 1974 I spent £2 an acre on sprays: in 1979 I spent £6 an acre; this last year—and this is where the horror comes—it was £24 an acre. I am led to believe that that is a small amount compared to what some big barley barons spend; and money costs can, of course, be misleading because of inflation. But I am in no doubt at all that, persuaded as I have been to insure against this or that disease, the pints, gallons or litres of pesticide poured into my fields have increased enormously in quantity.
Apart from anything else, with the squeeze which is quite certainly coming up on cereal growers' profits, a farmer's pesticide bill is most certainly one for pruning. But leaving aside the purely economic side of things, I am glad to see the National Farmers' Union supporting the Royal Commission's call for reduction in pesticide usage to a minimum consistent with efficient food production.
The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, told us of his first ventures with a sprayer. A little later I followed him, as most Scottish farmers indeed have always followed the Mackie family. In 1934 I used a horse to pull a sprayer. We put on 100 gallons of water to the acre, using a perfectly simple material called copper sulphate (bluestone). The corn was singed, the weeds were killed, and the gate was then shut until harvest time. That was what I call the simple life. We were killing weeds in those days. If the diseases with which we are plagued nowadays—the mildews, the septorias, the rhyncosporias—existed in those days, thank goodness we did not know about them. Certainly there was no spray drift onto neighbouring gardens. With 100 gallons an acre going very slowly behind an old horse, there was no spray then and no drift onto neighbouring gardens or onto adjoining fields, as happens nowadays. I think, if an aeroplane is used.
In two of the speeches already made there have been references to aerial spraying. I think that I am right in saying that the noble Lord. Lord Walston, said that he felt that there should be no spraying on farms at all. I think that I side with the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie. I see no need for spraying on some farms
712
(certainly arable farms) at all nowadays. We have shorter corn and sprayers with higher booms. I very much doubt whether the damage done by tractor wheels through any crop rivals that done by spray drifting onto something that it ought not to drift onto. I think that I would encourage my noble friend to say in his regulations that the only things that can be aerial sprayed in this country in future are bracken on the hills and forestry.
This point has been made already. Clause 15 is quite crucial. Indeed, the effectiveness of the Bill is bound to be uncertain until we see the regulations. I think that the latter must be effective, but at the same time they must be practicable. Laws or regulations are much better not made if they cannot easily be applied. If I may make suggestions to my noble friend about what might be a regulation. I think that one might well be that it should be an offence to apply more of a pesticide than is advised on the label of the container. It may seem strange, after what I have said about the cost of putting on these things, that one should want to put on more than is necessary. But, with a badly infected crop, or in a season when the alarm bells are ringing about possible disease, I have known people to say, "Oh, we had better put an extra pint or so into the sprayer." I believe that this should be made an offence.
If a regulation along those lines was made, what about enforcing it? I make no bones at all. I am afraid, about saying that I think that farmers should be able to produce records of their spraying programme. My experience is that the firm with which I deal—I am sure that this applies to many others—write down on a piece of paper, in pints per acre, the pesticides that are to be put on each field. I then convert those quantities into pints for each tankful when my foreman fills the sprayers. The sprayer, of course, does much more than one acre at a time. And, really, this is no trouble. It is an essential exercise, so sophisticated are the many and various blends used nowadays.
Another point that I should like to raise with my noble friend relates to Clause 17, under which the implementation of Part III is likely to require 16 staff from MAFF and 18 from the Health and Safety Executive. That seems to me rather a small number. They will have to keep an eye, I presume, on all farms where pesticides are used, together with any premises, vehicles, etc. where they are stored. Will these inspectors have the knowledge of what is surely an immensely sophisticated subject—one that I suspect will become increasingly sophisticated—to do their job effectively? I echo therefore the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, that use must surely be made of the substantial number of people who have already much knowledge of the whole subject.
Finally, it is not so long since we had a debate in this Chamber—this point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Walston—on the higher prices for cars in the United Kingdom than in some other countries of the Community. I would say merely that it is very important that farmers should not be put at a competitive disadvantage through identical pesticides being available in Europe but not allowed here, or, if allowed, being at a very much higher price. Imports of pesticides of which the Minister approves, I am sure, should not be discouraged. There would be very quick clearance, I hope, for a farmer who wished to import.

713
Having made those points, I would say that my noble friend can be sure that on the principle of the Bill he has my full support.
5.24 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I am never 100 per cent. sure of the purpose of a Second Reading debate in your Lordships' House. However, I shall use it today to inform my noble friend on the Front Bench that, perhaps not totally to his surprise, I shall try now and during the Committee stage to put the view of the farmer and the sprayer operator. I am a little worried by some of the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Stodart. I shall take a slightly different view; perhaps because I have too many expensive children and greedy landlords around me. This is not to say that my view is contrary to the production of wholesome food and the protection of the environment. Far from it! It is in all our interests to produce wholesome food and to do so in a pleasant environment, for we—farmer, farm worker and operator—have to eat this food and live in this environment. We create part of it. At the risk of having a thunderbolt land on my head, I would say that I do not think that we look too unfit or too miserable, though maybe a little overweight.
My concern therefore is to ensure that British agriculture is not unfairly prejudiced vis-à-vis my continental competitor, and indeed, my overseas competitor. They are competitors in the production of food. I can probably live with a world price if it is a true world price, but I certainly cannot exist if one or indeed both my hands are tied behind my back by restrictive national legislation.
As mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, this is an enabling Bill. I suppose that that is why my noble friend Lord Belstead called it a continual dialogue. I understand his point. But, being a farmer, I am suspicious of the unknown. The unknown in this case is what we do if we have an irresponsible Minister or indeed an irresponsible Permanent Secretary.
I shall therefore ask my noble friend, by means of amendments, to clarify what powers the Minister will have. For instance, what advice will the Minister seek, and from whom? I have heard my noble friend mention scientists so far as Part II of the Bill is concerned. What about Part III? Who will be permitted to enter and search? Who are my noble friend's investigating and enforcement officers? What can the Minister prohibit in the way of agricultural activities, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, under Part I of the Bill? What is, in my noble friend's words, "a most serious event"? I suspect that what he considers a serious event may be different from the view that I would take. I am sure, too, that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, would take a totally different view from mine on what constitutes a serious event. And, dare I mention it, now that the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, is laughing, is there any compensation if I am stopped from doing something?
These are important points. I would ask in company with other noble Lords who have spoken, that my noble friend produces without delay a draft of the regulations that he intends to issue. Your Lordships will remember that following pressure on your part the
714
Government acceded to such a request on the Telecommunications Bill and produced the licence. It took a lot of effort on your Lordships' part, but you achieved it. I believe that my noble friend should do the same on this Bill.
We are fortunate in living in the comfort of the 20th century; a comfort that, to a large degree, has been brought about by modern technology, modern medicine and modern chemicals—a point made by my noble friend in his remarks about one for the crow, and so on. So we should be careful to ensure that this progress continues and that we do not stifle it with regulations and unnecessary long-term testing of products and testing of new methods of application. I could perhaps say here that farmers are sometimes ahead of research in this matter, and controlled droplet application is a case in point. I think therefore that I cross swords with the noble Lord. Lord Walston, on application rates—certainly mineral application rates.
Because of this technology, we are better fed now than ever before. We live longer. How I wish that such knowledge could have been used in Ethiopia and that our knowledge and our technology on how to produce food, which this Bill seeks to control, probably correctly, could be copied by the starving third world. It is your Lordships' job during the next few weeks to ensure that this Bill achieves a correct balance of a safe, progressive food and environment technology.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Craigton: My Lords, I give a warm welcome to Parts I and II of the Bill. I have a few constructive Committee points to make, but they are Committee points and I will not mention them on Second Reading. I have one question on Part II, and if the Minister could answer it his reply might be helpful. The question is: is there any good reason why applications for dumping licences should not be treated in the same way as planning applications, which give opportunities for objections and amendments? I do not see why they should not be treated as planning applications.
Part III worries me. It worries me as the first conservationist to speak, and not as a farmer. I am grateful to my noble friend for giving me a document—I do not know whether other noble Lords have had it—which showed in more detail than there is in the Bill the subjects to which the regulations would apply. But I am worried about the whole attitude towards Part III. The Government's duty is to ensure that Ministers have all the powers necessary to protect the land and the people. Parliament has to authorise Ministers to put such powers in the regulations, and the purpose of the Bill and any Explanatory Memorandum is to provide for the inclusion of all these essential powers in the regulations.
Some of these essential powers are not—repeat not—in the regulations. Let me go through them. As I read the Bill and the memorandum I have now received, there are no powers to put into the regulations provisions for the control of delivery devices—that is, application techniques. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, expressed the view, rather as I feel, that there should be definite mention of these in

715
this Bill—nozzles, droplet sizes, the quantity, the direction of the spray. All these things are of vital importance, but the reference is always only to pesticides and methods and not to the devices themselves. Then you come to aerial spraying. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, would like to see it banned altogether. My noble friend Lord Stodart has a more restricted view. I believe that we should give powers in the Bill to include a complete prohibition of aerial spraying in specified areas. That will meet all points. I believe that this House and another place must put some control on aerial spraying.
Furthermore, I may be wrong, but I cannot find any assurance that records must be kept by manufacturers and users; or that equipment, as opposed to pesticides, must be tested and can be seized; or that operators should be trained. All these things should be in the Bill. The history of the last five months is an unhappy one. The outline proposals were issued on 22nd July. These virtually ignored all the points that I have mentioned and nearly all the very full recommendations in the Seventh Report of the Royal Commission. That circular caused such alarm and confusion that only 11 weeks later the Parliamentary Secretary to MAFF had to issue a second circular to clear up the "misunderstandings", as it was put. That second circular included the sentence:
"The Government is very conscious of the need to make allowances in the legislation"—
in the legislation, mark you; not in the regulations—
"for the development of new application techniques".
As I have said, I cannot find this in this Bill or in the recommendations.
In this case we should not accept verbal assurances about what the regulations will contain. I am grateful for the preview I was given. I hope, as my noble friend who has just spoken has said, that we shall have the draft regulations in our hands well before Committee. I believe that the Bill does not go far enough. There are, as I said, other essential provisions that must be in the Bill but are not yet in it. I shall table amendments accordingly.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I have to declare an interest as a farmer who uses pesticides—not for quite as long, I hasten to add, as my noble friend on the Front Bench, but nevertheless uses them. I want to concentrate my remarks on Part III of the Bill. I should like to mention just a little of the general background, which I do not think has been alluded to so far—first of all, the massive public concern there is about the use of pesticides in the countryside. That is something which I hope nobody in this House or indeed in another place will ignore. For example, a National Farmers' Union survey last year showed that there was greater public concern about pesticides used in the countryside than there was about the cutting down of trees, the removal of hedgerows and straw and stubble burning, put together. Those three items, put together, were of less concern to the general public than the use of pesticides.
Conservation interests are extremely concerned about the effect that the routine use of pesticides is
716
having. For example, the Game Conservancy have said that on current trends the English partridge will be extinct before the end of this century. A bird which is still considered common enough to be shot will be gone completely by 1997, on current trends. That is the Game Conservancy, which is a shooting organisation, talking, and not a conservation body. That is, at least in large part, due to the increasing use of chemicals on farmland and the lack of insect food that that leaves for partridge chicks.
Of course, there is a very considerable interest from farmers, farm workers—another group that I do not think have yet been mentioned particularly—and consumers that pesticides should be used economically, safely and effectively. It is quite clear from some recent work, which shows, for example, that up to 40 per cent. of some chemicals vaporise from the field into the atmosphere, with no effects on the target, that pesticides are not being used either economically or safely—certainly not as economically and as safely as they should be. There are indications that in some cases only 1 per cent. of insecticides reaches its target, the other 99 per cent. either vaporising, being left in the soil, or affecting other organisms.
There are a lot of mutual interests, it seems to me, in ensuring that we get this system working better. I really do have to say to the Minister, along with everyone else who has spoken in the debate (except the Minister) that it is simply not good enough to come to Parliament with very vague powers—just how vague was underlined by some of the things the Minister said; for example, what he said about aerial spraying—without giving Parliament any opportunity to debate and discuss and amend—in particular amend—the detail of what the Government are proposing.
I should like to give a couple of examples of things which I think are very unclear. First of all, there is efficacy testing. We have heard something about safety testing, but there are at the moment, as I understand it, about 600 or 700 products which have been cleared under the existing efficacy testing scheme; that is to say, they do the job they are advertised to do. This is important from the farmer's point of view. On the other hand, there are about 3,000 chemicals currently cleared under the PSPS. I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm those two figures.
As I understood it, the original intention of the Government under these regulations was to give clearance to all those 3,000 PSPS products for efficacy as well as safety, without additional efficacy testing. That would be a massive reduction in controls. Two Ministry of Agriculture statements which I have seen in recent days seem to me to confuse this issue. One—the Notes on Clauses that the Minister circulated—makes clear that there will be efficacy testing on new products. The Minister, as I heard him in his opening remarks, simply talked about efficacy testing on products, without the qualification "new". It would be very helpful if the Minister could tell us exactly what is going to happen.
A number of noble Lord have spoken about aerial spraying. As far as I know, today for the first time the Minister said that the Bill will give the Government

717
powers to control aerial spraying. I am not aware of that point having been made before, though it may have been and I may have missed it. But that surely raises a whole host of issues. What type of controls will there be on aerial spraying? Who will impose them? Who will police them? Will it be the Civil Aviation Authority, the Department of Transport, or the Ministry of Agriculture? A whole range of questions is opened up by almost a chance remark from the Minister about aerial spraying and, as far as I know, no consultation has taken place with anybody involved in the farming industry—let alone conservation interests—on that point as yet.
It seems to me—and once again I underline it—of absolute necessity to have the details of the Government's proposals before Parliament if we are to have a sensible discussion on this Bill at all. I must say that as regards aerial spraying it seems to me that there is a widespread consensus in all parts of the House that there is very little, if any, justification for aerial spraying so far as arable farming is concerned; and that would be my view. It may well be that a licensing system would be needed for particular applications for forestry purposes or for bracken control. Those seem to me to be the only two examples, and they could be mentioned explicitly on the face of the Bill, so that we all knew where we stood, and aerial spraying could otherwise be banned. That could be of great advantage to the farming industry, because there is no doubt in my mind that the great majority of complaints about spraying originate from aerial spraying. I have certainly found from personal experience in using aerial spraying that it is quite impossible, even with the greatest care in the world, to prevent something that is being discharged from an aeroplane from going on places where it is not meant to go; for example, on hedgerows, public roads and other places.
It is not at all clear to me whether the powers in the Bill provide for a number of matters, some of which the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, has mentioned. For example, do they give the Minister power to publish information on safety testing? Information is now publicly available in the United States about chemicals that we use in this country, but it is a secret in this country. It is possible to get the information in America, but it is a secret here—nobody must be allowed to know it. There is a perfectly good system in the United States which protects the commercial interests of manufacturers—and I acknowledge that that is important—but which nevertheless gives the public access to the safety testing which has been done on chemicals. I see no reason why we should not have a similar system in this country.
I should like to know from the Minister whether there are sufficient powers in the Bill to ensure that there are records kept on both the sales of chemicals and the use of chemicals. Anybody farming nowadays should, if they are farming even half properly, keep a proper record of the chemicals which they are using on their crops. It does not seem to me any hardship on farmers; indeed, it is of great advantage that all farmers should do it. It should be a statutory obligation, again on the face of the Bill.
It is important that there should be a licensing system for both operators and pesticide application systems. Again, there is an operator licensing system
718
working well in the United States. It was recommended by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, and I was interested to see that the Agricultural Engineers' Association favour some such procedure. Again, something as major as that surely should be provided for on the face of the Bill, so that we know where we stand.
There is a need for pesticide application systems to be licensed, because there is very little point in having a tremendous amount of work going on to test the safety and efficacy of chemicals, and in laying down strict conditions as to their use, if nobody is checking to see that the machinery actually applying those chemicals is working properly. Clearly it is in the interests of the farmers as well as everyone else that the machinery should work effectively, and I see no reason why it should not be tested and licensed to ensure that that happens. It seems to me that if that were on the face of the Bill, with the objectives of such a licensing system spelt out, some of the justified concerns about controlled droplet application—something again very welcome to conservationists and farmers—would be dispelled because we would know what the Government's intentions were towards pesticide application systems.
It still seems to me that there is a major concern, so far as CDA spraying is concerned, about the testing of chemicals. Farmers Weekly made the point—and I should like the Minister to comment on this—that it will still be very difficult and costly for people who want to make their chemicals available for CDA spraying to go through the necessary testing procedures. I hope that we can have some assurance that not only the systems of application will be cleared readily, but chemicals for CDA application as well.
One of the farming papers last week suggested that if one took a cynical view of the Government's intentions, they have drafted this Bill and introduced it in this way to short-circuit parliamentary procedure. I must say that I share that cynical view. It seems to me quite wrong for the Government to have attempted on a matter as important as this to the general public, to consumers of food, to the agricultural industry and to conservationists, to come before Parliament with a Bill which tells us so little about what is actually going to happen.
The regulations which the Government intend to circulate for comment must be in existence. I cannot believe that other Government departments—the Treasury and others—would have agreed to let this Bill come before Parliament if they did not have a pretty clear idea of what the Ministry of Agriculture intended to put in those regulations. It therefore seems to me quite inexcusable for the Government not to have responded to the already widespread requests that have been made to see those draft regulations. This would not preclude further consultation with other interests, but it would allow those of us in Parliament, on many different sides, who are interested in this matter to see what the Government really intended to do.
I do not think that short-circuiting parliamentary procedure will be possible, because unless we have some detailed information from the Government about what they intend to do, the only way in which those of us with an interest in Parliament can extract

719
that information is by putting down as amendments all those things that we think ought to be in the regulations, and then all the things that we think should not be in the regulations, just to make sure that they are not there. In my view that is guaranteeing us a very long and tedious Committee stage, and I hope that the Minister will avoid that for all our sakes.
5.46 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, like the noble Lord who has just sat down, I wish to refer in the main to Part III of the Bill—that which relates to pesticides—and like the noble Lord, I am bound to declare an interest as a farmer. I felt a minor twinge of sorrow when I saw that the Dumping at Sea Act 1974 was going to be repealed. My memory would have to be stretched a good deal more than is good for it—and evidently a good deal more in this case than that of the noble Lord, Lord Stodart—to remember exactly what it included. However, I remember, as the noble Lord said, that I was responsible for its passage in this House and I always marvelled slightly at the delightfully colloquial title which it possessed.
However, it is pesticides in which I am interested this evening. I have re-adjusted what I had anticipated saying, for reasons which may become clear. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said that there is public anxiety, and justified anxiety, about the effect of chemicals which are always being altered or where new ones are developed and used on the land. People wonder what we are doing to our food and to our land, and indeed to our bodies, by the application of chemicals. They fear the advance of science. There is nothing new in that. I think that we all fear it. Every generation has feared the advances of science, because people fear the unknown just because it is unknown.
But, equally, there is nothing new about chemicals in agriculture. They have been there since time immemorial. The human body is nothing if it is not a massive chemical factory—and a highly complex one. Raw material is ingested in it and attacked by a whole series of different chemicals which the body manufactures. The constituent parts of the raw materials are broken down by chemical action and reaction and the body uses the chemicals which are released for its energy and its growth. It is just the same with the animal body, and it is just the same with plant life.
So the whole of plant, animal and human life is a diverse series of chemical reactions and constant chemical change. Scientists, agriculturists and doctors have for centuries tried to research these chemical reactions—sometimes to limit them, sometimes to increase them, and sometimes to alter them for the benefit of mankind. We have much to be grateful to them for in that regard. Even those who fulminate about the advantages of natural muck in their gardens or fields are in fact fulminating only about the effects of the addition of certain chemicals—organic ones—to the soil. So there is nothing new or novel about chemicals in agriculture. There is nothing wrong with chemicals in agriculture. There is nothing wrong in adding or altering the chemicals in agriculture for the benefit of mankind, provided that there is adequate protection and safety to prevent the harmful effects
720
which can undoubtedly occur from the addition of chemicals, in just the same way as harmful effects can occur from natural chemicals in the body or in the land if they are sometimes left unbridled.
As pesticides have grown in use there has been a constant and vigilant guard over their use; namely, the Pesticides Safety Precaution Scheme. It is true that it was a voluntary scheme, but because it was voluntary, it does not mean that it was either casual or irresponsible. Quite the reverse is true. I pay tribute to the Government and to the agricultural chemical industry who have participated in this scheme for, as we have heard, some 25 years and who have permitted the advances of knowledge to be used while protecting the countryside and the consumer. It has not always been 100 per cent. successful—nothing ever is. The advent of legislation will not make it 100 per cent. successful. New knowledge sometimes replaces and contradicts existing knowledge, and that will continue, and legislation will not stop that.
I am bound to say that I am sorry to see the voluntary scheme go, but I am glad that my noble friend explained why it has to go. It is obviously unacceptable for imported products to be used without going through a safety protection system.
From time to time, and for a whole variety of reasons which are not always good, there is pressure for the Minister to act and to ban a certain product. People hear stories about it which may not always be true; attributions are made which may not always be accurate; facts get disseminated and a bandwagon of fear—and understandable fear—builds up and the Minister of the day often finds himself subjected to very considerable pressure to ban the product.
I can understand people having those fears and not wishing to use those products. It is rather like asking a child: "Do you mind sleeping in a particular bedroom? Some people say it is haunted". Of course the child will not wish to go anywhere near that bedroom. But for a Minister to ban a product because of public or political pressure would, in my view, be quite wrong, and it would be a very slippery slope. Who knows what kind of pressure might be built up to get some other product withdrawn once it is known that a Minister, with no specialist knowledge, will submit to that kind of pressure? He must rely on the advice of his experts who are there to advise him in the light of an examination of all the known scientific facts. I hope that my right honourable friend will always rely on the Advisory Committee on the Safety of Pesticides.
In looking through this part of the Bill I wondered how it was going to be policed. My noble friend says that it will be policed by the Health and Safety Executive; but, as my noble friend Lord Stodart, said, it does not seem as though that will be very many people. I cannot see how we will effectively be able to police what 300,000 farmers are doing on their different fields with their different sprays without a very considerable increase either in manpower or in bureaucracy, and obviously both would be undesirable. But I assume from what my noble friend has said that I would be right in believing that neither the police nor the local authorities will have anything to do with these measures, but that this will be left to the Health and Safety Executive.

721
I should like to ask my noble friend: what will happen about what is known as BASIS? That is another of these nasty names made out of letters, but I think it stands for the British Agrochemical Supply Industry Scheme? This is also a voluntary scheme which merchants and companies operate. Is it intended that this scheme should continue to operate? If so, will it be voluntary, and if it is voluntary and if every other control is statutory, will it not lessen the importance of that particular scheme in the eyes of the retailers, and may they not discontinue their participation in it?
Over all this highly complicated field one must remember that man is human and knowledge is not finite. Errors and mistakes can and will occur. Knowledge can and does alter. Products have been produced which were thought at the time, with all the best knowledge that was available, to be safe, but which were subsequently found to be unsafe. That happens in medicine, too. That does not mean to say that the original permission for use, in the light of the knowledge which was then available, was wrong. If we were to take that view, no new product would ever be allowed to be used for fear that some future research might show it to be unsuitable. Like that, we would deny to ourselves and others the benefit of knowledge. Of course there is a risk: there always will be. But we must perpetually seek to challenge and to check on safety.
I say this with particular reference to one event with which I have recently come into contact. I know of someone whose wife felt ill and had a blood test which was found to contain nothing disturbing. It was later found that she had a tumour in the kidney. It was malignant. It was removed, mercifully in time before it had affected other parts of the body. As they were leaving the hospital the surgeon said, "Has your husband anything to do with agriculture?" She said, "Yes; he is a farmer". The surgeon said, "That's a funny thing. I have done operations on about 10 people engaged in agriculture, and they were all kidney tumours".
The lady subsequently went to a hospital in London which specialises in these things and had a blood sample taken which was sent to America, where they have a very sophisticated and infinitely more precise method of testing. Her blood was shown to contain a very high content of both DDT and Dieldrin, both of which are of course now banned from being used in agriculture in the United Kingdom.
As one who has had the privilege of responsibilities in the Ministry of Agriculture, and for pesticides in particular, and as one who found the emotional pressure group bandwagon counter-productive, I found my senses alerted by this case and I have done a little research, which I feel bound to impart to your Lordships. I should explain that my researches are minimal. They are not exhaustive; nor are they professional. But I hope that, such as they are, they are factual. As I understand it, there are pesticides now commonly found in people's blood. Babies are even born with pesticides in their blood. The body can tolerate a certain amount. The toxic effect is when the pesticides cause actual damage to the tissues; but they can also have an effect on the body's immunological system—its ability to reject the invasion of unwanted substances.
722
In the normal course of events the body can reject what it does not want by discharging it through the kidneys. When something else goes wrong with the body its ability to discharge the toxic substances is curtailed, and they rest in the kidneys, where they fester and create the damage. Some work is being done on this in London. There is an allergy department in the Nightingale BUPA Hospital where an interest is taken in pesticides in human beings. As its name implies, this is a BUPA hospital which is funded by the Nuffield Trust. When blood samples relating to pesticides are taken there, they have to be sent (of all places) to Dallas in the United States, where there is an environmental care unit which has produced impeccable results and which has the equipment to measure, very finely, volatile organic compounds and pesticides in the blood—not just pesticides, but all volatile compounds, even petrol fumes. When measuring very small quantities, it is necessary to be accurate. I understand that we do not have the equipment in this country. Each of these blood tests costs about £70.
In Dallas they have a substantial data bank of facts about pesticides in the blood, not only from some 3,000 patients who have been there but from people in different parts of the country. So it is possible to find out what is the norm of pesticides to be found in the blood, and to place the norm against that found in patients. They also have a large documentation of population studies.
There they have a unit which they can get almost completely sterilised by carefully filtering the air and by using instruments which do not release compounds into the air. You thereby produce an almost sterile environment. People enter this unit and, as it were, are dried out of pesticides. I think the correct medical term is that they undergo detoxification. It has been found that after about three weeks the level of pesticides in the bodies of people who have been so detoxified has dropped.
Pesticides are in fact fat soluble. They can be held in the fat of the body. I did not realise that much of the brain, oddly enough, contains fat—and mine obviously has more fat than those of most other people, so I accept that. But a report was published by this environmental care unit at Dallas last year which showed the results of an experiment where some 200 people had been detoxified of pesticides and their IQ had risen by up to 20 points. It would appear that in their cases pesticides had affected the brain.
Blood samples are the method by which pesticide toxicity in the body is measured, but the brain holds three to 10 times the concentration of pesticides shown in the blood sample. The liver holds 20 times, and body fat holds 300 times the level of concentration in the blood. In this hospital in London I was shown how some blood samples contained a normal level of pesticides, which is about one part per billion. To the layman that does not sound overtly high. But I also saw others where the concentration was high, and as high as four parts per billion, which is four times the normal. There was one blood sample which contained a high level of Dieldrin, BHC, DDT, and DDE (which is a metabolite of DDT), and of hexachlorobenzine.
There was also a patient who had been treated there for asthma, migraine and rhinitis, from which she

723
recovered. She was so glad that she had recovered that she went to work, and with the money she earned she bought some new carpets for her house. She ended up in hospital again for six weeks, and it was discovered that the carpets were covered in Dieldrin. That is a product which has been banned in agriculture for some years, but apparently it has not been banned for industrial use.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, the noble Earl mentioned DDT and DDE. I asked a question of the Ministry of Agriculture some time ago and was told that a considerable quantity of both chemicals were in fact still in use in specialised agricultural, fruit growing, or vegetable growing areas, so they have not gone out of use completely in this country.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I certainly accept the noble Lord's correction if that is the fact, which I am sure it is. I do not wish to be in any way alarmist about this matter at all. Each noble Lord will come to his own conclusion. Mine is that we should not rush into any panic to try to ban chemical sprays. I speak as one who is a farmer and who has had some responsibility in this direction, but equally I speak as one who has been pretty surprised by what he has learned.
All advances in knowledge have their disadvantages as well as their advantages, and our job is to see that the balance of advantage exceeds that of disadvantage. Pesticides and sprays despite their drawbacks have brought immense value to mankind in their ability to enable the people of the world to be better fed. I doubt, as my noble friend Lord Stanley said, whether there are many people in Ethiopia who would decry pesticides just now. Had it not been for pesticides there would be many others in the world suffering from the misery and indignity which these unfortunate people have been obliged to suffer, and which are the cause of such international distress.
I believe that the problem is one of knowledge and research. It is as unrealistic to think that we can live without the advantages and the disadvantages of pesticides as it is to think that we can live without the advantages and the disadvantages of the motor car or the computer. They are part of our civilisation, whether we like it or not. What we have to do is to determine what is acceptable, and to curb the excesses.
More research has to be done, and more ought to be done in this country. It so happens that the hospital to which I referred is opening its own environmental care unit some time next spring, so work is going on but I think not fast enough. In the debate yesterday we heard about the endless monetary requirements to finance essential research. The demands are huge and endless, and I would not wish to say which should have priority. But I think that we should do more in this field.
In welcoming this Bill I would, if I might, say to my noble friend with the greatest of respect and humility, "Don't be satisfied with our present knowledge. Try to get more research done on these products, and don't be swayed by anything other than facts".
6.6 p.m.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, I want to speak on Part III of the Bill and also from an interest in farming,
724
so I shall endeavour to be brief. I trust that your Lordships will see that, like most good farmers should, I identify myself very much with the interests of my customer, the consumer. I also have an interest, which is typical among farmers, in field sports. I welcome this Bill in principle. How near the frontiers of knowledge we are with this subject has been clearly stated by my noble friend Lord Ferrers. It is because of this that it is important to emphasise that the state has an important role to play in this area because of the need for disinterested advice. This is so for anyone however strongly they believe in restricting the activities of the state.
The Bill is of course a control mechanism. What is important and what will make it work is the research behind it all, which dictates what is eventually done and is of greater importance. There is no use in a control apparatus without the research. A typical farmers' point of view on all this is first that his motivation is certainly not to maximise the sales of agrochemicals in this country. He is extremely interested in the price of those chemicals. In passing, in that regard, might I say that aerial spraying is probably one of the most expensive ways of application, and to that extent I believe controls the situation pretty much.
The farmer has a strong desire that innovative application techniques should not be stifled. He has a conviction borne of wresting a living from the environmental balance as it exists, that minimal interference with the balance is the wisest course for fear of side effects. Leading from all this he has a strong desire for impartial research information.
The Bill inevitably is not explicit about the last of these matters. I wonder whether an expansion in the research input in this area is envisaged. I wonder how satisfied my noble friend is with the present position, and whether he feels that the funding of research into pesticides is as well-organised and as well-balanced as it should be. I have certain doubts. I may say that some of those doubts come from my interest in the Game Conservancy. I find it pretty remarkable that the sporting interests seem to have been left virtually alone to two areas of research that have been carried out by the Game Conservancy—the Partridge Survival Project and the Cereals and Game Bird Research Project. Both of these have wider implications than might appear. They involve studies into insect life, the effects of sprays thereon, on residues, and so forth. Therefore, even on the interests of the consumer.
I understand that there is no Government funding of this aspect. I suspect also that it may be the only true independent ecological research into sprays on farmland in the United Kingdom, and of course 80 per cent. of our island is farmland. I understand the Natural Environment Research Council do not work on farmland, merely on natural habitats. I cannot help feeling that more work may well be needed into the balance between farming and wildlife and can only be done in a true farming situation.
Meanwhile, the consumer, for instance, wants his vegetables and he wants them perfect. How many times may it be necessary to spray with insecticides in order to achieve this and in order to satisfy the pressures from the supermarkets? This is a matter which puts the farmer in a position of some difficulty,

725
in a dilemma, and it is the reason why he is anxious for guidance which is as clear as he can get. I hope that my noble friend will be able to comment on this matter.
May I finally just say a word about the charging clause, which is Clause 16. The Bill does not specify who precisely will pay what, but I feel that there is an inference that the cost of much of this will be put on the product, and of course when one has heard what my noble friend Lord Ferrers has said, there could be a massive research expense which would have the most devastating effect upon prices of the product if it was entirely to be financed from there.
I hope very much that my noble friend the Minister will remember that the primary producer who buys the product with this price addition cannot easily pass on such costs to the consumer; and the reason that he cannot do that is simply endemic in the nature of agricultural marketing. It is because of this that he fears he will be competing first against other countries who do less, or nothing about these issues or else countries where something is done, but it is done by the taxpayer and not put onto the price of the product. It is quite likely that a number of countries may take this view, and I am anxious that the British producer should not be put at a disadvantage, certainly within the European Community. I believe he has proved responsible within the limits he has been set, that he would prefer more help and definitely has a feeling of continuing concern.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I must be one of the very few Members of your Lordships' House taking part in this debate who is not a farmer. My only experience of farming was during the school holidays during the war, when, at my grandparents' and mother's home in Perthshire, I helped with the harvest. But I speak first with a completely non-financial interest: as an honorary vice-president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, and also as a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Chemical Industries Group, though I am not a chemist by profession. I happen to work in the insurance industry, which is not exactly uninterested in certain aspects of this Bill, particularly from the point of view of product liability.
Before turning to Part III I should like to say a few words about Part II, and particularly about Clause 6. The idea of having licences for incineration on vessels at sea is certainly a very novel and original one, and a very welcome one. Anybody who has had experience of living on the coast—and my wife comes from a coastal town in East Sussex—knows what pollution on the beaches can mean as a result of ships, very often large ships, discharging their oil, or whatever it may be, at sea. What I am not sure about is what is meant by "incineration" in this respect, and whether in fact what is incinerated is then going to be discharged; because if this is so, the pollution could be diabolical. Again, in the case of any Bill of this kind there are the problems of enforcement, of whether one has enough people of experience to enforce it; because it is surely the case that enforcing something at sea is often very much more difficult than enforcing it on land.
Turning very briefly to Part III of the Bill, I think it is now accepted by almost everyone that the days of the environmental lobby versus the scientific
726
lobby—because this is all part of the development of science—must surely be numbered. We are, as has been said before, all lovers of our environment, and in this country, with tourism on the increase, the need to preserve our environment is extremely necessary. On the other hand, we must grow more of our own food, and with the development of science and scientific products it is surely the case that the wise use of pesticides and other chemical products does ensure that our crops, our food and our vegetables last longer. With the ever-increasing amount of deep freezing and other ways of preserving food, it is surely sense that we should use these sprays and other scientific measures sensibly.
Obviously one of the most important aspects of the Bill will be enforcement, particularly of safety standards. As has been mentioned, there has been a veto for some years on the use of substances such as Aldrin and Dieldrin. That surely is to everyone's advantage.
I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister a question about these sprays. How much importation is there of them? Mention has been made of third world countries, but we have a certain amount of trade with East European countries. Are the Government satisfied that sprays and other chemicals which are imported from these countries and are relevant to this Bill meet the regulations on safety standards and labelling? I believe this is important. I am sure my noble friend the Minister would be doing your Lordships a service if he could give some information—I have not given him notice of this question and obviously cannot expect an answer now—on how much importation there is into this country of these sprays and other chemicals from countries which tend to dump, particularly East European countries.
Under what criteria are imports to be prohibited? Who will be doing the testing of these substances? Under Clauses 15 and 17 a great deal of work will devolve on the inspectors who are to test the products, as I read the Bill. Any legislation of this kind is bound to have its difficulties. One of the main difficulties is enforcement. Incidentally, there is no schedule of substances which will be tested and possibly banned as a result of the Bill. This is surely unusual. I know that in previous legislation there have been schedules of substances concerned, and I should have thought that in a Bill of this kind the relevant substances should be named.
Having said that, I think the Bill recognises the need for these substances. It is ludicrous to suggest that there can be a complete ban on chemical sprays or other substances for agriculture or for any other purpose. In Committee it will be necessary to consider carefully who will operate the Bill to give it the effectiveness which is sought.
6.23 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, in coming to the end of this debate it is remarkable that all round the House there is a great deal of agreement that the Bill is very necessary, and there is even agreement between the arch-conservationists and the arch-farmers on certain points, which is useful. I mention

727
briefly the first two parts of the Bill which, although not exciting, are of great interest. The third part is extremely important. The first part of the Bill is a necessary measure to deal with disaster. But I hope that prevention is being considered at the same time. My noble friend said in his speech that containers at sea should be of a standard which can withstand disaster. Many things need considering in connection with prevention of disaster. For example, if these containers which came off the French ship had been bugged with some electronic device they would have been much more easily found. I believe that prevention goes along with the first part of the Bill.
Concerning the second part, the sea has been used as a dump for so long that only now are we beginning to realise that its resources as a dump are finite and that something more needs to be done. The main interest has been in the pesticide section. We all know that it covers herbicides, fungicides and all the other uses to which chemicals are put in agriculture. The concern expressed by the conservationists is right and proper because I know it is felt by farmers as well. As the noble Lord, Lord Stodart of Leaston, said, it is not only the money that worries us, it is the fact that we intend to get on the back of the tiger. One needs to put more and more chemicals on to better and more sophisticated crops to ensure that the yields keep rising and that the diseases, which seem to proliferate along with the chemicals, are kept down. I must say that I think the Friends of the Earth is a lovely name but it tends to place the farmers in the category of the enemies of the earth which is entirely and completely untrue. We need to look at what has happened, to consider the experience that we have gained and to build on that. There is no doubt that we have gained a tremendous amount of experience since the early days of the really effective sprays.
The question of training has been mentioned—incidentally, there are some pests and activities which make it difficult to speak. However, we cannot spray and I shall do my best to continue. Training in the early stages was extremely elementary. I remember when I was pestering my grieve about one of our operators he said to me, "I have told him"—I will not put it into Scots, but keep it in English for the benefit of your Lordships—"that when clearing a nozzle he should not suck, he should blow". This was the level of understanding and it resulted at that time in several deaths. In our own area a good man, a sprayer operator for a contractor, drank water out of his storage tank and died as a result. But there has not been a fatal accident to an operator for over 10 years and that shows that we are beginning to appreciate what goes on.
The Government should encourage and order as soon as practical that operators should attend training courses and receive a certificate. That is not possible to achieve quickly, but practices on our farms (certainly this is the case on mine) are not always what they should be. I find that it is extraordinarily difficult to get men to wear the protective clothing which I find lying about in strange places. Perhaps that is because I personally do not pay enough attention to it.
Records are very important. If we are putting anything on a field, it is for our own benefit as farmers
728
to build up a picture over the years of what has gone on there. I daresay that in future years we shall be able to store the knowledge very cheaply on a computer and it will be available at any time if it is needed in case of disaster or simply as a means of using the knowledge to improve the spraying and effectiveness of the sprayers. I must say that I think that the Bill could follow the Royal Commission on the Environment very much more closely than it has. I have looked at their recommendations and they appear to me to be very sensible, and as we go on I daresay that a great many of them will appear in this House in the form of amendments. It is also very necessary that we get some form of evenness in EEC legislation. Obviously, material imported into this country must be subject to the same tests as anything made in this country; but surely an even standard in the EEC would be very important.
It was very interesting that, on aerial spraying (which without doubt is one of the great causes of annoyance to the non-farming population) the view is nearly unanimous in this House despite the expense and the difficulty. People who live next to fields are most unreasonable about having their gardens sprayed and their children covered, and they object strongly. Operators are afraid of being sued so that it can be very difficult to find an aerial contractor to spray. I can think of few cases. Maybe if we had an incredibly wet period and the land was completely waterlogged it might be useful: but I think that that is unlikely.
The other section of this problem which is not mentioned much in the Bill as we have it concerns the third world. I know that it may be for the benefit of the inhabitants of a third-world country to use a spray which is banned in this country—banned here because we are rich enough to ban it. But I understand, for example, that DDT is only one-sixth of the price of the more sophisticated and less harmful sprays. It might well be that some third-world country would think that the saving of a crop from a tropical pest was worth the risk. That is up to them. But we should label properly everything that goes out of this country in the language of the country to which it is going. Some of the big firms such as Shell and ICI are doing a lot of work in training in third-world countries. They are producing very interesting labels which show clearly to people who cannot read what is dangerous and what is not. This is something to be greatly encouraged.
However, we really cannot export dangerous chemicals to third-world countries which people do not know how to use and excuse that by saying that others will do so if we do not. It is rather like the old argument in the cartoon—which I always admired—of the two executioners, torturers, with their black masks, their execution axes, and so on, talking to each other at an idle moment. One of them is saying to the other. "The way I see it, if we don't do it, someone else will!" I do not think that that is a good policy for a highly moral government trying to help the third world.
Everyone I think has welcomed the Bill. In this House I have frequently spoken of the necessity for statutory regulation of chemicals. The voluntary scheme has worked extremely well but there comes a time when you must have statutory schemes. One of the reasons for that is that the scheme is breaking

729
down over the imports of very curious chemicals from Ireland, from the continent and elsewhere. I think that I would echo the criticism of the Bill (which is very much an enabling Bill) that we have not enough information of how the Government intend to proceed. I understand that it is marvellous for the civil servants of any department to put through an order; because if you put something good in it, you can slip into it also something distasteful, and the House would not turn it down because by doing so it would turn down the whole order. This is a very convenient method but it is not quite good enough. I would not dream of accusing the Minister (of whose uprightness and integrity we all know) of resorting to such a device. However, there is a danger that some less scrupulous noble Lord, who may be a Minister, might descend to that sort of regulation.
I do not want to detain the House. We are anxious to hear what the Minister has to say. But I want to echo the comment made by my noble friend Lord Walston that the object of the Bill, especially an enabling Bill, should be clearly stated in the Preamble to the Bill. That would certainly give guidance in the future and could be of great help to people both in and out of the Ministry and in and out of Parliament. This Bill could do a great deal of good but I think that, if it is going to do good, we shall need more information and the Government certainly will have to look to accepting a number of amendments put from all sides of the House.
6.37 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I join with almost everyone who has spoken so far in welcoming the Bill; but it must be a qualified welcome because, as again almost everyone has said, we have not seen the regulations and have no idea at all of what is going to be in them. I shall return to that in a moment. First, I want to deal with one important omission from the Bill. That refers to the public right of access to information. This was touched on briefly, I think, by my noble friend Lord Melchett, but not in great detail by anyone else. The Royal Commission on Environmental Protection, in its Seventh Report in 1979, recommended a review of confidentiality arrangements, and said:
"we have received evidence that those concerned with studying the effects of pesticides on a variety of living organisms may be hindered in their scientific work by this confidentiality being carried to unnecessary lengths".
In the Tenth Report, which came out this year, they said:
"unnecessary secrecy hindered independent evaluation of data which could be of benefit to the environment in bringing to light risks which had previously been undervalued or even overlooked. Knowledge that its activities may come under scrutiny acts as a vital discipline for the pollution control authority;
"it will also profit technically and scientifically from an open, informed peer-review of its work and will command much greater public confidence".
I commend both those comments in the reports to the Minister, and I hope that the Government will take them up. If information is available for responsible research, records of sales volumes and active ingredients would help studies of effects of pesticides on wild life. There is no apparent reason why information about toxicity of wastes dumped at sea should not be
730
available for public scrutiny. Will the register described in Schedule 4 contain this information? Will the reasons for revoking or refusing a licence be made available? What are the guidelines for issuing a licence? All these things, my Lords, are very important information if we are to assess the effect of what the Government are trying to do. If there are no guidelines for issuing a licence, does the Minister not think that this is a very unwise power for him to have? We are lagging behind other countries, notably the US, in clinging to unnecessary secrecy; and in many cases, my noble friend Lord Melchett said, the information that we are guarding can be obtained from overseas sources by a simple telephone call.
So, my Lords, we come to Part II, dealing with dumping at sea. Apart from a small operation by the Republic of Ireland, the United Kingdom is the only Oslo Convention state which now dumps sewage sludge at sea. It is also the second largest source of industrial waste liquids and sludges, dumping some 300,000 tonnes per year. The quantity of metals dumped in the North Sea via the United Kingdom's industrial wastes and sewage sludge is by far the highest of any North Sea state. The trends in dumping statistics show that the amount of sewage sludge deposited in the sea by the United Kingdom has been increasing steadily since the early 1970s, though the quantities of other wastes have declined.
With several of the North Sea states, notably West Germany and the Netherlands, set to reduce and possibly even to eliminate their existing dumping operations by the end of the 1980s, the United Kingdom will be still more exposed than it is at present to criticism that it is using the North Sea as a dustbin when other states have been prepared to make the necessary investments in research and technology, enabling them to phase out sea-dumping altogether. So legislation is welcome, if it is a milestone on this particular path.
I have one detailed question, and I apologise for this but I think it might be worth asking it now in order perhaps to save parliamentary time later. Clause 5 appears to exclude pollutant discharges from shore activities where the pollution is a by-product. Clause 5(a)(iii) refers to,
"from a structure on land constructed or adapted wholly or mainly for the purpose of depositing solids in the sea".
Does this mean that if the solids are a by-product, there will be no need for a licence? I think the House would wish to be satisfied that that will be covered; or is the Minister satisfied that existing legislation already covers that point?
I now turn to Part III, which is the one that has attracted most attention this evening. Wider powers to control the use and import of pesticides are, of course, welcome, but we have a duty, as several noble Lords have said, to control exports. The Minister mentioned this very briefly at the beginning, and I was not clear from his remarks whether or not he was saying that there would be some responsibility taken in regard to exports. Perhaps he will clarify that when he speaks again. It may be argued—and has been, I think, by one noble Lord—that it is the duty of the importing government to take care; but in many countries in the third world the necessary expertise is not available, and we should take the responsibility. Evidence exists

731
of deaths caused in under-developed countries by the availability of pesticides no longer considered safe for use here. It is our duty to protect these possible victims by at least adopting the OECD guiding principles on prior information to importing countries.
There is widespread concern about the excessive use of pesticides in the United Kingdom, and I stress "excessive use" because I think it has been notable this evening that not a single speaker has said that we should cease the use of pesticides altogether. We all recognise the valuable role that they play in farming, and I think it would be most unwise, and impossible, to try now to do without them. But we want to avoid waste, because it is the waste product of insecticides which is causing the difficulty.
I return once more to the Royal Commission's Seventh Report. They recommended that further research on the underlying factors in the incidence of pests and diseases should be carried out and that there should be a commitment to the concept of integrated control. We have heard no more about this from the Government, as I understand it. We are concerned with further research not simply into types of pesticide, but also into the underlying causes and into biological control of some of the pests and diseases which are now being covered simply by pesticides.
The need for careful control of all spraying methods to avoid wastage has been mentioned again and again this evening. The careful and intelligent farmers, of whom I am sure there are many in this House, can be relied upon probably to maximise the efficiency of their applications but, because of the less careful, there should be mandatory control of the type of equipment used, constant Ministerial encouragement for the production of better methods and machinery, and the imposition of time limits on the use of obsolete equipment. This is not a new concept: it has been used in other aspects of farming where the use of certain machinery was thought to be inadvisable and a time limit was set on its use. There is no reason why this could not be done with obsolete spraying methods as well.
We welcome the forward-looking submission from the NFU. It is quite unusual for the NFU to be quoted from these Benches, and it gives me great pleasure to quote from their submission as follows:
"The NFU supports the Government's declared intention of ensuring the safe and efficient use of pesticides as these chemicals are essential to the efficiency of the agricultural and horticultural industry. Nonetheless we would concur with the objective recommended by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution of reducing pesticide usage to a minimum consistent with efficient food production".
They go on to say:
"We … believe it would assist all concerned for the Government to publish a draft of the regulations they are contemplating making under the Bill as soon as possible so as to facilitate the debate on the primary legislation itself".
They reiterate this point at the end of their submission, and, like my noble friend Lord Melchett, I cannot stress too strongly that the production of the draft regulations at this stage might well save a lot of unnecessary amendments and argument during the later stages of the Bill. So we heartily support the NFU's request and we hope that the Minister in his reply will be able to promise us that something will be
732
forthcoming. As my noble friend Lord Melchett said, the department must by now have some ideas of the content of the regulations; otherwise this Bill would probably not have arrived at this time.
We are concerned that despite the environmental impact of the subjects covered by this Bill, there is no requirement for the involvement of the Department of the Environment at any stage. My noble friend Lord John-Mackie mentioned this. On these Benches we have recognised the indivisible nature of the subject and the need for the involvement of the two departments by the presence on the Front Bench of both my noble friend and myself. We urge the Government to see the logic of this approach and to arrange close liaison between departments on all the matters covered by this Bill. We have given an indication of what we see are shortcomings and we hope that some, at least, will be met before the next stage. But having said that, we welcome the new controls and hope that they will be fully used.
6.47 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords. I have listened with great interest to what has been said today on this Bill, and not least to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, at the end of the debate which, if I may say so, I think made a most interesting balance and mixture from the Oppostion Front Bench in the comments made on the Bill today. I do assure your Lordships that the Government will reflect very carefully on all that has been said before we reach the next stage.
If I may make a comment which applies to all three parts of the Bill, the Government most certainly believe setting as high a standard of environmental protection as can be achieved. The right approach, in our view, is to try to identify the major issues of concern, assess the priorities and then introduce legislation to deal with those priorities. I think that my noble friend Lord Ferrers was absolutely right when in his speech he said in essence that we have to decide where the balance of advantage lies in taking action, particularly on pesticides.
The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, suggested, in talking about Part I of the Bill, that local authorities really ought to be given the powers which are being taken in that Part. I think the difficulty is that, while local authorities do indeed have wide powers concerning the safety of food, they are not emergency procedures. Indeed, they could not be brought into operation nearly as rapidly as would be possible under this Bill. It is really on that point that the decision was taken that it would not be so suitable to go for local authority powers.
I wonder whether I might go on and just illustrate very briefly how the powers in Part I might actually operate so far as England is concerned. I say that only because that is the area of responsibility of the department in which I work. As soon as the Ministry of Agriculture were to hear of a serious incident which could have contaminated food, we would despatch investigation officers to the scene.
My noble friend Lord Stanley asked me what would be the jobs of the investigating officers and enforcement officers. The investigating officers would go off to

733
find out what was the trouble. They would be specialists from the Ministry's regional organisation and from its Food Science Division. They would take samples from affected crops or foods and, if they judged that it was necessary, they would advise that an emergency order ought to be made. My right honourable friend would then take action selecting appropriate prohibitions from Schedule I. The order would come into effect immediately and the enforcement officers would then have the powers to enforce the prohibitions and directions introduced.
The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, was concerned about the possible duration of an emergency and he gave as an example what might happen during the long Summer Recess period. As time went on it might be possible to lift the restrictions imposed at the start of the emergency by using the power in Clause 2(1), which allows Ministers to consent to anything prohibited in an emergency order. But it might be more appropriate to amend or revoke the order eventually. That immediate statutory procedure would replace arrangements which are, at the moment, only voluntary' and I really think that they would be a valuable step in protecting the community.
The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, asked me how the different Ministers would act under Part I. It is true that more than one Minister could make an order, but we would expect that it would be signed by the Minister in whose territory the area to be designated lay. If the area included parts of two of the constituent countries of Great Britain, or if it was an area of sea, we expect that the order would be made by the Minister within whose territory the incident occurred or whose department first learned of it. For constitutional reasons, separate orders would be made for Northern Ireland by the Department of Agriculture, and there would certainly be administrative arrangements drawn up to ensure that there was full consultation between departments with responsibility for the safety of food.
My noble friend Lord Stanley asked: why is there no provision for compensation in Part I? The Bill does not make this provision for a very simple reason. This Part is designed to protect the public from the polluter. The polluter pays and, if necessary, could be taken to law. In Part I, the Government are simply seeking power to carry out the protective measures that, in all probability, all responsible members of the public would agree ought to be carried out voluntarily. I say this bearing in mind that the emergencies in Part I can be designated only if they are creating a hazard to health and to food and are occurring because of a release of substances. I hope that I made it clear in my opening speech that we trust that these occasions would be very rare indeed.
If I may move to Part II, this improves our protection of the seas around our shores by extending the areas controlled in the present legislation and by taking a number of new powers. For instance, it is important to have full powers to control marine incineration since, although the United Kingdom is not heavily dependent on this practice, we must certainly not lag behind the rest of Europe in imposing controls. Also, Clause 8 give us discretion to examine applications for licences from all possible angles, in order to reach a comprehensive judgment in each case.
734
It is really quite an important tightening up of the powers to make sure that dumping takes place only when dumping ought to take place.
If I may try to answer some of your Lordships' questions on this part, the noble Lord, Lord Walston, asked whether Part II could be used to regulate the packaging of toxic substances. I am advised that that would not be possible as the Bill is drawn for the first time, because Part II deals with deliberate deposit only in the sea. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, was, it is fair to say—if I may take just a general point which she made—critical of the United Kingdom's dumping. But the noble Baroness will forgive me if I say that I do not think she took enough account of the very small percentage of pollution which is created by dumping, compared to inputs from rivers and indeed from discharges from land, although in saying that I am in no way complacent about what we have to do over dumping. It is precisely for that reason that the Government are introducing Part II of the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Craigton asked whether we could treat applications for dumping licences like town and country planning applications and give an opportunity for objections. The fact of the matter is that this Bill does not change the position in the Dumping at Sea Act. That Act does not require that applications be published, nor does it prevent it. But the criterion is that licences should be granted only when it is safe to do so. That is an answer that I must give to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, who asked: what is the guideline? The guideline is safety when looking at a dumping application. It is not entirely clear to me what advantage would be gained by making dumping applications akin to town and country planning applications.
My noble friend Lord Stodart asked whether the provisions in the Dumping at Sea Act on foreign enforcement officers have been deleted. The answer to my noble friend is yes, they have. The powers in Section 6 of the 1974 Act for authorisation of foreign enforcement officers were never actually used. It therefore seemed prudent not to re-enact them, but we have tried to bring in new powers when necessary. I would just draw my noble friend's attention to the remedial action in Clause 10, which also enables us to recover the costs of an action against a person convicted of an offence under this clause, which I believe will give us the sort of powers that my noble friend believed were right.
My noble friend Lord Auckland asked me about the nature of incineration. This is an operation which takes place on specially constructed or adapted incineration vessels, of which there are only a handful in the whole world. Those in Europe operate from the Netherlands and all incineration takes place at a single internationally agreed site in the middle of the North Sea within the Dutch zone. The control of incineration is particularly strict and enforcement is facilitated by the use of automatic data recorders, black-box recorders, which record all the operational details. Like my noble friend, I asked only a little while ago what incineration is all about and the answer is that it is to dispose of wastes which are in liquid form. The most obvious ones are organo-chlorines, and apparently they can be incinerated very much more safely at sea than on land. The noble Baroness, Lady

735
Nicol, asked me about the discharge of waste solids. Basically, of course, this Bill deals with deposits from ships and pipeline discharges are dealt with under the Control of Pollution Act 1974.
If I may finally come to Part III, that seeks to regulate the supply and use of all pesticides which, if I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, includes rat poison, because Clause 15(7) and (8) make that clear; and not only rat poison, but also agricultural chemicals and those employed in public hygiene, food storage and wood preservation. Under the voluntary scheme, the PSPS, the safety picture has been a steadily improving one, despite an increase in the use of pesticides. For instance, both accidents and residue levels have been decreasing. None the less, the measures in Part III constitute an important step forward in environmental control. Although I know that different points of view have been put forward in the debate, as I knew there would be, the one thing on which I think we are all agreed is that it is necessary all the time in this area of agriculture to try to keep pushing forward and reduce the level of danger to people, to animals and to wildlife generally.
In this Bill we would have for the first time statutory power to screen all pesticides for safety and efficacy before they are marketed or used in the United Kingdom. For the first time we would have statutory control over the supply and use of pesticides. The important point that the noble Lord, Lord Walston, raised about preventing people from decanting pesticides from their proper containers could be dealt with under those controls.
This is enabling legislation. Perhaps your Lordships will forgive me if I say that I do not think it is very unusual—in fact, it is perfectly usual—to say that the regulations have to follow. The reason is that in this case there is a great difference between the enabling legislation and the regulations. In Part III of the Bill we are looking at it from a long-term point of view. We are trying to provide in principle for all future eventualities.
Secondly, the wording of the regulations will need to strike a fine balance in certain areas between freedom and an element of compulsion. Therefore, the Government must consult in detail again on the regulations, because they have already consulted with the industry—and widely- upon the bringing in of the Bill. In order to do so, first we have to have decisions from your Lordships' House and from another place on the principles from which the regulations are to be derived. However, I recognise the force of your Lordships' arguments today about the interest of the House in the second stage, and I give an undertaking in this debate that I shall do everything I can to put forward point by point the Government's view of the nature of the intended regulations as our debate on the Bill proceeds.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, was very critical of this particular matter. I would just say to him that in essence the intention of the Government in bringing in regulations under Clause 15 is that what is at present voluntary in regulating the supply and use of pesticides should become statutory, with two important additions. Efficacy testing will be required and use will
736
be controlled. The safety tests required under the PSPS, the need to satisfy the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, the conditions of storage, the training of advisers under BASIS and the methods of application on the label are all familiar and are generally complied with, but in future there will be stronger rules to ensure that those conditions are in fact complied with.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned efficacy testing but did not reply to my specific question about whether he could reconcile the two statements issued by his ministry: first, that efficacy testing would be applied to all products, and, secondly, that efficacy testing would be applied to all new products.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, patience! I am coming to that point. If the noble Lord will forgive me, the answer to that question is embedded beneath one or two pieces of paper. To deal first with another point, concern has been expressed in agricultural quarters that the regulations might impede low-priced imports from the continent. This point was raised by the noble Lord. Lord Walston, my noble friend Lord Stodart of Leaston, and by other noble Lords. It is very important that I should place on record that we would not wish to deny access to cheap, safe and efficient pesticides. Nor, indeed, would the European Commission allow us to do so. As an earnest of our good intentions we propose to introduce administratively on 1st January of next year a rapid clearance system free of any fees for imported pesticides provided that they are identical to products already cleared for use here. I am confident that a system introduced under regulations could, because of its simplicity, be charged at a very low level in the future.
My noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley asked me about advice given to the Government. I can confirm that we shall continue to rely on the expert advice of the independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides. I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Ferrers who said that this is absolutely right. However, we recognise that the work of the ACP has not in the past been so well publicised as it deserved. We plan to remedy that. We have already asked the ACP to publish an annual report of its activities, as the Royal Commission recommended, and the first annual report will cover the ACP's work in 1984.
It is fair to say that the Government have two main objectives in this part of the Bill. The first is to ensure safety of pesticides and control of their use. I want to emphasise again that the powers under the Bill would enable the Government to control fully such matters as aerial spraying, labelling, containers, storage, disposal and the reconsideration of existing clearances, and so on. But there is a second objective: to maintain efficiency and to avoid stifling new developments. I would give to those noble Lords who raised this point—those noble Lords included the noble Lord. Lord Walston and the noble Lord. Lord Craigton, among others—the assurance that we shall ensure that, subject to the agreement of both Houses, novel application techniques, such as controlled droplet application, can be used where appropriate and that minor crop growers continue to have access to the products they need. We are absolutely determined to stand by this statement of principle.

737
Let me say a word about confidentiality, which is a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. There is legitimate concern at the use which government make of the information which is submitted to them by particular manufacturers. Of course I understand that concern. By laying conditions in the regulations we can be more responsive to changing standards in this area, and we shall certainly bear in mind the presumption in favour of openness in environmental matters. In the Government's view, a distinction needs to be made between the release of data for the purpose of hazard assessment by the general public—a perfectly understandable wish—and the release of test results in such a manner that a rival manufacturer can use them to obtain approval for an identical product. In the latter case we have to recognise the very substantial investment and testing needed to obtain approval for a new product.
To answer one or two other specific questions on Part III of the Bill, a whole array of questions asked, in essence, whether or not a series of operations would be allowed under the regulations. If for the sake of time I may pick out only the question upon which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, pressed me particularly a few moments ago—namely, efficacy testing of all products or only of new products—our intention is to cover all products. However, it is not practicable to cover immediately all existing cleared pesticides. There will have to be a transitional period. Therefore, all new applications will be screened for efficacy but all existing products will be screened as their clearances are reviewed.
My noble friend Lord Craigton and other noble Lords made the point that it is important to keep records. Powers contained in the Bill would enable Ministers to require that by regulation details of records shall be kept. This is one of the many matters which will need to be discussed with the industry. However, I foresee that it will certainly be discussed in your Lordships' House before we get that far.
My noble friend Lord Monk Bretton made a particular point about the application of pesticides to vegetables. I would say to my noble friend that product labels already tell users how often and how close to harvesting they may apply a pesticide. ADAS advisers assist farmers, within the safety limits set out on labels, to apply the pesticide at the time it will be most effective. This is the way in which we would wish to proceed.
I was asked by several noble Lords about how this is going to be policed and generally organised. I would make the point that when I said at the beginning of the debate that there would be 18 on the Health and Safety Executive staff I meant that they would be in addition to the scientists and agricultural inspectors who are already on the HSE staff. The 16 in the ministry whom I also mentioned in my speech will be additional to the scientists who already operate the PSPS, the ACAS and the wildlife incident investigation scheme.
My noble friend Lord Ferrers asked me about the future of the BASIS scheme. Standards of safety in the storage and distribution of pesticides will certainly not be lower under this Bill than they are now. All this is thanks to the work done by the BASIS organisation, as my noble friend is very well aware. I am firmly of the view that it will be in the interests of the trade and of
738
the public if BASIS continues to exist in the maintenance of standards set out in the legislation.
If my noble friend will forgive me, I will not follow him down the interesting and very serious road he explored in his speech so far as levels of pesticides in people's bodies are concerned, except to say that over the past 20 years or so there has been a very marked drop so far as DDT and Dieldrin are concerned. Indeed, DDT and Endrin were withdrawn from 1st October of this year. I hesitate even to have said that, because it makes it sound as though I am satisfied with that situation. I take my noble friend's point that we should never be satisfied. I am very glad that he made the speech that he did this evening.
I have two more points, if there is time. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, talked about the need to be careful with our exports to other countries. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, also mentioned this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, asked what I meant when I referred to exports at the beginning of this debate. Decisions on what pesticides are needed and under what conditions they should be used must rest, and rightly do rest, with national governments. Nor can we always judge what is appropriate under tropical and sub-tropical conditions. It should be remembered that lack of a pesticide in such areas might mean not reduced productivity but, as the noble Lord said, the loss of an entire crop or a disease epidemic.
Nevertheless, the British Government wholeheartedly support international initiatives such as by FAO and UNO on improved information exchange. Hence the provision that is in the Bill at the moment. The need to insist on a government response to information that we send relating to a proposed system would be very difficult. It would be likely to result in unacceptable delays to shipments which were genuinely needed. At the moment, I am saying that our support for international initiatives on information exchange is absolute, but I feel that I cannot go further than that this evening.
Finally, several noble Lords, and among them my noble friends Lord Ferrers and Lord Monk Bretton, spoke about the Ministry of Agriculture's research programme and expressed concern that it should keep up so far as pesticides are concerned. It is fair to say that ADAS is giving priority to the development of integrated pest control systems for outdoor crops, to improvements in application methods, to the introduction of pest and disease-resistant varieties, and to making forecasting techniques for pest and disease incidence more effective. All of this is designed to contribute to reducing pesticide use to the minimum level consistent with efficient food production, as recommended by the Royal Commission in their seventh report.
Those are all the questions we have time for this evening, and I hope that this debate has been of benefit to those of your Lordships who have taken part in it. It has certainly been of benefit to the Government. I believe that this Bill will mark a significant step forward in food safety, marine pollution and pesticides, and so will make a practical contribution to improving the environment for everyone.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Highland Regional Council (Uig Pier, Skye) Order Confirmation Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936), deemed to have been read a second time and reported from the Committee.

Firth of Clyde Piers: Maintenance
7.15 p.m.
Lord Banks Lord Banks rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they propose to take to ensure that non-vehicular piers on the Firth of Clyde currently in use are not allowed to fall into disrepair and disuse with consequent loss to the tourist industry.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. The Question asks what steps the Government propose to take to ensure that non-vehicular piers on the Firth of Clyde currently in use are not allowed to fall into disrepair and disuse with consequent loss to the tourist industry. I await with interest to hear in due course the reply which will be made by the noble Lord the Minister, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, for interesting himself in this Question.
As railways spread throughout Britain, steamer services developed on the Firth. Operating from railheads, they were in fact the railways of the Firth, maintaining communication between the towns and villages around its shores. They provided also in the summer cruises for visitors amid the very attractive scenery of the Firth. If one were to return to the year 1900, one would find that there were then about 60 piers in use with about 40 steamers serving them at the height of the season.
The development of road traffic followed by the increasing number of cars in use, and eventually the considerable improvement to roads, altered that pattern. Since 1900 there has been a gradual decline in both the number of piers in use and the number of steamers involved in serving them. There has been a concentration, too, in the ownership of the vessels. There has also been the replacement of the passenger steamer by the dual-purpose car ferry. Nowadays, the services are concentrated on a few very busy and important car ferry services operated by Caledonian MacBrayne and Western Ferries—such as the Gourock-Dunoon ferry, the Wemyss Bay-Rothesay ferry, and the Ardrossan-Brodick ferry. Cruising has been abandoned by Caledonian MacBrayne.
The last of the familiar Clyde passenger steamers was the "Waverley". This was a paddle steamer built in 1947 for the London North-Eastern Railway Company. By 1974, the Scottish Transport Group, who by that time were her owners, had no more use for her. They sold her to the Paddle Steamer Preservation Society for £1. That was a very generous gesture but I imagine that there was a certain amount of cynicism generally as to the extent of the use to which the preservation society would be able to put her.
The society resolved to sail the "Waverley" again on the Clyde. Here I must declare an interest, although
740
not a financial one. I am a member of the Paddle Steamer Preservation Society and of the Clyde River Steamer Club. In September this year, the "Waverley" completed her tenth season operated by a non-profit making company under the auspices of the society. That is a remarkable achievement. During the six months of her season, the "Waverley" sails around Britain, offering cruises around the West Highlands, on the East Coast of Scotland, in the Bristol Channel, in the Solent, and on the Thames. But early and late in every season, and during the height of the season, in July and August, the "Waverley" is based in her home waters on the Clyde, where she offers a variety of cruises and where she provides also a means of communication between one point and another.
The "Waverley" is a considerable tourist attraction for Glasgow and the Clyde coast. In July and August of this year, the "Waverley" carried no fewer than 109,000 passengers on the Clyde; that is quite apart from the passengers she carried in other parts of the country. That is 3,000 more than she carried in the same time and in the same area in 1983; 109,000 passengers carried in the Clyde in July and August, 42,000 of whom were taken—and this is quite significant—to ports on the North or Highland side of the Clyde to Argyllshire ports, Dunoon, Tighnabruaich, Tarbert and Campbeltown.
The "Waverley" also provides business for the places that are at the end of her cruises; at destination points where people have time ashore. Indeed, they have time ashore at the places at which she calls on the way. That means a considerable amount of business for local shopkeepers, cafe proprietors, and so on. The "Waverley" calls at piers like Dunoon, Rothesay and Brodick which are also used for car ferry services. Because they are also used for car ferry services, we can be fairly certain that they will be maintained and that they will be available for the "Waverley" in future years. The "Waverley" also calls at non-vehicular piers; that is, piers which are not used by the car ferries. The "Waverley" management is concerned about the future of these piers, some of which are in a bad state of repair.
The piers about which there is particular concern are Millport, Helensburgh, Tighnabruaich and Largs. On Millport pier, on the Great Cumbrae, repairs are needed which would cost about £90,000. It seems that repairs have been allowed to accumulate. I believe that Strathclyde Regional Council has refused to foot the bill, arguing that as it is used for leisure and recreation it is the responsibility of the district council for whom, of course, £90,000 is a very large sum. Millport pier is also used in summer by a small passenger vessel, the "Keppel", which provides a direct link for passengers with Largs and Rothesay. It is operated by Caledonian MacBrayne, and there is a question mark over the future of that service. Millport does not want to lose either the "Waverley" service or the "Keppel" service and has formed an action committee to fight for the continuation of Millport pier.
As regards Largs, there is the fear that if Millport were closed then Largs might be closed as well. It is owned by Caledonian MacBrayne. It is not necessary for the car ferry service to the Cumbrae. Passengers using this service travel by bus to Millport once they are landed on the Cumbrae because they are landed at

741
some distance from the town. I understand that the carryings for the "Keppel" last summer direct from Millport pier to Largs and to Rothesay were well up and that the car ferry service could not have coped with all the foot passenger traffic that wanted to travel. It is important to emphasise that Largs is a very important picking-up point as far as the "Waverley" is concerned, being a prosperous holiday resort, a residential area and having a railway terminus. The same comment applies to Helensburgh further up the Clyde, on the other side.
Helensburgh pier is falling into a very bad state of repair and there seems to be very little sign that even basic maintenance is being carried out. Mr. David Duncanson, the general manager of Waverley Excursions Limited, is reported as saying in the Glasgow Evening Times of 19th October:
"Both myself and the captain of the ship, Captain David Neil, consider that it"—
that is, Helensburgh pier—
"is getting to a dangerous condition".
Tighnabruaich pier is also in need of repair; and a spokesman for Strathclyde Regional Council has admitted that both Helensburgh and Tighnabruaich pier are urgently in need of repair. Tighnabruaich is situated in the Kyles of Bute in a very beautiful part of the country and is an ideal destination for a cruise. Also of course the large numbers of cruise passengers who are taken there by the "Waverley" in the summer bring a lot of business locally. There have also been rumours—I do not know whether there is anything in them—that somebody might be willing at some point in the comparatively near future to introduce in summer a feeder service between Tighnabruaich and Rothesay. If Tighnabruaich pier were to close then all those advantages would go.
In the same report to which I have referred Mr. Duncanson said that if Millport, Helensburgh, Largs and Tighnabruaich piers were closed it would kill off cruising on the Clyde. He said:
"We could not stand losing these three important picking up points as well as Millport."
If that should happen, Glasgow and the Clyde coast would lose a remarkable and valuable tourist attraction. A means of ordinary communication between places on the Clyde in the summer season would go and local businesses would stand to lose a considerable amount, not only in those four places but in other places such as Dunoon, Rothesay, Campbeltown, Tarbert and Ayr. If the Clyde cruising ended then it is possible that the whole "Waverley" enterprise might end. I am sure the Government do not want that to happen.
I hope that the Government will give an assurance that they will not stand idly by and allow that to happen. Perhaps the recent experience regarding Tobermory pier, further north outside the Firth of Clyde and the Island of Mull, offers hope. Caledonian MacBrayne (who own that pier) closed it to vessels of over 70 feet in length because of the structural condition of the pier. That meant that it was not able to be used by the Caledonian MacBrayne ferry from Oban. There was much local criticism of that, and the Secretary of State eventually made an offer of financial assistance. That was originally just to allow smaller
742
vessels to call; but later full restoration of services was provided for so that larger Caledonian MacBrayne ferries will be able to call there in the future and also the "Waverley" during her short stay each year in that part of the country.
In conclusion, I emphasise that I am not asking for help for something which is fading away. On the contrary—and I repeat this—the "Waverley" carried 109,000 passengers on the Clyde in July and August this year. The "Waverley" enterprise is a wonderful success story, based on voluntary support and enthusiasm and bringing many advantages to the community. I hope that it will be made clear that the Government are determined to maintain the conditions under which that voluntary, non-profit making enterprise can continue its success.
7.28 p.m.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, I apologise for not having put down my name to speak; but, frankly, I had not expected to be in London today otherwise I would have done so. Owing to my advancing years, my memories go back to the days when the Clyde was covered by a network of steamer routes. There were the Caledonian Railway steamers with their yellow funnels, MacBrayne's Queens of the Coast, the "Iona" and the "Columba", the North British Railway, the Glasgow and South-Western Railway and their steamers trading to and fro between the piers, most of which the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has mentioned. Your Lordships will forgive me if I remind the House that it was possible to buy a ticket at the Broomielaw to Fort William and sail by, say, the "Columba" to Ardrishhaig on the funny little steamer, the "Linnet", which went up the Crinan Canal, to the "Chevalier" which ran from Crinan round to Oban. At Oban we changed to the "Mountaineer", or the like, and up to Fort William. That was a great development.
I am so glad that the noble Lord mentioned the steamer that is maintaining the reputation of comfort and enjoyment on one of the most beautiful coasts in the world. I hope that his words and mine will help to encourage the Government to do everything that they can to help with the maintenance of those piers.
At one time I was a bit of a yachtsman. The noble Lord did not mention yachtsmen at all. I should like to ask the Minister whether in considering the problem he has been in touch with the Clyde Cruising Club, which publishes a splendid book of sailing instructions for the whole coast, right the way up to Ullapool.
One is tempted at my age to reminisce. I think your Lordships will be interested to know that I remember a steamer of MacBrayne's. She was called the "Glen Coe", and sailed from Mallaig to Broadford. I was an orphan boy, and I remember one winter during the first war when I was going up to stay with an uncle in Skye. It was a horrible, black day. I went on board, and I asked one of the sailors what sort of crossing we were going to have. He said, "I wouldn't be knowing, but I can tell you this—that Captain MacDonald has on his carpet slippers. It's when he has on his sea boots that you have to look out". That is an illustration of when the steamer had a single cylinder beam engine. If she stuck at a dead end, the stokers had to come up, and bar the paddles over so that she was able to go backwards or forwards.

743
To return to the question of yachtsmen, yachting is one of the greatest leisure opportunities in the world; and there is nowhere in the world to compare with the west coast of Scotland, in my view. I know nearly all the ports. Access for yachts depends a great deal on the availability of existing piers and maintaining them in proper order. In that respect I feel that we can support 100 per cent. what the noble Lord said. I am sure that the money put in is an investment. It is good stuff. Experience with the steamer that goes from Ardrossan to Brodick, the "Waverly" indicates the opportunities there are there for relaxation, travel and good health.
My mind again goes back to the time when I was a little boy and we travelled on these steamers. Does anyone remember the German bands? There was always a band on board, with Germans with their peaked caps, their trombones, clarinets and trumpets. "Going doon the water" as they called it, was a tremendous exercise for the people of Glasgow. At that time Glasgow was terribly foggy and smoky.
I hope that your Lordships will give a good hearing to the case of the noble Lord, Lord Banks. I should like to add my words to what he has said. I again ask the Minister who is to reply whether he has been in touch with the Clyde Cruising Club to see to what extent assistance can be given to yachtsmen so that people can drive to, say, Tarbert-Lock Fyne-and join a yacht there. I think that the Tarbert pier is all right, but it may not go on being like that unless we pay attention to what the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has said.
7.43 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I should very much like to support the noble Lord, Lord Banks, in this matter. Like everyone else in your Lordships' House at this moment, I have done an enormous amount of sailing on the Clyde, off the west Highlands and on the west coast. It is one of the most enjoyable things that one can do. It is one of the best entertainments for those who go there and love sailing. It would be nothing short of a tragedy if this facility were to disappear just when we are trying to encourage more and more people to go to Scotland and to the west. As we all know, there is a great depression in shipbuilding and all those things. Proposals such as we are discussing can help to counter that kind of situation.
I hope very much that what the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has said—every word of which I agree with—will receive the agreement of the noble Lord, Lord Gray. This is something that we should invest in. It is not expenditure, it is investment; and it will bring a return.
7.36 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I think that the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, for having raised the subject and put down the Question today. It is important to realise how great an expert he is on the subject of Clyde steamers. I was also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, and interested in his remarks on the nostalgia of the Clyde, which is a very important part of the west of Scotland culture. I hope to make a brief reference to what the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, said in her few remarks.
744
It is important to realise the vital part played by the Clyde and the Clyde steamers in the history of Glasgow, the west of Scotland and really the industrial heartlands of Britain at various periods. I say that without wishing to be too chauvinistic. As the noble Lord, Lord Banks, pointed out, there were scores of piers serviced by dozens of ships. Many, but not all, of those ships were paddle steamers. For some reason or other the paddle steamers were always the most fascinating, especially if one went down to see the engines. When I went down to see the engines it was actually to see the engines, but that was what the Clyde engineers used to tell their wives when they were going down to the bar! Those wonderful, big engines were beautifully kept and beautiful to look at.
I perhaps do not go back quite as far as many other noble Lords, but I remember being told of Tighnabruaich, for instance, where there would be 10 boats before 10 o'clock in the morning at the height of the season. I believe that there was a certain amount of competition for the Royal Mail. That is what I was always told. If a company could manage to establish a good record of reliability and speed, it would get the mail for the next year or six months.
It is also interesting to realise that much of the system was based on very cheap labour and extremely cheap fuel in the west of Scotland. Sometimes the conditions for the crews were not that great. I am not saying that to introduce a sour note, but merely to illustrate the fact that what was possible in those days may not be possible now. The steamers were also the only means of transport to many parts of the Clyde. Our roads are now much better, but the old roads were little more than drovers' tracks. Even in my day, for instance, to go to Loch Goil other than by steamer was very difficult.
Perhaps it is being over-romantic, but I often think that the Clyde coast and Venice have something in common. Venice has the boats because of the lagoon, and that makes it different from any other city in the world. The Clyde, because of its ships, was able to sustain little villages and small towns which could not have been sustained otherwise.
Now, of course, we have the growth of road transport. In the various responsibilities that I have had in political life the subject has continually come up: the desire of people to use motorcars and the problems that this means for other forms of transport. The diesel and petrol engine, together with much better roads, has brought about a gradual transfer of passengers. As a result, the Clyde fleet has become smaller and smaller. There was less of a margin to be achieved in visiting the smaller populated areas, and therefore the service began to reduce. I remember well sailing down the Clyde from Glasgow, from Broomielaw, and we actually stopped at Govan and, I think, also at Renfrew. This would be inconceivable now. It is a seven-minute run by bus. However, that is how important the steamer was. It has become one of the casualties of the technological age.
There were also the marvellous evening sails from Largs, Millport and Rothesay, which, for some reason, have disappeared. It is a wonderful river. I still love to sail down it. It is one of my favourite trips, to take foreigners from south of the Border across to

745
Dunoon—although, again, by car. That is the problem: I go by car. I sail across and take them up round Dunoon, over the Rest and be Thankful, and sometimes even into Callander. However, the ship now constitutes only part of the journey instead of the whole journey. This is perhaps because people are not willing to spend the entire day travelling.
Although still a wonderful river it is a different river from the one that I knew as a kid, mainly in Millport and Largs, when, though not perhaps with the expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Banks, I could identify ships on seeing whether the front portholes were square or round. I am afraid I did not maintain that interest, but at one time it was a matter of great importance to me. My daughter, however, is still very much involved in the Clyde. To her, it is a different river. She sees the Clyde from a yacht, a sailing boat or from the shore. Nevertheless, she uses the Clyde and she loves it.
I was pleased to hear the figures from the noble Lord, Lord Banks, about the "Waverley", which berths in my old constituency. It is still a magnificent sight. To stand at the head of the Kyles of Bute on a clear day and to see the "Waverley" steaming up is really a most exciting sight. I have every hope that anything I say will be taken as encouragement rather than anything else. The position, I understand, is that Strathclyde inherited about 50 piers, ranging from very small jetties to Rothesay Harbour, on the reorganisation of local government. There was then the Stodart report. I am sorry that the noble Lord has left because his name is beginning to flit through Scottish legislation in this generation almost in the way that the name Goschen did in another generation. That was a splendid and full report.
The noble Lord suggested that leisure and recreational piers should be the responsibility of the district councils. I recognise that there are always difficulties in trying to divide and compartmentalise these things. It was, however, a reasonable argument to say that if it was a leisure or recreational pier or jetty, the district councils should be responsible for it, whereas if it was the continuation of the highway it should be a regional council responsibility.
I understand that Millport is now losing traffic to the Cumbrae slip. I remember when there were hardly any cars, if any cars at all, in Millport. It was therefore great as a youngster to be able to ride a bicycle without any great fear. To most of those who are only going to Millport for the odd day—there are perhaps not as many of them as we would like to see—and who wish to take their cars, the slipway is a reasonable alternative. It is roughly a mile from the town. It does diminish Millport, because the pierhead was the centre. It was the place where things happened, where the shops were located and where you got the latest news.
I have been making inquiries. I understand that the figure for repair, although I stand to be corrected, is around £70,000. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, suggested a figure of about £90,000. Whatever it is, I accept that to a district council it is a very high figure. The difficulty is that, in present circumstances, it also represents quite a big figure for Strathclyde. I can assure your Lordships that in the area that I
746
represented, while there would be great sympathy and hopes that the money could be found somewhere, the urgency for money in the inner city areas is at least as strong. The sum of £70,000 or £90,000 would mean a great deal at a time of cuts in so many services.
It is a sad fact of life that although it may be impossible, or difficult, for a district council to raise the money, because it would represent one of its major items of capital expenditure, the allocation of £90,000 by a regional council, with all the pressures upon it, would also represent a great problem.
I do not feel, however, that there is any lack of goodwill on the part of the people of Strathclyde Regional Council towards the desires of the noble Lord, Lord Banks, other noble Lords and the noble Baroness. Lady Elliot, who have spoken in the debate. I understand that a decision is likely to be made very soon—possibly next week, or the week after that—as to what is to happen to Millport. I have been trying, at a fairly late date, to gather some information. I hope however, that the Government will look at the matter with great sympathy.
The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, mentioned unemployment in the engineering industry. I support fully what she said. I would emphasise that there is unemployment not just in the engineering undustry, but particularly in the civil engineering industry. I believe that the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors have joined, on more than one occasion, with local authorities, construction companies and consultants in urging the Government to try to provide them with some work. There is a tremendous shortage of work and a great deal of unemployment in every branch of civil engineering and marine engineering.
What is required for repairs to piers such as Millport and many of the others that we have been discussing is labour, steel, cement, stone and perhaps a little heavy timber. Of all these principal items, there is only one that involves imports—the last, the heavy timber.
This request to the Government for help seems reasonable, in view of the state of the industry. As I say, this is not a party point, because the people who have approached us are certainly hardly likely to be canvassing for my party at the next election. They are really desperate. They do not suck in imports, as many other capital works may do. The only import that is likely to be necessary is some of the heavy, water-resistant timbers.
I hope that the Minister will look at the matter from that point of view. Instead of asking Strathclyde to provide something like £70,000 or £90,000, or asking the district council if they will do it or if private enterprise will do it, the Govenment should find a way to use the available resources. It would be a very marginal addition to what is already being paid out in many other forms of help to these people and to these industries to give a little more to allow repairs like this to go ahead and preserve for many years to come an asset which I think has proved itself very much over the past 50, 60 or 100 years to the people of the West of Scotland.
7.51 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I should like to begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Banks,

747
for initiating this short debate this evening. I almost feel an intruder when I listen to the wealth of knowledge of the Clyde which has come from the noble Lord himself and from the three other noble Lords and the noble Baroness who have taken part. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has a particular—indeed, expert—interest in the general history of sea transport services. Many years ago he published a book on the history and development of the famous Clyde steamers.
I can recall myself, as a boy, sailing down the Clyde on the lovely old "Duchess of Montrose", which will be well known to all those who have taken part in this debate; and therefore I share in the affection which those who have participated this evening have for the Clyde and for the Clyde piers. I am sure that many of your Lordships have very fond memories of those majestic vessels—majestic in both name and in bearing—which plied the Firth of Clyde for the greater part of a century. Reference has been made to them this evening.
However, we have to face up to the fact that resources are not unlimited and that priorities have to be drawn. There are many piers on the Clyde which are not required for the provision of any essential transport services. We have to ask—or rather, those directly responsible have to ask—how much it can be justified to spend on them to maintain them for what is a relatively limited tourist use. I shall return to this point. I shall also deal with the points that have been raised about Millport Pier, because I readily appreciate that it is probably Millport Pier which is of the greatest concern to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and to others at this point in time. I shall also deal with some of the points which were raised in regard to financing of such repairs. Let me say straight away that these are the responsibilities principally of the Strathclyde Regional Council. I shall deal with that in a little more detail in a moment.
Perhaps first of all I can answer the question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, who asked me if we had consulted with the Clyde Cruising Club. We have not consulted specifically with the cruising club on this issue for the simple reason that the Government's responsibility is to provide essential transport infrastructure, and noble Lords will appreciate that yachting is a leisure pursuit. That is why we have not particularly consulted the Clyde Cruising Club on this occasion.
I should like to say a word about Millport Pier. May I say from the outset that I fully acknowledge the strength of local feeling provoked by the prospect of closure of Millport Pier. As the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has already said, the Millport Pier Action Group have been particularly zealous in their defence of the pier, including the compilation of an impressive amount of background material to highlight the economic and social basis of life on a small island like Great Cumbrae. Indeed, the Secretary of State has been inundated with postcards about the fate of the pier. Officials in my department have been in touch with the action group, and earlier this year attended a meeting in Millport to hear the group's views on a wide range of transport issues. In that and other contexts we have therefore made clear the Secretary of State's
748
position in this affair; but your Lordships will wish me to set on record now the formal statutory background.
The Secretary of State can make available Exchequer assistance for capital works at piers and harbours under various statutory powers. However, his powers are defined in terms of financial aid to assist the provision or improvement of piers and harbours. That is the basic criterion of eligibility. Only capital works which represent a visible degree of betterment to sea transport facilities are eligible for consideration for Exchequer assistance. The obverse of this is that Exchequer assistance is not available for works which have become necessary because routine maintenance has not been carried out. Over the years my department have reminded all local authorities which are harbour authorities, and all statutory harbour authorities and trusts, that it is their duty to make adequate provision for proper maintenance of the piers and harbours in their charge. It has been stressed to them that the Secretary of State cannot use funds provided for improvement of facilities to assist works made necessary by neglect of maintenance. Your Lordships may consider that this sounds a rather harsh distinction but I think you will agree that the Secretary of State can operate only within the bounds of the statutory' powers available to him.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, was very realistic in his remarks when he pointed out that he realised, from his experience in transport matters, that there was only a limited amount of money—there was not a great honeypot into which we could dip—and that priorities had to be made. However, in regard to the specific case of Millport Pier, I understand that Strathclyde Regional Council, as owners of the pier, have indicated, as the noble Lord mentioned, that they are not disposed to undertake at present certain maintenance and repair works, estimated to cost around £100.000, necessary to render the structure safe, and that the absence of such work may require them to close the pier in the near future. I understand also that the regional council are of the view that Millport Pier serves no necessary transport function and is therefore to be regarded as predominantly a facility for leisure and recreation purposes.
The regional council have stated that it is for Cunninghame District Council, as the tier of local government responsible for leisure and recreation matters, to find the necessary expenditure for the pier works if it is intended to keep the facility in use for cruising vessels such as the "Waverley". Your Lordships will understand my reluctance to comment on that difference of view between the local authorities. I do not think that it would be appropriate or indeed helpful for me to become embroiled in that dispute. I would only add for avoidance of doubt that the Secretary of State does not have the powers or resources to compel local authorities to undertake maintenance and repair work. I would have hoped that sensible discussion between the two councils would have been possible.
I recognise that none of this offers much comfort for those who are concerned—if I may put it this way—to preserve Millport pier for its own sake. I understand their views. The pier has played an important role in the history of the community and has provided it with

749
a focal point. In its day, it also provided an important contribution to the local economy. There was a time around the turn of the century when three separate steamers, I understand in competition with each other, were wholly devoted to travelling between Millport pier and the mainland.
But times change, and the west coast of Scotland is littered with piers that now perform no transport function. In the Clyde itself I need only mention such places as Ardentinny, Strachur, Straoan——
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am afraid that the Minister has been given the wrong information. Ardentinny has never had a pier. People were taken by a small boat from the mainland to Ardentinny. The nearest pier was at Blairmore.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, my position as an outsider is wholly confirmed; I stand corrected. I would never dream of arguing on such a point with one as knowledgeable about the Clyde as the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. Perhaps I had better not mention any more places in case I raise some more which do not have piers. However, I can assure your Lordships that there are many more.
It cannot be right that large sums of money should be spent from transport budgets to keep these piers in operation, when they have no continuing transport use. Where however they are deemed to be important for tourism or other purposes, the powers are available for the district councils to take them over. Once again, of course, resources for expenditure on leisure and recreation are scarce and hard decisions have to be taken on priorities.
A particular problem in the Millport case is that no one is anxious to take over an immediate liability to incur expenditure. I do not know whether Cunning-name District Council might be amenable to taking over responsibility after repairs had been done, or possibly to some cost-sharing. These are decisions for the local authority but might provide a way forward in cases where there is a generally agreed desire to retain the facility for tourist purposes. I would not wish your Lordships' House for one moment to think that the Government are not interested or have not been playing their part fully so far as ferry services are concerned.
I would like to turn briefly to the wider question of Government support for the ferry services operated by Caledonian MacBrayne on the West Coast. I think it is important to get on record once again the extent and scale of this Government's support for the important ferry services in this area. Since 1979 subsidy for the approved ferry services operated by CalMac has risen from £3·7 million to £7 million in 1984. This represents an increase of 90 per cent. during that four year period; the increase is far above the rate of inflation for that period and we have therefore increased revenue support in real terms for the services.
We find ourselves at the moment in a period of major investment both in ships and in associated ferry
750
terminal improvements, including a number of pier projects on the Firth of Clyde. This year we have grant-aided capital work by CalMac on consolidation of their roll-on/roll-off terminal at Gourock pier at a total cost of some £350,000. Approval in principle has also been given to urgent remedial work at Rothesay pier at an estimated cost of £50,000. CalMac have submitted a five-year programme of capital improvements at a number of piers involving work at Wemyss Bay pier, further improvements at Brodick pier on Arran, together with further phases of work at Gourock. This proposed programme is currently being assessed. When completed it will represent a major overhaul of the Clyde piers, and will ensure the maintenance of the existing transport links which are essential to the existence of the Clyde tourist industry. Strathclyde Regional Council will in the future be looking to undertake further improvements at Rothesay. I think that this illustrates the scale of the commitment which the Secretary of State is being asked to give in supporting not only pier improvements on the Clyde, but throughout Scotland's ferry network.
More generally, your Lordships may wish to know that total financial provisions made available to harbour authorities over the past four years for capital improvements has averaged around £750,000 per annum; we have made provision moreover for a substantial increase over the next three years to take account of the very important conversion to roll-on /roll-off facilities which will be undertaken on what is known as the Uig triangle service between Skye and the Western Isles—a little removed from the Clyde, I admit, but I thought that your Lordships would be interested to know that. I think that your Lordships will agree on the basis of this information that all concerned, harbour authorities and the Government, are well aware of the need to devise and implement a rolling programme of improvements to the sea transport facilities.
I would like to think that sufficient money was available to do all that the noble Lord, Lord Banks, would like to see done to those piers, but I am afraid that priorities have got to be made. Nevertheless, let me thank the noble Lord again for giving us this excellent opportunity to discuss a subject which is so dear to the hearts of many of us.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I have your Lordships' permission to urge him to pursue my suggestion about the Clyde Sailing Club? Yachting may be a leisure pursuit, but it is an absolute money spinner in terms of the cost of boats and the cost of sailing equipment and the engines which now drive the motor cruisers which have to be maintained up and down the coast. In terms of piers, will the noble Lord apply himself to the problem that recently arose as regards Tobermory, where it was found that he had to finance the improvement of the pier?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that intervention. I must say to him that I would not wish to be drawn into argument or

751
discussion about the difference between the situation and circumstances at Millport compared to Tobermory, because that is going rather wide of the subject tonight.
Perhaps I may return to the question of the Clyde Sailing Club. While I fully appreciate the excellent reputation which it enjoys and the very great pleasure which it gives both to its members and to its visitors, yachting is, of course, a leisure recreation, and therefore it is not part of what we are talking about this evening. As I explained to my noble friend, that was why we did not have direct contact with the club.

London Docklands Railway (No. 2) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at nine minutes past eight o'clock.