Lords Sitting of 4 December 1986

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

Territorial Army: Expansion
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the present strength of the Territorial Army.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, the strength of the Territorial Army was approximately 76,600 at 30th September 1986, an increase of 2,800 over the last 12 months.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that very encouraging reply. I wonder whether he can tell us if in the last three years more units have been formed throughout the country and, if so, in what parts of the country they have been formed?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, my noble friend will know that the increase to which I referred in the main Answer is part of the current expansion plan for the Territorial Army. A number of new units are being rasied all over the country and I shall be very happy to write to my noble friend with details.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a few years ago there was some imbalance between officers, NCOs and other ranks? Can he assure us that there is now a better proportion among the various categories?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I cannot deny that there are shortages in certain areas, for example, in junior officers. But we are working very hard to overcome the problem. It is, I think, caused by the fact that junior officers are at a stage in their lives when the other pressures upon them are very considerable.
Viscount Ridley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that some Territorial Army volunteers living on unemployment benefit can be financially penalised if they attend training other than annual camp? Will he agree that this injustice is a deterrent to recruiting in certain parts of the country?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am very well aware of the problem to which my noble friend refers. I am pleased to say that encouraging progress is being made towards resolving it, and I hope that an announcement will be possible shortly.
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, can the Minister tell us the kind of unit that is doing well in recruiting? Is it infantry or one of the mechanical units?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the units that perhaps have less success, relatively speaking, in recruiting are those where the other attractions are greater. If there is any more detailed information to give, again, I shall be very happy to write to the noble Lord.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, when my noble friend replies to my noble friend Lady Macleod, will he ensure that the new regiment of Royal Artillery, formed within the last year in the Territorial Army in Scotland, is included?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that goes without saying.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, does the Minister recall that both in the Statement in the House on the TA expansion in 1984, and again during the short debate of the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, on TA pay structures, the Government lamented the considerable problem of retaining recruits in the TA? Can he tell the House what steps have been taken to alleviate this in respect of incremental pay schemes and what is being considered in that respect?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the pay of soldiers in the Territorial Army is directly related to the pay of their opposite numbers in the regular forces and is paid, therefore, on a daily basis. I am not sure that the solution to the problem to which the noble Lord refers lies in the direction of pay on which I think, broadly, there is satisfaction. I believe that what we need to do is to assist members of the Territorial Army wherever we can to accommodate the other pressures on their lives, particularly in their jobs and perhaps within their families.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, when the noble Lord replies to the noble Baroness, Lady Macleod, could he include in the information not only the number of units but how many of them are below strength and how far some of them are below strength?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I shall certainly give all the information I can to my noble friend. Of course, a copy of the letter will go to the Library.
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, can the Minister elaborate on the other attractions to which he referred? They seem to me most intriguing.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, nothing sinister was meant by that answer. The fact is that service in the Territorial Army is a part-time occupation and many people have other ways in which they think they can profitably spend their free time.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I had the honour to host the TA dinner in the Dining Room in September and that morale seemed to be very high?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I think my noble friend is right. Morale is very high in the Territorial Army. But during the time of the previous Adminstration, it almost sank without sight.
Baroness Fisher of Rednal: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us whether a member of the Territorial Army, who is unemployed and who has to sign a form to say that he is not available on a certain day will have his unemployment pay stopped, because of his attendance at some organisation attached to the Territorial Army?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, that is just the problem to which my noble friend Lord Ridley referred. It is something with which we have been grappling for some time and, as I said in answer to my noble friend, we hope to be able to make an announcement shortly.

Tobacco: Sports Sponsorship
3.6 p.m.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made in the negotiations between the Tobacco Advisory Committee and the Department of the Environment on sports sponsorship.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment (Lord Skelmersdale): My Lords, negotiations between the Tobacco Advisory Council and the Department of the Environment on a new voluntary agreement on the sponsorship of sport look to be nearing completion. I hope that it will be possible to publish the new agreement before the Recess.
Baroness Lockwood: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for his reply which is encouraging to a certain extent. Perhaps I may ask him whether he is aware, for example, of the damage that has been done to the credibility of the Advertising Standards Authority, which is responsible for overseeing advertising codes, by the inconsistent rules governing tobacco advertising, particularly in relation to sponsorship. Can he assure the House that he will take into account the points that have been put to the department by the Advertising Standards Authority on this matter?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that the department consulted very widely on this matter, and all views have been taken into account.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, does the Minister recall that when this matter was raised in the House about a year ago a promise was made to consult Parliament at the time the agreement was made? Can the Minister tell us whether there is an intention to do that? The Minister talked about the voluntary agreement being published. Will there be an opportunity for the matter to be raised in the House?
930
Will the Minister also take the opportunity of explaining why the agreement needs to be voluntary, bearing in mind that more than 100,000 people die each year from tobacco-related incidents?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I do not recall the occasion in the House to which the noble Lord, Lord Graham, has just referred. In accordance with previous practice, both Houses will be informed of the terms of any new agreements when they have been made. On the question of a statutory or a voluntary ban, we have always had a voluntary ban up to now and the latest figures available show that 36 per cent. of men and 32 per cent. of women now smoke, compared with 52 per cent. and 41 per cent. respectively in 1972. So the voluntary ban does in fact work.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, perhaps I may help the noble Lord by referring to the Official Report of 22nd October last year (col. 956), when the Lord President of the Council responded to a point made by my noble friend Lord Ennals, who asked:
"will the Leader of the House recognise that there is very great concern that this issue should be discussed by both Houses before a decision is taken?"
The noble Viscount the Leader of the House replied:
"I am willing to discuss through the usual channels whether such a debate would help".
I am simply asking whether those discussions took place. Even if they did not, there would still be value in having a debate.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I must say that I am totally mystified. I am absolutely certain that the noble Lord has presented a correct record as to what happened on that occasion. I do not know whether or not discussions took place through the usual channels

Civil Service: London Weighting
3.11 p.m.
Lord Sefton of Garston: 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 how many government employees are in receipt of extra payment (for example, London weighting) over and above that paid in Merseyside, and what is the average payment in percentage terms, and in cash, to each employee.
The Secretary of State for Employment (Lord Young of Graffham): My Lords, staff below Grade 3 in the Civil Service receive London weighting as follows: 80,900 staff in the inner zone receive London weighting at £1,465 per annum; 20,600 staff in the intermediate zone at £840 per annum; and 22,500 staff in the outer zone at £615 per annum. Staff aged under 18 receive 75 per cent. of these rates. What this represents in percentage terms will vary according to age, grade, zone and on which point of the incremental scale the officer is paid.

931
In addition, certain secretarial and typing grades employed in the inner zone receive a special pay addition of either £300 or £400 per annum. There are no other elements of pay related exclusively to the area in which an officer is employed.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. It will mean some careful study of Hansard, and it does not in fact tell us what the percentage is. Will the Minister not agree that in spite of the differential which exists between less well off parts of the country and London, there is little evidence to suggest that jobs are moving out of London? Will the Minister give an estimate of how wide the differential must be before it takes effect in moving jobs provided by the Government out of London?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, although there is some evidence that banks and other firms have transferred some of their offices out of London, I fear that the message is that wages in less fortunate areas of the country as regards unemployment are not lower than wages in the South. If we take East Anglia and the South-West region of this country, where unemployment for male manual workers is running at 10 per cent. or 20 per cent. under the national average, wage rates are beneath the national average. If we take Yorkshire, the North-West, Humberside and the Northern regions of the country, where unemployment is substantially above the national average, wage rates in those regions are above those in East Anglia and the South-West. Indeed, it is quite disturbing that wage rates remain persistently high in areas of the country with high unemployment. I do not believe that that helps the export of jobs to these regions.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, is it any part of the Minister's policy to encourage the payment of lower wages in areas of high unemployment?
Lord Young of Graffham: No, my Lords; but it is very much part of this Minister's policy to encourage the growth of jobs in such regions, and I shall follow any course which will aid that.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, is it not a fact that London weighting is included in pensionable pay for the purposes of calculating retirement pensions, whether or not the pensioner will retire to London or to the provinces? Is that not contrary to any rational regional policy?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, that may well be so, but that is another question. However, I shall certainly write to the noble and learned Lord on that point.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there are other areas of the country where people may feel they should have some weighting in their salaries? I refer particularly to the North-West of Scotland, where expenses such as petrol, education and a whole host of things need looking into. When I was in the Forestry Commission I received many
932
complaints from people living in those areas that they were badly done by compared to their colleagues living in the South.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I am unable to show a breakdown of wages in particular regions of Scotland. However, Scotland as a whole does have a higher rate of unemployment, as we all know, and yet it also has higher manual male wage levels than parts of the South-West and the South. We are not in the business of having lower wage levels; we are in the business of encouraging firms to move to the regions and of encouraging employment.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the Minister when differentials in London weighting were last reviewed and whether there is any intention to institute such a review in the near future, bearing in mind the phenomenal increase in the price of housing in London and the South-East.
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, that is a matter which is kept under constant review during the course of Civil Service pay negotiations.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord get his act together with his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who is busy boasting not only about the buoyancy of revenue this year but about his anticipations for next year? Is the Minister aware that part of the reason for buoyancy in revenue is that workers are being paid in accordance with a freely negotiated wage level which, according to the reports of the National Economic Development Council, are considered reasonable by both employers and employees?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, perhaps I may tell the noble Lord that I am a member of the National Economic Development Council and that that analysis does not fit in with my recollection of the meeting. It is fair to say that that point was not necessarily agreed.
The matter of concern both to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to myself is that if national pay rates are agreed, they do not take into account variable costs of living in different parts of the country and do not always reflect in the same net take-home pay. It is our concern that parts of the country which could and should support more economic activity should have all the necessary economic incentives to do so. One way to achieve this without lowering living standards in the slightest is to see that running costs are lower so that firms are encouraged to migrate to such areas.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, does the Minister not accept that national wage rates are always negotiated in the context of differences which are negotiated locally in order to take account of local conditions? Perhaps the Minister will also refer to the question which I asked. Will he accept that a quotation in the Daily Telegraph to the effect that pay differences would provide a powerful spur to encourage more jobs in the locality, which was attributed to the Minister, is correct? If it is correct, will the Minister give an

933
estimate of what he considers the differentials should be before the market forces (which he so worships) come into effect?
Lord Young of Graffham: My Lords, I believe that our nation has suffered in past decades from Ministers who have tried to estimate exactly what market forces would actually do.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Young of Graffham: I am looking closely at noble Lords opposite when I say that, my Lords. The point that I make to your Lordships is a simple statement of fact. Areas of the country where unemployment is considerably above the national average have wage levels above those in areas of the country where unemployment is lower than average. I believe that speaks for itself.
Lord Sefton of Garston: My Lords, so the Minister did not know when he made the statement what the effect would be.

Strategic Weapons: Trident Project
3.19 p.m.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what modifications of the Trident project they would propose to make in the event of deep cuts in United States and Soviet strategic weapons.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, as I made clear to your Lordships yesterday, the United Kingdom deterrent with Trident will remain a tiny percentage of the strategic arsenals of the United States and the USSR. As is well known to your Lordships, we have made it clear that if US and Soviet strategic arsenals were to be very substantially reduced and if no significant change had occurred in Soviet defensive capabilities, we should review our position and consider how best we could contribute to arms control in the light of the reduced threat.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, are we to understand by that that if the Russians and the Americans agree to halve their strategic conventional forces, we shall not increase our forces by 200 per cent. or 300 per cent?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we heard figures yesterday about how we will increase the size of Trident. I think the noble Lord, Lord Irving, said we were planning an increase of 800 per cent. If I remember rightly, the noble Lord inadvertently gave some other incorrect figures yesterday. That was another of them. The true ratio is 2½:1, not 8:1.
Lord Thorneycroft: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it might be a good thing for the Alliance to agree about keeping Trident before it starts hawking it
934
around as a bargaining counter? Does he also agree that if we are to enter into dicussions of this kind, to do so through Questions and Answers in the House of Lords is probably the very worst way of getting a good result?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I had understood from the various utterances of the noble Lord, Lord Mayhew, and others that the policy of the Alliance was to allow the deterrent to rust away. So what will happen then to the negotiations, I am not sure.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, is it not true that the French have a bigger nuclear deterrent force than we have? Is it not also true that present plans for our nuclear deterrent depend on having one operational ballistic missile nuclear submarine at sea? Is it not rather difficult, even in the eyes of the SDP, to have half an operational submarine at sea?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, it is of course essential to the effectiveness of the deterrent that at least one boat is at sea at all times. We have made it clear that we may not necessarily use the maximum warhead capability which is involved in Trident.
Lord Irving of Dartford: My Lords, during the Prime Minister's talks with President Reagan, did the President agree that even if the United States no longer intended to deploy Trident, Britain would be able to have Trident nonetheless? Is it true that the Ministry of Defence is investigating the possibility of deploying a nationally produced launcher for Britain's nuclear deterrent?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, the United States does intend to deploy Trident. The noble Lord's Question does not therefore arise.
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that when he says that Trident is only an escalation of two-and-a-half times, he is in fact equating the Polaris warhead, which is not independently targetable, with the Trident warhead, which is? Even on that very questionable basis, can we assume that if the Russians and the Americans halve their strategic nuclear forces, we shall not increase ours by more than 200 per cent.?
Finally, may I ask him a second question—
Noble Lords: A third question!
Lord Mayhew: My Lords, a third question, if I can remember it. When the noble Lord concedes, as he has, that the Government are not going to develop Trident to its full capacity, does this not vindicate those critics who complained that the original Trident programme was much too expensive and much too big for Britain's needs?
Lord Trefgarne: No, my Lords, it does no such thing. I said that we may or may not deploy the full capability of Trident when the time comes. That will depend upon the threat as we then assess it. I think that is the clear answer to the noble Lord.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, the noble Lord the Minister says that he is going to deploy a weapon which he pretends may be used although it never will be used. As it will never be of any use, would it not be better—rather than bothering to arm the weapon—to carry on with some kind of pretence? The noble Lord could then save the money and use it for some more useful purpose.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I endeavoured to explain yesterday that for a deterrent to be effective and to deter we have to have both the capability and the will to use it.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it would be of enormous value to the peace of the world if the United States and the Soviet Union could come to an agreement to cut strategic weapons and perhaps eliminate bilateral weapons; and should not our Government be co-operating with them to bring that about? Secondly, has he foreseen the possibility that after the next election there will be a majority in the House of Commons against Trident? Is it not a vast waste of money to be spending these enormous sums on its production?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not believe for one moment—any more, I think, than the noble Lord—that there will be a majority in the House of Commons for the cancellation of Trident after the next election. As for the proposition that the total elimination of nuclear weapons now would somehow make the world a safer place, I must beg to differ with the noble Lord. I think that that would make conventional war much more likely.

Christmas Adjournment
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that, subject to the progress of business, the Christmas adjournment will be on Thursday 18th December and the House will return on Monday 12th January. The House will sit at 11 a.m. on 18th December.

Business of the House: Inquiry
3.25 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, the House will recall that on the opening day of the debate on the Queen's Speech I informed your Lordships that I intended to appoint a small informal group drawn from all the parties and the Cross-Benches to advise me on the working of the House. This follows the precedent of the earlier group set up by my predecessor, the noble Earl, Lord Jellicoe, in 1971.
After consultation through the usual channels, I can now inform your Lordships of the composition of the group, which will be as follows: the Chairman of Committees, the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare; the noble Earl, Lord Perth; my noble friend Lord Belstead; the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, and the noble Lords, Lord Aylestone and Lord
936
Wigoder. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and the noble Earl, Lord Perth, were members of the 1971 group. As on the previous occasion, the group will work informally, without a formal chairman, but the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, has kindly undertaken to act as convenor of the group. Once again, it will have the assistance of a Clerk.
The remit of the group will be:
"to examine the working of the House in present circumstances and to suggest improvements in the conduct of the business of the House".
Thus the group will, like its predecessors, be able to range widely over all the proceedings of the House, including, for example, Statements, the length of speeches, the rules of debate, as well as the legislative proceedings, which have perhaps, more than any other, given rise during the past Session to the desire for the present inquiry. There is only one area in which the group may not wish to trespass; namely, that of private legislation, in view of the announced Joint Committee on Private Legislation which is shortly to be set up.
I am sure that the group, in conducting its inquiry, will wish to hear the views of your Lordships, and I believe that it will be circulating your Lordships to that end. In the meantime, if there is any noble Lord who wishes to make his views known, I understand from the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that he hopes that that noble Lord will send those views to him for the consideration of the group.
In setting out the membership and terms of reference of the group I should emphasise that it will, in the first instance, be reporting to me, as it was my wish for advice and help which led to the initiative. Thereafter it will be my responsibility to determine, after consultation, whether there are points which should be put to the Procedure Committee for its consideration.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, in the light of our experience over the past two or three years we are extremely grateful to the noble Viscount for making that statement and for taking this important initiative. I feel quite sure that all noble Lords will co-operate with the committee so that we may have a successful outcome.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, we on these Benches should like to associate ourselves with those remarks. We are grateful to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House both for the initiative he took during the course of the debate on the Queen's Speech and for the speed with which he has started to implement it.

Fire Safety and Safety of Places of Sport Bill [H.L.]
The Minister of State, Home Office (The Earl of Caithness): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to amend the Fire Precautions Act 1971 and other enactments relating to fire precautions; to amend the Safety of Sports Grounds Act 1975 and make like provision as regards stands at sports grounds; to extend them as regards indoor sports premises; and to amend the statutory provisions regulating entertainment

937
licences; and for connected purposes. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a first time.—(The Earl of Caithness.)
On Question, Bill read a first time, and to be printed.

Standing Orders (Private Bills): Select Committee
3.30 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Listowel): My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Chairman of Committees, I beg to move the first Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That a Select Committee on the Standing Orders be appointed; and that, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Committee:

Cawley, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Jacques, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

McNair, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

—(The Deputy Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Broadcasting: Select Committee
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Chairman of Committees I beg to move the second Motion standing in his 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 Broadcasting:

Ardwick, L.

Aylestone, L.

Davidson, V.

Henderson of Brompton, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

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 leave to confer on matters relating to sound broadcasting and to meet concurrently for this purpose with any Select Committee on Sound Broadcasting appointed by the Commons for the purpose of deliberating and of examining witnesses; and have leave to agree with the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman for any such meeting.—(The Deputy Chairman of Committees.)
Baroness Phillips: My Lords, I should like to draw attention to the fact that no female Lord has been appointed to any of the three Committees in respect of which Motions appear on today's Order Paper. Outside this House that would be regarded as discrimination. I am not sure how these committees are selected but I draw the attention of this House to the matter.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I will certainly draw the attention of my noble friend the Chairman of Committees to the comment of the noble Baroness.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Pilotage Bill [H.L.]: Public Bill Committee
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the third Motion standing in the name of my noble friend the Chairman of Committees on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the following Lords together with the Chairman of Committees be named of the Public Bill Committee to consider the Bill:

Blease, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Brightman, L.

Broxbourne, L.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Fortescue, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Greenway, L.

Harvington, L.

Long, V.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Simon, V.

Underhill, L.

Walston, L.

That the procedure of the Committee shall be, so far as possible, that of a Committee of the Whole House;
That the report of the Committee's debate be published from day to day and the Minutes of the Committee's proceedings be published as appendices to the Minutes of Proceedings of the House;
And that the Committee do meet on Tuesday next at 3.15 p.m. in the Moses Room.—(The Deputy Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Recognition of Trusts Bill [H.L.]
3.32 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This is the third measure of law reform that I have introduced since the beginning of the Session. Since the Bill applies to the whole of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland, and contains a provision by which it may be extended to the Isle of Man, any of the Channel Islands or any colony, my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate will wind up what I hope may be a short debate.

939
The Bill incorporates into United Kingdom law the main provisions of the convention on the law applicable to trusts and on their recognition, which was adopted in draft by The Hague Conference on Private International Law on 20th October, 1984. Your Lordships will find the text of the convention in Command Paper 9494. It was signed on behalf of the United Kingdom on 10th January, 1986.
The purpose of the convention is to establish common principles between states on the law of trusts and to deal with the most important issues concerning their recognition. The other day I referred to the fact that the common lawyers of England had invented the Franglais phrase "infants". The origin of "trusts" is also English. They were, of course, part of the English system known as equity and therefore the peculiar and patented invention of a long line of deceased Lord Chancellors who brought the whole system into operation.
It follows that trusts are not, in general, a concept familiar to the civil law countries. Their systems of law are not designed to accept that one individual may hold assets on behalf of another. To give an extreme example, at present if there are trust assets in a foreign civil law jurisdiction, and the trustee incurs debts in his personal capacity, the assets of the trust are liable to be seized to meet the debts incurred by the trustee.
It was to avoid this and other difficulties that the United Kingdom promoted the negotiation by The Hague Conference of a convention which, in effect, allows us to export to civil law countries, first, the concept of a trust; secondly, our rules laying down the law which governs such a trust; and thirdly, the circumstances in which it should be recognised. The convention will thus principally be of benefit to common law countries such as England and Wales.
This Bill serves two purposes. First, it will enable the United Kingdom to ratify the convention. But, secondly, and quite independently, it will bring into force for the United Kingdom the main provisions of the convention. The convention itself will come into force only when three states have ratified it. A number of states have expressed willingness to do so, but only once the principal common law countries have taken the lead. Accordingly, this Bill will ensure that the main provisions of the convention form part of United Kingdom trust law irrespective of the date upon which the convention itself takes effect. Thus, ratification by the United Kingdom will encourage other states to ratify and, thus, to recognise United Kingdom trusts.
The main provisions of the Bill fall into two groups. The first provides the machinery for identifying the law of which state is to govern any particular trust. The second provides rules for the recognition of that trust in accordance with that governing law. The Bill will involve little change to the substance of the existing law in the United Kingdom. It will, however, serve to clarify a number of issues where our existing law has not yet been fully developed.
Clause 1 provides for the provisions of the convention in the schedule to have the force of law in the United Kingdom. Not all the provisions of the convention are contained in the schedule; that is because in some cases the drafting of the Bill already achieves this end. In other cases the provisions are
940
purely administrative and do not require legislation, or deal with obligations under international rather than private law. Subsection (2) provides that the Bill covers not only the categories of trust described in Articles 2 and 3 of the convention, but also any other trusts of property arising either under United Kingdom law or by virtue of a judicial decision, whether of the United Kingdom or elsewhere.
This extension will enable the Bill to apply to involuntary trusts (for example, trusts arising automatically by statute) and to trusts not evidenced in writing. The extension to trusts arising by virtue of judicial decision includes any trusts that are either declared by a court or are created pursuant to an order of the court. Indeed, Article 20 of the convention expressly provides that states may, if they wish, extend the convention to cover such trusts.
Clause 2 deals with extent. As I have said, it also contains provisions enabling the Act to apply not only to the United Kingdom but also to the Isle of Man, any of the Channel Isles or any colony with or without modification or supplementation. Extension is by Order in Council. Clause 3 provides that the Bill, when enacted, is to come into force by commencement order made by statutory instrument of the Lord Chancellor and the Lord Advocate acting in conjunction. This is because it may be necessary to tie the legislation in with the commencement provisions of the convention.
As I have said, the schedule contains most but not all the provisions of the convention. It is divided into chapters and articles. These are numbered separately, the articles in a separate series of numeration. Chapter I outlines its scope. In particular, it provides guidance as to whether something is a trust covered by the convention. However, I have already explained that Clause 1 extends the scope of the Bill so that it is not limited to those trusts described in Articles 2 and 3.
Chapter II identifies the national law applicable to any particular trust. In other words, it enables anyone reading the convention to determine the state or territory whose law governs the trust. Prima facie, the law is the law that is chosen expressly or impliedly by the settlor—that is, the man or woman who creates the trust. If no such choice is made, the governing law is the law of the country with which the trust is most closely connected. The existing law in this area is far from clear, and these rules will therefore usefully serve to clarify it.
Chapter III deals with the extent to which a trust is to be recognised in accordance with the applicable law by states that become party to the convention. Such recognition involves, as a minimum, that the trust property exists as a separate fund and that the trustee may bring and defend proceedings in his capacity as trustee. As a separate fund, the trust fund will have a legal existence separate from other funds in general and the trustee's own funds in particular. Thus, the trustee's personal creditors will not have any recourse to the trust assets, though they may be held in the name of the trustee.
Chapter IV contains a number of general articles. Several of these limit the effect of the convention in particular circumstances where there are good reasons either for a trust not being recognised at all or for the

941
governing law determined in accordance with the convention being ignored in favour of some other law. Thus, Article 15, when read in conjunction with Clause 1(3), provides that in certain circumstances the law chosen by the rules of a state law governing conflicts of laws will prevail over the law determined in accordance with the convention. Article 18 provides for the rules of the convention to be disregarded altogether if their application would be manifestly incompatible with public policy.
The final article in the schedule is Article 22. This applies the convention to trusts regardless of the date on which they were created. Thus the convention will apply to trusts already in existence. The convention permits a state to limit the application of the convention to trusts created after the date upon which the convention enters into force for that state. The Government will not make use of this limitation as regards the United Kingdom. This is because to do so would encourage other states to follow suit, and the result would be that existing United Kingdom trusts would not be recognised by such states. Nevertheless, the provisions of the convention that determine the governing law of a trust are not to have retrospective effect so as to alter the governing law of the trust in relation to anything done or omitted before the legislation comes into force, and Clause 1(5) so provides.
I believe that this Bill represents a worthwhile and, I hope, uncontroversial measure of law reform, partly for the direct effect it will have and partly for the example it will set to those civil law countries which have not previously recognised the concept of trusts in their systems of law. The Bill has the support of the legal profession. I ask this House to give it a second reading. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.45 p.m.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for illuminating yet another segment of lawyers' law. In spite of the fact that the subject is of limited sex appeal, as appeared, if I may say so, from the discourse of the noble and learned Lord, it is nevertheless important. As the noble and learned Lord has indicated, we are concerned in the Bill with the field of the law of trusts, particularly in its international context.
The Bill is unusual in that it enables the United Kingdom to ratify a convention on the law applicable to trusts and their recognition which no state has yet ratified. Whether there is any precedent for that I know not. However, there is no doubt, as the noble and learned Lord has indicated, that both the United Kingdom and a large number of states have signed the convention. This was done at the 15th session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law in 1984. Among the signatories were Australia, Canada and the United States. I understand that two major American national organisations—the American Bar Association and the American Bankers Association—have endorsed the convention for signature and ratification by the United States.
942
Article 30 of the convention provides that the convention can come into force only when three states have ratified it. Not one has done so yet, and it seems unlikely that that procedure will be completed before the Bill is enacted. We seem therefore to be rushing forward a little. But so far as I can see we do so at no identifiable risk because the applicable law, as set out in the important Chapter II of the convention, is modelled on our own trust law which, as the noble and learned Lord said, has its origins in the learning of previous occupants of that distinguished place and the length of their collective feet and other remarkable manifestations. So the trust law is a product of our common law and our case law.
The schedule to the Bill sets out the provisions of the convention which will have the force of law in the United Kingdom. It does not set out the whole of the convention and indeed omits those provisions of the convention which are not being implemented in the United Kingdom or which are regarded as superfluous. On the face of it, that would seem a sensible enough approach. We do not want to clutter up the statute book unnecessarily. It is already sufficiently cluttered, if that is the right word.
However, the Law Society in particular has questioned whether the partial setting out of the convention in the schedule to the Bill may make it inconvenient to users. Since treaty obligations of the Government are relevant to the interpretation of a statute, particularly one with international implications, the Law Society questions whether the statute user should not be able to see what they are. In order to ascertain the intention and effect of the Bill, will it not be desirable to make available—perhaps in a further schedule—the full text of the convention so as to appreciate the reservations that are made by the United Kingdom and the provisions that have been omitted? Questions may consequently arise as to why certain provisions of the convention have been excluded. There may be one or two queries in that regard when we consider the Bill at a later stage and there has been a further opportunity to examine it.
As the noble and learned Lord said in his modest account of the Bill, it makes no claims to be of great benefit to us, although, as he indicated, it is marginally useful. However, if it benefits others and promotes international comity and understanding in a period when commercial, public and private business is becoming increasingly international, it may indeed serve a useful purpose. We on this side of the House certainly do not wish to impede the Bill and we take it on trust (to coin a phrase) that if amendments are proposed later they will be considered sympathetically by the Government.
3.49 p.m.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, perhaps I may be permitted to offer one observation on this Bill and to pose two questions with an apology for not having my name on the list of speakers. I have to confess that my knowledge of this interesting and valuable Bill came to me rather late in the day.
If I may say so—and this is the observation—I greatly value the Bill. I think it represents an extraordinarily good initiative on the part of our lawyers to

943
have brought it forward. The trust, as has been said, is an English creation deriving basically from the noble and learned Lord's great predecessor, Lord Nottingham, and it is quite right that we should take the lead in clarifying and making generally applicable our own child.
It is said that we are "rushing it rather," in the words of the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken. I would respectfully deprecate that expression. It would seem to me quite right that we who have taken the initiative, as I understand it, at The Hague conference in bringing this forward, and who are the protagonists in the world of the concept of a trust, should take a lead; and if this is the first case, as it well may be, when the United Kingdom is the first to ratify an international treaty, then I welcome it. We usually take too long and follow behind others. We have, after all, had more than a year of reflection since the convention was signed in draft to make up our own mind about it.
The convention, in general, represents our own conception as to what the law is; but nevertheless any lawyer knows that the application of the rules of conflicts of laws to trusts is somewhat obscure. Not much will be found in the textbooks about it. There is a certain amount of accepted principle but no clear rules; and in as much as this convention lays down clear rules, as it does, it represents, in my submission, a valuable step forward.
Now, my Lords, my two questions. The first one is a very short one. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord who is going to reply can gives us some more precise indication of its likely acceptance by other states. I do not mean common law states, but civil law or, if one likes, third world states. We have heard that Australia, Canada and the United States are likely to give it a welcome, and that of course is very good; but they would probably apply the convention anyway.
The real value of the convention is likely to lie in its extension, by way of acceptance, to civil law countries. Some know the conception of trusts. Mexico, for example, has a law about trusts. Switzerland knows the conception of trusts. It would be extremely valuable if the noble and learned Lord can say—perhaps from what he knows about what was said in discussions at The Hague conference—whether any of those countries are likely to give it a welcome. To the extent that he is able to say so, I would esteem that the convention is all the more likely to be valuable. If simply restricted to a small ring of common law countries then, though acceptable, it is not likely to carry us very much forward.
The second question is perhaps rather more difficult. I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord if he can tell us whether in his conception this convention and/or the Bill applies to business trusts. There are now, as is well known, very extensive uses of the trusts in commerce; bond holders; trustees for bond holders; debenture holders; the whole vast world of unit trusts which is extensive all over the world and many of which exist offshore and involve millions of pounds. This is now a much more significant area for the use of the concept of trusts than private relations between people, as to which, for fiscal reasons, the trust is gradually losing its usefulness.
944
If one looks at the convention, one is not convinced that it is intended to apply to what I have called commercial trusts. Article 2 talks about a trust created by a person, the settlor. There are numerous other references to the settlor. In the other articles—I shall not go through them—there are extensive references to private law relationships, creditors, minors, marriage, succession, testate and intestate, and so on. It is drafted exclusively, so far as one can see, in terms of private law, and I should find some difficulty in seeing that it was intended to apply to commercial relations.
One then looks at Clause 1 of the Bill which, as the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has explained, enables the provisions of the convention to be extended beyond the area laid down by the convention. The noble and learned Lord said that it would cover involuntary trusts or trusts not in writing; and that I can understand. It may well be that the language of Clause 1(2),
"any other trusts of property arising under the law of any part of the United Kingdom",
might be sufficient to extend to commercial trusts. But that would only go half-way.
That would entitle, and perhaps oblige, our courts to apply the convention to such trusts, to commercial trusts, arising outside this country. It would not have the effect of giving recognition and enabling recognition to be given by other countries to our unit trusts, our trustees with debenture holders, our bond holders. That would be a very unfortunate lacuna if that were so. But perhaps the noble and learned Lord can satisfy us on that point. At the moment I am not clear whether, if there is a gap, we can cover it at later stages. I feel that the convention and also the Bill would be rather defective if it were the case that this immensely important area, which is now far more significant in the life of this country than the private trusts as between settlors and beneficiaries, were left out.
3.56 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Lord Cameron of Lochbroom): My Lords, I am grateful to both the noble and learned Lords who have spoken, and in particular for the welcome they have given this modest measure. It can however, be considered an important one, I think, when looked at from the international point of view.
I align myself with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, in what he said about the manner in which this Bill has come before your Lordships' House, It results from a convention that this country took the lead in promoting. I can do no more than adopt what the noble and learned Lord said about rushing it. I think, having got so far with the convention, it is very good to see that so shortly after the final act, this Bill comes before the House.
In amplification of what the noble and learned Lord opposite said about the United States, perhaps I may say that in addition to the two national organisations which he mentioned, I understand that there are one or two further national organisations which are indeed reviewing the convention and are thought likely also to endorse it. It would be hoped that the United States may be in a position to consider sending it to the Senate in fairly short course. Obviously, if the United

945
States were to become a signatory, that would be a great step forward in the matter.
The noble and learned Lord also raised the question of the incorporation of the full text. This is obviously a matter on which he has put down a marker for the Committee stage; but I think it would be proper if I gave some response at this stage as to why the schedule does not contain the whole of the convention.
The first and obvious response is that which my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor mentioned in opening; namely, that there are certain articles which are already provided for in the clauses of the Bill. I instance Clause 1(2) which obviates the need for the inclusion of Article 20 of the convention. There are others such as Article 13 which are meaningless from the point of view of United Kingdom law.
Article 19, which is omitted, deals with international rather than private law obligations; and Articles 26 to 32 are purely administrative provisions which do not require legislation. There are precedents for our having legislation which gives effect to conventions without incorporating the whole of the convention in the Bill. I instance here the Child Abduction and Custody Act 1985.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord will allow me to intervene on that point. Article 20 of the Child Abduction Convention was omitted purely because its drafting did not accord with our drafting habits. The drafting habits of parliamentary counsel's office are not universally applauded. I hope that the noble and learned Lord can assure us that no such omission on that ground is in question in this case.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord will find it convenient to have two submissions, one after another. What he has said is of great importance to practitioners. What my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones said in that context is of importance. Will he look again at Clause 1(1) which provides that,
"The provisions of the Convention set out in the Schedule to the Act shall have the force of law in the United Kingdom".
That gives the reader the impression that the whole convention has been set out. The Schedule is headed:
"Convention on the Law Applicable to Trusts."
Further to mislead, one may think one will get a hint, because the article numbers do not follow one upon another, therefore something must have been omitted and this is only an extract. The numbers go down—Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 to the end. Will the noble and learned Lord look at that because I know that the Law Society and my noble and learned friend would be grateful.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, I am grateful for both interventions. I can assure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon, that it is not a matter of drafting that gives a rise to my using the Child Abduction and Custody Act as a guide; it is merely to say that there were administrative provisions in the convention which were omitted for that reason. That is the point that I was making.
946
I note what the noble Lord, Lord Mishcon, said. With respect, this is perhaps not the most appropriate moment to give an answer. I was answering the general issue raised by the noble and learned Lord opposite.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, asked whether I could give any indication of other civil law countries which are likely to ratify. I cannot give a clear answer. It is likely that at least other European states in the European Community will do so. Trusts are already referred to in the European Convention on Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments. France is known to be interested in ratifying, and other civil law countries will no doubt do so in order to benefit from the convention. I cannot give any further assurance on that matter.
Lord Wilberforce: My Lords, I am much obliged.
Lord Cameron of Lochbroom: My Lords, the second matter about which the noble and learned Lord asked related to business trusts. Business as well as ordinary family trusts are covered. Article 7(c) specifically refers to the place of business of the trustee. I hope that that may be of some assistance to the noble and learned Lord.
I am grateful to those who have spoken and for the welcome that has been given. I am glad to suport the Motion which my noble and learned friend has put before the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Ministry of Defence Police Bill [H.L.]
4.5 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Ministry of Defence police force was created early this century to take the strain off the Home Department police forces in what was becoming a specialised, manpower intensive, area of police work. Since the last century, the constabulary powers of those who police naval and military establishments have derived from a series of Acts of Parliament designed for the Metropolitan Police Force. Clearly, they were not conceived for the duties of the modern Ministry of Defence police, a fact which impressed the Defence Committee of another place when it recommended this legislation in its report of July 1984.
The main source of the Ministry of Defence police constabulary powers is the Metropolitan Police Act 1860 and the Special Constables Act 1923. At present there is no Act which gives full statutory recognition or appropriate jurisdiction to what is by far the largest of the non-Home Department police forces.
In drafting this long overdue measure every effort has been made to avoid any overlapping with the duties of other police forces. The MDP has a detailed knowledge of the working of MoD establishments and the special threats they face, ranging from espionage and terrorism through common theft and fraud to the actions of intruders bent on demonstration. Its blend of constabulary powers and MoD experience makes it

947
more suitable in its present role than either military or other police forces. The aim of this Bill is to clarify the powers of the MDP and bring them into line with its present duties. It will propose few changes of substance in its jurisdiction and it will not result in changes in the way the MDP carries out its responsibilities. Your Lordships will, I trust, be sympathetic to such modest aims and, as I briefly run through its clauses, come to see the Bill as a simple clarification measure.
The first clause seeks to provide the force with a fresh statutory basis. The force will consist of its existing members and others, nominated by the Secretary of State, who shall be sworn in before a Justice to carry out the law of the area in which they serve. The Secretary of State will appoint a chief constable and a police committee to advise him.
Clause 2 preserves MDP's present constabulary powers in the United Kingdom on land and property under the control of the Ministry of Defence, visiting forces, ordnance factories and dockyard contractors. It will enable the MDP to police non-MoD sites such as the Royal Mint, where it has historic responsibilities, after suitable notice has been published. It will also enable MDP to assist local police forces in the vicinity of MoD land when defence matters are involved.
Outside these places MDP powers will, broadly speaking, be limited to Crown property, servicemen and others involved in defence matters. As before, the property and personnel of visiting forces, international military headquarters, ordnance factories and dockyards are included. These powers will apply throughout the United Kingdom and will replace the outdated proviso in the Metropolitan Police Act 1860, which was intended to enable a dockyard constable to act up to 15 miles outside his establishment. Although most of the UK is within 15 miles of an MoD site, the 1860 rule is scarcely relevant to MDP's important duties safeguarding MoD property when in transit. Road convoys of sensitive materials are provided with additional escorts by Home Department forces where available but constabulary powers, which are not affected by an arbitrary 15-mile limit, are required in situations where Home Department forces are too hard pressed to attend.
Clause 3 gives effect to a recommendation of the Ministry's Police Review Committee chaired by Sir Ewen Broadbent. It recognises the Defence Police Federation as the sole negotiating body for all ranks up to chief superintendent who would otherwise lack representation and who are prohibited by their contract from withdrawing their labour.
Clauses 4 and 5 make it an offence to impersonate a member of the force or to cause disaffection in its ranks. The provisions are the same as those found in the Police Act 1964 for the protection of Home Department police forces. Clause 6 deals with consequential amendments and associated legislation.
Your Lordships will wish to join me in paying tribute to the essential duties carried out by the MDP in all weathers and often in trying circumstances.
The simple aim of the Bill is to provide the force with clear powers appropriate to its current responsibilities. Not only are its present powers unclear but it cannot be satisfactory to base such an
948
important service affecting national security on a series of general enactments, some of which date from the last century.
Moreover, although relations with other police forces are excellent and the MDP is in no doubt about the primacy of Home Department police forces in administering the law generally, such co-operation can best be achieved where lines of responsibility in respect of MDP are clearly drawn. The Government are convinced of the need for a clear statutory basis for MDP which will incorporate a single unambiguous set of provisions defining their powers and jurisdiction.
I commend the Bill as a suitable measure to achieve that aim, and I beg to move that it now be read a second time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
4.12 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am very grateful not only for what the Minister has said but for the sincerity with which he said it. Those who are directly concerned will look not only on the presentation of the Bill but particularly on the words that will appear in the Official Report with an immense amount of satisfaction. They have not always been—as I believe they are entitled to be—as satisfied by the Minister and the Ministry as doubtless they will be today. I refer to the situation just over two years ago when there were grave threats indeed to the recognition of their availability to do the work in the ordnance factory field.
The Minister is absolutely right that what we have today is virtually an agreed Bill by, so to speak, those in management and those on the other side. The Minister was kind enough to point out to the House the very tenuous legal basis for the defence police, but to all intents and purposes the basis upon which the Police Federation existed and operated was ambiguous, obscure and often inoperable.
The Minister calls this a simple clarification measure, doing very little in the way of change but making absolutely clear what is expected of these people. To some extent I think it does this—as I have been told by those who have read the Bill—because it has been written in simple language that can be understood by the ordinary man in the street. Very often people with deep knowledge complain that a Bill is not easy to understand. I am told that the Bill does not suffer that defect. Whatever status the MDP had before in terms of the opposite of legitimate, they will certainly feel now that they have been made legitimate. There was a feeling—indeed, phrases were used—which gave rise to the federation often being likened to a tennis club or social club, but it has now been given an important role by the provisions of the Bill. It did not have that status, but it now has that status, which is important.
The Minister rests, as he must, on two documents. One is the report of the Defence Committee of 13th July 1984; the other is what is known as the Broadbent Committee report. I am pleased to tell the Minister that the advice I have received is that, almost without exception and with no quibble, the recommendations that have been made have been accepted by the

949
Minister and understood and accepted by the Police Federation.
The Broadbent Committee report, at paragraph 111 on page 39, recommends on MDP powers that,
"The origin of the M DP's legal powers is remote and it would be highly desirable to have legislation to codify all relevant enactments."
That is what the Minister has now brought before us. Another recommendation states that,
"Legislation should cover disciplinary and complaints procedures and recognise the two staff associations."
I understand that that too has been done.
I hope that the Minister can help with regard to one or two questions. I draw his attention first to Clause 1(5), which says:
"The Secretary of State shall appoint a committee, to be known as the Ministry of Defence Police Committee, to advise him with respect to such matters concerning the Ministry of Defence Police as he may from time to time require".
Can the Minister tell us who the members of that committee are likely to be? I ask the Minister to consider and comment on the desirability of some representatives of the Defence Police Federation being members of that committee. While we understand that the Secretary of State will always be the man or the woman who carries the can in these matters, we know that below the Secretary of State it is the management committee; it is the board of directors that will look after this aspect of defence.
In the context of 1986, when workers have representation on boards or shares in the business, can the Minister say whether there is anything wrong in considering the possibility of representatives of the workers—that is, the Defence Police Federation—becoming members of the committee? If not members, they could be invited to attend. If not invited to attend, they could be given access, in the strict way that these matters are dealt with, to copies of the procedure and minutes. I know that the Minister may not have anticipated these questions—although normally he anticipates all my questions. If he is not able to reply now, I hope that he will look into the point that has been made to me.
Clause 3(3) says:
"The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the management committee of the Federation, by regulations prescribe the constitution and proceedings.".
That, I am delighted to say, has a remarkable similarity to that which the Police Federation wanted and that which Broadbent outlined.
Bearing in mind that the Secretary of State will be in the same relationship to the Defence Police Federation as is the Home Secretary to the Police Federation, can the Minister tell us whether he and his colleagues have it in mind to treat the Defence Police Federation in the same way that the Home Secretary treats the Police Federation; that is, to be covered by the terms and conditions of Edmund-Davies, whose name of course is deeply respected as a raison d'être and a background? Without pressing the matter, perhaps I may hope to hear from the Minister some sympathetic words of reassurance.
I want also to place on record the point I made earlier. What had seemed likely to be a harmonious period was not always so. When the role of the
950
Defence Police Federation was last a matter for parliamentary scrutiny, there resulted the report, to which the Minister has referred, on 13th July 1984. We were then looking at whether there was a role for the Defence Police Federation at all in respect of the ordnance factories. Paragraph 26 on page 25 contained the rather sad and very disagreeable news that at that stage—when the very future of the DPF was being considered—the Minister and his colleagues had not seen fit to consult with the Defence Police Federation on its very life. Some very severe strictures were made about the consultation processes which at that time were held to be adequate and satisfactory.
I am satisfied, as the Minister said today, that those bad days of consultation are behind us. We shall do nothing to impede the Bill. In fact we are pleased to welcome it.
4.22 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge: My Lords, we also welcome this Bill. It is high time that the matter was cleared up. It seems to have been cleared up in a very straightforward manner which I could more or less understand when I read the Bill. That is not always the case. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Graham.
I should like first to say that we support the proper arrangements for a Ministry of Defence police. We must have the police. They are extremely important. The arrangements should be watertight. I think that as a result of this Bill, that will be the case. I should like to ask one or two questions for clarification. It is very likely that I ought to know the answers but I do not.
My first query is on Clause 1(4)(b), which gives the Defence Secretary the power to terminate a person's membership. Obviously this is quite right. But in the case of the police force of England and Wales an officer who has pleaded not guilty to a disciplinary offence and who has been sentenced to dismissal has the right to require the appointment of a tribunal to re-hear the evidence and make a decision. I wonder whether that applies, because the Bill does not say so. I also wonder whether, if it does not apply, it ought not to? That is a matter that we can discuss in Committee, but I should like a preliminary view from the noble Lord if he can give it.
The second query relates to firearms. It is very important that police of whatever denomination should have perfectly clear directives on firearms. In the police forces in England and Wales—the rules of the Metropolitan Police are slightly different—an officer of at least assistant chief constable rank has to approve the issuing of firearms. Will that be the case here? If not, who is the correct authority? It is an important matter because the Ministry of Defence police, dealing with very sensitive material, terrorists, and other such people, will from time to time need to carry firearms. I should therefore like an answer to that question.
My other question is this. The Ministry of Defence Police Federation is in no way connected with the Police Federation. Would it not be a good idea to have some connection, such as a common membership. As the years go by, these federations may drift apart and develop different rules. It is a point on which I should like to have the Minister's opinion.

951
Those are my only questions. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, was able to say that the Bill is satisfactory to the workforce as well as to management. That is useful to know. We wish the Bill a successful passage.
4.27 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I should like to support the Bill. I feel that it has come before us at a very timely moment. The times through which we have lived over the last two years show the need for many of the non-Home Office police forces to be re-organised. We have had the authority for individual constables to be brought into these forces but I am not sure where we have the authority to bring the force up to date. We now have in this Bill the position made very much clearer than before.
The most important point that we have to bear in mind is this. We must not overlook the fact that police always have difficult situations where they cannot give all the information away. However, at the same time, we must try to give the general public as much information as we possibly can. Over the last few years there has been a tendency among all police to keep information to themselves. It would be better for us all if that situation could be improved.
One now comes to the question of the MoD police force being interchangeable with other police forces. The noble Lord has referred to interchangeability. I have had close contacts with at least one non-Home Office force and I have seen every kind of overlapping occur during the last few years. Although we may be told that this is happening, it will be some time before such interchangeability works through.
Chief constables are mentioned specifically in the Bill. We have different conditions and different age limits. It seems to me that one ought to have the same conditions and the same age limits as in the county forces.
We come then to the question of training. We have initial training to consider. There is a big difference between the Ministry of Defence police and the county forces. Their organisation is on different bases which I consider a pity. Beyond that, one finds that at the next stage, the technical training is the same. I believe that it is now possible for senior officers of Ministry of Defence police to be accepted at Bramshill. I am not sure about the question of weapons, which were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson. There are entirely different rules governing their use and training on weapons, particularly pistols. It may not be possible to have all the details but more information would be helpful.
Finally—a subject which has not yet been mentioned—I think that we ought to hear something on the matter of complaints against the police. We have been in trouble over the last few years and there has been amendment after amendment of the procedures and the law on this point.
Yet, we still have the position where there are differences between this force and the Home Office forces.
On command and control, staff duties in the other armed services are given much more importance than those in regard to the police. Last winter we heard of the technical words "mutual support". There was
952
nothing of the kind previously. We now have mutual support. Is there any difficulty in this respect between the non-Home Office forces and the Home Office forces? We have a long way to go before the police are as clever as the army with regard to their staff duties developing along those lines.
I have possibly talked too much. Your Lordships may say that these are a series of Committee points. However, on the other hand, the general impression that I have tried to give is of a police picture. It is most important that we bring forward certain amendments. It would be a great advance if we could provide for what is now in our minds, given that we can get over the difficulties.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful to every noble Lord for his welcome to this measure. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, asked me first about the composition of the police committee. I can tell him that the chairman will be the second permanent Under-Secretary of the Ministry of Defence, and the vice-chairman will be the vice-chief of the Defence Staff, Ministry of Defence. There will be a number of other Ministry of Defence officers and officials on the committee. In addition, there will be members nominated by the Home Office and the Scottish Office. The chief constable and deputy chief constable of the Ministry of Defence Police will be in attendance.
As to whether the Defence Police Federation will be involved, they will certainly attend meetings of the police committee and on certain occasions when it is appropriate they will be present but not necessarily as a matter of course. They may also make written representations to the committee. It may be of interest to the noble Lord to know that no vote is taken at such police committee meetings, however, I am certain that the views of the Defence Police Federation will be taken fully into account by the other members.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can help me on one important point. I understand the no voting and the confidentiality and security aspects completely. I can also understand that it may be felt that there is no necessity for Police Federation members to be present on all occasions. The Minister was kind enough to say that there would be occasions when they would be invited to appear. Will the Minister indicate whether or not members of the Police Federation can make a written request to attend certain meetings which they believe it important to all sides for them to attend?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am sure it will be open to the Defence Police Federation to make a request in writing such as the noble Lord suggests. I think it would then be a matter for the permanent members of the committee to decide how to proceed.
I should like to refer also to the question raised by the noble Lord about the attitude of the Secretary of State for Defence to the Defence Police Federation. I know that my right honourable friend would wish to treat the DPF no less favourably as regards their legal standing than the Home Secretary has treated the Police Federation of England and Wales. As regards

953
their facilities for representation and management of funds, the Bill makes it clear that these matters will be discussed with the management committee of the federation before any regulations are made.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, asked me first of all about the position of the MDP with regard to firearms, and this was also in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood. The use of firearms is always a serious matter because of the possibility of injury or even death arising from their use. That includes innocent people not in any way involved in the offence to which the use of the firearms is related. Therefore, firearms are issued to those MDP officers who are fully qualified to use the types of weapon to be carried and only when the order for their issue has been given by the chief constable after authorisation by the Secretary of State. In an emergency an assistant chief constable or the senior police officer at a defence establishment may authorise the issue of firearms if the chief constable is not available. However, the chief constable is required to be informed with the minimum delay so that he may obtain the necessary authorisation.
Training in the use of firearms is undertaken on a regular basis and the senior police officer at each establishment is responsible for ensuring that all ranks are fully conversant with MDP safety precautions and general instructions on the use and carrying of firearms.
The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, asked me also about appeals with regard to the termination of membership. I understand that the arrangements for this have now been implemented under Section 96(1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 and that an appropriate agreement has been signed.
My noble friend Lord Inglewood did ask me about the possibility of the MDP coming into line with other police and also about the possibilities of interchange. As regards the Home Department police forces, the MDP now has legislation which is based on the Metropolitan Police Act 1860 as I said earlier. This Bill will contain provisions which are based on the Police Act 1964—more than 100 years more recent.
As regards non-Home Department police forces such as the British Transport Police and the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority Constabulary, the legislation I am proposing is broadly similar to their legislation, allowing for the different responsibilities of those forces.
This Bill will provide for the MDP to assist their Home Department colleagues in the vicinity of MoD land when called upon by the local police force to do so. However, as I said in my opening speech the MDP must respect the primacy of Home Department police forces.
The proposals in the Bill are designed to clear up some areas of doubt arising from some very old statutes on which MDP's powers rest. Your Lordships will have realised that this essential force may at present find itself in considerable doubt about what precisely are its powers in certain critical situations. This unenviable position cannot be beneficial for the morale of the force or for its effectiveness when
954
carrying out duties which bear upon the security of the country as a whole.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, perhaps my noble friend would allow me to ask one question. Can the Minister make it clear whether or not the oath taken by all constables is now uniform throughout the whole country or must we go back to limited jurisdiction in many forces?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I do not know the answer to that question. Perhaps I may ascertain the position and let my noble friend know.
I believe this Bill should help to resolve the doubts I have mentioned and I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Broadcasting Bill [H.L.]
4.38 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
First, I must declare an interest. I am the indirect owner of a small number of shares in TV-AM, which is a publicly quoted company.
It is almost exactly three years since the Government last brought broadcasting legislation before your Lordships' House. That Bill was the Cable and Broadcasting Bill, which sought to establish a regulatory framework for the provision of cable and satellite broadcasting services. We recognised then that the emergence of new technologies capable of delivering a multiplicity of channels would in the long term have the profoundest implications for our present broadcasting services. However, I think it is fair to say that no one then could see how quickly the need would arise for a thorough assessment of the implications of technological developments for our broadcasting services taken as a whole. The opportunity for such an assessment, and indeed the agenda for it, have been set by the report of the committee under Professor Peacock's chairmanship, which examined the future financing of the BBC. It is now clear that broadcasting is on the threshold of a major period of change.
Although this Bill arises in part out of the Peacock Committee's recommendations, in itself it proposes no substantive changes to the structure of the independent broadcasting system. It is rather concerned with keeping open the options for change. I therefore do not propose to go in detail into the Peacock Committee's recommendations today. Your Lordships will have the opportunity to debate the report as a whole before too long.
I referred earlier to the Bill which became the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984. That Bill, among other things, contains the framework for the provision of direct broadcasting by satellite services by the IBA. Last year we invited the IBA to assess the prospects for a British DBS service provided by independent commercial interests in accordance with the provisions in the Act. The IBA judged that there was

955
sufficient interest to justify the implementation of the relevant statutory provisions, and the authority advertised in April this year contracts for a new DBS service which will provide three national television channels. In response to that advertisement, a number of consortia have applied to the IBA, and I am pleased to report that the authority hopes to be able to make its selection by the end of the year with the prospect of a British DBS service being available by the end of the decade.
Under the 1984 Act, it will be the responsibility of the successful commercial contractor to make the financial and other arrangements for the satellite from which the broadcasts will be relayed back for reception by households. The initial investment involved in such a venture is therefore likely to be very high indeed. The 1984 Act recognised this in part by providing for DBS contracts to last for a maximum of 12 years, in contrast with the eight years allowed to terrestrial ITV contractors.
However, as plans have been further refined it is clear that the costs and risks are likely to be even more substantial than previously recognised in 1984. We believe that, in order to allow sufficient time for a DBS contractor to recover his initial investment and move into profit, a 15-year contract period is justified. Accordingly, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced in another place earlier this year the Government's intention to seek an early legislative opportunity to make the necessary change to the 1984 Act. I should add that the lifetime of the IBA currently expires on 31st December 1996, but we intend in the near future to bring into force Section 45 of the 1984 Act, which provides for the extension of the lifetime of the IBA to encompass a 15-year DBS contract.
The second purpose of the Bill is to leave open the options for change which could affect the ITV contract system. The most obvious issue here concerns the procedure for awarding the contracts. A majority of the Peacock Committee thought that the procedure should incorporate an element of competitive tendering. However, there are a number of other equally important issues running through the Peacock report on which the natural time to take action would be at the beginning of a contract round. These include the proposal that Channel 4 should be given the option of selling its own advertising, rather than being financed by subscriptions from the ITV companies. There is also of course the possibility that some or all IBA services might be encoded at the same time as BBC services as part of the replacement of the television licence fee by a system of subscription.
These are very large issues, and I hasten to stress that the Government have reached no firm conclusions on them. In the case of subscription, for example, your Lordships will know that the Government have commissioned a study from independent consultants of the technical and economic aspects. The Peacock Committee's recommendations merit, and are receiving, a good deal of thought. The Government also remain anxious to receive the views of Parliament and the public.
Therefore, time is needed to assess the case for change and to put in hand any necessary preparatory work. However, the ITV contracts which are currently
956
in force expire on 31st December 1989. If no change is made the IBA would want to advertise during the course of next year contracts for eight years to run from the beginning of 1990 to the end of 1997. If the IBA went ahead with that timetable, there would be no opportunity for changes to the contract system—or more basic changes which might bear heavily on the operation of these new contracts—before 1998. We discussed this matter with the IBA, who have themselves developed separate proposals for changing the present system of awarding ITV contracts.
We decided that the best course would be to provide for the next round of ITV contracts—which will commence on 1st January 1990—to last for only three years. Clause 1(3) of the Bill therefore amends the relevant provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1981 to provide that the contracts which will take effect on 1st January 1990 should expire no later than 31st December 1992. This deadline will also apply to the next breakfast television contract, which is due to commence on 1st February 1991. Therefore this part of the Bill simply preserves the options for change.
If the Government decide in due course to make changes to the ITV contract system, these can therefore be introduced for contracts which will run from 1st January 1993. For completeness, the Bill also covers the situation where the then government decide to propose no changes of the kind I have described. In this case the Bill provides that the IBA can award contracts under the present system from 1993 onwards. We intend, if Parliament agrees to the provisions in the Bill, to implement Section 46 of the Cable and Broadcasting Act 1984. This will relieve the IBA of the obligation to advertise the shortened round of ITV contracts. Section 46 was originally enacted in the context of the DBS joint venture, but with the collapse of that venture it was never brought into force. We have seen no need to re-enact a provision which is already on the statute book, and the passage of the Bill will provide the opportunity for Parliament to consider the use of this provision in its new context. Taken together, the Bill and Section 46 in effect provide a three-year extension of the contracts of those ITV companies which wish to apply for such an extension.
This Bill is a very modest measure designed to improve the arrangements for DBS contracts awarded by the IBA, and to provide the opportunity for change affecting the ITV contract system at some time before 1998. The Bill itself does not of course make any substantive change to that system. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Beaverbrook.)
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Birk: My Lords, the noble Lord has put forward the legislative case very clearly and several times has stressed that this is a very modest measure. It is not as modest as all that because the implications of this Bill are very large and wide-ranging. The noble Lord referred to the debate on the Peacock Committee's report, which is due to take place in this House later this month. That of course will be an in-the-round debate and I should have thought would

957
largely concentrate on the BBC because it was the BBC with which the Peacock Committee was set up to deal in the first instance.
However, this so-called modest little Bill goes very much further than that. First, I would argue that the case for extending contracts has not been completely or inevitably made out. In fact, one or two of the companies to which I have spoken have felt that the same sort of work and examination could have been carried out if the timetable had been left as it is now and the new contracts came up in 1988. This Bill means that on the Government's proposition contained in this legislation the present companies will be in situ for about 11 years. It means that the one main sanction, which is to take the franchise from one company and give it to another—and that is how the system has worked since commercial television was first initiated—will be considerably delayed. By their nature the warning notices will have to be very halfhearted affairs if no real action can be taken.
Incidentally, some companies could quite easily have managed to carry on without any extension and still carried out the necessary work. However when the Government put forward an extension of two years, naturally everyone wanted four years. Therefore, the compromise reached has been three years.
One of the most important recommendations of the Peacock Committee, which to date it looks as though the Government are taking very seriously, is in the news release issued by the Home Office. The noble Lord, Lord Beaverbrook, said that all this could be dealt with in the debate on the Peacock Report. The Peacock Committee's recommendation on ITV contracts, is appended as part of the news release for this piece of legislation which we are considering today. Therefore, this does not relate entirely to the debate on the Peacock Committee's report.
Recommendation 10, which was supported by four members of the Committee, is that ITV contracts should be put out to competitive tender. With respect, I should not have thought that it needed three years to deal with that, but rather about three minutes. I have yet to find anyone in any of the commercial companies, or in television in any form at all or even in academia who has agreed that this is a good proposition. Naturally I, and many others—certainly my colleagues in another place—were hoping that in the debate on 20th November on the Peacock Report in another place the Home Secretary would take the opportunity to knock this particular recommendation on the head and say, "We don't have to discuss this because we are not going to implement it". In fact what he said at col. 717 in answer to an intervention was:
"One of the most significant recommendations was the proposal that in future ITV contracts should be put out to competitive tender".
He then went on to say at col. 718:
"We simply do not want to foreclose the options".
I can see that they might not on other things, but on this the sooner the Government make a statement the less uncertainty there will be for the companies. I hope that when the Minister replies today he will be able to
958
put not just my mind at rest but everybody's and say that this is now out of court.
The proposition itself was bounced in very late in the Peacock Committee's proceedings. I believe that it was passed by a majority of just one. There has been no research into this and no evidence was given to support the proposition. It is something that the Government could deal with without waiting for three years.
Another recommendation highlighted in the same news release and which has a great and serious effect on the future of independent television in this country is that contracts should be awarded on a rolling review basis, with a formal annual review by the authority of a contractor's performance. But that again is something which has many disadvantages and a great many arguments against it.
It means that the only chance the public would get of alternatives would be after a series of early warnings. It is a system that will become set in concrete. Only if a company were to perform very badly would it be decided not to continue with it. If its performance was mediocre to good it could go on and on. It would not give, as does the existing system to some extent, the chance of exchanging the good for the better. It might give a chance to exchange the bad for the good. Also this rolling review is something that some companies and many others involved in television find unacceptable.
Personally, I should like to see the idea of staggering the franchises of the companies so that one does not have 15 coming up all at one time. Many years ago I was somewhat on the sidelines of this and saw what went on, and it is true that there are many disadvantages to the present system. There is too much hassle; there is too much building up by the companies, and putting on, towards the end of their time, the sort of programmes that they think are going to get them a renewal of their franchise.
If you had, say, five franchises at a time coming up there would be much more opportunity for the IBA to take them at a better and more considered pace. I appreciate that the details would have to be worked out, but it is something that should be given strong consideration. As I understand it, other countries—and I believe that Canada is one, but I shall not swear to it, and if I am wrong over this I shall understand if the Minister tells me—operate this system of staggering contracts.
When we come to the question of Channel 4 standing alone, we are again in a dangerous area. This is almost on a par with the tendering for the franchises, which is all based on trying to bring the market economy even further into commercial television than it is now. Channel 4 has been in existence for four years. It has done brilliantly during this time. To change a structure which is working well does not make sense at all. It would mean a deterioration in standards and would bring about the same loss of quality as would tendering for franchises except that that would mean, with franchises going to the highest bidder, that more money would go to the Exchequer.
Trying to produce a system by which Channel 4 would stand alone—when Channel 4 is one of the best examples of the redistribution of income that a

959
Conservative Government has brought about—would mean once again a lowering of standards, and a scrabbling around by everybody for probably a lessening amount of advertising. Again we know what happens then; the programmes themselves fall in quality.
Then there is the question of independent producers and productions. At one point a quota of 40 per cent. was suggested and then the Home Secretary mentioned 25 per cent. I personally am not fond of the language of quotas, but a benchmark probably has to be put up in order to make sure that we get a significant input of independent production companies and independent producers into the whole television scene.
Finally, what has to be remembered throughout all this is that the object of our television and radio services, whether BBC or ITV—which we are discussing in this legislation—is the audience, the public. There is a duty to give them the best quality that can be achieved. Anything that detracts from that, which cuts down on the creativity or originality that can be brought into television must be opposed. It is enormously important that we keep our place as one of the best—if not the best—radio and television countries in the world. So far as other countries are concerned our standards are enormously high: one has only to go to America to see the tremendous difference.
I am seriously worried about the recommendations that are the subject of this legislation. If these are taken up they may advance the market economy but what we are talking about is a service to people. It covers educational services; it is a cultural service; an entertainment service. We should tread warily and be very careful in order to avoid anything that lowers the quality of that service.
4.59 p.m.
Lord Aylestone: My Lords, the House will pardon me if, on this occasion, I do not debate the Peacock Report, which we shall have the pleasure of debating before the Christmas Recess. However, there are one or two points that arise out of the Peacock Report that will have to be mentioned during this afternoon's debate, which has been the position with the noble Baroness herself.
I must admit that when I first read the small Bill—it is a small Bill—I thought that it was perhaps a cosy idea whereby the programme contractors increased their eight years to 11 years overnight without any apparent reason. Having heard the Minister today and having done some reading myself in the meanwhile I am convinced that this Bill is necessary. We on these Benches agree that because of the workload falling upon the Independent Broadcasting Authority and upon the Government departments (there are two of them) arising out of the Peacock Report from DBS and cable, that it would not be unreasonable to assist the authority by giving it an additional three years.
It is perhaps worth bearing in mind, if this Bill did not exist, what the authority would be required to do under the 1981 Act. It would have three years to run until 31st December 1989 before the new contracts were granted. Here we must remember that not only are contracts granted, but existing contractors
960
sometimes lose the contracts they have. It is important that this should be done correctly. If there was nothing other than that three-year period to consider, the IBA could within that three years proceed at once to grant new contracts. The first things it would probably have to do under the 1981 Act is to sound public opinion in the 15 regions, to listen to what local authorities have to say about existing contracts, and to take into consideration the work and the programmes of the existing contractors and how they have functioned in the years up to the end of December 1989.
That would be possible within three years if there was nothing else in the offing, if there was nothing else about which television had to concern itself. But if one takes the three-year period after 1989 until 1992, we might by then have an idea of the effect of direct broadcasting by satellite on what is known as terrestrial television. We may have some idea, if it takes off at all—there is perhaps some doubt about that—of the effect of cable on terrestrial television. In addition we should have to take into consideration what would happen as a result of a general election if an incoming government had completely different ideas. These things have to be considered and in my view it is only right that the IBA on this occasion is given a period of three years by which it can increase the existing eight years for broadcasting programme contractors to 11 while it is getting on with the job of assessing the effect of everything else.
I have said that I do not intend to discuss Peacock, but we cannot ignore it altogether because if any proposals with regard to radio are accepted by Her Majesty's Government as a result of the Peacock Report—up to now the Government have not told us; they have not said whether they will accept any or none—that is bound to affect the work of the Independent Broadcasting Authority. My whole point is that if there were nothing else to take into consideration we could deal with the new contract position by the end of 1989 and either renew contracts or replace them (because sometimes they are replaced) and there would be no problem about doing it. But the workload that has to be borne by the authority—and to some extent by the BBC if we are to take Peacock into consideration—makes it necessary to have this short additional period, which I accept is helpful to the programme contractors, so that the position can be looked at overall. By 1992 we may have at least two channels from DBS; I was going to say "on the air" but I am not sure that they are on the air when they come down from a satellite.
We shall certainly have terrestrial radio and television as we understand them and changes in radio arising out of Peacock. Apart from that, a point I have made before and must make again is a purely technical one. As soon as any form of new transmitting technology or studio work is fitted with changes in cameras, they become obsolescent. Change is so rapid within that industry that time is required to consider all these matters. In my view on this occasion we should approve this small Bill and perhaps restrain ourselves from discussing Peacock, which was set up with the idea of discussing only the method by which the BBC should be financed; we should restrain ourselves from discussing the whole area to be gone

961
into until we reach the Peacock Report later in this Session.
5.7 p.m.
Viscount Ridley: My Lords, after the very long Bills that your Lordships suffered in the previous Session it is a pleasure to see one that is constrained to one piece of paper. I hope my speech can be commendably brief on the same occasion.
Before I say anything about the Bill, I too must declare an interest as being a director of Tyne Tees Television for the past 22 years and a shareholder also in that company. Your Lordships will say, not unnaturally, that for obvious reasons I very much welcome the Government's decision to extend the franchise for three years until 1992. It is a typical British compromise between the two years originally suggested by the Government and the four years that the IBA asked for.
I welcome that because, as has already been said by the Minister, it must be sense to wait until all the future aspects of TV have been decided upon in view of the very fast developing technology and indeed in view of the Peacock report, which I shall not discuss tonight. I have more than once seen the tremendous upheaval that the award of a new contract can cause—the disruption and the expense which I do not think make for good television in the long run.
No commercial operation can really make longterm decisions in the light of the fact that it is likely to disappear into a puff of smoke every eight years. Anything that can ensure that is not done unnecessarily is to be welcomed. I am not saying that the re-awarding of contracts should be stopped. It is a successful decision that has been made and that everyone agrees with. It is not good, however, to have unnecessary re-awarding of contracts. This is one which is necessary in that the extension must make all sorts of political as well as financial sense.
I was very interested in the suggestion of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, that the contracts should be staggered. I can see some merit in this. I imagine it would keep the industry in a state of permanent tension in one way and another with unsuccessful contractors whizzing round the country to try to find a space. I am sure the IBA would love the opportunity to remain in more or less permanent session dealing with it. It is certainly a suggestion of merit and should be looked at.
It is worth recalling how in the north of England we have seen tremendous changes dictated by the geography of the land. First, there was the creation of Yorkshire Television, rather like Eve was created from one of Adam's ribs a long time ago. Secondly, there was a shotgun wedding between Yorkshire Television and Tyne Tees Television, which effectively meant that two eggs were made into an omelette underneath an umbrella—if that is not mixing too many metaphors. Thirdly, the omelette was reassembled into two eggs again when the companies were separated at the last award of contracts. Any of your Lordships who have tried to make two eggs from an omelette know that it is a very expensive, difficult and slightly frustrating process.
962
I think it says a lot for independent television as a whole that it continues to provide excellent programmes in the light of that experience and has survived a certain amount of upheaval of this kind. I hope very much that my noble friend will give some reassurance that no more geographical upheavals of this kind are contemplated without at least the full concurrence of all those who are concerned before the re-award of the contracts in 1992.
Finally, independent television suffered for many years, as your Lordships are well aware, from an unfortunate remark made by a late Member of this House who said that it was a licence to print money. No doubt many outside or inside Parliament may think that that is still the case. I think therefore that this is an opportunity to say very briefly what the financial figures actually are in connection with ITV. The figures which I hope to quote I believe to be IBA figures and therefore absolutely impeccable in their source.
Over the past four years, 1982 to 1985 inclusive, the profits of the independent television companies totalled £1,079 million. From this has been deducted the IBA fee of £208 million and the subscription to Channel 4, which is no less than £507 million, leaving, I think, £364 million. The Government then put a levy on ITV which totals £110 million. That leaves £254 million and, if you assume tax (at the average rates for industry) of £117 million, you are left with only £137 million or 12½ per cent. of the original figure, which, divided among 15 companies, is not a great deal of money for expansion, experiment and all the other programme initiatives which are needed, never mind the shareholders.
So, although the goose lays a lot of golden eggs, most of them end up in the Government's pocket in one way or another. In the light of that, I hope we can acknowledge that it has made a great contribution, not only financial but also in the sense that the television of this country—and here I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Birk—is a very fine and splendid thing in its quality. Anything that we can do to help and therefore to encourage this Bill through the House should be warmly welcomed.
5.14 p.m.
Lord Beaverbrook: My Lords, this has been a short but interesting debate on broadcasting policy. It is clear that we have now reached a very important stage in the development of our broadcasting services where technology—which has until now placed constraints on the number of broadcasting outlets—will allow a multiplicity of differing channels and broaden the options for paying for what we watch and listen to. The Peacock Report has set out the considerations which the Government, the broadcasters and the public need to examine. As I said in my opening remarks, the Government for their part are giving very careul consideration to the committee's conclusions and are anxious to listen carefully to the views of Parliament and the public. As I have said earlier, your Lordships will have an opportunity for a full discussion of the issues raised by the Peacock Committee before too long.
If I may turn now to one or two points and questions raised by noble Lords, I would say to the noble

963
Baroness that we believe this Bill to be a modest measure and that it is something that we believe in due course will be seen to be the correct route to take at this time. On the subject of the Peacock Committee—as I have said, the House will be debating this—the committee not only covered matters concerning the BBC but also expressed views on competitive tendering and length of contracts with IBA companies. The noble Baroness asked: "Why three years?" The Government believe that a three-year limit on new contracts would provide a realistic margin in which to take sensible decisions on future contract arrangements. A longer period would have tended to prolong the uncertainties and a shorter period may not have provided sufficient time for decisions to be taken and implemented.
As regards competitive tendering—another point raised by the noble Baroness—the Peacock Report helpfully outlines the arguments for and against. This is clearly a matter on which the Government will want to take account of the views of others. As I have said, the Government have not yet reached a decision. The aim of this Bill is to provide an opportunity for change in the contract arrangements if that were thought desirable.
It would not have been practicable for the Government to take decisions on the Peacock recommendations on ITV contracts before the current contracts expire on 31st December 1989. If the Peacock recommendations on competitive tendering were accepted, legislation would be required; but the IBA would normally begin considering the next round of contracts in 1987 with a view to advertising in 1988. The timetable simply would not permit sensible decisions. Options must be kept open not only for this but also in case changes are needed on subscription, Channel 4, independent production, and other matters.
I believe—and here I agree with the noble Baroness—that the final opinion on the success of our broadcasting arrangements will be that of the viewer. Only a positive response from the viewers will give us a viable broadcasting industry. As the noble Baroness may know, I, with my commercial background, would perhaps be among the very first to agree with this.
The noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Ridley brought up the subject of the staggering of contracts. Of course, we shall look at such suggestions. We shall look at all suggestions; although the current view is that it would be desirable to try to standardise the expiry date of contracts for television contractors. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, for his supportive remarks on the three-year period. I fully agree with his point on the impact of technological change on our broadcasting arrangements.
While this Bill arises out of technological progress and the Peacock Report, I must stress again that it is no more than a very modest measure designed to improve the prospects of a British DBS service in the 1990s and to keep open options for changes affecting the ITV system which may arise from the Peacock Committee. The Bill itself makes no substantial change to the ITV contract system beyond, in effect, extending the present round of ITV contracts for three years.
964
If the then Government decide that there should be changes—for example, to arrangements under which the IBA award contracts—then future legislation will be necessary, and your Lordships will be able to discuss the precise nature of the changes at that time. It is the Government's hope that this Bill will receive a swift passage to enable the IBA to go ahead with the award of the DBS contract if a suitable applicant is identified. Similarly, the IBA will want to know at an early stage on what basis the contract renewals in 1990 are to take place. I hope therefore that these proposals will meet with your Lordships' approval, and I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

General Lighthouse Authorities (Beacons: Hyperbolic Systems) Order 1986
5.18 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move that the draft General Lighthouse Authorities (Beacons: Hyperbolic Systems) order laid before the House on 18th November be approved.
The Racal-Decca navigator system is an important marine navigational aid in the waters around the British Isles. It provides highly accurate position-fixing signals that can be picked up by purpose-built receivers. For well over 30 years, Racal-Decca (and the Decca company before it) recovered the cost of this service from the rentals of receivers. In recent years, however, advances in technology have made it feasible for other manufacturers to sell relatively low-cost receivers, so eroding Racal-Decca's rental revenue. Racal-Decca decided earlier this year that this loss would quite shortly make it impossible for them to continue to provide the service on the previous basis. After extensive discussions with my department it was agreed in principle that the company would be prepared to continue to run UK transmitters to the same high technical standard as hitherto under the superintendence of the general lighthouse authorities and as a charge to the general lighthouse fund.
The navigator system, as I have said, is an important marine navigational aid and navigator receivers are carried on most UK-registered commercial ships. The navigator too is also of great importance to the UK fishing industry. It enables users to fix their position with great accuracy in relation to proven fishing grounds, and so greatly enhances the industry's earning power. For that reason, I am considering the feasibility of extending light dues to some categories of fishing vessel. But an important element of the agreement is that the company, as it has already announced, will no longer require that its receivers should be rented: they will be freely sold as will those of other manufacturers. So I believe there will be some offsetting savings to users whose costs are reduced by this competition. The detailed terms of the arrangements will be the subject of a contract at present under negotiation between the company and the authorities.

965
The general lighthouse fund, which is under the statutory control of my right honourable friend, the Secretary of State for Transport, may be used by the general lighthouse authorities only to carry out their prescribed duties. These include the superintendence and management of lighthouses, buoys and beacons in their areas of responsibility. But I am advised that under the relevant law, the Merchant Shipping Act 1894, the expression "beacons" cannot be extended to cover hyperbolic electronic position-fixing systems, such as the navigator.
However, the possibility that the general lighthouse authorities' responsibilities might have to be extended in this way was foreseen, and an appropriate power was taken under Section 34(3) of the Merchant Shipping Act 1979. This enabled my right honourable friend to promote an order that imputes a wider meaning to the expression "beacons". This is the order that is now before your Lordships, and its practical effect will be to enable the general lighthouse authorities to draw on the general lighthouse fund for the services that the Racal-Decca Company will continue to provide. The authorities, I understand, welcome this extension of their responsibilities, and I am sure that they will exercise them satisfactorily. I beg to move that the order be approved.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 18th November be approved. [3rd Report from the Joint Committee.]—(Lord Brabazon of Tara.)
Lord Underhill: My Lords, this seems to be a very sensible and useful order. It is a little unusual in so far as it does not refer to an approved type but to the name of a particular firm and contract. There are two questions that I should like to ask the Minister. First, can he give the House any information on the length of the contract with Racal-Decca Marine Navigation Limited. Secondly, what will be the position if in future there is an approved system? Would that require a new order? What would be the situation then arising?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Underhill. The length of the contract is to be seven years, extendable to 10 years. If, after that time, other systems have been developed, it is possible that we might then have to make other arrangements. The noble Lord asked me particularly whether this would require a new order. My understanding is that, yes, it would, because, as the noble Lord clearly stated, this order specifies the Racal-Decca system. So if there was a decision at the end of seven or 10 years to move to a new system, it would require a new order. I should like to emphasise that should we decide to move to a new system, the maximum notice possible would be given to users of these sets so that they could acquire new sets.
Lord Grimond: My Lords, may I ask a question before we part with the order which I wholly welcome? I understand, and perhaps the Minister can confirm, that it will make no difference whatever to the present Decca arrangements, its present stations and its present system of navigation.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Grimond, is quite right. There will be no difference in the system as it currently operates. It is only a question of the receivers themselves, which will no longer need to be rented from Decca but which will be able to be purchased outright in future.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Wytch Farm: New Forest Pipeline
5.24 p.m.
Lord Mountevans Lord Mountevans rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether the public inquiry called by the Secretary of State for Energy to consider BP's plans to transport oil by pipeline from Wytch Farm through the New Forest will enable adequate consideration to be given to alternative methods of transporting the oil from the field to refineries, bearing in mind the specific policies for the New Forest advanced by the Secretary of State for the Environment and the interests of the Secretary of State for Transport.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Question arises from British Petroleum's plan, which has conditional planning consent from Dorset county council, to expand oil extraction from its Wytch Farm field to a level of perhaps 3 million tonnes per annum, and the consequent need to transport this oil to the Hamble tank farm on East Solent side. There are only two practical routes for this transportation. One is a pipeline through the New Forest, consent for which is the concern of the Department of Energy's inquiry called for Tuesday next, while the other is the railway which already transports Wytch Farm production and will in future convey by-product liquefied petroleum gas from the field.
My interest in the issue stems from my being both a New Forest resident and a regular user of the railway. My concern is that the inquiry does not confine itself to the pipeline and to the pipeline's detailed routing considerations of perhaps, six feet here and six feet there. I would rather ask the noble Lord the Minister to ensure that it also takes into account public policy as stated by the Secretaries of State for the Environment and for Transport, and indeed the interests of those who live in or enjoy the Forest as a whole.
The New Forest has been in existence for thousands of years. Consisting of both public and private lands, it is designated a heritage area and is one of major recreational importance. It can be considered a candidate for national park status. BP's proposal is to drive a 56 mile pipeline, of which some 25 miles lie within the New Forest district council's area. Of these some 15 miles would run within the heritage area, between three and four miles within the New Forest perambulation, and seven miles within the designated South Hampshire coast area of outstanding natural beauty.
We are all trustees of the Forest, charged with conveying our centuries-old inheritance to our successors in as good a state as we received it. Whatever environmental impact assessments say, we would be failing in our duty if we permitted BP's pipeline to go through. During construction there will be disturbance, not only to wild-life but also to botany.

967
And no matter how careful the restoration work which follows upon construction, the pipeline will leave a 60-foot wide scar, including access roads, where hedges and trees will be missing. These will be permanent scars inflicted upon the Forest in the cause of a utility which, we are told, will have a life span of 30 years at most. But will it be just 30 years? There is evidence of considerable reserves of oil beneath the Forest itself and in the fullness of time it may become necessary, or indeed desirable, to exploit these. Such exploitation would go against the South-West Hampshire structure plan which states, in precis,
"There will be a strong presumption against development in connection with the extraction of oil within the perambulation of the New Forest.".
In approving the structure plan, the then Secretary of State for the Environment added in clarification the words,
"development in connection with extraction is taken to include development in connection with the transportation of oil and natural gas … this applies whether or not the point of extraction is within the perambulation of the New Forest".
These two quotes seem to me to define the Secretary of State for the Environment's interest in the pipeline inquiry. His position would become untenable if the pipeline was allowed and subsequent development applications were made. Authorisation of the pipeline is the key to a future BP policy of exploitation by stealth. How could that be squared with the stewardship that I mentioned earlier, a stewardship which we will be paying to disown, because the pipeline, if authorised, could be funded to the tune of perhaps 75 per cent. by means of tax relief under the petroleum royalty tax formulas. The public purse would, in fact, be subsidising the pipeline.
A pipeline through the New Forest, with the implications for future development, is not a happy thought, any more than is the one that I have just explained that this pipeline would be subsidised. The pipeline would also be duplicating the already subsidised rail facilities which link the Furzebrook gathering station with the Weymouth to Waterloo railway and thus with the branch to Fawley refinery and the route by rail to the Hamble tank farm. The core of this route is the main line from Wareham to Totton—a line currently subject to over £40 million of investment in electrification west of Branksome and in new Inter-City type trains. The Secretary of State for Transport grant-aids this and almost every other railway, in order to ensure provision of a service at a level beyond that which is commercially viable. But taking the passenger railway as a whole, the Secretary of State is keen to see the global subsidy reduced and has for several years reduced the public service obligation grant. The British Rail Board has been given clear directions to increase the viability of all sectors of its business and is setting stiff targets to achieve the Minister's aim.
I am confident that British Rail could handle the expanded Furzebrook production. Three million tonnes per annum flows are not new. British Rail already moves 17.5 million tonnes of coal per annum into the Drax power station complex; 3.5 million tonnes per annum into Didcot; and 3.4 million tonnes of stone products per annum from Minehead in Somerset to the London area. All these transits involve
968
busy main lines. Abroad, Swedish and Norwegian railways have moved as much as 20 million tonnes of iron ore per annum, with the associated empty train traffic, over the single track line from Kiruna in Sweden to Narvik in Norway. So a flow of Wytch Farm dimensions can easily be coped with.
There are of course opponents to the rail option. Those living in the urbanised areas close to the railway are concerned about noise levels. One cannot be dismissive of this concern, but to them I would say that noise levels are part and parcel of living near railway lines. I live within 10 yards of the Bakerloo Line and I have grown used to the noise it generates. Along the Fawley branch there is an argument that considerable housing development has taken place since the line lost its passenger service—a service of three trains a day, in the heady days of July 1939, generally regarded as the all-time climax of the British steam railway. This development occurred not because of the presence or absence of trains on the Fawley branch but because of the insatiable demand for residential accommodation in the area. The residents of the area have seen their public transport decimated and are crying out for investment in corridor road facilities. Wytch Farm oil on the Fawley rail branch might well enable them to enjoy restitution of an electrified passenger railway.
The Secretary of State for Transport has, as I have explained, an interest in next week's planning inquiry, as has the Secretary of State for the Environment. So too do the residents in and the enjoyers of the New Forest. I ask the noble Lord the Minister to assure us that the interests of all will be considered at the forthcoming inquiry.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, for raising this most important Question and indeed for the manner and the concise way in which he has explained the problem to the House this evening. It is clear that he needs little help from me in making his case, which I support, but the Opposition feels that it should say a few words.
When I was first given that task I felt that I was an interloper in the debate, since the question, as has been said, really involves matters of transport and environmental concern. The connection with energy matters seemed to me quite tenuous and arose only from the fact that the proposed pipeline was to carry crude oil. Presumably, if it was to carry milk, the Government spokesman would have had responsibility for agriculture; if the commodity was to be water, the Government spokesman would have been concerned with environmental matters. However, when I thought further I was persuaded that there is an important energy connotation arising from the Question of the noble Lord.
It is self-evident that had there been no decision to increase output from Wytch Farm from 6,000 barrels a day to 60,000 barrels a day, the question of alternative transport of oil to the refinery at Fawley would not have arisen. No application for a pipeline would have been made and the railways would have continued to handle the traffic as they have done hitherto.

969
All this raised a question in my mind as to whether such a decision at this point in time to raise tenfold onshore oil production at Wytch Farm is a wise one. I raise this question not in a spirit of contention but as a genuine inquiry. I understand the argument for depletion at a high rate of North Sea oil, though I do not necessarily agree with it. The capital and running costs are very high and a quick return is thought to be necessary to encourage oil companies to explore and develop North Sea oilfields.
However, the same is not true of onshore oil, since the capital costs of exploration and development are much lower and a modest flow of oil over a longer period of time may be beneficial in terms of conserving oil supplies against the rundown of North Sea oil reserves. It may also be beneficial in terms of obtaining a better return later on in the 1990s, when oil prices are almost certain to be much higher than their present depressed level. The noble Viscount, Lord Davidson, may like to comment on this aspect when he winds up, but if he does not do so, bearing in mind the nature of the debate, I shall understand his position.
There is another point which I should like to raise, which is the apparent lack of a coherent oil transportation policy. There is a good deal of oil exploration going on at the present time, and it is likely to increase. It is important that the Government, and indeed all of us who are concerned with the environment, should consider this question. None of us wants a situation where oil pipelines spring up willy-nilly all over the place and where proper consideration is not given to alternative means of transport which may be available. Whether that alternative transport is by rail, by sea, or perhaps even by means of oil pipelines under the sea, I think it is necessary to think about this problem, bearing in mind the increase in exploration and the increase in oil finds onshore. We need a coherent policy which is known and which can be inquired into and understood.
I also wonder whether it is good environmental practice to construct a pipeline with so limited a life. The noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, has asked this question, but it is important that it be emphasised. Is it envisaged that this pipeline will be used for a much longer period of time because the Government intend—or perhaps BP intend—that there will be further exploration of oil which will perhaps fall just outside or even within the perambulations of the New Forest? Perhaps the noble Lord can comment on that.
I also believe that the people of the New Forest are entitled to ask whether the construction of a pipeline through the perambulations of the New Forest would set a precedent for other possible applications for pipeline use. For example, if British Gas wished to construct a pipeline, would this application have set a precedent. Could such a pipeline be refused? These are questions in which the residents of the area would be interested.
Finally, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, concerning rail transport. The necessary infrastructure already exists. Oil traffic is already being carried by British Rail. They have the technical ability to carry the increased freight and the increased oil. They can do that with improved track;
970
they can do it with improved vehicles; and they can do it with improved locomotives. They would be enabled to do that if they had the necessary amount of traffic.
I appreciate the problems of people who live alongside the railways. I appreciate the problems that the people of Brockenhurst might experience with level crossings, although I understand that the delays at level crossings will be minimal. We must also bear in mind that with the electrification of the line the noise levels could be reduced to about 78 decibels. If my memory serves me correctly, the noise from a roadside is about 92 decibels. I live alongside a main road, and in time of course one gets used to the traffic. But it seems to me that, with improvements, the people living alongside the track would be better off in the long run because the capital would be available to improve the track, to improve the trains and reduce the noise levels.
I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans. I think he has made a very good case for ensuring that all the aspects of transporting oil from Wytch Farm—the environmental and transportation aspects—should be taken into account. I await the noble Viscount's reply with the greatest of interest.
5.41 p.m.
Viscount Davidson: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, for raising this subject. I shall start by saying to him that my department will study carefully both his remarks and those of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon.
Our oil reserves are a valuable national asset which need to be developed in an environmentally acceptable way. Wytch Farm has been in production since 1979 and is currently yielding some 6,000 barrels of oil per day. As noble Lords will know, Dorset County Council recently decided that, subject to the provision of a satisfactory export route for the oil, it would give planning permission for its further development with a 10-fold increase in production to 60,000 barrels. I should emphasise that this decision was not reached lightly but followed nearly two years of consultation and more than 200 meetings between BP, the local authorities, statutory bodies, environmental groups, local communities and private individuals. Detailed environmental studies were carried out and BP's planning submission I am told weighed 78 pounds!
Wytch Farm is the largest onshore field yet discovered in the United Kingdom. It will generate economic activity both at the local and national level and will be reaching its maximum production around 1990 when our offshore production will already be declining and we might expect oil prices to be on the increase. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Energy is currently examining BP's proposed development programme to ensure that recovery of oil will be maximised in accordance with good oilfield practice.
However, before he can reach a decision there is one further step in the legal process which needs to be completed. The expansion of Wytch Farm is dependent on some system for removal of the oil produced there so there needs to be agreement on an acceptable transportation route. To this end BP,

971
during the consultative process, made freely available a consultative document entitled "Oil from Dorset" which considers the advantages and disadvantages of the various possibilities. The transportation of 60,000 barrels of oil a day is no mean task. It could be moved to a refinery by train, tanker or by pipeline, or a combination of these.
All these methods have been examined in detail and each has its protagonists and objectors. However, the intensive consultation I have just referred to clearly indicated that the most widely preferred route is to transport the oil by pipeline to Southampton Water by a route which passes through agricultural land in the perambulations of the New Forest. But there were some objections to this route and I think it would help noble Lords if I were to describe the process by which they will be heard.
Following the extensive discussion of the alternatives referred to earlier, the application for a pipeline was made in December 1985, and was revised in February and April 1986. The application covers a 90 kilometre pipeline, of 16 inch diameter, from Wytch Farm in Dorset to Southampton Water in Hampshire. The application was circulated to Government departments which were likely to have an interest in the proposals and other appropriate environmental authorities. None of the Government departments circulated objected to the application for the pipeline to be publicly advertised. The nature conservancy officer in charge of the Hampshire and Isle of Wight area had made a strong objection, but the route was changed by BP before public advertising in order to accommodate the objection, which was then withdrawn.
In April 1986, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State authorised BP to advertise its application without prejudice to his rights to refuse the application at a later date. In accordance with the requirements of the Pipe-lines Act 1962, all planning authorities, owners and occupiers affected by the route were notified of the proposals. The proposals were also advertised in the national and local press along the route. There were originally 27 statutory objectors, three late objectors and comments from eight other organisations. Of the 27 statutory objectors (including three planning authorities, two of which have subsequently withdrawn), 13 were still outstanding as of 21st November.
In view of the continuing objection of the New Forest District Council, a public inquiry has been organised for 9th December at Ringwood in Hampshire. An independent person has been nominated by the Department of the Environment from the Lord Chancellor's panel of independent inspectors in accordance with the Pipe-lines Act 1962. The inquiry is to be held under the Pipe-lines (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1967, Statutory Instrument 1967 No. 1769. In accordance with the requirements of the rules, the applicant has to furnish a statement of case to all objectors four weeks before the case is to be heard. This has now been complied with.
The remaining 13 statutory objectors include the New Forest Association, the New Forest District Council and the Council for the Preservation of Rural
972
England, all of which are either specifically indicating that the rail option should be used, or that the pipeline does not present the best option for transportation of the oil. In addition, there is a late objection from Fawley Parish Council indicating that alternative methods of oil transfer should be considered. All objections by these bodies will of course be heard by the independent inspector and will be considered when making his report to the Secretary of State for Energy.
On the use of the railway, I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, who, not unexpectedly, prefers the rail option, that I will not dispute the capability of railways to move crude oil in bulk—indeed, this option was discussed in the early stages of consultation—but local interests have generally been satisfied that the pipeline is the preferred option.
The noble Lord also asked whether this would be a precedent for other pipelines. This is a matter for planning and other authorities and I would expect each case to be considered on its merits.
In conclusion, I can assure the House that it is well recognised that Wytch Farm and the proposed pipeline route are in areas of great environmental sensitivity and natural beauty where the needs of other economic activity such as tourism have to be addressed. I would remind your Lordships that Government policy on the relationship of development planning and the exploitation of minerals including oil and gas described in Planning Circular 2/85, which was circulated by the Department of the Environment in January 1985, states, among other things, that it is Government policy to ensure maximum economic exploitation of oil and gas reserves over time, consistent with good oilfield practice and with the protection of the environment. The circular also goes on to state that where particular designated areas are concerned (such as the New Forest) it is for the industry to demonstrate that the need for the development outweighs the environmental objections.
I am aware and agree that special policy considerations protect the New Forest. Indeed the South-West Hampshire Structure Plan specifically states that there is a strong presumption against development in connection with extraction of oil or gas within the perambulations of the New Forest. It was this recognition which led to the detailed discussions between the developer and all interested parties. Their discussions in turn led, I understand, to many significant changes of detail in layout, design and operating régime for the proposed development in and around Wytch Heath. It is right that the same care and attention should be applied to the proposed pipeline and that objections to it should be heard.
I am confident, and I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Mountevans, that the inspector will take all those factors into account in hearing the case and that his report will, of course, be considered most carefully by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State before deciding whether or not to approve the proposed pipeline.
House adjourned at ten minutes before six o'clock.