Sitting of 14 July 1967

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester.

ROYAL ASSENT
11.6 a.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I have to notify the House that, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts and Measures:

Marine, &c., Broadcasting (Offences),

Advertisements (Hire-Purchase),

Legal Aid (Scotland),

Public Records,

Uniform Laws on International Sales,

Protection of Birds,

Decimal Currency,

Industrial and Provident Societies,

Llangollen International Musical Eisteddfod,

Farm and Garden Chemicals,

Licensing (Amendment),

Tokyo Convention,

Prices and Incomes,

Churches and Universities (Scotland) Widows' and Orphans' Fund (Amendment) Order Confirmation,

Pittenweem Harbour Order Confirmation,

Royal Bank of Scotland Order Confirmation,

St. Andrews Links Order Confirmation,

Brunel University,

Greater London Council (General Powers),

The City University,

University of Aston in Birmingham.

Extra-Parochial Ministry Measure,

Overseas and Other Clergy (Ministry and Ordination) Measure.

HOSPITAL TREATMENT OF DRUG ADDICTS
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will confirm that they have now received replies from the hospitals addressed in Hospital Memorandum 67(16) of March 7, and will state how many hospitals have indicated that they will have in-patient and out-patient treatment centres in operation by the end of this year; and what numbers of addicts it is expected to be able to treat in them.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, all hospital boards who were asked to do so have replied to this memorandum. By about the end of this year in-patient treatment in the London area for heroin addiction is expected to be available at 10 hospitals and out-patient treatment at 14 hospitals. Detailed arrangements, including the precise number of addicts who will be able to be treated, are being discussed with the hospital authorities concerned. Outside London treatment will be available, if required, at most mental hospitals.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply, which goes some way toward meeting the widespread misgivings over the provisions which are being made to come into operation when the Dangerous Drugs Bill has been enacted. If I may say so, I do not think it goes all the way. I would ask the noble Lord how many boards in their replies have answered the detailed requests; that is to say, how many have outlined the plans they are making to expand their existing services when the Bill becomes law? Further, could I have the noble Lord's assurance that there will be a full and complete answer to my Written Question on this subject (which has been set down for a week) before we are asked to pass this Bill through its final stages?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I have not seen the noble Lord's Written Question, so I cannot give him any assurance about that. Of course, I will look at it and give him all the information I can. As to the first part of the supplementary question, discussions are now taking place with the hospital boards and there are many details to be settled. But I think the answer I have given shows that the hospital boards have been forthcoming in their replies to the inquiries.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us yet whether the clinics will be available for patients on more than one or two days a week and for what length of time during the day?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, this is precisely the kind of detail which has to be discussed. There are many unknowns in this matter and at the moment it is quite impossible to give details of that kind.
LORD SEGAL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that by far the greater number of notifications are likely to come from the London area? Will he specially emphasise the need of treatment centres within the Metropolitan area rather than in the provinces?
LORD BESWICK: Yes, my Lords. I think the Answer I have given indicates that we are aware of this fact.
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, is it not rather strange that when one puts down a Question for Written Answer, and it has been down for a week, the Minister responsible does not even know it is there?
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD SHACKLETON): A silly question!
LORD BESWICK: Strangely enough—and when the noble Lord has a little more experience he will realise this—the noble Lord will find that the Answers are compiled in the Department before being brought up to the Minister concerned.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, in my experience in the past—and the Minister might like to learn about it—it was customary for the Government Department to notify the Minister
1346
of related questions still standing on the Order Paper. Is that practice no longer adhered to?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, apart from the fact that the noble Lord's experience is a little out of date, I doubt whether he has had experience of being responsible in this House for more than one Department.

SONIC BOOMS: PROTECTION OF HISTORIC BUILDINGS
11.11 a.m.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what steps are being taken to protect buildings listed as being of architectural or historical interest from possible damage by sonic booms.]
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, at the present time supersonic flight over this country is controlled so as not to result in bangs which are likely to cause damage to buildings. No special measures of protection are therefore required.
LORD AMULREE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his reply which, if I may say so, does not take us very far. I should like to put a supplementary question. Can the noble Lord say whether any particular steps are being taken to monitor these supersonic bangs, so that we can be sure that no long-distance damage can be done to towers, tall buildings and so on?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, my right honourable friends the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Minister of Public Building and Works are, obviously, both very concerned, and in particular with their responsibilities for listed buildings. I can assure the noble Lord that they have arranged for the position to be systematically watched. Any reports of damage will be carefully investigated.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I take it from the reply of the noble Lord that there is no possibility of damage from this series of tests to some of our greatest and oldest buildings; namely, the English cathedrals, their fabric and their glass.

1347
As this is a matter which, very naturally, is arousing a great deal of public interest and disquiet, can the noble Lord tell us when it is the Government's intention to publish the results of this series of tests? Is there a chance of some interim statement being made by the Government?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, obviously I cannot give an absolute guarantee, but the intention is that there should be no damage. Obviously it would be alarming and worrying if there were, and one of the purposes of the tests is to establish what risk there is, although we think the risk is very negligible. But it would, I am afraid, be unwise for me to give a guarantee. After all, windows can be damaged in all sorts of circumstances, even by strong gusts of wind. As regards the publication of the information, I understand that my right honourable friend the Minister of Technology is hoping to make a Statement before the Summer Adjournment, and I hope that it will contain the sort of information the noble Earl is seeking.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords—
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether it is true that buildings were damaged in Bristol, including windows being—
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lady? The Leader of the House is not here, and as the Deputy—
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, I am here!
LORD SHACKLETON: Oh, then you adjudicate.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords—
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: Do not wear yourself out!
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: I will obey the last request.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, while my noble friend may not have had any report regarding damage to buildings, can he tell the House whether he has any reports regarding damage to carefully adjusted scientific instruments,
1348
or to the performance of surgeons doing delicate operations, such as heart operations?
LORD SHACKLETON: No, my Lords; and these are obviously very serious and weighty points. Certainly I have had no reports, but clearly, if such reports came in they would be grounds for serious alarm. Undoubtedly, if such reports did come in, they would be very seriously investigated. It is, of course, the object of the tests to see what hazards there are, but I will certainly note my noble friend's point.
I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Horsbrugh; it was rather my impression that questioners tended to alternate from each side of the Chamber. In any case I could not hear what she said. If the noble Lady would care to ask her supplementary question now, I should be very glad to try to answer it.
BARONESS HORSBRUGH: My Lords, can the Minister say whether it is true that damage was done to buildings in Bristol, including the breaking of windows?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I would ask the noble Lady to wait for the evaluation of these results. There have been various reports. There have been a number of complaints and some people who have not been complaining—although I do not know positively whether they were also the people who enjoyed the bangs.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, will my noble friend do his best to ensure that none of these sonic boom tests take place over the City of York, as York Minster is showing grave signs of weakness? Considerable cracks have developed in the fabric, and in view of the danger, and in order to preserve that wonderful structure, will my noble friend do his best to ensure that booms do not take place over the City of York?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, obviously there was concern, particularly about York Minster, but there are many other buildings some, perhaps, not of quite the same important nature. Obviously, these matters are being considered. There is a certain element of risk, but we have to settle what the consequences of supersonic flying are going to

1349
be rather than suddenly launch into them, possibly with much greater danger and much greater financial loss.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, a question which I asked the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, on July 4? It is this. In view of the fact that this is a small island, is it necessary to have supersonic booms over the land at all? Is it not possible for the boom to take place over the sea? Secondly, is the noble Lord aware that the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, informed the House that the transatlantic airliner booms would be over South Wales, and as a result there has been considerable anxiety in South Wales as to what this is going to mean?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I recently looked up what my noble friend Lord Beswick said. I do not recall him actually saying that the booms would be over South Wales as much as over—but we need not argue about that. On the general point, it is of course true that it would be possible to ensure that in respect of aircraft leaving Britain and flying to the United States of America there were no sonic booms over England. But this affects the whole question of the deployment and operation of these sonic aircraft throughout the world. If supersonic booms are not acceptable over this country, they are not likely to be acceptable over other countries. This is what we are seeking to establish. Clearly, if the tests were to show that the hazards, whether of a generalised kind, in respect of buildings, or more specific—and possibly more alarming—such as were mentioned by my noble friend Lady Summer-skill, are of a kind that cannot be accepted, there would have to be restriction on the use of these aircraft. But at this stage the last thing we want to do is to accept that such restriction will be necessary, and the purpose of these tests is to begin to establish what the position is. I hope that I have answered the noble Lord's point. It would be possible to confine these bangs to the sea so far as aircraft on the transatlantic
1350
route from this country is concerned, but one would, of course, hope for a wider operation.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for his courtesy in that reply and draw his attention to column 519 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of July 4, when the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, stated that the supersonic speed will not be reached until the aircraft is above "where the noble Lord was born"—in my case, that is South Wales, since Glamorgan is in South Wales. So in this case South Wales does come into it. May I also ask the noble Lord to have regard to the fact that there is no need to have universality in discomfort? If we could do without sonic booms, even though America has to have them, it would be an extremely good thing.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think my noble friend said about where the noble Lord was born. I admit that he is unlikely to have been born in the Bristol Channel. That is the point where, on an ordinary flying planning basis, aircraft would reach supersonic speed. But an adjustment could be made. I have noted the noble Lord's later point. I think it raises difficult ethical and political questions.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I have had some experience of this over South Wales. I remember some few short years ago hearing a series of bangs in South Wales which I could not account for by Ministers dropping bricks, so I just wondered.
LORD SHACKLETON: I thank the noble Lord for his helpful contribution. He mentioned "some years ago". There have been supersonic booms for quite a while over this country, and there have been supersonic bangs regularly in large numbers over France for some time.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, will the Government be careful to ensure that a large number of supersonic booms take place over any constituency that happens to be having a by-election?

HONG KONG'S WATER SUPPLIES
11.22 a.m.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what information they have with regard to the supply of water from the mainland of China to Hong Kong.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the Agreement of April, 1964, with the Chinese authorities provides for the supply of 15,000 million gallons of wafer annually from October 1 to June 30. This contractual obligation has been met for the period ending June 30, 1967, plus an agreed additional 1,800 million gallons. A request for a further additional amount of 2,000 million gallons for July and for August has not been met. The requirement for this additional amount is created by this year's unusually low rainfall. Given normal rainfall during the remainder of the wet season, it is anticipated that the present ration of water can be maintained, even if supplies from the mainland are not resumed next October under the 1964 contract.
LORD ROWLEY: My Lords, could my noble friend indicate whether adequate reserve storage is available and whether plans exist for the supply of alternative sources of water in the event of an emergency?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the possibility of obtaining additional supplies from other sources is being considered, because if the rains fail this year a very serious situation can arise. On the question of the storage of water, on the completion of the Plover Cove scheme next year Hong Kong's existing water storage capacity, which at present is approximately 16,000 million gallons, will be increased to approximately 46,000 million gallons, but they will still require assistance in conditions of normal rainfall to maintain the 24-hour supply throughout the year. However, it will be possible, when this storage capacity is available, to maintain a limited daily supply without water from China, even in periods of drought.
LORD RHODES: My Lords, is it not a fact that there is a large amount of
1352
water available on the mainland, that the water men in Hong Kong and in Canton are in daily communication and that the Canton water men say that they cannot turn the water on without permission from Peking? May I therefore make the suggestion that, even if it needs a special emissary to go to Peking, going to Peking might at least give a lead as to Chinese future policy towards Hong Kong itself?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am greatly obliged to my noble friend. He knows a good deal about local conditions in and around Hong Kong. I can tell him that we and the Hong Kong authorities are considering the possibility of an approach to Peking.
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, may I take it from the noble Lord's reply to the supplementary of the noble Lord, Lord Rowley, that firm contingency plans already exist for bringing adequate supplies of water into Hong Kong by sea?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, it would depend of course on what the noble Earl means by "adequate". As to the "firm contingency plans", the availability of tankers comes into this question, and I cannot give a guarantee of that.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, is it not a fact that in the last few days the rains have commenced in Hong Kong and that that has helped the immediate situation? Is it not also a fact that when the Plover Cove project comes into operation most of the anxiety about water in Hong Kong will be overcome?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, the answer to both parts of the noble Lord's supplementary question is, Yes. I may add that in 1963–64, when a drought was experienced, the present level of rationing of water was endured for 12 months, so that there is a period within which contingency planning can take place.
LORD CACCIA: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord about the possibility of a desalinisation plant? I realise that the present supplies depend partly on circumstances wholly outside our control—on China, on the one hand, and on the rains, on the other.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I rather expected a question of that kind from the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, who has shown a great interest in this subject. I cannot

1353
give the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, any information about any project at present in mind, but certainly this is one possibility.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that my reluctance to ask a question of this kind about Hong Kong is due to my interest in a desalinisation plant for Malta, whose need is more urgent than that of Hong Kong?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I have in mind the noble Lord's interest in Malta. That is why I mentioned the matter.

THE MOTOR INDUSTRY
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what are their plans for assisting the expansion of the motor industry; and whether they will make a Statement.]
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, it is still too early to assess the effects of the recent relaxations in hire-purchase restrictions on motor cars, but figures available for new and used H.P. car sales in June show an encouraging improvement over the earlier months of this year. Possibilities of expansion will continue to be explored in the National Advisory Council for the Motor Manufacturing Industry and in the E.D.C. for the Motor Vehicle Industry, which has recently been set up.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that optimistic reply, do Her Majesty's Government realise that their view is not shared by the leaders of the motor industry, who are extremely pessimistic about immediate prospects, and that any reader of the newspapers will see that there are growing chances of short-time working in important sections of the industry? Could the Government give urgent consideration to reducing the purchase tax rates and also to a further improvement in the hire-purchase arrangements?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know from his past experience,
1354
at this time of the year there is often short-time working in the motor car industry. As for the difference of opinion between what I have said and the opinions of the newspapers, I feel that we should wait a little longer until the full effects of the recent relaxations are seen, before making any other plans or promises.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, in regard to the present relaxations, one important difference is that new car sales have not benefited from what should have been an upsurge in second-hand car sales. In other words, the normal pattern has not been followed in this case. Would the Government therefore look closely at the fact that the normal upsurge has not followed after the reduction of hire-purchase restrictions?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord is quite right there. The fact is that improvement is usually just apparent in the second-hand market, and I understand that that improvement has already taken place. So far as the new car market is concerned, the reduction in output last month was 5 per cent. as compared with output in June of the previous year, but that compares with a reduction of 30 per cent. over the previous five months of this year. So there is an upturn in the new car sales. I think it will not be until about the third week in August, when we get the full figures for July, that we can make a firm estimate of the results of the recent relaxation.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
11.31 a.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in the name of my noble friend the Leader of the House. The suspension of Standing Order No. 41 is customary just before the Parliamentary Recess, but to the best of my knowledge, we have not previously suspended Standing Order No. 35 in relation to Special Orders. As the House will know, Special Orders, which are important forms on legislation, are required to be taken first. There are, of course, occasions when some Special Orders raise a serious debate, and others when there is merely an explanation. There is also the consequence, I suppose, that the House gets a little restive

1355
and would prefer to move on to the main item on the Order Paper.
What we are now proposing until the Summer Recess is that, by agreement through the usual channels, those Orders which we do not think raise great matters of controversy should be taken at the end of the day, but if there is an Order which in our view is likely to cause serious debate, then that will be treated as in the past. I hope the House will agree to this suggestion. If we can watch it with interest, it might be a matter which we could refer to the Procedure Committee in the next Session to see whether it should not be a regular feature of our Business.
Moved, That Standing Order No. 35 (Arrangement of the Order Paper) be suspended until the House adjourns for the Summer Recess so far as is necessary to allow Special Orders to be taken after Public Bills, Measures and Motions; and that Standing Order No. 41 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be suspended for the same period.—(Lord Shepherd.)
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in what he has said about these Orders. I think it is highly desirable that there should be flexibility as to when they are taken, and if this experiment is successful, I hope that it will become a permanent feature.

AGRICULTURE (TRACTOR CABS) REGULATIONS 1967
11.33 a.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD WALSTON): My Lords, I beg to move that the Agriculture (Tractor Cabs) Regulations 1967 be approved. The object of these Regulations is to deal with the very serious problem of deaths due to the overturning of agricultural tractors. This, as those of your Lordships who are interested in the problem will know, is far and away the most common cause of death in agriculture. Last year, fifty-three people were killed by overturning
tractors, and over the past ten years the rate has been running at an average of just over forty-two deaths per year. This represents about one-third of all the fatalities in agriculture during that period.
1356
Over the past years many attempts have been made to deal with this serious problem by means of exhortation, education, through the Advisory Services, agricultural shows and so on; and it is fair to say that, as a result of this propaganda effort, everybody to-day connected with agriculture is well aware of the problem. But, even so, as the figures I have just quoted show, there has unfortunately been no reduction in the number of fatal accidents caused by overturning tractors. Therefore something more effective than exhortation is needed.
There are some people who believe that the key to this problem lies in the design of the tractor: that if tractors are designed with a lower centre of gravity the risk of overturning will be greatly reduced, and therefore the number of fatalities will be reduced also. That may well be so—I do not for one moment say that it is not an important line which could be pursued—but we have to face the fact that over the past forty years it has been impossible to design a tractor which is immune, in certain circumstances, from overturning. If we were to wait for such a design to appear, I am afraid we should have to wait for many years, and in the meantime many deaths would ensue. I am sure noble Lords will agree that we should not wait for that but should do all we can now to reduce these deaths.
These Regulations, I believe, will do just that. They require the use on all agricultural tractors driven by employed workers of safety cabs or safety frames designed to protect the driver from being crushed if his tractor overturns. I may say, in parenthesis, that similar Regulations were introduced in Sweden in 1959, and since that time there has been only one death from an overturning tractor, and that occurred to a driver who attempted to jump clear of the tractor instead of remaining inside the cab. It has been suggested that the danger of overturning might be increased by raising the centre of gravity of the
tractor; but I do not believe this to be true. The weight of the protective cab will be a very slight addition to the tractor, and certainly no greater than that of many cabs already fitted.
To turn to the Regulations, they require that every new tractor shall be

1357
fitted with an approved safety cab or frame before being sold or let on hire for agricultural use. They will oblige the employer to ensure that every tractor driven by his workers is properly fitted with an approved cab or frame, and oblige every worker not to drive a tractor unless it is so fitted. These requirements are contained in Regulations 4 and 5; the rest are really ancillary to them.
Regulation 3 deals with the approval of safety cabs. It may be convenient if from now on I refer simply to "cab", although this term will embrace also the use of the safety frame. The Ministers will be empowered to approve safety cabs for use with particular types of tractor, and must satisfy themselves that any such cab will meet the British Standard Specification for the Safety Requirements and Testing of Safety Cabs and Frames for Agricultural Wheeled Tractors. Perhaps I should remind your Lordships that these Regulations apply only to wheeled tractors, and not to track-laying tractors, where the risk, because of the lower centre of gravity, is much less. Approved cabs will have to be marked to show that they are approved, and for which tractors, and Regulation 7 confines to the cab manufacturers the right to apply these marks unless someone else is given written consent to do so. Regulation 6 obliges the worker to report to his employer if his tractor overturns or if his safety cab or its fittings sustains damage.
Regulation 5(4) deals with the circumstances in which tractors were permitted to
be used without a safety cab. There are clearly some agricultural operations in which it is impossible to use a tractor with a cab. We think the essential categories are hop-gardens, orchards, and buildings. A measure of exemption for those occasions when a cab cannot be used, and for driving to or from such work, has been provided. But these exemptions apply only when it is not reasonably practicable to use a cab. Regulation 8 includes provision for Ministers to grant specific, as distinct from general, exemptions from the Regulations. This power will mainly be used for research and development, but may also be used sparingly in respect of specialised operations or equipment which can be shown to render the use of a cab impossible. As I have indicated,
1358
these cases are expected to be few. Manufacturers know what factors they must take into account in their designs, and the British Standard includes provision for testing cabs in conditions of practical use.
The final main point concerns the dates of coming into operation. The Regulations dealing with approval and marking will come into force at once, so that certificates of approval may be issued as soon as possible in respect of cabs which are already available. The rest of the Regulations will apply to new tractors in three years' time. This is the minimum time needed to ensure adequate production of cabs for all the tractors which will have to be fitted. Tractors sold before September 1, 1970, will not be affected until seven years after that date. I know that that is a fairly long time, but obviously there must be a balance between allowing drivers and farmers to continue indefinitely using tractors without safety cabs, on the one hand, and, on the other, diverting resources to the provision and testing of cabs for a comparatively small number of different types of obsolescent tractors. I believe that ten years from now gives a reasonable balance between these two opposing points of view. In the meantime, I certainly hope that farmers will fit safety cabs as soon as they are available, both for their workers' safety and for their own peace of mind. Advice will readily be available from the Agricultural Departments.
Consultation, naturally, has taken place over the past years with all the interested organisation. They have given a great deal of help, and I am most grateful to them for having done this. I am glad to say, too, that there has been a wide measure of agreement. Unfortunately, complete agreement has not been reached with the National Farmers' Union, though the Farmers' Unions of Wales and of Scotland are in favour of these provisions. The National Farmers' Union accept that many of the points they have raised have been satisfactorily dealt with, but they still believe that research into tractor design would provide an adequate solution of the problem. But, as I have already said, it is our own view that to wait for such solution would take far too long, and that far too many avoidable deaths would ensue in the meantime.

1359
Of course, there are several opinions as to the proper balance between the need for new safety measures and the need to avoid unreasonable interference with agricultural practice. All these matters have been gone into very thoroughly indeed, and no hasty decision has been reached. These proposals are, I believe, about right, and I am quite sure that this will be increasingly recognised over the years to come. My Lords, these are among the most important of the farm safety regulations that have been so far produced. I am sure they will reduce, and I hope eventually eliminate altogether, deaths from overturning tractors, and I commend them to your Lordships.
Moved, That the Draft Agriculture (Tractor Cabs) Regulations 1967, laid before the House on 31st May 1967, be approved.—(Lord Walston.)
11.44 a.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Walston, for introducing these new safety Regulations for tractor cabs. When one looks at the number of Regulations that have come forward in the last five, six or seven years for the safety of farmers and farm workers, I think one can only say that this is another useful addition to that list. Anyone who listens to the noble Lord, and hears that last year 53 people were killed as a result of overturning tractors, can only be glad if anything is done to prevent, or to reduce the number of, these deaths. The noble Lord said that a certain amount could be done by education, and that a certain amount of education had been embarked upon. But, of course, education in itself will not solve the problem. You can educate people as much as you like, but these accidents happen all of a sudden to people who are fully aware of the dangers involved in driving tractors. I think the reason is probably that these machines have become more mobile and more powerful, and are in more common use. At all events, I welcome any Regulations designed to avoid the occurrence of these deaths.
Nevertheless, there are drawbacks to this scheme. Putting a cab on a tractor very often limits its usefulness. In the past five years the appearance of cabs on tractors has been a relatively new thing, and this has been done mostly for
1360
the purpose of comfort of the operator, and not for the purpose of safety. But, of course, they do limit the visibility, and there is no doubt that making it compulsory that all tractors should have cabs is bound to have certain drawbacks.
Regulation 3(7)(b)(ii) refers to the tests which the Minister may require before approving a certain cab. Do the manufacturers know what these tests are? Do they know what specifications will now be required of them? I ask this because a number of cabs are being produced at the moment, and I should think it would be extremely helpful, if not to the owners, at least to the manufacturers, to know whether the cabs they are producing at the moment are of a type that will be covered by these Regulations, or whether their manufacturing runs will have to be scrapped. Regulation 4 says that each cab must have the number of the tractor to which it belongs. I wonder what happens if a farmer changes his tractor. Can he remove the cab and place it on to a new one? If so, what happens about the number of the cab?—because the number which appears on the cab refers to the tractor from which it has been removed. If the number may be changed, who changes it? Is it the farmer or the dealer? What safeguards are there to prevent any form of malpractice in this way?
One of the drawbacks with tractors, as the noble Lord said, is their high centre of gravity, and I agree that, although a cab would increase the centre of gravity, it may not increase it very much. In any event, it is going to be difficult to decrease the centre of gravity, when this is dependent so much on the rear driving wheels, which tend to get larger.
I would draw attention to two further points in connection with the safety of these implements, which might be considered for the future. One is the length of the drawbar behind the back axle. The further the drawbar goes to the rear of the back axle, the more this acts as a lever whenever the weight is placed upon it. The second frequent cause of the overturning of tractors occurs when well-meaning farmers try to remove a tree stump, and attach a rope between the tractor and the tree stump. Provided the wheels turn, either the tractor goes forward and the stump comes out,

1361
or the tractor remains in the same position and merely up-ends itself. Both these points, I should have thought, are worthy of consideration for the future.
I do not know how much these cabs will cost, but at the moment a cab—and this is not a safety cab—may cost anything up to £80. Let us assume that there would be a reasonable run—indeed there would be a reasonable run—of cabs and the price was reduced to £60 per cab. If there are 40,000 tractors purchased per year, we are in fact talking of a sum of £2¼ million under these Regulations. This is the sum that is going to be required annually to be spent by farmers on safety cabs. One cannot help wondering where this money will come from. Will it come directly out of the pockets of the farmers; or will it be taken into account in the Price Review; or how is it to be financed? Indeed, is this the best way of spending this sum of £2¼ million in order to save deaths?
I would comment on only two other points on these Regulations which seem to me quite remarkable. One is that it is said that you need not use a cab if you are involved in a building. This, of course, is perfectly understandable. What happens when a farmer decides to clean out his cowshed or piggery or poultry house, which involves taking his tractor frequently into the building, filling up his trailer, and going out of the building, attaching the tractor to the trailer, and taking it to the field? Under these Regulations, as I understand them, once he has filled up his trailer he must then go out with his tractor, put a cab upon it, drive off to the field, empty his load of muck, come back to the building and remove the cab before entering the building. This is a complete illogicality. I am not sure whether it is actually intended by the Regulations, but as I see it, if a farmer goes to the field with the muck without a cab on the tractor he will be infringing the Regulations. What does the noble Lord propose to do about that?
Lastly, if these Regulations are sound for agriculture, it seems extraordinary that they should refer only to people who are employed in agriculture and that there is no obligation upon the farmer, when he is driving a tractor,
1362
to be covered with a cab. In other words, he must see that his employees are covered with a safety cab, but he may take the same tractor and do precisely the same work and need not be covered by a safety cab. If there is any value in these Regulations, I respectfully suggest that they should refer to the farmer as well as to his employees.
11.51 a.m.
LORD CHAMPION: My Lords, I join with the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in welcoming these Regulations. He has asked a number of pertinent questions, the answers to which will be extremely interesting. I have watched this problem for some little time as a result of my short association with the Department. I am not at all happy about the fact that it seems that such a long time will elapse before these Regulations really begin to "bite". This worries me very much because of the number of deaths involved. In Wales, where I live, many of these accidents occur on hillsides, where farm tractors without cabs ought not to be used at all in any circumstances from this moment on. Indeed, they ought not to have been used heretofore without some considerable safety device such as is projected here.
I do not like the date of 1977. It seems such a long way off and I should have thought the whole process could have been squeezed up so that we could avoid these frightening casualties, the figures of which my noble friend has given to the House. Having expressed my doubts and worries about the length of time before these Regulations really begin to operate, I am bound to say that I welcome them as a considerable step forward in the interests of the safety of workers in this great industry.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, if I may reply to the questions put to me by the noble Lords who have spoken, I should like to deal first with the point made by my noble friend Lord Champion when he suggested that the delay was too long. As I said in my opening remarks, one has to hold the balance between bringing this in rapidly, and therefore making certain obsolescent tractors more rapidly obsolete, or involving the farmers in a certain amount of expense for a tractor which is not going to be used very much. We have been pressed, on

1363
the one hand, as my noble friend has done, to do this more rapidly, and, on the other hand, to give a rather longer transitional period.
As I have said, I feel that the three-year period for new tractors and the seven-year period thereafter is the right balance. I would point out that it is not a question of waiting for ten years until anything is done. Every new tractor sold after 1970 will have to be so equipped, so that there will be an increasing proportion of tractors which are properly equipped from 1970 onwards, and indeed I hope rather sooner than that, because I am sure that some farmers will take advantage of safety cabs and frames sooner than that date.
The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, asked a large number of pertinent questions, which I will try to answer briefly. He pointed out that cabs limit visibility. That is true, but I would remind him that although this Order is called the Agriculture (Tractor Cabs) Regulations, it applies in fact to frames as well as cabs. The title is a form of shorthand, simply using "cabs" instead of "cabs and frames". It will be quite permissible for those farmers who do not wish to have the entire closed cab simply to have a safety frame, which will not in any way impede visibility. Advice to manufacturers will be available from now on as to the standards, and they will be working in close collaboration with the British Standards Institution so that they can start manufacture immediately.
With regard to the number that is to be put both on the cab and on the tractor, one has only to put on the serial number of the cab so that it may be checked with the design, and so on. The names and the makes for which its use is permitted must also be put there. If a cab is subsequently approved for another make it may be used, even if the name of the tractor is not on it. In other words, it is not the registration number of the tractor which has to be put on but the serial number of the cab, and each cab or frame will be approved for one or more types of tractor.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? I should like to point out that it says in the Regulations, under 4(a)(iii):
1364
"marked with supplementary marks which include the name of the make, and the name or number of the model, of that tractor".
I thought that referred to the registration number.
LORD WALSTON: No, my Lords; it is the model of the tractor. For instance, it may be approved for a Fordson 5,000, and it has to be shown that it is approved for that type of tractor. It may subsequently be approved for a Massey-Ferguson 375; that can then be put on and it can be used for that type also. The length of drawbar, which was mentioned by the noble Earl, is a very important point. It is one of which the manufacturers of tractors are well aware, and I am sure they take it very much into consideration in their designs.
With regard to the cost of fitting safety cabs, which the noble Earl worked out at £2¼ million or thereabouts, on the face of it that figure may appear to be a fair one, but I would suggest to the noble Earl that in fact very many tractor users, as he has said, already use cabs of one kind or another, and I think the chances are that by 1970 the vast majority of tractors on farms will be fitted with cabs. There will be some slight extra cost for the safety frame or cab, but it will not be anything in the order of £60 or £70 over and above the cost of the normal cab. Therefore, I think the actual figure will be very much smaller than that mentioned by the noble Earl.
As to how that amount will be paid, as the noble Earl knows in the Annual Price Review all relevant costs are taken into consideration, and if it is maintained and upheld that it is relevant that the cost of machinery has increased, for this or any other cause, naturally that will be taken into consideration in the Price Review, not specifically, but in the general overall picture. The noble Earl also asked whether this was the best way of spending this amount of money. In view of the fact that tractor deaths are possibly rising and not falling, and have reached the figure of one every week, and are far and away the biggest single cause of deaths on farms, I believe it is the best way of spending the money.
The noble Earl raised another difficult point, I admit: that of cleaning out yards and going to and from work. I am afraid that it would vitiate a very large part of these Regulations if one

1365
could say that in such circumstances exemption would be given and a farmer could go out or allow his tractor to go out from the yard. Of course, it does not apply to the farmer himself. He may wish to drive the tractor himself and take his own risks, but I will come to that in a moment. It may be that there are two tractors on the farm, one can be used inside and one outside and so on. It is a real problem but one where, if we were to make exemptions here, I think we should get into trouble with my noble friend Lord Champion for whittling away an Order which, in his opinion and that of many people, is already somewhat overdue.
The final point concerned the farmer as opposed to the worker: why this applies only to the employees and not to the farmer himself. The Act under which this Regulation is made does not allow us to deal with self-employed persons. Parliament, in its wisdom, decided that this general Act was for the safety of employees and not employers, and so we should be completely out of order if the Regulations were extended to cover the farmer himself, a self-employed man. I am grateful to noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I think their views have been extremely valuable. I am also grateful for the support they have given to these Regulations.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CIVIL DEFENCE (PUBLIC PROTECTION) REGULATIONS 1967
12.2 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft Civil Defence (Public Protection) Regulations 1967, a copy of which was laid before this House on June 22, be approved. Your Lordships will recall that on December 14 my noble friend, Lord Bowles, made a Statement in the House about civil defence and, in particular, about the decisions which the Government had reached, in our review of home defence preparations, on local authority civil defence and the Civil Defence Corps. I was very sorry that I was prevented from being here to in-
1366
form your Lordships of those decisions on matters which are very dear to me, and I was most grateful to my noble friend for so ably discharging that duty for me at very short notice. In his Statement, my noble friend said that under the new scheme for civil defence which he outlined, local authority employees would be asked to play a bigger part in helping local authorities to carry out their civil defence functions.
On March 22 in the debate on the Motion on Civil Defence moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Younger of Leckie, I said that the foundation of our civil defence preparations is the provision of an effective, emergency system of control. This system of government in emergency, for that is what it is, would provide, if the need should ever arise, the essential control of life-saving operations, and, at a later stage, it would provide a framework of civil administration, so that the available surviving resources could be used to the best advantage of the community, so that men, women and children might have the means to go on living and so that we might move, however slowly, towards the restoration of some form of ordered life. The controls at local authority level are a vital part of this system, and local authorities must arrange to discharge their civil defence responsibilities, so far as they can, through the medium of their own staffs. In this way, we could make full use in emergency of the invaluable knowledge and experience gained in peace by those who work in local government.
The Regulations now before you are necessary to make explicit the duty of local authorities to train their staffs to help in manning the control system. This training is necessary because in the dire conditions which would follow nuclear
attack there would inevitably be drastic changes in the scope and nature of the duties of local authority staffs. We recognise that they may not be able to man all the controls at all levels without assistance, and local authorities will therefore continue to look for help to members of the Civil Defence Corps, to whom we are deeply indebted for the great public service which they give so readily.
The draft Regulations place the function of training local authority staffs on

1367
the councils of counties, county boroughs, London boroughs, the City, and certain specified county districts, which are named in these Regulations. Local authorities under Regulation 2 will be required, in carrying out their functions, to comply with any direction given by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. If the draft Regulations are approved, my right honourable friend will issue directions, in the form of a circular to local authorities, about the training of staff.
Apart from the express provision for training, the draft Regulations follow broadly the Civil Defence (Public Protection) Regulations 1949, which they will replace. We have taken the opportunity to make some amendments to bring the 1949 Regulations up to date. It is over seventeen years since those Regulations were made, and in that time we have seen the hydrogen bomb succeed the atomic bombs of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the development of missiles instead of aeroplanes as the means of delivery.
Perhaps I may very briefly draw attention to some points on which noble Lords may find it helpful to have some explanation. Regulation 1, with Schedule 1, will confer on the specified local authorities the civil defence functions which are set out in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the Regulation. It authorises the making of plans, and the taking of necessary preparatory measures, whether or not an attack has occurred. It requires the local authorities to maintain the system of reporting and control for the carrying out of life-saving measures and measures for survival of which I spoke earlier. Regulation 1 also confers the functions of rescuing trapped persons, taking certain protective measures against the effects of radiation and biological or chemical warfare, and instructing and advising the public on the effects of hostile attack and on the protective measures which they could take. This last function would include, for example, the giving of advice about the preparation of fall-out rooms in houses in a period of tension.
1368
There are other Regulations which have been in existence for some years requiring local authorities to provide training in the civil defence field for their staffs—for example, the Civil Defence (Emergency Feeding) Regulations 1951. The consultations with the local authority associations and the National and Local Government Officers Association on the draft Regulations have been satisfactorily completed, and I should like to thank them for their very helpful co-operation. The associations representing the authorities on whom the draft Regulations confer functions do not dissent from the proposals. The National and Local Government Officers Association is content on the understanding that it will be for local authorities to seek the voluntary co-operation of their staffs in this training. The draft Regulations do not seek to place any statutory obligation upon local authority staffs.
These Regulations, together with the draft Regulations which have been laid before Parliament by my right honourable friend, the Minister of Health, for which my noble friend Lord Sorensen will seek approval later, are designed to enable local authorities to implement the new arrangements for local authority civil defence which were fully discussed in our March debate. The Government are confident that by carrying out these measures we shall maintain, on the most economical basis, a pattern of civil defence preparations which, if there were a nuclear attack on this country, would enable many millions of lives to be saved. As such I commend these draft Regulations to your Lordships for approval. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Civil Defence (Public Protection) Regulations 1967, laid before the House on 22nd June 1967, be approved.—(Lord Stonham.)
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for having given the House so much detail in regard to these Regulations. We wish them well.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CIVIL DEFENCE (CASUALTY SERVICES) REGULATIONS 1967
12.11 p.m.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I beg to move that the Civil Defence (Casualty Services) Regulations 1967, laid before this House on June 26, be approved. A good deal of what I have to say will be supplementary and complementary to the statement already made by my noble friend Lord Stonham. Therefore the House will excuse me if sometimes my remarks appear to be superfluous.
I am sure that any noble Lord who has looked back on the debate that took place in this House on March 22 cannot but be filled with a certain melancholy at the thought that this possibility of racial homicide is a contingency for the future. Although there are those who contend that little can be done in these catastrophic circumstances, naturally we must do all we can to prepare at least for the possibility of some surviving from an onslaught that could no doubt be taking place, not only in this country but in other countries at the same time. For that reason, quite rightly, these two sets of Regulations are put before your Lordships' House.
My noble friend Lord Stonham has referred to-day, as he did on March 22, to the necessary changes which, on the grounds of both efficiency and economy, were apparently accepted at that time. One result of this change is that the Civil Defence Act 1948, are now in available members for providing ambulance and first aid services: the role of the Corps in relation to the casualty services of local authorities will be to provide a limited number of specialists to help to organise the first aid services. For this reason, new regulations are required to permit the training of other persons who will be engaged in these services.
These Regulations, which my right honourable friend the Minister of Health proposes to make under Section 2 of the Civil Defence Act 1948, are now in draft before the House. They consolidate, with amendments, two existing sets of Civil Defence Regulations relating to the war-time ambulance and first aid services provided by local authorities. These Regulations, which were approved
1370
by Resolutions of the House in 1949 and 1954, gave to county and county borough councils, and, by virtue of a provision in the London Government Act 1963, the Greater London Council, a duty to formulate plans for the expansion of the peace-time ambulance service and the provision of a service for the collection and removal of casualties in the event of hostile action or the threat of hostile action. These plans require trained manpower, and the Regulations provide for the training by local authorities of members of the staffs of their peace-time ambulance services and also members of ambulance and first aid sections of the Civil Defence Corps.
As I have already said, the draft Instrument consolidates two sets of existing regulations. Regulations 2(a) and (b) continue the duty placed on local authorities to plan for the provision of casualty and first aid services and for the expansion of the peace-time ambulance services. Regulation 2(c) provides in general terms for the training of persons who would be engaged in those services now or in the future. And Regulations 2(d), (e) and (f) continue provision made in the existing Regulations relating to vehicles, limitations affecting the peace-time services and the co-operation between local authorities in the way they discharge their functions.
I should explain one change that has been made in the local authorities concerned with these duties. Section 49 of the London Government Act of 1963 applied to the Greater London Council the provision of the existing Regulations concerned with ambulance and first aid services. This provision is to be repealed by Regulation 3 of the Draft Regulations because it is no longer required. But it is proposed that while the augmentation of the ambulance service in London should continue to be the duty of the Greater London Council, because it is the peace-time ambulance authority, the duty for providing a first aid service in London should be the responsibility of the London borough councils and the Common Council of the City of London. These authorities have smaller areas and are therefore more suitable for planning first aid services. This change has been agreed with the Greater London Council and the London Boroughs Committee, and is provided

1371
for in Regulation 1 of the Draft Regulations.
Perhaps I may add just one or two other small details about the main changes made by the Regulations, which relate to the training of persons engaged in the war-time ambulance and first aid services. For the first aid services my right honourable friend the Minister of Health proposes to ask the local authorities concerned to plan on the basis that those trained members of the St. John Ambulance Brigade and the British Red Cross Society having no other war-time commitment would make their services available in war time. These two organisations have agreed to planning proceeding on this basis and I should like to pay tribute (as I am sure we all do) to the way in which their Headquarters have co-operated in the discussions. I am quite sure the county organisations of the two bodies which have done so much good work in the past and will do in the future, will respond equally readily when they are approached by the local authorities for their areas. Their members are, of course, already trained in first aid. They will, however, need training on the background against which they would work in war time, and some will need training in the specialised work of war-time first aid organisation or casualty sorting. Local authorities will be permitted to make arrangements for such training, or assist the training provided by the two bodies themselves by the provisions of Regulation 2(c).
For the ambulance services, local authorities will continue to make the maximum use of their peace-time ambulance staffs who will be trained to provide operational control and officer direction of the expanded ambulance services. My right honourable friend the Minister of Health intends to create a new volunteer Civil Defence body under Section 1 of the Civil Defence Act 1948 which will provide the additional manpower required in the expanding services. This body, which will be called "The Ambulance Reserve", will be organised in divisions based on the areas of the ambulance authorities. Members will be persons licensed to drive motor cars who have
1372
no war-time commitment and who would be willing to drive an ambulance if there was a war-time emergency. My right honourable friend the Minister of Health is hoping for a good response to the recruitment campaigns which he proposes to ask the ambulance authorities to launch. Local authorities may also wish to provide training for other members of their staff—mainly in ambulance and first aid services or in casualty sorting duties—and for persons trained in first aid who are not employed by the authorities and are not members of the St. John Ambulance Brigade or the British Red Cross Society. They will be able to do this under the provisions of Regulation 2(c).
Finally, Regulation 3 requires local authorities to comply with any direction given by my right honourable friend the Minister of Health. This provision derives directly from Section 2(2)(a) of the Civil Defence Act 1948. There has been full consultation with the local authority associations about the arrangements which I have described. These, I believe, have been entirely satisfactory. If these Regulations are approved they will come into operation on September 1 this year. I hope that the House will now approve these Regulations, and I recommend that it should do so. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Civil Defence (Casualty Services) Regulations 1967, laid before the House on June 26, 1967, be approved.—(Lord Sorensen.)
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for having followed his noble friend in furnishing the House with the details of these Regulations. The Civil Defence is so seldom appreciated to the full, and the people who work for it are so seldom thanked for what they do, that if these Regulations will help the Civil Defence in their work then we shall be very happy with them.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

ROAD TRANSPORT LIGHTING BILL
Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

POST OFFICE (DATA PROCESSING SERVICE) BILL
12.22 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. As your Lordships will have perceived, this is basically an enabling Bill. It is a short Bill, but it is certainly not an unimportant one. The Post Office Act 1961 sets out what amounts to a list of purposes on which money may be spent from the Post Office Fund. At the same time, it prevents the Postmaster General from making payments, other than those expressly provided for, from any sources other than the Post Office Fund. The list of purposes is quite wide enough for the Postmaster General to buy computers for the purposes of the Post Office, and to make available to any interested person any spare capacity there may happen incidentally to be when the Post Office has made all use that it needs of those computers. But the list of purposes is not wide enough for the Postmaster General to pay for resources needed specifically to give computer service to other people as a regular practice. The Postmaster General now, therefore, needs to add to the list of purposes in the 1961 Act a new item which will enable him to spend Post Office Fund money on the National Data Processing Service.
This Bill sets out to achieve two basic purposes. The first is to encourage a more widespread use of the computer by industry and commerce, and the second is to provide a framework within which the possibilities now being opened by technological advances in computers can be co-ordinated and exploited to the maximum advantage of the economy. On the first point, it is true that the use of computers in this country is behind that of some of our keenest commercial competitors. I make that statement with some hesitation, because simply to tot up computers even of similar capacity is not an absolutely certain indication, but none the less there is good evidence of this.
The second point refers to the possibilities which are now being opened up of having computer "talk" to computer,
1374
and of being able to maintain large stores of information permanently on the machine from which individual items may be retrieved in fractions of a second. This latter facility leads to the concept of "data bank" or "random access" systems. Some of these are at present in existence, and many more are being planned both in and out of Government service—private enterprise as well as in Government Departments—but their present characteristic is that their availability is relatively restricted. For instance, a file of design information may be available only to the customers of a particular bureau. What a public body can do is to create a truly national system by making it possible, under suitable financial arrangements, for computer users in any part of the system to have access to this information as required. There is more to this than setting up a number of independent computers and connecting lines. A measure of central co-ordination is required about the form and pattern of the messages which are exchanged.
The Government feel that in the interests of the economy they should do all they can to stimulate an increased and efficient use of computers. My right honourable friend the Minister of Technology has already taken steps with this intention. Noble Lords will be aware of the National Computing Centre and the contribution which we expect it to make to the solution of the problems of increasing the trained personnel available for this work and of programming. There have been other matters in the computer field which have been debated in your Lordships' House, for example computers for universities, the possible links, and so on. The National Data Processing Service will provide the means by which some of these solutions which I have mentioned may be applied on the ground.
The object of the N.D.P.S. is to bring more people into computing, not to keep them out and not to make a Government enclave. There is, therefore, no intention whatever, in theory or in practice, of making this a monopolistic service. It is intended to run the Service commercially and make a profit, because in a competitive situation this is an index of efficiency. But the Service will make

1375
its facilities available to all comers, even its commercial competitors. It will admit any privately-owned computer, or group of computers, to its facilities on the sole condition that the necessary technical requirements can be met. It will not withhold its equipment facilities from anyone who is prepared to rent them. This means that computer installations run as private bureaux, or self-contained groups of computers belonging to a commercial undertaking can, by arrangement, have access to facilities provided by other computers in the network which they might not otherwise be able to reach. This will apply both to the computer bureaux and also in individual groups of firms, whether banks or large organisations, such as that with which the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, is associated, and which has done a great deal of development in relation to I.C.I. in the computer field. They can operate on their own and, equally, they can have access to and make use of the National Service as it suits them and their judgment of their best interests. I feel that an early result of the creation of the N.D.P.S. will be an increase in the computer bureau business, where people who have special know-how in particular applications will set up in business using the equipment facilities of the N.D.P.S.
The reason the Government are entrusting the development of the N.D.P.S. to the Post Office is partly because of the Post Office's knowledge in the matter of communications; but, more basically, because the Post Office, which is already a very large bureau operator for its own business, will provide a very consideraable base load for the new business which will generate substantial economies of scale. It already has seven machines in use, and this number will almost treble in the next three years. Moreover, the Post Office's own requirements will compel it to weld these computers into a single integrated network. So I hope your Lordships will agree that this provides a very sound basis, and indeed a natural basis, for outward extension beyond the Post Office's own requirements.
The N.D.P.S. will be organised and operated as an independent service—and I stress this—within the main framework
1376
of what, if Parliament approves, will in the near future be the Post Office Corporation. It will be managed quite independently of other Post Office services; it will have its own force of programmers, systems analysts, other computer experts and technical, financial and marketing specialists. I think that this is also the point at which I should emphasise that it will have no responsibilities at all for the provision of lines or data transmission equipment, which will continue to be the responsibility of the equally separate and independently run Telecommunications Service, all within the responsibility of the Post Office or the Post Office Corporation.
The N.D.P.S. will therefore set out to provide a full range of data-processing services and facilities, but its early growth, particularly of its ability to provide consultancy and programming services, will be limited by what is a nationwide shortage of qualified staff. The Service proposes to recruit and train some 100 new people a year. As soon as the Bill becomes law, however, the Service will be in a position to provide data conversion and preparation facilities and computer-processing time for people who have, or can produce, their own programmes; and, as I have said, I expect this aspect to be of interest to operators, or would-be operators, of commercial bureaux. The availability of standard programmes from the National Computing Centre will also be an important factor in the growth rate of the N.D.P.S.
A question which I am sure is of interest to your Lordships, and indeed is of major importance, is that of the degree of confidentiality which will exist for private information which firms may entrust to the N.D.P.S. There are several aspects of this question. If a number of people have access by wire to a system which contains information from many sources, the first problem is to prevent unauthorised access by one user to information belonging to another—and this problem, of course, is not confined to computer information. This can be done by arranging for a dialogue, which can be as complicated as desired, to be conducted between the inquirer and the computer. The computer will ask questions and, if the inquirer cannot supply the right answers, he will be refused access to the information he is seeking.

1377
This can be further tightened by refusing access unless the questions are asked
from previously specified points. It is worth adding that the information is stored in a computer in a highly concentrated and coded way, and if something went wrong and let the wrong inquirer through it is highly probable that he would receive nothing but an unintelligible stream of gibberish. It is quite a different proposition from being an unwilling eavesdropper to someone else's conversation.
There also remains the question of what has been called the "Big Brother" aspect. Considerable concern has been expressed that, because the N.D.P.S. will initially be part of a Government Department, and subsequently a public Corporation, the information confided to it about the financial affairs of individuals or companies might not be safe against some other Government Department. My right honourable friend the Postmaster General has recognised this concern, and Clause 2 of the Bill places an absolute embargo on the disclosure of such information except with the consent of the owner, or in response to a process of law. This embargo includes the Minister himself, and I hope your Lordships will feel that the confidentiality of information entrusted to the N.D.P.S. has been completely secured.
Perhaps I may make just one comment on this aspect. This is clearly going to be a major problem in an advancing technological society, and protection against misuse of information and improper action of Government will, in the long run, rest with Parliament in its control over the Executive. The degree of concern which has been expressed in Parliament, although at times there have been exaggerated anxieties, is none the less correct, because there are important issues here. I think that, so far as this proposal is concerned, we have taken all the steps necessary to ensure that there is not misuse, though I do not doubt that this issue will raise its head in many ways in the future, in relation to other forms of statistical and private collections of information.
I shall be very glad to deal further with this aspect if noble Lords wish to raise it, but I hope they will accept the view that the Government are just as much concerned as others that we should be eternally
1378
vigilant in regard to this matter, and I think the provision which has been put into the Bill will take care of the situation so far as this service is concerned. Indeed, it will be possible to change this only by Act of Parliament; and this is the protection.
May I just briefly deal with some of the financial aspects of the National Data Processing Service? These are important, and I shall try to make them clear. The first point is that the Service will have to stand on its own feet financially. It will not be subsidised in any circumstances, either by the Telecommunications Service or the Postal Service. It will not be a drain on either of them. That is perhaps a negative way of putting it. Like each of these Services, it will be required not only to earn income to cover the whole of its expense, but, further than that, to aim at a financial target which will be imposed on it. Furthermore, the financial performance of the Service will be clear for all to see.
Your Lordships are aware that the previous Government set financial targets for nationalised industries. The target set for the Post Office was an average of 8 per cent. return on capital over a five-year period which ends in March next year. The new targets are now being discussed with the Treasury. If, as suggested by the Select Committee of another place on Nationalised Industries, separate targets are set for the Postal and Telecommunications Services, it may well follow that there will be a separate target for the National Data Processing Service, since within the overall organisation of the Post Office the Service will be as financially separate as the other two already are.
The Post Office accounts, which are presented to Parliament annually, give very comprehensive information about the Postal Service on the one hand, and the Telecommunications Service on the other. If we proceed to establish the National Data Processing Service, the accounts will provide similar comprehensive information for that Service as well. My right honourable friend, the Postmaster General has made this very clear in another place, and I can see quite serious objections to making special provision in this Bill just to provide a separate account, when this must be accepted as

1379
the normal and proper practice for other Services also.
I have made these points in order, I hope, to assure your Lordships that the Post Office, already possessing commercial responsibilities which it will develop still further when it becomes a Corporation—this is the fundamental reason for the change in status—will run the new Service on sound financial lines from the outset. I see no alternative to a solution of the kind proposed here. I believe it is properly the responsibility of a national body, such as the Post Office, to do this. I believe it is not practical politics, and would not be acceptable for other reasons, to leave this to develop haphazardly. At the same time, I have made clear that we are well aware of the dangers to the development (which we want to foster) of the use of private computer activities, which there might be if it were conducted in an undesirable way, and of the dangers that there might be of a more fundamental kind.
My Lords, I hope that I have gone some way towards dealing with these problems. I have not gone through the Bill clause by clause—it is a very short Bill—but if any of your Lordships wish to ask any questions on any of the clauses I shall try to answer them when I reply. I therefore commend the Bill to your Lordships and beg to move that it be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Shackleton.)
12.40 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, for having explained the purposes of this Bill, and for having introduced it in such a lucid and, if I may say so, such a fair manner, because he has acknowledged that there are problems, difficulties and hazards attendant upon this Bill becoming an Act. I am bound to say that I am grateful to him for having done this, because the Bill deals with a highly complicated subject. The more that one looks at the implications of the Bill, the more one realises the necessity almost of being a technocrat in order to appreciate its full importance. It is a peculiarly simple Bill. By the use of 13 words it completely alters the whole functions
1380
of the Post Office. Although it is a small Bill—despite the fact that it has been doubled in length in another place—let us be under no illusions whatsoever that it is a Bill of huge importance, the consequences of which will be noticed and felt for very many years from now.
The Post Office are indeed going through some substantial changes; and, curiously enough, succeed in doing this with the smallest and most modest-looking Bills that one could ever imagine, and with such very little "trumpet blowing". It was only four months ago that we passed the Post Office (Borrowing Powers) Bill, which attracted about four speakers and occupied your Lordships for about half an hour. I remember saying on that occasion that when 2s. is either added to or subtracted from the National Health charges, all hell is let loose; but when the Post Office are being provided with the facilities to borrow £880 million it goes through almost "on the nod". Indeed, it was only a short while ago that permission was obtained for the Post Office to go ahead with a new gyro system. It was only a few months ago that a Bill was passed allowing the Post Office Savings Bank to have the equivalent of a special investment department so that they could compete with trustee savings banks on a more equitable basis. It was again but a few months ago that the Postmaster General announced that the Post Office were going to become a public corporation, and no longer remain as an offshoot of the Government.
My Lords, these are all vast changes; and the Bill which the noble Lord has produced this morning is going to allow the Post Office to enter into the field of data processing in a very big way. There is no doubt whatever that computers have an enormous amount to offer business and commercial institutions and, indeed, Government. As a country, I believe that we lag behind others, as the noble Lord has said, in the use of computers, and anything that can be done to encourage their use should be given every assistance. But, of course, computers themselves are not a surety of success. They are expensive to buy and expensive to run, and the success of them depends to a very large extent upon their being utilised to their full capacity. One wonders whether at the moment all

1381
our computers are used to their full capacity. Indeed, one wonders whether the twenty large modern computers which I understand the Post Office are expecting to have in operation in 1971 will also be used to full capacity. I would doubt it in both cases. The provision of computers will not in itself assure their use; and if we lag behind other countries in their use, part of the problem will be to encourage business to make more use of the services which are available.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Earl? I should like to know what evidence he has on the under-use of computers. Clearly there is always a certain under-use, because general experience—and certainly it has been my experience in business in regard to computers—is that if they are properly used you always find your capacity inadequate to enable you to utilise them to the full. There may be cases of under-use, but these, I should have said, were matters of bad management or miscalculation. Certainly there has been some evidence, particularly in America, of people buying computers as status symbols; but I do not think it is a really serious matter. I should have liked to know what the noble Earl's evidence was on the general under-use of computers.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, this was an impression which I had. I may well be wrong, and if the noble Lord can confirm that indeed all these computers are used to their full capacity, then no one would be more pleased than I would. But, of course, the Bill allows the Post Office to provide a network of computers linked together for use throughout the country. I do not propose to go into the technical details which this possibility conjures up, because I for one am certainly not qualified to do so. One hears of co-axial cables and of the transmission of information at 3,000 million bits per second (whatever a "bit" may be; and one can only assume it is not very large) and one realises that one is in the realms of very sophisticated engineering. My knowledge of computers rests largely on the fact that they normally function with binary arithmetic. Everyone says that this is very simple, but I have always found it peculiarly difficult to comprehend, if only for the fact that it
1382
apparently uses only two figures, one of which is nought.
LORD SHACKLETON: If I may interrupt the noble Earl again, if he "mugs up" a bit more on his binary arithmetic he will soon find out what a "bit" is.
EARL FERRERS: I can only say to the noble Lord that he must have done his "mugging up" last night, because I know that yesterday he did not know what a "bit" was. What is more, if the noble Lord cares to "mug up" a little more about computers he will find, I think, that binary arithmetic is shortly going to be "old hat", and that they have now discovered a new language called P.L.I. I do not know at all what P.L.I. does or, indeed, what it stands for, but I can only assume that it falls somewhere between the two extremes of P.B.I., which is something military, and P.L.J., which is something liquid. Therefore, the comments I have to make this morning will be of a more general nature.
While we all welcome the use of computers, one cannot help but wonder whether in fact this is a correct extension of the duties of the Post Office. The job of the Post Office, fundamentally, is to furnish the country with efficient transmission facilities. If there is only a limited amount of funds available to the Post Office—and I will assume that this is so—I am doubtful myself whether it is prudent for the Post Office to embark on a new system of providing data processing units, which presumably means that this must militate against the provision of funds for work done on transmission facilities. It is absolutely vital that in the era into which we are moving—and so rapidly moving—the Post Office should be in the forefront of research into the different systems of transmission, and should be able to provide an absolutely first-class and up-to-date transmission service.
I believe it is the fact that even now two years' notice is required to provide lines for computer services; and I should have preferred to see the Post Office concentrate more on shortening this period and on making their work more perfect than on extending it into direct competition with private enterprise, in which field private enterprise has to date shown itself to be both efficient and farseeing—and indeed, I think, adequate. It was the

1383
original intention that the Post Office should be confined to letters, telephones, et cetera, and it was never anticipated that they should move into the wholly different field which this Bill will permit.
I, for one, feel there is much to be said against extending the activities of Government Departments into fields totally different from those for which they were originally intended. It was only a short while ago that we had the National Coal Board (Additional Powers) Bill which allowed the Coal Board to prospect for gas in the North Sea, an operation for which that Board was never intended. While I accept that it is essential to modernise and to move with the times, and that at times there should be a diversification of interests, I do not know that the practice of encouraging Government Departments or nationalised industries to enter into fields for which they are not intended and for which they are not necessarily suited is entirely commendable. I hope that the noble Lord will not think that I am making a petty Party point here, because that is far from my intention. It is merely an opinion which I hold and which I think bears examination.
A great point was made in another place—rightly so, I think; and the noble Lord mentioned it to-day—about the need for confidentiality. By providing exclusive facilities for data transmission and the machinery for data processing, the Post Office will be in a unique position. They are going to have in their hands a huge quantity of vital information which could be extremely valuable to competitors and—more sinisterly—they will have information which could be of extreme value to the Government in what might be a wholly honourable use. I know that Clause 2 has been inserted into the Bill to permit a large degree of confidentiality; and the noble Lord has said that one
of the problems in this connection will be overcome by users having what is virtually a password without the correct use of which the computer will not divulge information. But I envisage the possibility of unauthorised people getting hold of passwords and, by tapping out the appropriate word, getting the machine to divulge a whole quantity of information.
One can see an example of this—I admit, in a very simple way—with a com-
1384
puter such as that installed for travellers' use by British European Airways. Once the computer is asked a single question, such as whether one is or is not booked on a particular aeroplane, it will divulge all the details it has in connection with the flight. It will tell the inquirer where he is going, where he is coming from, who else is travelling; and all sorts of information additional to the answer to the original question. I should not like it to be thought that I am suggesting that B.E.A. do not choose the kind of information divulged with the utmost care and discretion; I merely use it as an illustration of the possibility of extracting vast quantities of information—possibly secret and confidential information—from a computer by using the appropriate password.
My Lords, I can also envisage a situation in the future when a Government, getting more and more involved with long-term planning and needing all the relevant facts, will be tempted to say: "Here are all these data processing units which contain all the information we require—for example, how many bricks there are in the country, and what kind of cash is flowing in and out of the country—to plan efficiently for the benefit of the country as a whole. Would it not be possible for us to use this information, in an entirely confidential capacity, to enable us to plan for the future more effectively?" I know that Clause 2 has gone a great part of the way to ensure confidentiality; but I underline this point because to me it is very important.
The Post Office, too, will be in direct competition with private industry. While this may be beneficial in many ways, it is essential that the competition should be fair. I know that the Postmaster General in another place has said that the competition will be fair; I know that the noble Lord here said that it will be fair. But one can juggle around with figures to arrive at entirely different results—all of which are entirely defensible. For instance, the Post Office might consider it prudent to amortise their capital expenditure on the basis of the equipment being used to, say, 60 per cent. of capacity. It may be—I do not know—that such usage would be taken up by the Post Office and by other Government Departments.

1385
In that case, it could be that any usage above that percentage would attract no amortisation costs and would consequently be far cheaper. It could be that this is the computer-time to be made available for sale to the public.
What length of time is it anticipated will be allowed for the depreciation of these vastly expensive pieces of equipment? Is it five years, seven years, fifteen years? Probably one can provide good arguments for any of those periods of depreciation; but upon the period chosen will depend, very largely, the charges to be made. I know that this is a point of detail, but I make it to stress that it is not enough to say that there will not be unfair competition; for it could work out that, although this was the genuine intention, the practice might be wholly different. Any charges which are made must be in fair competition with the 100 or so private bureaux at the moment operating in the country.
My Lords, if I have appeared to be slightly unenthusiastic I hope the noble Lord will realise that it is merely because I have thought it prudent to highlight some of the dangers of the Bill. The Bill is peculiarly non-restricting and remarkably permissive. Because it is so permissive it seems to me reasonable to highlight the dangers. Having said that, I would add that I think it is an exciting venture and a progressive one. It will, I hope, help the country to keep in the van of modern techniques and modern technology. Computers are so sophisticated that now they even talk to each other. I think that is frightening in the magnitude of its conception. I could not help recalling the astonishment of one man who made use of a computer—not really a sophisticated computer, but a talking weighing machine on a railway platform. Having inserted 6d. he was told in a loud voice that he was 6 ft. 3 in. in height, that he was 12 stone in weight and was catching the 6.32 to Liverpool. He was so astonished that he felt that it must be a freak reaction; so he inserted another 6d. and was again told that he was 6 ft. 3 in., weighed 12 stone and was catching the 6.32 to Liverpool. He was so amazed that he called his wife to witness the wonders of modern technology. He inserted a further 6d., was told he was 6 ft. 3 in., weighed 12 stone and that, while he had been "mucking
1386
about like this" he had missed the 6.32 to Liverpool.
I cannot help feeling that such conversations will be slightly less exciting when carried out in binary arithemetic or P.L.I. But the use of computers can benefit the country and mankind alike; and I suppose it will not be long before we are able to dispense with all the complicated cable and grid systems about which we have been talking when some boffin considers it more prudent to put a computer into perpetual orbit, over our heads and the material will be fed into it, or bounced into it, by micro-waves. I confess that the idea of having one of these machines hurtling round the world above our heads does not fill me with great enthusiasm, although it makes the imagination work overtime. But it is a salutary thought that, in this world of vigorous, fascinating and sophisticated advance, where machines and computers appear to overtake the mind, when the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and I take part in this discussion our physical shortcomings are such—I hope they are temporary—that we both need the aid of a lump of wood.
1.0 p.m.
LORD LLOYD OF HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, I, too, am most grateful to my noble friend for the characteristic candour with which he introduced the Bill and acknowledged the problems to which it may give rise. I intervene in this debate, not because I can claim any specialised expertise in the recondite subject of computers but because, both as a citizen and as a lawyer, I am much concerned with two matters: first, the potential threat to individual privacy involved in setting up a computer data bank, and, secondly, the need for adequate safeguards. In this respect I am very glad that the Minister, speaking in another place, recognised that the point about need for what he called utter confidentiality (I prefer the word "confidence": I can never understand what the word "confidentiality" adds to our old-fashioned word "confidence") was an extremely valid and important one. I am happy that my noble friend has equally recognised that need.
The law relating to intrusions on privacy is a much-neglected subject in

1387
this country, unlike the United States; and it may well be that this accounts, to some extent at any rate, for the empty Benches when a Bill of this importance is introduced into your Lordships' House. An important conference took place recently under the auspices of the National Commission of Jurists on the whole subject of privacy, and I am very glad that our own Law Commission has been taking a close look at this subject. Modern technology, with its remarkable devices for electronic eavesdropping, involves tremendous threats to the whole idea of privacy. Though I do not, of course, question for a moment either the value of the present proposals or the good faith of those who will operate the scheme when it comes into operation, a computer data bank does provide a classic example of what is involved in this kind of problem. You are going to have vast mountains of information of a personal and confidential nature stored in a data bank.
My Lords, my aim is not to conjure up a melodramatic vision of an Orwellian world, dominated by "Big Brother", but, all the same, unless there are adequate safeguards, we could eventually arrive at some kind of surveillance system under which our associations, our finances and our physical and mental condition could all be stored up in some kind of computerised dossier crammed with facts; and not only facts, but evaluations. Some of the facts might be true and some might not be true, but there they would all be in this tremendous dossier. This could confer tremendous power over individuals, and it seems obvious, therefore, that what is needed is a legal structure to protect the individual, not only against misuse, as has already ben mentioned, but also against the storing of inaccurate, erroneous facts and evaluations about the individual. This matter is the subject of close examination at the present time in the United States.
It may not, perhaps, be known to all your Lordships that recently a Bill was introduced in the United States Senate to set up a National Data Computerised Centre. As a result of severe criticism from a number of quarters about the lack of adequate legal safeguards, that Bill was withdrawn and is being subjected to
1388
close scrutiny. I have in my hand a copy of the evidence submitted to the Judiciary Committee of the United States Senate by a leading expert in this field, Professor Miller, of the University of Michigan. In company with a number of other influential people, he made representations to the Senate Committee about the need for severe legal controls, and, as a result, as I have said, the Bill was withdrawn.
My Lords, what Professor Miller points out in this paper is that there will be a need for a highly sophisticated system of monitoring and control if we are to have proper safeguards. I am glad that my noble friend, Lord Shackle-ton, mentioned some, if not all, of these points. The things which need to be covered, and very closely covered, are such matters as ensuring the accuracy of the personal data which is stored in the computer bank. Then there is the question of limiting access to well-defined classes of persons. Perhaps even more important is the need to guard against unlawful or unwarranted intrusion by way of wire-tapping, electronic snooping, and so forth. All these matters raise considerable problems, and I am pleased that the Government have, at any rate, started to deal with them by introducing Clause 2 into the Bill; though it seems to me that this is only a beginning and that there is need to explore this whole problem in great detail and with great care. It is not enough simply to have a clause like the present Clause 2, imposing a duty of secrecy on Post Office officials in certain rather vaguely-defined circumstances. There is need to explore the whole problem.
I hope that my noble friend will forgive me if I say that I detected a faint note—only a faint note, and perhaps I misinterpreted his approach—of complacency in what he said, in so far as he seemed to suggest that Clause 2, as it stands, provides an adequate way to cope with the whole problem.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend? I was hoping he was going to say that he detected a faint note of anxiety, which is what I really feel.
LORD LLOYD OF HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his intervention. I detected

1389
a note of anxiety in certain stages of his speech, but when he came to deal with Clause 2 it seemed to me that he was going a little far in suggesting—probably I read too much into his words—that Clause 2 contains an answer to the whole problem.
I should like, in conclusion, to say that I realise that it will probably be some considerable time before this new Service is set up, and there should, therefore, be time enough for a detailed study to be given to this far-reaching problem. I hope that advantage will be taken of the knowledge and experience which has been, and is being, accumulated in the United States on this subject. It is fair to point out that the United States has been in the vanguard in respect of the protection by legal means of the right of privacy, and this is a matter about which we have something to learn from our American friends. I hope that the United States' experience will be considered. I am confident that all concerned with these problems would be only too anxious to proffer helpful advice. It is therefore in the entirely constructive hope that this Government, which is so much concerned with preserving individual freedom, will not rest content until fully adequate legal safeguards are worked out, that I ventured to intervene in this debate.
1.11 p.m.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: My Lords, my interest has already been exposed by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. I have been concerned for many years with the installation and application of computers in a large industrial concern. We have recently linked computers together, one with each other, and also with some hundred other points, in works and shops throughout the country to form a communications grid, something of the sort which this Bill is aimed at, and which I expect the G.P.O. will develop in due course. There is much that I could say about this which I think is relevant to the Bill, but I shall confine myself to the question of telecommunications grids.
I welcome the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and I agree with everything that he said. I was particularly interested in the point he made that the new Data Processing Service should
1390
be kept entirely separate from the rest of the G.P.O. We in the computer industry regard ourselves as complementary to the new service which is going to be provided, and one of the things we are apprehensive about is the competition for the services provided by the other sides of the Post Office, for the telecommunications side. I should like to support what the noble Lord said about computers being fully occupied. I have no doubt that there are companies which have put in computers as status symbols, as the noble Lord implied, but I assure him that the computers with which I am concerned are fully occupied.
In developing our telecommunications grid, there have been many problems. For instance, it has taken us three years to develop our grid with an electronic switching system, from the time we started planning to the time when it went live a short time ago. We believe that such a grid is vital to the economic and efficient use of our computers. Many other large enterprises are planning similar networks apart from the G.P.O. In our case, it has involved capital expenditure on electronic switching equipment and ancillaries of about £500,000. The establishment of such a network is a big affair for any company, requiring a great expenditure of money and of highly skilled time.
Again, it has taken us over twelve months to get from the Post Office a licence to operate this network. In fact, we only obtained the licence within a few days of the network being ready to go into commission. Even now, the licence can be withdrawn at any time. We have no security of tenure.
Many lessons can be drawn from our experience, but I propose to limit my points to three. The first is that the G.P.O. should be encouraged to experiment, and to allow others to experiment, with advanced technologies in the field of telecommunications. As I said, the new data processing service will not be concerned with telecommunications. They will have to go cap-in-hand to another part of the Post Office to provide that. I believe that a great deal of advance can be made on the telecommunications side. Comparisons have been made between telecommunications in this country and on the other side of the Atlantic. There is great opportunity now

1391
for the G.P.O. to catch up. The present teleprinter, which is still the only one
supplied by the Post Office, dates back to 1929. There are gaps between the G.P.O. standards and international standards in the improvement of new equipment, and this leads to additional costs. There is a great opportunity now for the G.P.O., in conjunction with other users, to give a new look to our telecommunications system.
The second point I want to make is related to flexibility of private circuits. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, said that it took up to two years to provide new circuits. I believe that the average time it takes is nine months; though we have known it to take up to 18 months. One of the difficulties in obtaining a licence for a private network is that the G.P.O., presumably jealous of its monopoly powers, is diffident about allowing a company to install a network in premises not owned by the company—for instance, in a distribution centre or at a railhead. There is also the question of stand-by circuits. In the past, we have had telecommunications networks which provided message-switching facilities, and if a particular circuit failed and went out of operation there were other ways of sending information. A network can be completely crippled by a bad line going out of operation, and once we have line computers, the question of stand-by circuits becomes most important. I hope that the Post Office will take a good look at the whole of their arrangements for giving priorities.
Finally, there is the question of charging and costing. The Government have already given an undertaking that the Service shall be run as a separate enterprise. We also want to make sure that the charges made for lines on the telecommunications side of the service provided by the Post Office are properly costed. Some years ago the cost of private teleprinter lines was increased at short notice by some 25 to 40 per cent., and there were indications then that the private lines were tending to subsidise the public telegraph service. The new data processing service and the telecommunication grids will be a vital part of industrial activity over the next few years, and it is most important that they should not be required to pay more than the
1392
proper economic cost of the lines they require.
I would end by saying that I support this Bill. I see in it the possibility of the G.P.O. getting experience at first hand of the problems of those who are developing large integral computer systems. The G.P.O. have a monopoly of telecommunications which can make or mar these systems. All those concerned will have to show a willingness to experiment and to encourage others to experiment, and will need to be vigilant in holding a fair balance between internal, G.P.O., demand and external demand.
1.20 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, your Lordships have received this Bill in a characteristically House of Lords' way, with a wide range of interest and a goodhearted mixture from the Opposition Front Bench, where the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, went through certain old-fashioned notions in the beginning but ended up as a new-fashioned individual. Perhaps I can deal with part of his speech. The noble Earl rather implied that the Post Office ought to stick to letters, which is what it was originally established for, and ought not to have anything to do with these new-fangled telephones or telegraphs, which, after all, were a later development. Therefore I thought the first part of his speech reflected an anxiety which we feel we ought not to allow to be decisive. Any form of advance must involve some change, and probably risk. I will come on particularly to the question of confidentiality and these wider social issues towards the end.
I think that the noble Earl had not thought it out, or was thinking of it from the wrong end. He was saying: "Why give it to the Post Office? Why does not the Post Office stick to its particular cobbler's last?" The answer is that here is a new need. The fact that new responsibilities are put on the Post Office that were not originally envisaged does not seem to me to have much fundamental significance. What one has to find is the appropriate instrument to make use of the opportunities which modern invention has thrust upon us. The decision that the Post Office should do it was arrived at because the Post Office is the best placed of any national body to provide a national service. Therefore, I would

1393
counsel the noble Earl that he shows the courage about these risky undertakings which I know he personally possesses. I think we have to go forward and not hide away for fear of the consequences; and indeed, failure to take advantage could bring even more detrimental results than if we faced the issues squarely and tried to tackle the dangers.
There were some interesting points in the speech of the noble Earl—although having done a little more of my homework in binary arithmetic I shall be careful not to embark too far into this. He raised, for instance, the question of depreciation arrangements. Depreciation is a matter which many people will argue about, and it is very properly a concern for any industrial management. The length of time to depreciate a particular piece of equipment depends on any number of circumstances. It certainly will not depend upon its useful life.
There is some argument as to whether computers, especially some of the new ones, are not obsolescent in four years. If I recall aright, the normal arrangements by which computers are hired provide for amortisation in four years. But computers will in many cases go on much longer. Although at the present moment the Post Office computers are depreciated over a 10-year period, it may well be that these computers will go on longer than that.
This is a matter which must be determined by experience and by professional judgment. It will not be determined by what may be called political judgment. It is the matter of the right type of sophisticated arrangement, with which the Post Office is already equipped. At the present moment, annual provision is made on a straight line basis by the latest assessment by technical staff of the lives of the various types of plant and equipment and of the residual value, and provision on the basis of historical cost is supplemented by the estimated addition to bring the total provision for the year into line with the current value of the assets. It has been suggested that a 10-year period is too long. But the Post Office has already one magnetic tape computer which is nearing the end of a 10-year life, and this is still in effective and economical use. More experience is needed before we can be knowledgeable about the lives of com-
1394
puters. This is obviously something which will be kept under review, and it will be open to Parliament, to the Auditor General and others. There are controls in regard to this matter, and I do not doubt that if further concern is expressed in the future it will be brought out.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? I do so only to point out that I was not expecting him to answer here and now by saying what would be the depreciated life of a computer. I was merely trying to make the point that, as he has recognised, there could be sound arguments for using a short term or a long term, and whichever decision is finally taken will have a material effect upon the cost.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I hope there is no difference between us. I only detected a certain suspicion on the part of the noble Earl that in some way in this matter the accounts might not truly present the real position. Standards will exist in regard to this matter and it will be possible to make the necessary comparisons. I have dealt with the subject at some length because I think it is important, and where it is possible I think it is right to dispose of anxieties.
The real point I want to get across here is that the Post Office itself is interested in fair competition. As the noble Earl, Lord Courtown, made clear, it is really rather a good thing that the Post Office is going to become a consumer of the Telecommunications Service in this respect and will therefore be very much aware of the position. I would not accept that it is not aware of shortcomings and difficulties, although it is perhaps more aware of the obstacles that have always been placed in its way under general national policy, and tried to rectify those. The Post Office will themselves be a user, and they will be operating networks similar to those that the noble Earl's progressive firm operate.
I am very glad that the noble Earl is supporting this Bill, because, as your Lordships know, with his many years of management experience, no one is better qualified to assess the position. As I have said in this House before, I am one of those people from industry who have made free use of the brains that

1395
I.C.I. have in the noble Earl and his associates in giving advice on these matters. The fact that he has given a general pat on the back is most encouraging. He sees that there is a complementary side, and it is right that both Government and private enterprise should seek to harmonise their interests.
Some concern was expressed on the telecommunications side. I do not know whether to go into this matter at great length. Some of the difficulties of the Post Office on telecommunications were explained in the White Paper on Post Office prospects. There are certain shortages. I am told that, although there have been no requests for wide-band circuits exclusively for data transmission, there is a delay for the wide-band circuit of about 18 months to two years, whereas certain other circuits, carrying a rather slower rate of transmission, can be provided on demand, or with very little delay. But I should like to look at the noble Lord's points in more detail. I shall be glad to let him have comments on them, and if the comments I give him are not satisfactory we can pursue the matter further. I was concerned, for instance, about the delay in getting a licence. There are always good reasons for such delays, but it does not mean that they are not worrying and disturbing, and I should particularly like to see what the circumstances were.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: My Lords, may I intervene on this question of delay to say that, in the main, so far as I know, licences have been obtained. But if you are going to plan these things a long way ahead you have to know whether or not you are going to get a licence, and it often takes a great deal of time to achieve.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I take the noble Earl's point, and I think it would be worth while, as with any matter raised by one of your Lordships or a Member of another place, to look at the particular circumstances. I expect the noble Earl has already made representations on this, but, if not—indeed, in any case—I should like to look into the matter further and to pursue it. Naturally, at this stage I do not express any judgment. The Post Office seem to keep closely in touch with industry,
1396
and I am quite sure that in their new guise they will strengthen and enhance their customer relationship. Of course, one of the purposes of setting up this new organisation is to give the Post Office a more commercial approach, as well as providing a different kind of organisation. I think I have covered some of the major points.
I should like to turn back to what is perhaps the most crucial issue of all, and that is the question of confidentiality. Both the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, and the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, referred to this matter. I think perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, was correct in saying that there was a certain mixture of complacency and anxiety on my part. There was complacency in the sense that, so far as this particular arrangement is concerned, I believe that the best steps that can be taken now have been taken and will be adequate. But the fact remains that a repressive Government will always be able to extract information which they require about the status of individuals and businesses. The real safeguard, as I mentioned before, must Lie on the Floor of Parliament, and with such institutions as we may create and as may be necessary in the future for the protection of the individual. This is a much wider question than simply this particular set of computer records, and I am quite sure that both the noble Lords who were pressing this issue were thinking in terms not only of this particular service but of the future.
As someone who has been reading science fiction for thirty years, I am very well aware of these problems, because this is a subject which has frequently been discussed in the pages of science fiction; and, like so much science fiction, it is likely to come to pass. I would say that there is no safeguard other than our own democratic system and the vigilance of individuals that will provide protection against a repressive Government. I do not doubt that the written records of a German business under the Nazis were fully open to the Government, it is a possibility already existing with written records.
I should not, least of all in the presence of an Under-Secretary of the Home Office, wish to discuss the records that may be

1397
kept by the police and other bodies, but the risk is already there; and the point which the noble Lord has raised is therefore a much more fundamental one. I think, therefore, that what is important in this case is that these alarms have been expressed. It would not be right for the Government just to brush them off with complacency. I want to acknowledge that there is this danger and that further thought has to be given to it.
Of course, we have already made a step in certain directions for the protection of the individual in setting up the Parliamentary Commissioner. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Hampstead, was not entirely happy and did not feel that that step went quite far enough. But it is a start, and it may be that we shall want to establish special institutions for this purpose. It is my general belief, as I said when speaking on the Bill connected with the Parliamentary Commissioner, that the rights of the individual, whatever limitations there may be, are more jealously and more vigorously protected in this country than perhaps in any other country in the world. But this is no reason for complacency.
In relation to this particular matter the risk perhaps does exist. I think myself—I am talking now about commercial risk—that it would be more difficult to burgle the information from a computer, particularly a multi-access data bank, but of course this is liable to happen to-day if the safe keys are not properly guarded. Or it will be possible for a corrupted employee to get at this information. I am merely saying that I think, so far as the commercial side is concerned, the information will be more secure, or at least certainly as secure as existing confidential information is. It is going to be more difficult to break and enter a computer, so to speak, than to gain access to ordinary records at the moment.
I hope I have commented on most of the points that have been made. I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, and very grateful for the general welcome that has been given to the Bill. We have clearly got to embark on these matters. We have clearly got to face the risk of change. Industry goes ahead—some parts of industry more effectively than others. But it would be quite wrong for the Government not to play their part. This is why the Government
1398
have introduced this Bill, and I am grateful that noble Lords—as they appear to be—are about to give it a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

PUBLIC WORKS LOANS (No. 2) BILL
1.38 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time. Its purpose is to provide funds for the Public Works Loan Commissioners to lend to local authorities and certain other bodies. The Bill, however, also contains certain amendments to the Public Works Loans Act 1965. All local authorities will, in 1967–68, be able to borrow from the Public Works Loan Board a quota based on a percentage of their reckonable capital payments in the year. On this basis most authorities will get 34 per cent., but authorities in the less prosperous regions (to which Devon and Cornwall have been added) will receive 44 per cent. The smaller authorities whose quota, on these percentages, would be less than £100,000 will continue to be allowed to borrow up to the full amount. In addition, there is a supplementary quota which allows local authorities to raise from the Public Works Loan Board 30 per cent. (40 per cent. in the less prosperous areas) of the borrowing required for the purpose of complying with the restrictions on temporary borrowing. Local authorities have recently been given until March 31, 1969, instead of until. March 31, 1968, to bring their temporary borrowing to within the limits laid down in 1963.
These are new proposals which officials discussed with representatives of the local authority associations on March 26. The proposals were further discussed at a meeting between the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and elected representatives of the Associations on April 3. The change makes it easier to predict the call upon the Exchequer. The estimates have been widely out in past years but for 1967–68, it is expected that net Exchequer issues will amount to £480 million, with gross Public Works Loan Board issues of £620 million.

1399
Clause 1 of the Bill provides for £900 million to be put at the disposal of the Commissioners, and it is expected that this amount will last until early in 1969. As on previous occasions, provision has also been made permitting the Public Works Loan Board to undertake to make loans from funds which will be made available under the next Act. This is done because it is necessary to ensure the continuity of the Board's business; the Commissioners are empowered to enter into commitments of £50 million over and above the cash provision of £900 million. In the past, each Act has operated from the date on which it has received Royal Assent, and any provision under the previous Act remaining unused has lapsed and has, therefore, been wasted. The present Bill contains an innovation, in that it enables the Treasury to appoint the day upon which Clause 1 comes into effect; and the "waste" can, therefore, be avoided. The day is to be appointed by means of an order which will be laid in the form of a Statutory Instrument before both Houses of Parliament.
Clause 2 contains purely technical provisions amending defects that have become apparent in the Public Works Loans Act 1965. The explanation is very technical. Prior to the Public Works Loans Act 1965, the Commissioners were legally required to secure their loans by a mortgage on land or revenue, most loans, in practice, being secured on revenues. The procedure involved time and labour for the Public Works Loan Board and the borrowers. In 1965 formalities were greatly simplified. The 1965 Act created a new form of borrowing for local authorities—borrowing by agreement with the Board, loans being automatically charged on the revenues of the borrower without the need for execution of a mortgage. Section 2(2) of the 1965 Act also empowered authorities whose borrowing is governed by the Local Government Act 1933 and the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1947 to borrow, by agreement with the Board, and provided that the money so raised should be covered by the automatic charge on the revenues of the borrower created by Section 197 of the 1933 Act or Section 261 of the 1947 Act. This part is quite satisfactory.
1400
Section 2(3) of the 1965 Act, however, which deals with the few authorities whose borrowing is not governed by the 1933 and 1947 Acts, is defective in two respects. First, it does not take into account the fact that the Acts relating to some of the authorities contain lists of permitted methods of borrowing, thus raising the implication that other methods of borrowing are not open to these authorities. The effect of this has been that some authorities, including river authorities, have not been able to take advantage of the simplified borrowing procedure introduced by the 1965 Act but have had to continue to execute mortgage deeds. They have quite naturally requested that they should be able to adopt the simplified procedure. This is achieved by subsection (1) of Clause 2 of the Bill, which establishes the power of these authorities to borrow by agreement with the Board.
The second defect occurs in Section 2(3) of the 1965 Act, which imposes an automatic charge on revenues in every case where an authority (other than those covered by the two Local Government Acts) borrows by agreement with the Board. For some of the authorities concerned, however, other legislation already provides for loans raised by them to be automatically charged on the revenues. Subsection (2) of Clause 2 of the Bill therefore limits the scope of Section 2(3) of the 1965 Act to those authorities whose legislation does not already provide for an automatic charge. This same subsection also contains a consequential extension to the definition of "automatic charge" which occurs in Section 2(5) of the 1965 Act.
Subsection (3) of Clause 2 amends paragraph 3 of the Schedule to the 1965 Act. Sections 29 and 30 of the Public Works Loans Act 1875 dealt with capital repayments of loans and the transfer or discharge of security for loans, and contained references to mortgages, which were defined in an earlier section of the Act as including a charge under the Act. Paragraph 3 of the Schedule to the 1965 Act put charges on revenues by virtue of Section 2 of the 1965 Act on all fours with charges under the 1875 Act. However, it failed to cover the automatic charges on revenue created by other legislation and is therefore amended by subsection (3) of Clause 2 of this Bill. This equates automatic charges on revenues, whether by

1401
virtue of the 1965 Act or by virtue of other legislation, with charges under the 1875 Act. It renders unnecessary the references in paragraph 3 of the Schedule to the 1965 Act to Sections 29 and 30 of the 1875 Act and these references are therefore deleted by the Bill.
My Lords, those are the technical changes that lie within the Bill. In moving it I would assure noble Lords opposite, in particular, that this is one of those Bills that become rather an annual event, in the sense that we need to provide new moneys for local authorities to be able to borrow so that they can carry out their own particular developments in their areas. I beg to move
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Shepherd.)
1.48 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, I feel that I owe your Lordships an apology for inflicting myself upon your Lordships yet again. This must be almost as distasteful to you as it is to me. However, I merely wish to thank the noble Lord for having introduced this Bill and for having explained to us what it is about. As he said, it is an annual Bill and it provides for £900 million, which is no small sum. I gather that the amounts coming from the Public Works Loan Board in the current year will be less than last year, and I assume that this indicates a move towards a natural money market, as opposed to a move towards a market which provides loans at subsidised rates of interest. That seems to me to be a good thing.
The Government have taken the step fairly recently of removing stamp duty, and this has proved to be successful. It always seemed to me to be illogical that one public department should tax another public department, because this can be of no value to anyone and can only complicate the machinery and be a waste of time.
I should like to conclude by asking the noble Lord one question, which I think is important. Under the National Plan it was assumed that 4¼ per cent. at constant prices would be the growth rate of the public sector and this allowed a growth rate of 8½ per cent. a year for local authority expenditure, which is the figure that local authorities have been using in their planning and budgeting.
1402
In view of the fact that the Chancellor of the Exchequer now talks about 3 per cent., is one to understand that this figure of 8½ per cent., which the local authorities have been using, and on which they have been planning, is now to be revised, or it is likely to be adhered to? If the noble Lord could give me some indication of that I should be grateful. Meanwhile, I thank him again for introducing this Bill, and I would also take the opportunity of thanking the members of the Public Works Loan Board, who I believe give their services free, for the work they do.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, it is not for the noble Earl to apologise for having spoken but for us to congratulate him on his stamina and his great versatility. He has spoken on many subjects this morning—I can only imagine that on the Front Bench opposite there is no organised trade union. This may well be the case, and if he needs the protection of a trade union, I am quite sure we might find some chapel secretary on this side to give protection in future.
The noble Lord was quite right to draw our attention to the problem of local authority spending, or, for that matter, general public expenditure in relation to our own economic growth. This is a matter which Governments have to balance year by year, although of course one tries to plan further ahead for the benefit of those who have to make long-term planning. We have now contained public expenditure overall to 4¼ per cent., and in fact during the last two or three years we have been able to keep it below that figure. This is due to the fact that our own economic growth is not all we should wish to see. In terms of local authority growth rates, my right honourable friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, said in his Budget speech that the Government had launched an exercise to bring our long-term expenditure programme into line with the growth prospects after 1970 and to reconsider priorities between the different long-term programmes. In accordance with this, the Government are now very much engaged in this review of public sector expenditure as a whole, including expenditure of local authorities.
This is a very complex subject. The review is still going on and I should therefore be very foolish (and at this time of

1403
day I do not intend to be foolish) to answer the noble Earl too firmly. But I will certainly give the noble Earl an undertaking, recognising the importance not only to our well-being but also to our long-term development, that as soon as it is possible to make a statement this will be done in Parliament; because, quite clearly, local authorities, in particular, should have a target upon which they can exercise their own planning. I hope that the noble Lord will be content with those few words, and I hope the House will now give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

DANGEROUS DRUGS BILL
1.54 p.m.
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).
Clause 4 [Safe custody etc. of drugs]:
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, with Amendment No. 1, I should also like to deal with Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 4. All four are drafting Amendments which are designed to bring together for convenient reference in Clause 7—the interpretation clause—the three definitions of "drug" at present included in Clause 4, "Safe custody of drugs", Clause 5 "Further powers to make regulations", and Clause 6 "Further powers to search and obtain evidence". I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 12, leave out subsection (6).—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord has brought before us four Amendments which amend four other Amendments which he brought before us on Committee stage. In so far as this indicates that the Home Office is moving with some haste in this matter, I think they are very much to be welcomed. I only wish the noble Lord could imbue his friends in the Ministry of Health with the same sense of urgency.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Further powers to make regulations]:
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 37, leave out subsection (2).—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Further powers to search and to obtain evidence]:
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 12, leave out subsection (3).—(Lord Stonham.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Interpretation, etc.]:
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 34, at end insert ("and includes—

(a) for the purposes of sections 4 and 6 of this Act, any drug to which Part I of the principal Act applies and any substance for the time being specified in the Schedule to the Drugs (Prevention of Misuse) Act 1964;

(b) for the purposes of section 5 of this Act, any drug to which Part I of the principal Act applies; and

(c) for the purposes of the said section 6, any drug to which Part II of the principal Act applies.").—(Lord Stonham.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Schedule [Tribunals and advisory bodies]:
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, this again is a drafting Amendment. The College of General Practitioners was given the title "Royal College of General Practitioners" with effect from April 14 this year. We did not quite catch up with it on Committee stage, but I hope the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will be satisfied with our speed in at least catching up on Report stage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 18, after ("the") insert ("Royal").—(Lord Stonham.)
LORD SANDFORD: My Lords, the doctors have been quick to attend to their dignity. I hope that now they will be quick to attend to their duties under this Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY BILL
1.58 p.m.
Report of Amendments received (according to Order).
Clause 15 [Short title, citation, interpretation and extent]:
LORD AIREDALE LORD AIREDALE moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "Wireless Telegraphy" and insert "Television and Radio etc." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment to amend the Short Title of the Bill from Wireless Telegraphy Bill to Television and Radio, etc. Bill. This is the same as the Amendment I moved in Committee and withdrew except for the addition of the word "etc.". The addition is introduced to meet the objection voiced by the Minister in Committee that this Bill does not deal exclusively with things that can be described under the heading of "television and radio". I think this is true. Television and radio cover only about 95 per cent. of the matters dealt with by this Bill, and I have now included the word "etc." to include the other 5 per cent. There are precedents for using the word "etc." in the Titles of Bills. There is, for instance, the Marine, &c. Broadcasting (Offences) Bill; and, be it noted, it is not called the Marine, etc., Wireless Telegraphy (Offences) Bill.
I was also told in Committee that television is included in the word "radio", being only a form of radio. I accept that. On the other hand television and radio are well understood, well-defined terms which ordinary people understand and recognise, and if this Bill were to be called the Television and Radio, etc., Bill ordinary people would undoubtedly comprehend what the Bill was about, whereas if it continues to be called the Wireless Telegraphy Bill ordinary people undoubtedly will not comprehend what it is about. They will suppose it is about the kind of wireless telegraphy that existed when the 1904 Wireless Telegraphy Act was passed—that is to say, the transmission of messages by radio. That is what the words meant in 1904, years before public broadcasting began, and that is what the words "wireless telegraphy" still mean, I am quite sure, in the minds of ordinary people. Early in the present Parliament I remem-
1406
ber the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor saying how excellent it would be if the Statute Book could be made more comprehensible to ordinary people. Surely one should begin with Short Titles and make the Short Titles of Statutes more easily comprehensible to ordinary people. I venture to suggest that this Bill, which is almost entirely about television and radio, will be much more comprehensible to ordinary people if the Government can begin by having it called the "Television and Radio etc., Bill", and not the "Wireless Telegraphy Bill", a name which will put ordinary people completely off the scent. I beg to move.
Amendment moved —
Pag 12, line 6, leave out ("Wireless Telegraphy") and insert ("Television and Radio etc.").—(Lord Airedale.)
2.2 p.m.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, I should like to support the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, in its revised form, as indeed I supported his previous Amendment on the Committee stage. In spite of the clear and courteous explanation by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, for which we were all grateful on the Committee stage, I am by no means persuaded that these words "Wireless Telegraphy" are intelligible to the general public.
As the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, pointed out, the noble Baroness said that to the experts the word "radio" includes "television". That may be so. But I think it would not make much sense if, for example, we were going to change the title of the Independent Television Authority to Independent Radio Authority, although that might make it more intelligible to the experts. But, of course, to the general public it would be absolutely meaningless. So I cannot see that there is any logical reason why this Bill should not be amended in the way my noble friend Lord Airedale has proposed, and I hope that the Government will be able to consider and accept his Amendment.
2.5 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like to express my thanks to both noble Lords for the extremely brief and concise way in which they have made their points in connection with this Amendment. Both noble Lords will know that I was personally extremely

1407
interested in this suggestion, and have therefore had an opportunity of a great deal of discussion with my right honourable friend on the point. Perhaps I had better repeat the whole of the explanation given me, though in fact the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, may feel that I am repeating something that was said before. But he will be happy to know that a little more has been added, and perhaps there is a little extension of the original argument.
I am afraid that if we were to follow the noble Lord's proposal we should find ourselves in a great many difficulties. One of the difficulties is that the word "radio" used as a substantive has no very precise meaning. It is not defined in our Statutes, or in the present Bill. Used colloquially, it means different things to different people. If one had to make a guess at what it meant here—and I think the noble Lord would agree that it would be better not to have to guess—perhaps the nearest one could get is that it means something rather like "wireless telegraphy" as defined in the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949. That is to say, it is intended to cover the whole field of radio communications, radio navigation, and radiolocation. But the definition of "wireless telegraphy" in the 1949 Act is very carefully drawn, and I do not think that anyone could read into the word "radio", standing by itself, the precise meaning of wireless telegraphy as defined in the principal Act. Yet, as noble Lords are aware, the present Bill is concerned throughout Part II explicitly with wireless telegraphy apparatus in the sense in which the term is used in the 1949 Act. That being so, I can see no virtue in giving the Bill a Short Title which fails to reflect accurately what the Bill is concerned with and is both vague and misleading.
It is misleading because the word "radio", if used in the broad sense I have indicated, is certainly wide enough to include television. Television is simply a form of radio-communication. The use of both words in the Title would suggest—although I do not believe that this was the noble Lord's intention—that "radio" is intended to have some narrower, more specialised, meaning. It is indeed the case that when the words "radio" and "television" are used together
1408
in this way it is, more often than not, to describe the two forms of broadcasting—radio sound broadcasting, on the one hand, and television, on the other. The dealers who sell broadcasting receivers often describe themselves as "radio and television" dealers. The B.B.C. and I.T.V. programmes in the daily newspapers are often entitled "radio and television". But as noble Lords are aware, the purposes of the present Bill go well beyond sound broadcasting and television apparatus, as we shall see by a close study of Part II.
Although I cannot recommend noble Lords to accept this Amendment, I recognise the concern that the noble Lords, Lord Airedale and Lord Strabolgi have expressed that we may be perpetuating in our legislation a term for which it might be possible to find some more contemporary equivalent. I think noble Lords will agree that a modest measure of the kind we have before us does not provide the appropriate occasion for a complete review of terminology. But my right honourable friend the Postmaster General has given me an assurance that when the time comes for a comprehensive review of the wireless telegraphy legislation the views that have been expressed here will be taken fully into account.
On the question of the word "etc.", which I rather thought the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, might mention, we having so recently discussed the Marine, &c., Broadcasting (Offences) Bill, I would merely point out that in that particular case the word covered a small extra section, whereas in this case it would really be discussing almost the whole of Part II, or a major part of the Bill. I hope that, with this assurance, the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to press his Amendment.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Baroness for having taken great care about this matter, and I am glad to think that the day may come when we shall be able to use the word "television" in Acts of Parliament. Of course, this we have already done, for we had the Television Act of 1954, and another Television Act in 1964. I am rather sorry that the occasion has not been taken to use the word "television" in this Act. Television is a subject of which this nation can be

1409
proud. We pioneered it, and we started the first television broadcasting station. I have met many people in the United States who simply did not believe this when I told them so. We in this country rather tend sometimes to behave as though we are not great pioneers of great scientific achievements. However, I shall not keep your Lordships any longer, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule [Notifications and records]:
2.9 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move the first of the Amendments standing in my name on the Marshalled List. These Amendments are consequential. They bring Part I of the Third Schedule into line with Part II of the Schedule, as amended in Committee, on the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Denham. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 15, leave out first ("is") and insert ("has been").—(Baroness Phillips.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 16, leave out first ("is") and insert ("has been").—(Baroness Phillips.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 18, leave out first ("is not") and insert ("has not been").—(Baroness Phillips.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 18, leave out third ("is") and insert ("has been").—(Baroness Phillips.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD STRABOLGI: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to say how grateful I am—and I am sure this also applies to the noble Lord, Lord Denham, who cannot be here to-day—that the noble Baroness, on behalf of the Government, has been able to move these Amendments. I felt that the original wording had a kind of poetic lilt, rather like something out of Gertrude Stein; but the present wording makes much more grammatical sense and is a great improvement on the Bill. I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Baroness.
House adjourned at eleven minutes past two o'clock.