Sitting of 7 May 1974

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock: THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln.
The Viscount Hereford—Took the Oath.
The Lord Taylor—Took the Oath.

NORTH SEA OIL: PRODUCTION ESTIMATES
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: 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 latest estimates for oil production from the British sector of the North Sea in 1980.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (LORD BALOGH): My Lords, I would ask the noble Lord to await the forthcoming report on oil production and reserves on the British Continental Shelf. A Statement will be made to Parliament shortly, but I can assure noble Lords that they will not find it unsatisfactory.
LORD STRATHCONA AND MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I am sure the House will be grateful for that reply. May I ask the Minister whether he will, in the meantime, exercise all his influence to restrain some of his colleagues in some of their wilder statements based on some of the more optimistic estimates that we have been given from various quarters?
LORD BALOGH: My Lords, I should have thought that that fell far beyond the Question.

NOISE ADVISORY COUNCIL REPORT
2.37 p.m.
LORD CROOK: 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 when it is expected that the Report of the Noise Advisory Council as to "minimum noise routes" will be received and published.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, the findings of the Council's Working Group were published on April 8 and a typescript copy of the Report has been placed in the Members' Library. The printed version will be available from Her Majesty's Stationery Office shortly.
LORD CROOK: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply.

ARTICULATED VEHICLES AND JACK-KNIFING
LORD KINGS NORTON: 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, as the jack-knifing of articulated vehicles is one of the major causes of road accidents in difficult driving conditions, they will consider introducing legislation to make compulsory the incorporation in such vehicles of existing devices which prevent it.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, the Department of the Environment are in fact conducting field trials of certain anti-jack-knifing devices and it is therefore premature to consider legislation. The noble Lord and the House may like to know some details. Out of a total of 17,847 goods vehicles over 3 tons unladen weight involved in injury accidents in 1973, 443 were reported as having jack-knifed. In the same year involvements in the wet or on snow or ice were 7,381, and of that figure 336 involved jack-knifing in the weight category to which I have referred.
LORD KINGS NORTON: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that in a number

363
of cases on motorways recently most serious pile-up accidents have been initiated by the jack-knifing of heavy vehicles, which are prevalent on motorways? Is the noble Lord further aware that as long ago as 1970 Report No. 3 of the Road Research Laboratory gave the results of tests made on a variety of slippery surfaces, which showed that whereas jack-knifing occurred when no sensor was fitted, even the most severe potential jack-knifing was avoided when the apparatus was fitted? Also, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that it is possible to fit an anti-jack-knifing device at a cost which would be recovered over a period of two or three years by a reduction in the insurance premium? Finally, may I ask whether, in these circumstances, a potentially dangerous vehicle should not be forced to become a potentially safe one?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I think the House will appreciate that the noble Lord has asked quite a number of questions and perhaps I should reply in this way. The Department are aware of what has been happening, but before they prepare legislation they want to be very sure that it will meet the situation.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, through studying this legislation, far too long a time has elapsed, although there are these known safety devices that can operate? Is it not time that the noble Lord had another word with his right honourable friend, with a view to imposing regulations to embrace these safety devices? When jack-knifing takes place it can cause very serious accidents indeed, and this is something to which we in Parliament should pay much more attention than we are doing at present.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I am sure that the comments of my noble friend will be noted by my right honourable friend. But I should say that studies are not yet complete. This is a very considerable problem and it is thought necessary that the studies should be completed before any decision on legislation is taken.
LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that although only 443 out of the 17,000 accidents involving heavy vehicles to which
364
he referred were due to jack-knifing, that number of serious accidents would be well worth avoiding? Will the noble Lord therefore again apply his mind, and that of his Department, to this matter as being one of real urgency?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, no one doubts that the number of accidents is a very serious factor. So far as Her Majesty's Government are concerned, they are anxious to deal with this matter as expeditiously as possible. Anything that can be done to save life will be done by this Government, but in anticipating legislation great care must be taken to ensure that when it comes into force it is sound legislation.
LORD PARGITER: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the term "jackknifing" is a technical one which implies the virtual doubling-up of a vehicle, and that many articulated vehicles are involved in accidents which do not necessarily involve this doubling-up? May I ask my noble friend whether this matter can be looked at in conjunction with the statistics that have been provided?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I am sure that what my noble friend has said will be looked at. But I am satisfied that the Department are already aware of all the aspects of this question.
LORD INGLEWOOD: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether there is any legislation in other countries in the Common Market, or whether there is any model which we might follow without long delay?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: If the noble Lord would like to put down a Question, I should be glad to attempt to answer it. I cannot do so this afternoon.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, the great worry about jackknifing is that one of the major causes of accidents to personnel is the construction of the driver's cab. The cab itself is not strong enough when the load behind it moves forward during jack-knifing. This is something which I should like looked at. Are there any plans for this?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, having himself so recently been in the Department of the Environment, the noble Lord will appreciate that the Department

365
will certainly look at any idea that he is able to put forward.
LORD WINDLESHAM: My Lords, in view of the interest which has been shown in this Question—with which I am sure the Department are thoroughly familiar—will the noble Lord please take a personal interest in it, pursue the matter and communicate the views of those who have spoken in this exchange?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I should be very pleased to give the noble Lord the Loader of the Opposition that assurance.
LORD KINGS NORTON: My Lords, may I finally ask whether the Government are aware that in the past day or two there has been an announcement from the Dunlop and Esso companies, to the effect that the whole of the oil tanker fleet of Esso is to have fitted the Dunlop device to prevent jack-knifing? Will he agree that this is a relevant point to take into account? That company would not have made this decision without very good reason.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I am sure it is a point which needs to be borne in mind.

SCHOOL CHILDREN: SUSPENSIONS FROM SCHOOL
2.45 p.m.
LORD POPPLEWELL: 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 to state the number of children suspended from school at comparable dates in February 1971–74; and to state the nature of offences for which they are suspended.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, this information has not hitherto been collected.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that he has given the Answer which I expected? (Laughter.) Now that this matter has been brought to his attention, will he ask the Secretary of State to have a look at it? Many people whose lifetime has been
366
engaged in education feel that there are hundreds of children a day suspended from school on serious offences. Those children might in the future create a higher density of delinquents and criminals. No study is being undertaken nationally into this problem; locally it might have been dealt with. Is my noble friend further aware that people in educational administration are alarmed at events in America, where, I am told, the police patrol regularly in many schools? Parliament should give more attention to this subject, with a view to after-care and in helping to prevent the creation of future delinquents and criminals.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, first, with regard to the laughter that broke out when my noble friend asked his supplementary question, the dates to which my noble friend's Question referred are dates that concerned the previous Administration and not the present one. On the comments my noble friend has made, I am sure that what he has had to say will be studied with considerable interest. Perhaps the House would appreciate my saying that the responsibility for suspensions from school rests, as it properly ought to do, with the headmasters, headmistresses and boards of governors of schools. I would not wish it to be thought for one moment that there was no interest in this and allied aspects of the problem. Some survey work was undertaken by the Association of Education Committees at the request of the Department of Education and Science. This is not a simple matter. Her Majesty's Government will continue to take a very considerable interest in it and if it is possible to come up with ideas that will ease the concern that exists, I am sure they will do so.
LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this matter has nothing whatever to do with Party politics? The Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, was a simple request for information, and that has not been forthcoming. Does not the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, agree that, on reflection, his Answer was hopelessly complacent?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I would most emphatically disagree with the noble and learned Lord. Far from

367
being complacent, I endeavoured to indicate that the Government had considerable interest in this matter. Regarding Party politics, I cannot understand what point the noble and learned Lord was trying to make. I was referring to some laughter that broke out and I thought the House ought to be reminded of the dates to which reference had been made in the Question.
LORD HAILSHAM OF SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, if the noble Lord is in serious doubt as to what I meant, will he bear in mind that I was alluding to his reference to the previous Administration? This matter has nothing to do with Party politics. Will the noble Lord bear in mind that if he wants to keep it out of Party politics (as I hope he will) he will in future refrain from observations of that kind?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I think I was entitled to make reference to the laughter which broke out, and I certainly do not accept from the noble and learned Lord the correction; it is as unwarranted as it is uncalled for.
BARONESS BACON: My Lords, can my noble friend define the legal position about suspension or exclusion from school? Is he aware—I am sure he is—that it is an offence for parents not to send their children to school, and if they fail to do so they can be prosecuted? How can this fact be reconciled with a headmaster or governors having power to exclude from school?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I believe my noble friend is well aware of the situation. The Question before the House deals with suspension, and the reply I gave certainly was intended to cover that point.
LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURY: My Lords, will the noble Lord say whether the Department concerned has made any attempt to obtain the information requested by his noble friend? Secondly, are figures available for the period 1964–70? May I further suggest to the noble Lord that, listening to his reply, it sounded as if he gave his noble friend the "brush off"?
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, my noble friend is the best one to judge
368
whether I was giving him the "brush off". I gave factual information for which the Question asked. If noble Lords will inquire in the localities where they live, they will appreciate that this is a matter where the practice of local authorities varies quite considerably. It was quite impracticable to attempt to gather the information in the time between when this Question was tabled and to-day.
LORD POPPLEWELL: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I am sorry if we have enveloped ourselves in Party politics on this issue? It was not my desire. My Question genuinely sought information on this tremendous problem that many people in the educational field regard as serious. I am not referring to children who play truant or commit minor offences. A headmaster has certain responsibilities for the more serious offences. I am concerned about the after-care treatment that is being considered with a view to preventing further development on unsatisfactory lines which affect society and which we know so well. It is that point which I thank my noble friend for answering and for adding that the Government will give further consideration to the matter with a view to trying to establish the size of this problem.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, would not my noble friend the Minister accept that, if serious offences are charged against children of school age, there exists other machinery for dealing with them through the juvenile courts? Will he not also accept that it is undesirable to try to train children to act in the way they should by suspending their education, and that this is a penalty that ought to be carefully watched?
LORD MAELOR: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this Question does not arise so far as children and schools of Wales are concerned? I had occasion only last week to call at my local school because I wanted to see the headmaster. Not hearing a sound coming from any part of the large building, I returned home, and later I learned to my dismay that the children were at school when I called.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I am sure the House will much appreciate what my noble friend has said in regard

369
to Wales. We wish that the same position applied throughout the entire United Kingdom. As to what my noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger had to say, I will certainly draw my right honourable friend's attention to it. This is not a simple matter. The problems go far beyond school control. Issues of home and other influences are involved. I am satisfied myself that my right honourable friend will do his utmost, so far as he is able, to secure improvement in this situation.

GOVERNMENT STATEMENT
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Wells-Pestell will be making a Statement on the future of the Social Security Act 1973.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES COMMITTEE
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection (Third Report,) Lords following be named of the Committee:

E. Dudley,

E. Lauderdale,

E. Selkirk,

L. Bethell,

L. Champion,

L. Diamond (Chairman),

L. Drumalbyn,

B. Emmet of Amberley,

L. Fulton,

L. Hale,

L. Hill of Luton,

L. Lloyd of Hampstead,

L. Lloyd of Kilgerran,

L. Mais,

L. Rhodes,

B. Serota,

L. Walston.—(The Earl of Listowel.)

LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl how many members of the Liberal Party are on this suggested Committee? According to my calculations it is only one.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, is
370
entirely correct. One member of the Liberal Party is proposed as a member of this Committee.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, is not that very unfair? The Liberal Party, we have heard from time to time, won over 6 million votes at the General Election and is therefore to be considered as one of the great Parties of the State. Were the Liberal Party invited to submit only one name, or are they now so disinterested in the Common Market that they submitted only one name?
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, that, although we are not necessarily totally happy with our representation, we have not even in this House a sufficient number of Members in relation to the votes which were cast for the House of Commons in the recent Election. When we have as many Peers as has the noble Lord's Party, then of course we shall be able to increase our representation on the Committee. But I would say that in my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran we have one who is equal to any other three on the Committee.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CONTROL OF POLLUTION BILL [H.L.]
2.56 p.m.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to move that this Bill be read a second time. As noble Lords are aware, this is very largely the same measure as the Protection of the Environment Bill which was introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in the last Session, and which we debated at length in this House at the turn of the year. The new Bill has been changed and understandably improved since it was last before this House, but in its essentials it remains the same Bill and I hope and believe that it will be equally welcome to your Lordships in its reappearance. Although our previous debates revealed important differences of emphasis on some points. I am sure that the whole House is united in its desire to make effective provision to control and to

371
regulate pollution, and that there will continue to be general support for the strengthening of the various statutory controls which this Bill will bring about.
Before discussing the Bill itself and the details of the changes we have made to it, I should like to say a few words about the Government's general approach towards the problem of pollution and its control. Pollution is a universal problem. Wherever man is, he produces wastes of one kind or another and his activities disturb and affect the natural environment. But in modern society the volume of production and consumption has grown so great that the potential problem of pollution has grown much larger and more important. There are the highly toxic products and wastes that could cause widespread damage if carelessly released. There are the sheer volumes of rubbish and waste needing to be disposed of properly, and the ever-present nuisance of litter. There is the wide range of pollutants discharged to the drains and rivers and emitted to the atmosphere. There is the problem of noise from a growing variety of sources.
Much has been done to tackle these problems over the years. Compared with fifty, twenty or even ten years ago, our air is generally cleaner; our rivers are less polluted; our industrial effluent and chemical wastes, though very much greater in volume and vastly more complex in character, have been made less dangerous and offensive because they are better controlled and understood. I do not know that we can claim an overall advance in dealing with noise, but even here there have been some successes. We must not be complacent, however. There is still a good deal to be done to achieve satisfactory standards of control and improvement of the environment. The public rightly demands that there should be tighter controls and more positive efforts to improve the environment. We want to see better use made of waste products; we want cleaner rivers, estuaries and beaches, and cleaner air in industrial towns; we want more control over noise.
How are these objectives to be brought about? I think we should recognise at once that legislation is neither the only answer nor even the most important answer. Legislation provides a framework,
372
but within that framework it depends on the efforts of everyone in the community to develop habits and practices that lead to a better environment. All of us are potential and, indeed, actual polluters, and all of us must be ready to pay the price of securing the improvements we collectively want to see. We cannot simply pass stiff laws and leave it to the public authorities to enforce standards. We need a continuing dialogue between Government, the local statutory bodies, industry and commerce, workers and conservation groups about what standards we should aim for in what circumstances and how much we can afford as a community to pay for them. Most important of all, we need to develop a national instinct for cleanliness and quietness, a public awareness that in our day to day lives at home or at work we should avoid doing the irresponsible things which not only offend our senses but which create unnecessary burdens for the community as a whole in cleaning up and remedying the pollution so caused.
My Lords, I have said we must not be complacent and that we must develop a national instinct for cleanliness. If ever those words were true they are true about the litter habit. I sincerely believe that this goes to the heart of the problems of pollution. Our streets, our public transport and our beaches provide evidence of the uncaring attitude of people who are cursed with the throw-away habit. No doubt the guilty people are the first to criticise the industrialist who is equally uncaring about the way he discharges his waste. How are we to bring home to people the need for this basic instinct for cleanliness? It is not, of course, just the casual act of dropping a sweet wrapper or cigarette packet that is the problem.
How often have we seen waste outside shops and restaurants awaiting collection but so inadequately put together that the slightest breath of wind blows bits and pieces of paper and polythene here and there? How often have we complained about the refuse collection service which leaves a trail of debris behind as it trundles up the road? Do we fully appreciate how impossible it is for public authorities to maintain an adequate street-cleaning service when cars and vehicles are parked for days on end on many of our residential streets?

373
What can the individual citizen do about this? First, he can resolve never to drop litter. He might take a broom from time to time and sweep up and remove the rubbish around his parked car. Tobacconists, confectioners and take-away food retailers might themselves consider providing, with the agreement of the local authority, a litter receptacle on or near their premises and themselves put the contents of the receptacle into their own dustbin for collection. The assumption that we will always have enough people willing to take jobs cleaning up the filth we leave behind us where-ever we go is almost terrifying in its stupidity, but without such people we would soon be ankle deep in rubbish. The Bill now before us puts a statutory duty on local authorities to get together to decide what to do about litter abatement. I personally attach much importance to it because it provides the opportunity for the development of a real crusading spirit, county by county, to fight the unremitting battle against a habit which it is within the power of each of us to cure.
The proposals in this Bill should be seen in the context I have described. They will help to enable the public authorities concerned to bring about the improvements needed with the co-operation of industry, voluntary bodies and the public. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, will forgive me if I say that it is not a revolutionary Bill. It takes its place in the long and respectable history of public health legislation which has been developing since the 19th century to deal with these problems. It is for this reason that we have renamed the measure as the Control of Pollution Bill. It seems to us that this more accurately (and, might I perhaps say, more modestly) describes the scope and contents of the Bill. In the main it represents a development of existing legislation in the waste disposal, water pollution, noise and air pollution fields.
My Lords, I turn now to the Bill itself. As I have explained to the House, this is very largely the same measure as the Protection of the Environment Bill, and I shall not, therefore, describe at length the provisions which remain as before. I should, however, like to draw attention to some of the points on which we have changed and, I hope, improved the Bill. These have been described in
374
detail in the memorandum which I have made available to a number of your Lordships and which I hope will be of assistance in comparing the two measures. Further copies of this memorandum have been placed in the Library.
The memorandum has given reference to our earlier debates where appropriate, and I think it will be immediately apparent that on many points our changes are designed to meet the very valid points or difficulties that were brought to light by several noble Lords in our previous debate. The House will not be surprised to learn that we have incorporated many of the points urged forcefully by my noble friends Lady White, Lord Garnsworthy and Lord Stow Hill who played such a large part in the Committee stage from the opposite Bench; but I should also Like to take this opportunity of thanking the many other noble Lords whose contributions and suggestions have been reflected in some of the changes we have made, including the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, the Earl of Courtown. Viscount Amory and Lord Molson, to mention just a few. Of course we recognise that on many of these points the noble Baroness, Lady Young, had herself undertaken to consider amendments to her Bill, and may I say—as one who was more of a spectator than an activist while sitting on the Benches opposite—how much I admired her grasp of a big and detailed Bill. If necessary, perhaps she will come to our own aid in Committee. I venture to hope that she will be glad to support the changes that are now in the Bill.
Part I of the Bill attracted the greatest number of Amendments on our first consideration, and it is here that we have made the most changes. The essential framework remains the same however. We still propose that the new waste disposal authorities should be given the responsibility of ensuring that all wastes in their areas are satisfactorily disposed of. To this end Clause 2 required them to survey the wastes arising in their areas and to make a comprehensive waste disposal plan. Clause 3 and the following clauses give them powers to license operations in their areas, while Clause 16 deals with the regulations on the more toxic and

375
dangerous wastes. Clauses 11 to 14 concern the powers and duties of collection and disposal authorities to collect and dispose of waste themselves.
The most important change of emphasis which we have made in Part I is, however, to give more prominence to the recycling and the reclamation of waste. There is a growing public concern about this question in which many factors combine. There is the growing awareness that none of the world's resources is infinite and that it behoves us all to take care to conserve and re-utilise scarce materials wherever possible. At the national level there is a possibility that greater use of waste materials can reduce our need for imports of raw materials and assist the balance of payments. There is the need to avoid pollution and to cope with the problem of litter.
Underlying all these aspects I venture to suggest that there is a moral concern in society that we should not be the producers of ever-growing volumes of useless waste and that recovery and re-utilisation of waste is a more worthwhile objective than conspicuous consumption and planned obsolescence.
Against this background we have therefore written into Clause 2 of the Bill a requirement for the waste disposal authorities to give consideration to the possibilities for reclamation of waste materials in preparing their waste disposal plans, and what provisions should be included in the plan for that purpose. This will mean that the waste disposal authorities will give reclamation possibilities a thorough examination in preparing their plans, and will be able to take steps to promote recovery schemes in appropriate cases, where this is viable. It is necessary to make this proviso, because of course we must keep a sense of proportion here. It is easy to devise schemes that would recover small amounts of waste at great public expense which may not be sensible. What we want is to encourage the more practical schemes which could be made worthwhile and workable, given an extra input of effort and imagination.
A wide range of possibilities may need to be considered in this context. The local authorities may themselves undertake separate collection or separation of
376
particular wastes for recovery; or they may wish to make arrangements with other persons or firms to encourage recycling schemes. Clause 13 has been enlarged slightly to make clear that this is possible. Pursuing a different possibility, they may sometimes wish to incinerate wastes and to make use of the heat for district heating or electricity generation. I do not wish to exaggerate the technical possibilities here, but we believe that the authorities ought at least to have the statutory powers to carry out such schemes where they may be viable, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State hopes to be able to bring in Amendments in another place to achieve this.
A critical question in this whole area is to find suitable outlets and markets for waste materials. Industry has a vital part to play here in developing new technologies and making effective use of waste materials. The Government are playing their part in sponsoring research into the new methods at Warren Springs and elsewhere; but we must look to industry to make the most of the opportunities for use of waste materials, which are of course looking much more attractive at present in the light of higher world prices for many raw materials.
We should not neglect the part which can be played by voluntary efforts in recovery and salvage of wastes. We all know of the useful work that is done by a whole range of voluntary bodies in collecting waste paper or other materials locally, earning a small amount of money for their charity, and contributing usefully to the recovery of waste. Some of us remember the larger scale salvage drives of the war years as a very worthwhile effort. I think we should consider seriously whether, with a little more encouragement and perhaps assistance by local authorities and industry in finding outlets, we might make more effective use of this pool of voluntary enthusiasm.
In the view of the Government there is a need to consider all these problems and possibilities in the recycling field more comprehensively than has been done previously. We have therefore been reviewing urgently the suggestion referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in our previous debates on this subject that we might establish a national

377
advisory body bringing together industrial, local authority and environmental interests to consider and develop proposals on waste management with particular attention to reclamation. Such a body would be able to undertake thorough economic and technical studies of the problems and possibilities in recovering various different types of waste, and to make reasoned recommendations on the development of policy. We are looking favourably at the idea, and my right honourable friend hopes to make an announcement before too long.
I have dwelt at some length on this topic of reclamation of waste, because I think it is the most important change in Part I. I will therefore pass quickly over the other changes we have made here, which include, first, a number of small changes to the disposal plan and the licensing procedures; secondly, the restriction of the power to direct wastes to toxic or special wastes only; thirdly, a recasting and extension of Clause 19 to make clearer the street cleansing duties and enabling local authorities to clean up any place in the open air to which the public has access; and, fourthly, changes in Clause 20 to make the counties in England and Wales and the regions in Scotland the co-ordinating bodies for the plan to deal with litter.
My Lords, before leaving Part I, I should like to say a word about consolidation. The House will recall that in our previous debates the noble Viscount, Lord Amory, and my noble friend Lady White proposed a number of Amendments designed to incorporate and consolidate into this Bill the few remaining sections of the Deposit of Poisonous Waste Act and the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Acts 1951 and 1961. This was widely supported on all sides of the House as a useful bit of tidying-up, and I myself—in, I think, a mischievous intervention—supported the idea.
As soon as I took over responsibility for this Bill I asked for this question to be looked at immediately. I find, however, that the position is a little more complex than I had supposed at the time. Obviously, given a little more time, it would be possible to incorporate some of the provisions in question, although they would not fit very neatly into the framework of this Bill. However, we do not have all the time in the world, and
378
I am sure the whole House will agree with me that we should make every effort to see this Bill on the Statute Book in this Session, rather than hold it up on the fairly technical question of consolidation.
My Lords, I think we should recognise that the provisions which have been mentioned in the debate in this House (the Deposit of Poisonous Waste Act and the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Acts) are only the tip of a large iceberg of public health legislation stretching back over the years. For some time past, consolidation of the whole corpus of public health enactments has been in the Law Commission's programme. The Law Commission are now, in fact, engaged in preparing a scheme which divides the public health enactments into groups which could each form the subject of a Bill. I think, therefore, that we should now reasonably leave this substantial enterprise to be treated as a whole in the manner which the Law Commission will propose.
Part II of the Bill, as your Lordships will remember, deals with controls over water pollution. It extends the existing system of controls so as to cover fully discharges to virtually all water, whether inland, tidal or coastal. Measures are proposed to enable effective preventive action to be taken to avoid pollution. Other provisions are designed to make more information available to the public about what is being put into our rivers and tidal waters. Like Part I, Part II has undergone some revision since it was last considered by your Lordships' House, to take account of the many views then expressed. My noble friend Lady White will be pleased to see that in Clause 37 we have made provision for terminating certain outdated agreements relating to discharges to public sewers, to which she drew attention.
On a completely different subject, we have not been able to accept arguments that agricultural and other interests should be compensated if they were required under regulations made under Clause 25 to restrict their activities in order to avoid causing pollution. But in Clauses 33 and 44, we have incorporated measures to ensure that no restrictions are imposed without full and careful consideration of their effect on agricultural activities. My right honourable friends the Secretary of State and the Minister of Agriculture,

379
Fisheries and Food will keep a careful eye on this matter.
Your Lordships will not require me to run over all the changes that have been made in Part II, but I ought to dwell briefly on two matters. The first is the question of the Common Law rights of riparian owners and others with interests in stretches of water This is an important matter, though the attention given to it has perhaps tended to overshadow other important issues in Part II. Your Lordships will recall the basic point at issue here, that riparian owners have always enjoyed a Common Law right for water in a stream or river to, "flow down as it has been accustomed to flow down … without sensible alteration in its character or quality". They have been able to enforce or protect that right by seeking damages or injunctions against anyone discharging polluting matter higher up the river. This is not an academic right, or an academic remedy. Over the years it has been used forcefully and effectively by riparian owners to keep rivers clear of pollution.
My Lords, under the proposals in Part II of the Protection of the Environment Bill, however, it was proposed that this Common Law remedy should be supplemented and partly replaced by the comprehensive and statutory control of discharges by the water authorities. In future all discharges to inland, coastal and underground waters were to be subject to control by the water authorities who could impose conditions or restrictions designed to protect the purity of the water. All applications for consent to discharge were to be advertised publicly, and third parties, including riparian owners, would have the right to make representations and object.
Given this comprehensive statutory control and publicity, it was originally suggested by the previous Administration that the Common Law remedy of injunctions would become partly unnecessary. It was thought desirable that industrialists and others who had secured consents to discharge should have some security in their operations; and, having gained consent, they should not be liable to further actions by owners seeking injunctions to restrain discharges provided that they complied with the conditions of consent. Clause 36 of the original Bill, therefore,
380
proposed that the Common Law rights (to seek injunctions restraining discharges which complied with the conditions of consent) should be abolished.
As your Lordships will recall, this proposal ran into a great deal of trouble on all sides of the House in our previous debates. I can see the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, waiting anxiously on the corner of his seat. It was forcefully argued that the Common Law rights were a vital safeguard, and that controls by the water authorities would not necessarily be sufficient. Eventually, Clause 36 was withdrawn by the previous Government on the understanding that consideration would be given to the possible re-introduction of a very limited restraint to guard against the risk of what were called "frivolous injunctions".
The Government have carefully considered this question. We have taken into account the strong feeling that was evident in your Lordships' House, that the right to injunctions should remain unaltered. We have noted the views expressed by the noble and learned Viscount. Lord Dilhorne, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, that they would not expect the courts to grant an injunction unless there was evidence of damage or likely damage if the discharge were allowed, and that they would expect the courts to take into account the existence of any consent from the water authority for the discharge. In the light of these circumstances, the Government have decided not to include any measure of restraint on the issuing of injunctions.
As a consequence of this decision, a number of other changes have been made. In particular, the arrangements have now been left out which your Lordships originally voted to include in Clauses 28 and 33 of the previous Bill, to give an authoritative means of protecting the rights of third parties interested in further discharges by giving them a right of appeal against the granting of consent by a water authority. It seems to us that given the right of third parties to make representations to the water authorities on applications to discharge, and given the continuance of their right to seek injunctions, it is really unnecessary to give them an additional right to appeal to the Secretary of State as well, with all

381
the possibilities for delay which this could involve. But, of course, we can return to this point in Committee if your Lordships wish.
My Lords, I turn now to Part III of the Bill which deals with noise. Noise is one of the most difficult forms of pollution to control, and one that is becoming increasingly prevalent in our environment. The public rightly demands that steps should be taken to limit and control this very widespread form of pollution. The proposals in this Part of the Bill are mainly directed at controlling neighbourhood noise with an especial emphasis on noise from factories and construction sites. The existing noise nuisance procedures will be streamlined, and the penalty for offences increased. There wilt be stringent new controls over noise from construction sites, with provision for local authorities to indicate their requirements for noise control before work starts.
There is provision for local authorities to establish noise abatement zones in which it will be possible to require existing noise levels to be held steady and ultimately reduced. The main change we have made is to introduce a new Clause 61 on noise from machinery. This clause will make it possible for the Secretary of State to make regulations under which limits can be imposed on noise levels where machinery is used in a factory or on a construction site. The regulations will also be able to require the use of adequate silencing systems on machinery such as pneumatic drills.
My Lords, I come now to Part IV of the Bill dealing with air pollution. I should first like to say a word about Clause 68 concerning the composition of motor fuel. This clause is substantially the same as the clause in the original Bill introduced by the noble Baroness. Lady Young. It provides powers for the Secretary of State to make regulations governing the composition of motor fuel in order to reduce air pollution. As noble Lords are, of course, aware, the main problem here is the lead content of petrol, and this is a difficult issue to resolve. On the one hand, environmentalists and others concerned with pollution have drawn attention to the dangers that may arise from excessive concentration of lead in the atmosphere, and have called for tight controls. On the other hand, those concerned with the conservation of energy
382
resources and with the balance of payments have rightly drawn attention to the very heavy cost of eliminating lead from petrol, particularly since the rise in the price of oil. The problem is to strike the right balance, given the uncertainties about the nature and extent of the health risks, if any, and about possible ways of reducing lead levels. The noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, has been a powerful advocate of the first line of argument. In the debates in the Committee stage of the Protection of the Environment Bill, he carried an Amendment calling for a total elimination of lead from petrol by 1980, and he has introduced a separate Bill of his own to the same effect in the current Session. The Government are fully as determined as the noble Lord to do everything that is necessary to avoid real health dangers, and they entirely accept that there must be some limitation on the lead content to avoid unnecessary risk. The Bill provides powers for this purpose and these powers will be used. But I must advise the House that, in our view, it would be quite unrealistic in the present state of knowledge to set ourselves a dead-line of 1980 for the total elimination of lead. We shall listen with very great attention to what the noble Lord has to say at a later stage of this Bill.
My Lords, there has been a good deal of public discussion on the problem of securing better information about air pollution. We believe that the proposals in Clauses 71 to 75 will enable local authorities to do much more to investigate atmospheric emissions in their areas and to inform the public about them. On our side of the House, we had some criticisms of the original proposals as not going far enough to make information available, and giving industrialists too many safeguards. We have therefore made some changes to make it harder for persons to refuse to supply information about emissions. In the previous Bill it was possible to refuse consent to publish information because it related to a trade secret, and to refuse to supply information if it was too expensive to collect. This seems to us to be altogether too sweeping, and several noble Lords indicated that they shared this view. We have instead provided for Ministerial arbitration in such cases. We hope that, in fact, it will rarely be needed.

383
I should like to inform your Lordships on a broader front that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State had come to the conclusion on taking office that the time was ripe for a thorough review of the whole system of air pollution control. The form of the review has not yet been settled, but my right honourable friend hopes to make an announcement shortly. Thus there will be an on-going examination of points on which many noble Lords have expressed concern, but which cannot be dealt with in the present Bill. I am sure that the long history of co-operation between local authorities and industry in clean air matters will ensure that good sense and mutual respect allow a reasonable compromise to emerge in most cases. The possibility of arbitration by the Secretary of State is the last stage, and it is not likely to be needed very often. But it should be there as a possibility, rather than allowing one side or the other to take up a totally unresponsive attitude.
My Lords, I have reviewed the main provisions of the Bill and some of the changes of emphasis which the new Government have made in it. As introduced by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition, it was a good and useful Bill. As re-introduced by the Government with the changes to which so many of your Lordships have contributed, I think I may say it is a better Bill. No doubt, as the poet says, if there were world enough and time it could be better still, and embrace many other aspects of the protection of the environment. Though I do not expect the noble Baroness and the House to fall into my arms on this Bill, I hope they will not be too coy in giving it their full support. Indeed, having already devoted such close attention to the Bill in the previous Session, I very much hope that the House will unite in giving it a speedy passage on this occasion and sending it on its way to another place so that it has a real chance of becoming law in this Session.
My Lords, I am sorry that I have spoken so long, but I have sought to cover the changes we have made in the Bill and to give an indication of the philosophy of the present Administration in this important area. Having apolo-
384
gised for speaking too long, I equally apologise to your Lordships' House if I am notable by my absence after the noble Lord, Lord Henley, has spoken. It is not that I have lost interest in this piece of legislation, but following this Bill I shall be concerned with Part IX of the Consumer Credit Bill, on which the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, is intending to cross-examine on some legal and judicial matters. That is an area on which, since I am not a lawyer, I need to be thoroughly briefed. Therefore, I hope your Lordships will excuse me.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, having given us a most helpful explanation of the Bill, may I ask him, in view of his emphatic recommendation of the need to educate the community, whether he will ask his noble friend to give some indication when he winds up of what is being done by education authorities throughout the country to impress on children, the growing generation, the need which he has explained so clearly.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am sure my noble friend has taken the point.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Shepherd.)
3.33 p.m.
BARONESS YOUNG: My Lords, I think I can sot the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, at rest immediately, by saying that we on this side of the House give a warm welcome to this Bill and are glad that it has been possible to re-introduce it into the House, albeit under a new title. We thank him for his very lucid explanation, not only of the principles of the Bill, but of the major changes contained within it. It is as we know a Bill which is based on a number of reports and on an extensive period of discussion and consultation with interested bodies. It is primarily an enabling Bill and it thus provides a framework for improvement of the environment which will be of benefit to everyone. Furthermore, it has already been the subject of extensive debate in your Lordships' House. We had eight full days in Committee, and quite rightly so, for the subject matter of this Bill is one on which the House has a great many experts to whom a Government, of any political complexion, should listen with great care. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord

385
Shepherd, for his help in letting me have the memorandum on the changes that have been made to this Bill since it ceased to be the Protection of the Environment Bill.
As the noble Lord said, we are working to a very tight timetable indeed, but we on this side of the House will do our best to keep to it. We believe in the principles behind the Bill and, although we shall want to look with care at all the changes that have been made, we want to see the Bill on the Statute Book. I have already referred to the change of Title. I am not surprised to see it. Such a name was suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady White, and by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, and indeed we devoted one quite extensive debate in Committee to it; and although I was fully prepared to defend the former Title—and I make no apology at all for it—I do not propose to debate this one. There are, I believe, more important issues for discussion at this time.
Although a number of changes have been made to the Bill, I should like to begin by commenting on some of the things it has not been possible to do. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, himself drew attention to the fact that the Amendments of my noble friend Lord Amory and many other noble Lords, which were most forcibly pressed, were to introduce a measure of consolidation, particularly of the Deposit of Poisonous Waste Act and the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Acts. It has not been possible to bring in that measure of consolidation. I am bound to say that I was not altogether surprised to hear it, and I listened with great interest to the explanation which the noble Lord gave. I shall certainly study it with care when I read Hansard.
Nor is there any change in the Financial Memorandum at the start of the Bill. The financial provisions were criticised last December as being an underestimate, and they are hardly likely in the present financial climate to be more realistic to-day. Local government needs to be thinking now about how it will carry out the provisions of this Bill, and it is absolutely certain that it will need to employ a large number of expert staff, not only because it is a new duty for county councils to be waste disposal authorities; but also because many of the provisions—for example, those dealing with noise—embody entirely new techniques of meas-
386
urement and control. I believe that very few authorities indeed will have staff suitably qualified and able to carry out this duty.
While I am on the subject of staff, I should be interested if the Government could give us more information on any further thoughts they may have on the new careers structure for staff who come into this new profession of pollution control or environmental control, whatever it may be called. It is a profession which will be of increasing interest and, at the same time, it is one which will require important technical qualifications. On the former Second Reading of this Bill, a great many noble Lords raised the question of finding a suitable careers structure and training for people entering the profession, and there is no doubt at all that, if the provisions of the Bill are to be effectively carried out, it is essential to have enough of the right, properly qualified people.
I do not propose to go through all the changes that have been made to this Bill. A great many changes meet points already fully debated in the last Committee, and many are far more suitable for the ensuing Committee stage. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that many changes are improvements to the Bill. Indeed, taken together, many of the changes hold the difficult balance between all the interests involved—the interests of the individual, the local government, the water authority, the industrialist and the farmer. It may well be that the balance is not yet right, and that we shall want to look again at sonic of the changes.
Having said that, we welcome the increased flexibility of the arrangements for consultation with interested bodies; for example, the disposal plan, the increased rights for an individual in regard to consultation about such a plan, the increased security for industry in the variation of conditions and revocation of licences, and the consultation with the National Park authorities about litter. The changes also meet a number of technical points on water and noise; in particular, there is Clause 36, which is concerned with applications to discharge into water which are to be exempted from the publicity arrangements. As I have said, these proposals are brought into line with the proposals on a similar clause on clean air.

387
I should like to turn to what seemed to me some of the major matters debated during the Committee stage and which are changed in this Bill. The first matter, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said, is the whole question of recycling. Nothing that has happened in the weeks which have elapsed since we last debated this subject has made this question any less urgent. Each day we become more aware of the finite nature of the world's natural resources and of their cost, and it seems deplorable from any point of view not to reuse or reclaim anything that can have a further use. I welcome, therefore, the fact that the clauses on recycling—the provisions in both Clause 2 and Clause 13—have been strengthened.
I know too that the whole principle of recycling, although it sounds splendid and almost as if at the wave of a wand one could solve all one's problems, is in fact a highly technical matter, and that there are very real practical problems indeed. To name just one problem, officers in local government have explained to me at considerable length that it is no use local government collecting and sorting out the different kinds of waste if there is not an immediately available market for it, and furthermore a market which will continue. It is no use having it one year and not the next. Therefore, I was very glad to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that there is a proposal to set up a waste advisory committee. It seems to me that it is very difficult for a local authority, or an individual, or an industrialist, to find out and get advice on this whole subject of recycling. As I understand it, a number of Government Departments are concerned in it; not simply the Department of the Environment, but also, of course, the Department of Industry, which deals with trade, and the Department of Energy. It also involves private industry and, last but by no means least, the local authorities. I believe it to be true that, at present, the local authorities contribute only 15 per cent. of the total material collected to be reclaimed. Therefore, I believe that a Central Advisory Council to advise on the reuse of waste will be of enormous value to all those sections of the community which, quite rightly, are in a position to do something about it but which really now
388
require more advice and help on the best way to go about it.
Turning to the clause on water, I would only comment on two points. I was glad to see that, after the very long debates on the subject, the right of a private individual to bring a private injunction against a water authority has been retained. I must say that, remembering the long discussions that we had, I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was quite right to leave this matter where it was. There may be further discussion on the other very difficult issue which he himself raised, that of compensation to farmers whose farming activities could be affected if, notwithstanding the fact that their methods conformed with the code of good agricultural practice, they caused pollution and, as a consequence, their farming practices were restricted. I understand that there is no special compensation provision at all, but if I have understood the Bill correctly there will be an additional safeguard, in that appeals on this matter of whether or not something is a good agricultural practice will be decided jointly by the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture. We shall want to read very carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said about this point, and consider it very carefully.
I should also like to comment, with interest, on the changes to Clause 68 governing lead in petrol. Only a few weeks ago we had a debate in this House on this subject, and I have no doubt that there will be a further debate upon it. For myself, I consider that the increased flexibility given to the Secretary of State on this matter, to make regulations governing the composition of motor fuel, is a good change, and one which I support. However, I hope before we come to debate it, if the Government have any more information either on the medical aspects of this matter, which, of course, are very important, or indeed on any of the research that is being carried out on engines and on fitting devices into the exhaust pipes of cars, then it will be very helpful to have it.
Almost at the end of his speech the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, raised what I thought was an important matter; namely, that the Government are proposing to set up a Committee to review all

389
forms of air pollution control. It is very difficult to comment on this matter having just heard of it at this time when, of course, we do not know what the terms of reference of this Committee will be and, therefore, in what way it will affect Part IV of this Bill on air pollution. I hope that he will tell us what is proposed on this matter as soon as he can, and preferably before the Committee Stage, because I think our observations would be much more constructive and helpful if we knew the limits within which we were discussing what is an important matter.
In a sense this is a second Second Reading. The subject of pollution, or the protection of the environment, whatever we may choose to call it, is a subject of great importance to everyone. I believe that one of the great values of having a further debate like this is the educative value. We must bring everybody to realise that each person has a responsibility for protecting the environment, and that each person could himself make some effort to improve it by his own behaviour. I was, therefore, very glad to see that the provisions covering litter have been strengthened and improved. Indeed this is a subject of such importance that it behoves us all who are interested in the environment to see all the time if we cannot think of, and devise new ways of trying to educate people, and draw the attention of people to the need to keep our cities and our countryside clean.
In thinking of this particular subject, one is made to realise that standards in the environment are being raised constantly and that it is always possible, in a Bill like this, that we should think of other matters which were not included in the original Bill but which, over the period of time which has elapsed since January, it has been possible to consider. Although I do not expect an answer to this question to-day, I should be interested to know whether the Government have given any consideration to the possibility of bringing British Rail within the provisions of the Bill, and perhaps at some stage the Government would like to comment on this. I realise that it is a new issue and not the subject of the first Bill, but it is one which, if one considers the matter, is something which really ought to be brought within the provisions of a Bill, and I should like to
390
know whether there is any possibility of doing this. I am not here this afternoon simply to criticise this Bill. As I said at the beginning, it is one which we welcome and which we believe to be of benefit to all citizens. We, on this side of the House, will co-operate in giving the Bill a speedy passage through this House.

SOCIAL SECURITY ACT 1973
3.49 p.m.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, with the permission of your Lordships, I should like to repeat a Statement which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is making in another place on the future of the Social Security Act 1973. The Statement is as follows:
"The Social Security Act is due to come into force on April 6, 1975. But as the House knows there are many features of our predecessors' long term pension scheme embodied in this Act which we find unacceptable; in particular the provision it makes for the so-called 'second pension' is wholly inadequate. If the Act goes forward in its present form millions of pensioners will have to supplement their pensions by means-tested assistance well into the 21st century. Moreover, women in general and widows in particular will be left without adequate pension coverage.
"At the same time I recognise that considerable preparations have already been made—by employers, trade unions and those concerned with running occupational pension schemes—on the basis that the Act would be coming into force next April.
"This situation has caused the Government some difficulty. We have had two choices. On the one hand we could allow the Act to come into force next April in its present form, pending the introduction of our own long-term pension proposals on which I have promised a White Paper as soon as possible, and on which we would hope to legislate in the next Session of Parliament. This would mean that people would be paying contributions to the Reserve Scheme for very limited pension entitlements until the scheme was replaced by our own, after no more than two or three years. Moreover,

391
the Government would seem to be accepting a scheme which has been widely condemned by the trade unions and in this House which would not provide adequately for the pension needs of women. Alternatively, we could arrange to bring into operation only those parts of the 1973 Act provisions which would not militate against our own long term proposals.
"After fullest consideration the Government have decided that the second course is the right one. Accordingly, we propose to allow the basic pension provisions of the Act to come into force on April 6, 1975, as planned, including the change to a fully earnings related contribution system, and the winding up of the graduated pension scheme, but not those provisions in it which relate to the Reserve Pension Scheme and the arrangements for exemption from it. The long-term proposals which the Government will put before Parliament will include the repeal of these latter provisions. But the provisions of the Act relating to preservation of occupation pension rights will come into force as planned. I shall shortly be making an order under the Act giving effect to the Government's decision.
"I realise that this decision will affect those concerned with occupational pension schemes who have been overhauling their schemes in order to bring them into line with the recognition criteria. But the setting up of any good new occupational pension scheme or the improvement of an existing one represents a move in the right direction. And by making a clean break we shall avoid an uneasy interim period during which schemes would have had to adapt to one set of requirements at the very time when new requirements were being worked out.
"I want to make it plain that we are in favour of, and wish to encourage the development of, good occupational pension schemes which are highly valued by the people in them. It is not our purpose to place any obstacles in the path of such schemes.
"I realise also that, for the interim period before the Government's long-term pension proposals take effect, those who are not members of occupational pension schemes will lose the
392
benefits that would have accrued from the reserve pension scheme. But those benefits would have been very small indeed for most people. So in general the loss of two or three years of such rights will soon be overtaken by the more generous long-term provisions we shall propose, and the scheme will have a quicker build-up, which, of course will help those approaching retirement age when it starts. Moreover, there is the big improvement we are making already in the basic pension, so that overall both pensioners and prospective pensioners—men and women—can be sure that they will get a better deal from this Government.
"Pending the introduction of our full scheme, the House will want to know how I envisage that the higher basic pension of £10 and £16, as adjusted by annual upratings related to earnings and not just prices, will be financed from April, 1975. As I have previously told the House, we shall at that point move to fully earnings related contributions and the fiat rate contributions will cease as provided in the 1973 Act, but legislation will be necessary this Session to adjust the new contribution rates. Under the National Insurance Bill now before Parliament, the uprating for the current year will necessitate an increase in the standard percentage under the graduated scheme to 5½ per cent. from this August, and in legislating for the situation after April, 1975, we would propose to keep the percentage contribution for employees at the same level. It is not possible at this stage to say what precisely the employer's contribution will be after that date, but we estimate it will be about 8¾ per cent. The Exchequer contribution will remain at 18 per cent. The net effect of all this will be that the vast majority of employees will have no further contribution increase, to finance the current uprating, in April, 1975. The House will also remember that those who were compelled to become members of the Reserve Scheme, and their employers, would have been paying contributions of 1½ per cent. and 2½ per cent., respectively, in addition to their basic scheme contributions, from next April. These additional contributions will not now be imposed.

393
"I shall be bringing full details of the contributions payable from April, 1975, before the House in due course."
That concludes the Statement made by my right honourable friend in another place.
3.58 p.m.
LORD ABERDARE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for repeating that long Statement but I cannot say that I am grateful to him for its contents. It seems to me to be a disastrous Statement and will cause the utmost confusion to all those who are concerned with occupational pension schemes. The 1973 Social Security Act was based on a balance and on the use of a Government scheme coupled with a very large place for occupational pension schemes, and I am quite sure in my mind that, faced with the two choices which the noble Lord has told us the Government have, the right thing to do would be to choose the first alternative, namely, to allow to come into force next April the Act as it had been passed through both Houses of Parliament, pending any changes that the Government White Paper might have proposed.
My Lords, this is a minority Government, and who knows whether they will still be in power to carry through any proposals in their White Paper. There is plenty of time available; there is no need for rush decisions in this matter. The Act could have been left to develop as proposed and, in the meantime, the White Paper could have been produced, followed, if necessary—or if this Government were still in power—by legislation. That, in my view, would have been the right way to tackle this matter. In the meantime, a severe blow will have been dealt to occupational pension schemes. It is no good keeping chopping and changing in this matter. Immense efforts have been made by a large number of people, none more so than those by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, to encourage occupational pension schemes. All that good will will be lost, and it will be very difficult indeed to recreate it in future. I do not think it is any good for the Government to say that they are in favour of good occupational schemes, and then to treat them in this fashion. I sincerely hope that those who are working on occupational pension schemes will continue, despite the difficulty that now
394
faces them. I believe that these proposals will cause the maximum amount of chaos and confusion and will, as the noble Lord has told us, deprive those people who are not members of occupational schemes of a reserve scheme benefit. He says that this benefit is very small, but even a small one is a valuable addition to a pension, and who knows whether it will ever be made good to them.
My Lords, this is a very complicated matter. The Bill was very complicated, and we need to study carefully the effect of the emasculation of half the Bill. I would ask the noble Lord just two questions: first of all, what is the future of the occupational pensions board itself? Secondly, the Statement states that it is hoped to legislate next Session. In that case on what date do the Government expect to introduce their own pension scheme?
4.2 p.m.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, noble Lords will probably know my significance in this matter, as chairman of the Company Pensions Information Centre. This Statement will of course require a good deal of time to study, and I think it will also require a great deal of clarification. At first sight I can only agree with the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, in expressing my regret that the Government have decided at this stage on the course that they are going to adopt, particularly the decision to remove the incentive for an employer to provide a good second pension for his workmen. This is particularly regrettable when both employers and trade unions are in the course of discussing occupational pension schemes often far better than the minimum standards required for recognition up to now. The removal of the target date of April, 1975, may well slow down the whole process of providing much needed better occupational schemes for millions of people.
I am particularly distressed because it was the intention—and I hope it will still be the intention—of many companies to bring their manual workers into occupation schemes on a parity with staff. This would have been a tremendous step forward. I only hone that many of us engaged in this field will continue to press for this step forward because it is a social reform which is long overdue. Does not the Minister agree that by

395
abolishing the time scale and the requirement to meet minimum recognition standards, millions of workers may well receive lower retirement incomes than they would have done if the Act be preserved? I can only agree with the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, that the intentions of the Government for the future do not appear to be clear enough. May I therefore ask once again for the assurance that those people who understand the technicalities of these things—and I do not rate myself as one—should be fully consulted before the Government embark upon a new scheme?
4.4 p.m.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am obliged to both noble Lords for their comments. If they will allow me to say so—and I do not say this with any degree of impertinence—I think they are unduly pessimistic in their reaction to the Government's plans. All this Government wish to do is to provide the best possible pensions for people on retirement. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, asked me whether this would not cause some confusion and uncertainty in the occupational pensions world. In reply, I would say that I think it will bring to an end the period of uncertainty which followed the change of Government. Secondly, it will avoid an unnecessary interim period from now until our own proposals take effect, a period during which occupational schemes would have been adapting to an already obsolescent set of standards. Thirdly, it will avoid the bottle-neck which was plainly going to arise just before April, 1975. Only a handful of applications for recognition has so far been received by the Occupational Pensions Board. Fourthly, much of the effort which has been expended in improving schemes and setting up new ones will not have been wasted because there is no reason why these new and improved schemes should not come into being just as soon as they are ready.
I was asked about the Occupational Pensions Board. First I should like, on behalf of the Government, to pay tribute to the work already done by the very able chairman and members of the Board and the supporting staff. So far as they have concentrated on the details of the conditions of recognition, we acknowledge that their efforts have been largely
396
abortive, but we envisage a continuing role for the Board. They will be responsible for supervising the preservation requirements which affect all occupational schemes and for helping schemes to modify their rules. There are also the advisory functions in the Act, so one imagines that they are not going to be exactly idle during the interim period.
With regard to occupational pensions as a form of deferred pay, it is our view that there should be a place for good occupational schemes in any pension strategy. As I have pointed out to your Lordships, the Government give encouragement to occupational schemes. That is how we are approaching our long-term proposals. For actual details—and I realise that to some extent this must be unsatisfactory to some of your Lordships—I think we have to wait for the White Paper, which I hope will be available some time this summer, when we can then discuss the matter.
LORD SLATER: My Lords, may I say that the observations that were made in the first instance by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, took one back to a position in the other place in 1950, when it was the purpose and intention of His Majesty's Government at that time to nationalise the steel industry. The appeal on that occasion by Mr. Eden, as he was then, was to suspend that for a period of six months. The noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, to-day is requesting Her Majesty's Government to hold this over for a period of time as we are more or less a minority Government. But we are in power and Her Majesty's Government—
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I wonder whether my noble friend will forgive me. I think it is understood, when we have a Statement, that noble Lords are entitled to state a view, basically to the Government, on the Statement with the intention of asking a question. I suspect that my noble friend was trying to support Her Majesty's Government against the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. I should not have thought that that was the right use of the period after Statements have been made. If my noble friend wishes to put a question, I hope he will do so. I hope he will take my words in the spirit in which I put them: that we ought to try to keep the period after a Statement for the purpose

397
of elucidating information from the Government rather than expressing rather strong views.
LORD SLATER: I sincerely hope that my noble friend the Leader of the House will restrain himself for a moment until I complete what I was going to say. The first question I should like to direct to the Government is this: how many occupational schemes are there in existence in this country? After all, Her Majesty's Government are one of the largest employers in the country and we have all these people in superannuation schemes. For example, there are those who are serving in the nursing profession, and particularly in the mental section, who are expected to retire at the age of 55, yet they can make their application for an extended period of two years. The same principle applies in the Post Office, where people in that service are expected to retire on reaching the age of 60 but can still make their application for an extended period of two years over that age and go on to the age of 62. It would be very interesting to hear from my noble friend, if he is in a position to give us the information, how this will operate, how it operates now, and the number of occupational schemes that are outside those covering people engaged in Her Majesty's Government's service?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, in reply to my noble friend, I believe there are something like 65,000 schemes—the noble Lord, Lord Byers, shakes his head, and I am very grateful to him for his help.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: He nodded!
LORD BYERS: My Lords, I affirmed it.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: I was just going to say that those schemes involve about 11 million people. The only other comment I want to make is that we do not take exception to the criticism made by the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, or the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Byers. This Government have their own conception as to what a pension scheme should be. We are obviously anxious to have comments, criticisms and observations. I think the time to make such comments, criticisms and observations will be when we have the White
398
Paper, which I hope will be before your Lordships in the not too distant future.

CONTROL OF POLLUTION BILL [H.L.]
4.12 p.m.
Second Reading debate resumed.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, one of the disadvantages of speaking third from the Liberal Benches is that one has to bring your Lordships back again from an interesting Statement on pensions to the control of pollution. May I say how glad I am to see this Bill back again, and back with a new name. I was one of those who at the former Second Reading said that I felt that perhaps the old name was a misleading one and that I would like to see it changed. I am glad that that has been done.
I regard it as a measure of the Government's good intentions that in spite of all the financial and other difficulties that we are in, they are still prepared to devote time to this extremely important subject. I am glad that the Government have also brought back the Bill virtually the same as it left. I wish that Governments would do this more often. I remember that when the new Conservative Administration came in in 1970 with a new Industrial Relations Act, a noble Baroness who to-day sits on the Government Benches asked me, "Would it not be very statesman like if the Conservative Government re-introduced instead the Labour Government's Industrial Relations Bill just as it stands?" That Bill was based upon In Place of Strife, and the Labour Government had to withdraw it for reasons which noble Lords will remember as well as I do.
I often wonder what would have happened if the incoming Government had re-introduced that Bill in virtually the same terms—it is an interesting speculation to make—and the Government have now done very nearly that. I think that they have done a very good job in revising the Bill. In particular, I agree with what has been said with regard to the recycling provisions. The Bill has been improved by taking account of so many of the Amendments that were moved earlier, some of which were not accepted and some of which were, shall I say, only half accepted. I am not sure

399
how far noble Lords who moved Amendments will be satisfied that their points have been included in the new Bill. I think a great many of them have been, and I am happy about those that I raised.
There are one or two small points in regard to which the Government might have gone further than they have done. This speech should really be a Second Reading one, but we raised most of the points of principle when we first debated the Bill so I do not propose to do that again. What I want to do is draw the Government's attention to a very few more points about which the Government might have done better. First of all, the subject of penalties was debated during the Committee stage, and I think that the penalties proposed under this new Bill are still inadequate. If one compares the penalties proposed in the last Government's Bill and in this new Bill with the penalties under the Prevention of Oil Pollution Act, it will be seen that they are derisory. Under the Prevention of Oil Pollution Act, a polluter can be fined up to £50,000. Nothing like that is available under this Bill to deal with the pollution of water; for example, by chemicals which can have a much more damaging effect than oil.
Secondly, something must be done about Crown privilege. Clause 95(3) goes some little way in excluding lessees of the Crown, but one must go further than this. Prisons, hospitals and airfields are organisations which many of us have known to drag their heels faced with complaints about pollution. Very often, they drag their heels because they know that in the last resort they can plead privilege. I think that that position needs to be changed, and it must be made abundantly clear that the Government's own establishments should comply in every way with provisions of the Bill.
I believe that an Amendment moved by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, was accepted by the last Government. It dealt with the entry of pollution matter due to an emergency. On the face of it, it is perfectly reasonable that a polluter should not be penalised for having done something in order to avoid danger to the public. But if I may give your Lordships the type of example that I am thinking of, the
400
fire service was very often leaned upon in the past by the water authority because they considered that the fire service was acting recklessly in hosing poisonous waste off a road where, say, a chemical lorry had turned over, and those wastes went into the streams and caused great damage, not only to rivers, but, even worse, to underground sources where the damage can be irreparable. One might say that water authorities trained fire services to take special care by using sandbags, booms and other devices to ensure that the pollution was less damaging than it might otherwise have been. I believe that it is reasonable to ask for the relevant clause to be modified in such a way as to require special care to be taken even in an emergency, which I believe was accepted by the last Government.
The noble Baroness, Lady Young, has already dealt with a rather curious anomaly with regard to agriculture; that is, the fact that something which is good practice, in agricultural terms, is something which, in pollution terms, must not be done. The Government have gone some way to meet this anomaly by making better provision for an appeal which, as the noble Baroness pointed out, is in the hands of both the Department of the Environment and the Ministry of Agriculture. I know many people feel strongly that people's livelihoods are at stake and that possibly some form of compensation should be devised. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said that the Government had thought about it but had rejected it. I know that my noble friend Lord De Ramsey will be raising the subject at the Committee stage and I think that he will be strongly supported; so that it may again be debated.
I said before, and I say again, that I am sorry the last Government, and the present one, have not thought fit to try to introduce the question of aircraft noise into the Bill. The answer given previously, I think, was that it was too difficult to do so. It may well be the case that we have allowed the situation to get out of hand and that there is nothing we can now do about it in this Bill. But if that is so, I think that very serious thought should be given to what other method can be devised to putting the matter right. From what the Government have said, and from the question put to them by

401
the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I note that extra teeth will be given to the Alkali Inspectorate, which has come under considerable criticism in the last week, and it may be that this is the time to make it a more powerful body than it is.
I hope that we can get the Bill through rather more quickly than we did the last one when we spent eight days—sometimes for many hours each day—and when the burden of the heat of the day was borne almost entirely from the Opposition Benches by the noble Baroness, Lady White, who follows me later to-day. I hope that we shall not go on for so long next time. We were, I think, too wordy altogether, important and complex as that Bill was. I am glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, admit that when looking more closely at the Bill he has realised, as some of us did last time, that it is a very complicated Bill indeed. I did not intend to speak for as long as 10 minutes, which I have now done. The average Government and Opposition Front Bench speech took 25 minutes. If we are to get the Bill before Whitsun, I hope that everyone will speak as shortly as possible.
4.23 p.m.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I should like to pay a very sincere tribute of appreciation to the Government for the line they have taken in virtually reintroducing the Bill which was before us in the last Parliament. I would congratulate the Leader of the House upon the persuasive tact with which he induces his colleagues to allow this matter to be resumed with something in the nature of an undertaking that if we deal with the matter with sufficient expedition time will be found in another place to ensure that it is on the Statute Book by the end of this Session. When we have heard about the way in which the Government intend to encourage recycling it is indeed a good augury that they begin by recycling this Bill. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Henley, is right when he thinks that it will be possible for us to deal with the matter fairly expeditiously.
The long and careful study which we gave to the Bill in the last Parliament should enable us to make rapid progress. Indeed, that should be all the more possible because of the way in which the suggestions made by so many of your
402
Lordships in the case of the last Bill have, as I think, very wisely been adopted by the Government in this Bill. Of all those who took part in those long debates, and whose suggestions have been adopted, I think that probably the highest scorer is the noble Baroness, Lady White. Indeed, those who listened to her during the earlier debates will think that that is not only just but inevitable. I should like to pay tribute to her remarkable grasp of the whole administrative machine and the diligent mastery of detail with which she pressed her Amendments.
In my Second Reading speech on the previous Bill I said that I welcomed it but that it had limitations. I said that it contained a number of detailed provisions which did not really lend themselves to any general discussion of principle and that it was only when we got down to the Committee stage that we should see exactly what it involved. If that was the case on the previous occasion there is obviously much less scope for a normal Second Reading debate on this occasion. Indeed, when I studied the helpful Memorandum issued by the Lord Privy Seal there were only two points which I thought were deserving of mention in a Second Reading speech. The first of those related to consolidation. In view of the laboured defence that the Leader of the House made of the failure to consolidate, I need not quote either him or my noble friend Lady Young when it was pointed out, and was generally accepted in all parts of the House, that a few simple Amendments would simplify the reading and understanding of the Bill and would be of immense help to all those, many of them lay people, who will be required in administering this measure to read, as things are at the present time, a number of separate Acts, some of them passed a long time ago. I have never concealed the fact that I do not share the admiration held for the office of Parliamentary Counsel and those who there practise their arcane craft. I have often complained that there is an extraordinary unwillingness by those responsible for drafting to accept even the simplest modification to what they have written, unless it comes from their own Department. I would make an appeal to the Government to say that during the considerable time that will

403
elapse before the Bill finishes its stages in another place, at any rate some of these comparatively simple Amendments will have been incorporated. I refuse absolutely to accept this mumbo-jumbo that draftsmanship is necessarily so difficult. In many cases Bills from that office are extremely obscure. I hope that the Government will insist on something being done about that.
The second point I thought worth making was the one that has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. It is of course entirely right that if what is even a good agricultural practice is likely to involve the risk of pollution of waters, and especially of subterranean waters, that practice should be prohibited. But if it is admittedly a good agricultural practice, then the general principle can hardly be held to apply that the polluter should pay the penalty.
My Lords, it has been generally accepted by both political Parties that, while compensation should not be paid to individuals or companies who abstain from committing an unsocial act, on the other hand, when somebody is interfered with in what has previously been a perfectly legitimate activity (by which I mean morally justified as well as legally justified) and his existing rights are taken away in the general interests of the community, the community should then pay him compensation. I would again ask the Government to have a look at this problem; and, even though they have at present decided in principle against the payment of compensation, I hope they will have second thoughts, for I believe such compensation to be based upon equity and, also, to be expedient. Whenever one refuses to pay fair compensation, it is extremely difficult to persuade those responsible to apply a sound principle if it will inflict individual hardship. I believe, therefore, that apart from justice to the individual it will be in the interests of sound administration to pay compensation.
My Lords, in his speech the Leader of the House made two additional points. I very much welcome the inquiry which the Secretary of State for the Environment intends to hold into the general question of the pollution of the air. I have always felt that, although it may have been justified, and perhaps inevi-
404
table and necessary, that there should be two separate authorities, the Alkali Inspectorate and local authorities, dealing with this matter of the pollution of the air, it really does add greatly to the difficulty of ensuring that the end will be satisfactorily achieved; and I am sure it is good that the new Secretary of State has decided to hold an inquiry into this general problem.
I feel some doubt as to the wisdom of the Government's present intention that, because of the right of the riparian owner to have recourse to the courts for an injunction, the right of appeal to the Secretary of State, which was contained in the previous Bill, should now be removed. I should not like to be dogmatic on that point but I think it is a matter which your Lordships should consider carefully when we come to the Committee stage. With those few observations I therefore once again welcome the Bill and congratulate the Government upon it. Certainly so far as I am concerned, and I hope and believe those in any way associated with me, we shall do all we can to expedite the consideration of this measure.
4.34 p.m.
LORD ZUCKERMAN: My Lords, may I, too, say how glad I am that the Government have seen fit to bring this Bill back to your Lordships' House. It is a Bill with the aims and principles of which I am totally in agreement; and I am also in agreement in general with the measures it proposes. At the same time, I do not think that two major points which were raised during the course of our previous debate have really been taken into account. They are not points which I made, because unfortunately I was unable to be in your Lordships' House on the particular occasion concerned, although I noted them at the time; they were made by both the noble Lord, Lord Beeching, and by the noble Viscount, Lord Amory. This was during the course of the Second Reading debate, when they drew attention to the magnitude of the financial and technical effort which would be necessary to define and to implement the new standards which are implied by this Bill. I do not see their fears reflected in the changes which have been made in the new Bill, and my own doubts on

405
this score have certainly not been dispelled.
I sincerely hope, therefore, that as this Bill goes speedily through your Lordships' House some attention will be paid by the Government to the nature of what is implied, because the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum before us now repeats what was said in the previous one:
"The effects of the Bill on Government expenditure will be small".
But these are only the direct effects. My Lords, it says that the Government may be compelled lo take on 25 additional staff, but that is surely not the point. In the earlier debate the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said that the cost
"will in the main fall on those interests which are responsible for causing the pollution".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27/11/73, col. 19.]
So far as the nation is concerned—whether any component of the total cost is paid by the Exchequer, by a local authority, by the consumer, by the producer or by the manufacturer—there is clearly an additional cost. I therefore ask again whether the Government have considered closely enough what the total bill is going to be, regardless of who is paying, for each successive phase in the implementation of the measures which it is proposed to introduce once the Bill becomes law.
I go further and ask whether, because it is a national question which we are considering, these costs, or part of them, should not be borne nationally as opposed, at the present moment, to falling almost entirely on the local authority. As I understand it, with the present limit on the rate at which the rate support grant can grow, the additional costs of implementing the provisions of the Bill are likely to call for unacceptable rate increases. Because of the reorganisation of local government and of the water services, I understand that several counties have already experienced increases of up to 60 per cent. Where are the resources to come from in order to implement the measures of this new Bill? Is there not a real danger of overloading the local authorities with matters beyond their financial powers, and certainly beyond their manpower capabilities?
The noble Lord, Lord Henley, referred to some observations which have appeared
406
this last week about the Alkali Inspectorate—a body whose efforts I believe are unfairly denigrated far too frequently. They are an excellent body. But the point about this new report to which the noble Lord, Lord Henley, referred is that it asks that their powers and their duties be taken away from them; that they be an advisory body, and that their functions be handed over again to local authorities. How can this be done? Have the local authorities the manpower and the technical know-how to undertake either that work or the work involved in implementing the provisions of the Bill before us, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, remarked in the previous Second Reading Debate,
"is of a highly technical nature, requiring specialised investment … and the employment of scientific staff"?—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27/11/73, c. 16.]
Are such staff available to the authorities? Could they become available to the authorities? Here I agree completely with what the noble Baroness, Lady Young, said earlier on in the course of this debate. This is an immensely important matter, which I trust will be taken into account at the Committee stage. It is not just a question of the availability, but also a question of the career structure of the people concerned.
But what will the cost be? I seem to remember reading that the noble Lord, Lord Molson, expressed some doubts at the previous Committee stage about this question of costs. I realise the dangers of over-centralisation, but in the field of pollution, where the need at present appears to be for adequate investment in skilled manpower and in equipment, there are obvious gains to be made from economies of scale. In the circumstances in which we find ourselves, it might have been better if the whole of a region's waste disposal services had been put in one single organisation. Had that happened, some of the apparent anomalies would not have occurred. For example, the regional water authority levies a rate which includes a proportion for sewerage on all properties, and yet the present Bill provides for a charge to be made for emptying cesspools. It also proclaims that no charge is to be made for house refuse collection when the cost is already apparent in the rates. Some people will thus pay twice for the same service; and this is a point which I

407
trust will be looked at. On water pollution, justice will hardly be seen to be done if an R.W.A. withhold consent for discharges—application for which will be subject to public advertisement—when the bulk of discharge will be from the R.W.A.'s own sewerage works, which are not subject to advertisement. The R.W.A. becomes both judge and jury.
So far as air pollution is concerned, the Bill authorises local authorities to investigate discharges to the air and encourages them to undertake additional research, but they have no standing (let alone the necessary staff) so far as those discharges which are subject to the Alkali Act are concerned. Is it really easier for local authorities, as opposed to the Factory Inspectorate, to obtain adequate information from industry as to the nature of its various discharges? I also share the doubts expressed during this debate regarding the scale of penalties suggested in the present Bill.
While I am fully in favour of its aims, I am therefore uneasy because the Bill is very wide-ranging and could, without care, become too restrictive in practice. Also it could be difficult to implement for lack of resources. Legislation in a field such as pollution, where standards should not be absolute, is notoriously difficult. Some polluting activities which, because of their scale and geographical location, are now considered irrelevant and unimportant to the overwhelming majority should clearly remain so—we cannot afford otherwise—but suddenly new knowledge might transform the situation.
I should like to return to my previous point, which was also made by the Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in his opening remarks: what standards should we aim for and what can we afford? Have we indeed the expert knowledge—knowledge concerning amenities as well as scientific knowledge—to know precisely what it is that we wish to prevent? To me, the Bill has the appearance of being somewhat more wide-ranging and ambitious than either our scientific knowledge or our resources warrant. Even if this were not so, I would again ask: how much can we afford to do, and will the Bill make provision for what we can afford to implement? I sincerely hope that the Bill will
408
not move so quickly through your Lordships' House that these matters cannot be examined during the Committee stage. I also hope that I shall be able to remain in my seat throughout the rest of this debate, but if that is not possible I should like to apologise in advance to your Lordships.
4.44 p.m.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, as might be expected, I am among those who warmly welcome this Bill, and I am particularly gratified that the hard work which many of us put into the Bill in its earlier form has proved to be not entirely in vain. In its present form a good many of the Amendments proposed by noble Lords from all parts of the House have been accepted and thereby the Bill has been very considerably improved.
Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, that my noble friend the Leader of the House has made it quite plain that if we delay too long on Committee stage in this House it will be difficult for the Bill to be dealt with adequately in the other place and we might then lose the Bill and have to start all over again for a third time. I should think that most of us would wish to avoid that eventuality. Although I shall myself be proposing Amendments at a later stage, I appreciate that there is a certain urgency and therefore, as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, suggested, we should try to be fairly brief during the later stages of the Bill. Nevertheless, having said that, I must agree with the noble Lord, Lord Molson, that there is room for at least some slight measure of consolidation in this Bill which has not been allowed for. I do not think this need take up a great deal of time. I shall be putting down some Amendments in that connection, of which I have given warning to my noble friend the Leader of the House, and I hope that though it will be only a minor measure of consolidation it may be acceptable and may save a good deal of time in future years before the Law Commission ultimately catches up with consolidation in this field. It is an admirable body, but it does move a little slowly.
I was particularly happy that my noble friend Lord Shepherd made it clear that the Secretary of State, Mr. Crosland, has decided that there are two areas touched on by this Bill which require further

409
consideration and that he is therefore proposing to set up bodies to advise him on reclamation and recycling and also on the whole matter of air pollution control. I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, that all is well in this field. I do not deny for one moment that the Alkali Inspectorate, in that part of the field for which it is responsible, has done good work in many ways. Nevertheless, I would draw to your Lordships' attention the report Social Audit issued last weekend on the Alkali Inspectorate and the control of air pollution. I think the report in extenso gives a very much fairer analysis of the situation than one might perhaps gain from the brief accounts which have appeared in the public Press.
LORD ZUCKERMAN: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Baroness will allow me to intervene for one moment? I did not say that all was well so far as air polution was concerned: what I said was that the Alkali Inspectorate is frequently unnecessarily denigrated.
BARONESS WHITE: My Lords, it is for that reason that I was drawing attention to the full report instead of to the rather abbreviated references to it which have appeared in the Press; because if one reads the full report—which has been very well put together by Maurice Frankel—one sees there are very genuine problems connected with the responsibilities of local authorities, to which the noble Lord, Lord Molson, referred. There is also the particular difficulty that in another place at this moment another Bill is being dealt with—the Safety and Health at Work Bill. This will have the effect of bringing the Alkali Inspectorate under the Department of Employment and co-ordinating it with the other Inspectorates: the Factory Inspectorate, the Mines Inspectorate, the Explosives Inspectorate and so forth.
There may be sound reasons of administrative convenience for this, but it is very awkward to have two Bills going through Parliament at the same time, each of which deals with different aspects of control of air pollution. We have one whole section of the Bill which is now before this House, but there are other considerations in the Bill which will no doubt ultimately reach us. I do not wish to go into details at the moment,
410
but I am sure your Lordships will appreciate that it is a little difficult to have two separate Bills dealing with two different aspects of the same subject, and neither of them dealing very adequately with the relationship between the local authorities and the Alkali Inspectorate. For that reason alone I am very glad indeed that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has decided that there should be a fuller investigation into the whole question of the control of pollution in the atmosphere.
We have had several references to another area which has caused a good deal of concern and is touched upon by the Bill, namely, the treatment of agriculture. Your Lordships will recall that in the Bill agricultural pollution is dealt with differently from industrial pollution. One can see the point of this and I make no objection to the strengthening of the Bill, as compared with its predecessor, in bringing in the Minister of Agriculture where appeals and the like are concerned. That would obviously be welcomed by the farming community, and it would seem an eminently sensible thing to do. But one must recognise that with the growth of intensive agriculture it has now become one of the main polluting agencies in rural areas. Therefore one is very much concerned as to how it is going to be dealt with, and it is not very satisfactory not to have the detailed provisions for agriculture included in this Bill as they are for manufacturing and other industries. However, if one looks carefully at the Bill, and particularly at Clause 17, one sees that further consideration can be given to this matter and it may be more satisfactory than is apparent at first glance.
Several noble Lords have mentioned the contentious matter of compensation if something which is good agricultural practice proves to be highly detrimental to the environment, and is a cause of serious pollution. I do not want to enter into that matter at the moment; I am sure at a later stage we shall have further opportunity to discuss it. I should like to repeat something which I said in our previous deliberations: I wish Departments concerned with this matter would look more carefully at Continental practice where financial assistance is available to farmers, particularly the intensive

411
farmers, for the establishment of proper processing plants for agricultural effluents. This costs money. Under our financial provisions it is true that if you have the money to spend you can obtain tax relief, but if you do not have the capital to provide such plants then you get neither relief nor grant aid. If we are serious about this threat of pollution through intensive agriculture—in some areas it is a very real threat—we ought to be prepared to revise our financial provisions.
I hope that the agricultural interests will not simply confine themselves to this difficult question of compensation, but will also look over the Channel to what can be found in Normandy and Brittany, for instance, where there are a number of modern plants for dealing with pollution from intensive farming for which grants of up to 55 per cent. are available, some from the national exchequer in France, and some from the departments based on environmental considerations. I am not sure that we can introduce any such provisions into this Bill, if only because I doubt whether we shall have the time available to do so. I would make a strong plea to the Departments concerned, to the Country Landowners' Association, the National Farmers' Union and other organisations, to study this matter seriously, to see whether we can work out some improved procedure in this country.
There was another area of possible pollution which worried me under the previous Bill. I am still not entirely happy about it. I refer to toxic wastes from mines. We discussed this matter previously, but I am not persuaded that the present Bill is more satisfactory than was the last one. This is something to which in this place, or in the other House, some further attention may be paid. I come finally to confidentiality and how far this Bill provides that the public and their elected representatives, the local authorities, should have a right to know. Some of your Lordships may have seen a remarkable television programme with the title "The Right to Know" which was shown on April 23. I saw it and have the transcript of the programme with me. Unfortunately, I cannot take up time quoting from it. The programme was partly concerned with safety at work,
412
but was also concerned with pollution of the environment. It pointed out the grave difficulties which many people have had up to now in dealing with some of the matters which needed reform because of the provisions in our law which prevent one identifying sources of pollution.
We have made a little improvement in this Bill compared with the last one. Perhaps I may claim a little credit for this, because whereas in the previous version one could be prosecuted if in certain circumstances one gave information concerning any manufacturing process, that at least has been dropped from the current Bill, and now one is left only with references to trade secrets. I have not been able to discover anywhere in British legislation—and I took some official legal advice on this matter this morning—any definition of what is a trade secret. It was noticeable that in the second Report of the Royal Commission on Pollution at the time when the noble Lord, Lord Ashby, was chairman, there was a remarkable passage, to which I referred in Second Reading on the previous Bill, in which they pointed out that nowadays it should not be necessary to debar references to trade secrets; that for the protection of the public it was not desirable, and for the protection of the industrialist it was not necessary.
One can envisage certain exceptional circumstances in which, nevertheless, some protection of trade secrets might be needed, and circumstances in which such a secret could be discovered by the various processes of measuring effluent or emissions to the atmosphere. Nevertheless I wish it were not necessary because I believe that the public have the right to know. Water and air are public, they are not private. The public have the right to know what goes into the atmosphere or what effluent goes into rivers. I repeat that I wish the Bill could be improved in that respect. Although I do not believe the Bill is perfect, it has been improved. Length is not necessarily a criterion of merit, but when the Bill first reached us it had 106 pages. When it left the Committee stage in the previous Parliament it had 109 pages. Now it has 119 pages. If all those additions are improvements at least we are making progress.
My Lords, I am very glad indeed this Bill has come back. There is still room

413
for some improvement, and I hope we shall be able to amend it further without taking too much time over it, so that it may reach the Statute Book this Session.
5.0 p.m.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I also wish to be brief as I spoke at length on the Protection of the Environment Bill and took part in the Committee stage of that Bill. I should like to congratulate the Government on this Bill and on bringing it back to this House, and on the change of name to Control of Pollution. I always thought, and in fact said on the Second Reading debate of the previous Bill, that if we had a Protection of the Environment Bill and included all the flora and fauna it would need to be enormous—two or three times the size of the Bill we now have before us.
For a few moments I should like to say something about waste collection. The other point I wish to raise concerns pollution of water. But regarding waste collection—I am now specifically referring to litter—I am very pleased to see that by Clause 20 the Government are to bring in new arrangements by which county councils in England and Wales will co-ordinate in a litter plan with the district councils. In Scotland, too, under subsection (2) of the clause, I see now that the Government are to bring the regional authorities into consultation and, therefore, we shall have the regional authority or the islands council preparing proposals for dealing with litter. From the visual point of view, one of the worst aspects of litter is the old mattresses and old beds and such junk which is far too big to go into dustbins and so is dumped in isolated places. I hope that through the new arrangement under Clause 20 these eyesores in the countryside will be cleared up.
Before I leave the subject of waste, may I say, as President of the Hotels and Restaurants Association of Kent, how disappointed the Association is, as I imagine is the national Association, because, as I read this Bill, waste from hotels and restaurants is to be classified as "commercial waste". I was hoping it would be classified as household waste in the Bill because if it is so classified it is collected free. It will often surely be extremely difficult to make this distinction. As I think I said on the Committee stage of the previous Bill, one
414
might consider a block of flats where the residents use a restaurant in the block. Is the restaurant waste going to be classified as commercial waste or as household waste? Presumably it all goes into the same receptacles. I hope that the Government will repent on this point, because in the South-East of England we have thousands of small hotels and boarding houses and presumably their house refuse will be classed under this Bill as commercial waste. It will mean that the landladies will have to pay for their refuse collection. Some of them can ill afford it.
I should now like to go on to deal with Part II and pollution of water. Several noble Lords, and the noble Baroness who has just sat down, have referred to agriculture. As others have done, I most heartily welcome the fact that now the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for the Environment will both hear appeals against orders made by the Water Authority under this legislation. But I feel that the Government are being rather unfair here as regards farmers. I made this point on the previous Bill. If one has one's land compulsorily acquired one is paid compensation. Yet if a farmer is carrying on good agricultural practice as he has done for years, a meritorious practice, which has always been legal, I do not see why he has to suffer loss under an order made by the Water Authority, and why he cannot be compensated. I quite agree that where a farmer has knowingly allowed effluent to go into a stream he should be severely punished. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Henley, in that I believe the penalties prescribed in this Bill are probably not hard enough. But I feel there is definite unfairness to farmers.
It is unfair not only to farmers and tenants but also to owner-occupiers and to agricultural landlords. I realise that landlords are a very unpopular breed of species to-day, but the situation is unfair to all these people. Take the agricultural landlord. If the tenant has suffered under such an order from the Water Authority, which the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Minister of Agriculture have upheld, presumably the tenant will have to have a reduction in his rent. But the landlord will not have had any legal control in preventing the tenant from causing pollution. So I

415
hope that the Government will relent on this point. As I said on the previous Bill, if there are two or three small farmers in an area where the water has been polluted underground, I do not understand how one is going to prove who is the chief culprit. This situation, as I have said, would seem to provide a field day for lawyers. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady White, compared the case of industrialists with that of farmers—perhaps I am wrong in attributing that remark to her, but I think she did so. If industrialists have an order made against them for polluting, they are in a much stronger position because they can upgrade the price of their goods to offset any financial loss. It is difficult for the farmer because he cannot do so, his prices being controlled.
Before I conclude, my Lords, on the question of noise I would say that it is perhaps pertinent to remark (although this is only a small point) that the vehicles used by the local authorities in collecting refuse make the most appalling noise. Especially in urban areas they roar away at rather inconvenient hours in the early morning, and I feel that local authorities might try to use quieter vehicles. Having said that, I should like to say that I am sorry the Bill cannot give us much hope on pollution of the atmosphere, apart from the inquiry to be undertaken. Apparently, lead in petrol is going to be with us for a long time for various economic reasons, and I can only hope that a great deal of research is being carried on into means of electric transport on the roads. My Lords, having said that, and having run my allotted time, I should just like to congratulate the Government again on bringing in this Bill. I hope it goes through this House very speedily and that it will pass into law at the end of the Session.
5.11 p.m.
LORD CRAIGTON: My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the House, in making a most excellent speech, tended to treat this Bill as just another public health measure. To those of us who are really interested in conservation I think it is an important Bill about important aspects of the protection of the environment. It is all about conservation. I agree with my noble friend Lady Young that what we are dealing with is a sub-
416
ject of importance to everyone. In just two minutes I should like to look at this word "everyone" and see this Bill in a perspective wider, perhaps, than your Lordships' House.
It is less than twenty years ago, in 1957, when Article 2 of the Treaty of Rome made no mention at all of the protection of the environment. The phrase used was only
"the harmonious development of economic activities and the continuance of balanced expansion".
How much has gone on in the last few years? Those of us who have talked to the officials of the E.E.C. and the Council for Europe will learn from them of the interest, encouragement and action being taken by every Member State, whatever their political persuasion may be. There is a growing awareness.
Only eight years ago I became a trustee of the World Wildlife Fund. We raised £75,000 that year. Last year, eight years later, we raised £800,000—more than ten times as much. What is the reason for this? This is not the skill of our fundraising: it is the growing realisation that something has to be done. There has been progress in the understanding and the knowledge of conservation which, I believe, in the perspective of history, has spread across the world more quickly than ever any political or religious thought. All nations are involved and feel involved. They are all on common ground, my Lords, just as we on both sides of this House are on common ground now.
I am not going to talk about conservation. What we are talking about is the destruction of the world as we know it. If mankind went on doing what they were doing less than twenty years ago, then the destruction would be there by any or all of three different measures—either the increase in population, or in pollution, or in the destruction of habitat. Looking at it from that point of view as a conservationist, we are thankful to have met with so much success.
This non-Party Bill is one of the successes that we have had. We do not expect to get steady progress. Of course we shall have setbacks. The lead in petrol is a typical example. One has to realise that there is another point of view, too, as well as the one that one should like to put across. Another danger

417
just now—a great danger for Britain—is that of oil. We may be in danger of forgetting that the land, abused now to drain the land and sea of its wealth, must be handed back to the people of Scotland in fifty years or more—a very short time in world history—and that, to gain one short year of time now, we may be destroying for ever a heritage of nature and beauty that could have been preserved for ever for the people who will live there after that natural wealth has gone. Therefore, my Lords, we fight on and we must do our best—and, as I say, we must understand the other point of view. We cannot expect to win great wars but we want to make progress, and this Bill is real progress such as we want to make: nothing spectacular, but a series of steps in the right direction, and I am grateful to the Department of the Environment and to both sides of your Lordships' House for having brought it so far.
Mention has been made by a number of noble Lords of the improvements that have been made to the Bill. I agree with my noble friend Lord Henley that nearly all of the small Amendments that I have put down have been met. Reading the Bill through and comparing it with the one issued for the Report stage which did not take place, I find nearly 30 improvements, of which I rate nearly half as added protection for various aspects of conservation. Therefore, my Lords, I welcome it. I welcome the inquiry on air pollution. In your Lordships' House in the Committee stage I tried to move a rather fatuous Amendment about polluting fall-out from aircraft. All that happened was that a young, blonde lady got her picture in the paper and was on television. I gave my noble friend a little bag of fall-out and I have never heard a word since. But we have to realise, when we are talking about air pollution, that every year millions of gallons of petrol are thrown out into the air to fall upon the inoffensive heads of those of us who live in the vicinity of London. I am not going to put that down as an Amendment. I propose to put down just a few, none of them involving a major question of principle, with the view not, as so often has been said in this House, of making a bad Bill better, but with the view, I hope, of making a good Bill better.
5.17 p.m.
LORD ASHBY: My Lords, the one point which I have to make to the House arises out of what the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, said—that these matters are of importance to everybody. First, however, I should like to express my gratitude to the Government and to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for re-introducing this Bill in this House. I think that it is a very good Bill. I know of no comprehensive legislation in any other country which is as good. I would venture to make just two or three comments which, if they meet with your Lordships' approval, might improve the Bill. They really arise from what the noble Baroness, Lady White, generously referred to as the philosophy of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. The basis of that philosophy was that in this country it is better to use pragmatic methods, or the "best practicable means", than to have Draconian blanket legislation which in other countries leads to constant recourse to the courts. That has been the basis of what legislation has done in Britain. The Royal Commission's Second Report, which was quoted a great deal during the earlier Committee stage, was really aimed at giving the public confidence in this pragmatic method, and it is about that that I ask leave to speak for a few moments.
We all know that the expression "best practicable means" is a sitting target for critics. It gives the impression that the authority representing the public bargains with the polluter and reaches some kind of compromise, and many of the public suspect that the polluter often gets the best of the bargain. This is encouraged by sensational reports that appear in the Press. The difficulty is that the facts upon which one can judge whether or not that suspicion is correct are not easily available to the public. Therefore, the use of the "best practicable means" will continue to be our policy. What seems to be of the greatest importance is that we should command public confidence in that policy, and that point arises front what several noble Lords have said this afternoon about the need to have some education of the public in the policies which Britain uses to control the environment.

419
I believe, as did the Royal Commission, that the most important step is to get rid of what the noble Lord, Lord Molson, described as the "miasma of confidentiality" which surrounds the pollution control services. That is why the Royal Commission pressed so strongly in its Second Report for public access to information. We believe that the way to keep public confidence is to require from industry and from public bodies, who discharge waste into the atmosphere, that they do for waste what they have had to do for money for a very long time; namely, to publish how they dispose of it. In pressing for this we were not, of course, "gunning" for industry and, least of all, "gunning" for the Alkali Inspectorate, whose job it is to control pollution—not to be public relations officers with the public. I think it should go on the record that it was the industrialist on the Royal Commission, the late Neil Iliff, who pressed most strongly for this break into the tradition of confidentiality.
This Bill goes further than any previous legislation in offering this access to the public, but, as the noble Baroness, Lady White, said so eloquently at the Committee stage of the previous Bill, provision for disclosure about emissions into the air is not so satisfactory as provision for disclosure about discharges into water. I submit to your Lordships that this is a serious defect in the Bill, because, apart from noise, I suppose that air pollution is the kind of pollution which affects more of the public more of the time than other kinds of pollution. So I hope that at the Committee stage in your Lordships' House and in the other place there will be a reconsideration of Clauses 71 to 75 of this Bill.
For a moment, let me try to explain the kind of puzzlement which I have on looking at these clauses. Clause 71(1) refers to publicity, but it is publicity for investigation and research relevant to air pollution; not publicity for the actual records and notices referred to in Clause 71(2) and in Clauses 72 and 74 of the Bill. In defending these differences between the provision for public access in Clause 2 for water—which was good—and in Clause 4, the view was expressed in Committee that measurement was more
420
difficult and trade secrets might be more readily exposed for emissions into the air than for discharges into the water. I beg leave to differ from that view.
First, as regards measurement, the Reports of the Alkali Inspector contain many examples of the sort of data which ought to go, and could go, into accessible registers. They refer to limits of emissions which must not be exceeded. They are not consents to pollute but they act as guidelines to the industrialist in controlling emissions into the air. They could also be used as guides to inform the public. I think it is only a question of local authorities systematically putting into registers available at the town hall the sort of information which already appears in many of the Alkali Inspectors' Reports. At this stage of the afternoon I must not trouble your Lordships with figures, but I should like to give two examples of the kind of information which ought to be much more easy of public access than it is at present.
In the 1968 Report of the Alkali Inspectors, there were two interesting passages. One stated that a named lead smelting process planned for North Ferriby must comply with a lead level emission not exceeding 11·5 milligrammes per cubic metre. That is a very low level, and it was deliberately set low because it was to be a very large factory. In the same issue, an example showed that the "accepted level", as it is called, of dust emissions from the cement works on Thames-side is 1,150 milligrammes per cubic metre, but only for old kilns with a restricted life. These are examples, which it is most important for the public to understand, of the flexibility with which the whole pollution policy of this country is managed. It is enormously impressive and efficient as a basis, compared with the rigid processes based on air quality and water quality standards in some other countries.
It is frequently protested that if these figures were published the public would not understand them and they would be quoted out of context. That is a risk that is inherent in all statistics, from the balance of payments to birth rates, and I am sure that your Lordships would be shocked if that were used as a reason for withholding this kind of information from the public. I believe that anyone who lives near a lead smelting works, for example,

421
should have the right to discover from the local authority how much lead emission is being permitted, and be able to look it up at the Town Hall. He has no way of discovering whether that limit is being exceeded, but if he believes that it is he can, at least, ask a straight, clean question of the local authority: will they discover—in this case by inquiring from the Alkali Inspectorate—whether the level is being exceeded? But, at least, he will then know what the level ought to be.
My second point concerns confidentiality—the disclosure of trade secrets. The Royal Commission said:
" … confidentiality may sometimes be important where there is a single chemical operation on a single site".
I think the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, would agree with me that that was a piece of commissioner's caution. I do not believe that any of us on the Royal Commission could have thought of one example, nor were we given in evidence one example, of any process which would fall into that category. On the contrary, we were frequently assured by industry that monitoring pollution would be quite a crazy way of discovering trade secrets. I am sure it is necessary to have provision in this Bill for the rare cases which may arise, but I hope that the use of this provision will be very stringently scrutinised by Parliament. I wonder whether the Government would consider introducing into the Bill some provision to the effect that there should be an annual report made to Parliament about how many exemptions have been granted under Clauses 36 and 73.
There is just one other point which I should like to add. At the previous Committee stage, there was a good deal of discussion about whether the powers given to the Secretary of State and to other bodies should be expressed as "may" or "shall". For instance, in Clause 35 there is the statement that, "Provision may be made by regulations …" for keeping registers of discharges into water. The noble Baroness, Lady White, moved an Amendment to have the word "may" changed into "shall" but she withdrew it when she was assured by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, that "may" was the correct and customary expression for something which Ministers had every intention of doing. I hope the noble
422
Baroness will forgive me if I say that, in my view, it showed rather unusual timidity on her part in withdrawing that Amendment.
Of course I accept what the noble and learned Viscount said, but there still seems to be an inconsistency because if we look at Clause 74(1) we find the statement that,
"The Secretary of State shall by regulations prescribe … ",
and then there are particulars about research and publicity. I should like to ask whether a concession could be made to the many lay readers of the Report, so that things which this House feels deeply "shall be done" are expressed in that way, and things such as limiting the sulphur content of fuel—which may be done if the Secretary of State is obliged to do it by the E.E.C.—are expressed as "may".
So I ask your Lordships to consider whether in two or three places in this Bill we might insist on the use of "shall"; for instance, in regard to the regulations covering dangerous toxic wastes, as well as the compiling of registers for emissions into water and, I hope, the air. This will give to the public a clear intention of what I believe is in the minds of many of your Lordships. The purpose of this suggestion is to get public confidence in a flexible method of using the "best practical means", because without public confidence the Bill, when it becomes an Act, will be difficult to operate.
5.30 p.m.
THE EARL OF COURTOWN: My Lords, I am very glad that the Government has thought fit to begin again in a new guise the Protection of the Environment Bill, on which so much useful time was spent in Committee earlier in the year. I appreciate the points made regarding the need to get this Bill quickly through this House. The human being in most activities creates pollution. It behoves us to ensure that this pollution should not be such as to cause short-term or long-term harm to the environment. Only a part can be achieved by legislation. I thought the noble Lord the Leader of the House spoke very much to the point when he referred to the point that legislation can do only a certain amount. It is a matter to which the whole population should give their attention.

423
My Lords, although industry is by no means the only potential polluter, it is clearly an important one. Many items vital to our existence, including some of the most important lifesaving drugs, may involve toxic by-products in manufacture. These have to be disposed of somehow. Most, if not all, industrial firms restrict the pollution to a level that will not cause detriment to the environment, which is often difficult and expensive. Most large firms who, by their size and by the nature of their processes, are the largest potential polluters, take pollution very seriously indeed and have done so for many years. I remember more than 40 years ago I worked in a factory on the North-East coast in connection with the reduction of pollution in the atmosphere. Highly skilled specialist departments and individuals are concerned in this. I am glad to see that the Confederation of British Industry and the many large companies, including the one with which I was associated for more than 40 years, have given their support to this Bill. If industry is to survive, the application of controls must be flexible. What is damaging in one area may not be in another. If no stringent controls are applied, it may be impossible or uneconomic for an industry to continue in a particular area. It may be desirable for that industry to move elsewhere for environmental reasons, but the social effects on employment must be taken into account. Indeed, if stringent controls are applied, then it may be impossible to carry on a particular process anywhere in the country. The effect of this situation on our balance of payments is another factor.
My Lords, as I have said, most large companies take pollution very seriously indeed, and employ specialist individuals or departments to go into this matter. Small firms may find it impossible to do this. If the emissions from small firms are found to be toxic, it may take research and much expense to put it right. Consultation is therefore vital if the difficulties are to be avoided and the undesirable effects removed. Great weight is given to the factor of consultation in the new edition of the Bill that we now have before us. I must say that I am sorry to see the Government have re-introduced Clause 45 in this Bill, enabling Orders to be made for charges to be levied on
424
effluents. This was opposed strongly in Committee on the previous Bill, especially by the noble Baroness, Lady White. It seems to me right that the polluter should pay for correcting his pollution, either by himself or by a contractor, but this problem goes much further. If we allow a charge to be made for the discharge of polluted water into a river, it could lead to a pollution tax, or a tax according to the amount of pollution in the effluent; in my opinion both are equally undesirable. The noble Baroness, Lady White, likened it to a blank cheque. The last Government promised to review the matter, but wanted full discussion first. I hope that the present Government will consider this matter very carefully and will give us their views on it.
My Lords, there is one further point on which a certain amount has been said to-day; that is, confidentiality. There must be a right for inspectors to go into a works in connection with suspected or proved injurious emissions of either gas or liquid. In my opinion, it is very seldom that the results of pollution by both gas or liquid are not published. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Ashby, said about this. But I do think we ought to be careful about the powers of inspection in a factory. There is no objection at all to the skilled inspectors of the Factory or Alkali Inspectorates entering a factory to find out what is going on. But as the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, said, local government will rarely have the properly trained people to do this work. I know of previous cases where the local authorities have employed consultants to do this work. There is a danger that, through the inspection of factories by consultants, there will be a loss of trade secrets. Presumably, trade secrets apply to industrial processes. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady White, welcomed the fact that reference to manufacturing processes was taken out of the confidentiality clause and is taken out of this present Bill, but surely a secret process can equally be a trade secret.
As I said before in Committee, it is not usually the general theory of the process which is secret, but the way in which it is operated. It seems to me that a company, if it has a successful process, should be able to achieve confidentiality on it. These processes are not merely the

425
assets of individual firms, but are often national assets of great value to the country. Means should be provided by which the secrets are safeguarded. Let me speak of one process that I really know nothing about, that is, the float glass process of Pilkington's. Knowledgeable consultants going round the process and thereby acquiring knowledge of it useful to other companies in other countries are clearly going to be detrimental to this country if that were allowed. Firms should have the right—as I think they have in the Bill as it stands—to appeal to the Secretary of State if they fear the loss of confidentiality from visits of inspectors who are not directly employees of either local government or part of the Factory and Alkali Inspectorates.
My Lords, in order to obtain a licence to discharge, it is right that an industrial discharger should have to go through a procedure to ensure that the emissions from his premises will not be injurious. Quite rightly there are many safeguards to this in this Bill. But the Bill also provides a Common Law right to seek for an injunction to be retained, which was the subject of discussion in the previous Committee stage. In my opinion it is questionable whether it is necessary to include any safeguard, as in Clause 40, that the water authority can revoke a consent already given because the effluent is harming the fauna or flora in a stream. It seems to me this is almost incapable of adequate definition. There are many safeguards in this Bill, and it seems that this is creating an additional uncertainty in the minds of people running processes. Clause 31, for instance, it seems to me, provides adequate safeguard for this.
There is one further point I should like to mention and that is the question of compensation. I moved an Amendment to the previous Bill saying that the Secretary of State may pay to a person compensation in respect of expenditure directly attributable to a prohibition or restriction. If I may, I should like to quote from the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, who made the point very much better than I could. He said:
"I should like to press the Minister to accept in principle one simple proposition: distinguishing between people, who are stopped
426
from doing things that they are not at the moment doing, or are able to do, from those who are stopped from doing what they may have been doing for many years and which they are perfectly entitled to do as the Law now stands. This power which the Government are seeking to obtain would be a power to prohibit them from doing that which they are doing and have done. I should have thought it was quite without precedent for the Government to which the noble Lord belongs to take away the right to conduct such an activity without any provision for compensation."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24/1/74, Col. 1620.]
Subsequently I withdrew the Amendment, because the Government promised to have a look at it. I should like to emphasise that the Amendment did not say that the Government had to give compensation; it said that the Secretary of State may give compensation. This does not only apply to agriculture; it may easily apply to a business, a small factory which has had the proper planning permission and has been operating for many years in the particular area, and which is, in effect, suddenly told that it must go elsewhere. It may drive that particular business out of operation altogether.
However, I welcome this Bill. Many of the points raised in the previous Committee stage have been met. I hope there will be further improvement in the Committee stage to follow.
5.42 p.m.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, while welcoming the speedy introduction of this Bill, like my noble friend Lady Young I think it is a pity that the opportunity was not taken to repeal the Deposit of Poisonous Waste Act 1972 and incorporate its relevant provisions into this Bill. Your Lordships will recall on January 15 last, following the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Amory, the lengthy discussion we had on this matter and the assurance given by my noble friend Lady Young, speaking for the Government, that this question would be very seriously considered. The noble Baroness also made a proviso with regard to the question of drafting time. I take that point, but possibly the noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy, when he comes to reply, will be able to give the House some encouragement as to whether or not it will be possible to do something along these lines when the Bill reaches another place.

427
On the other hand, following the Amendment on reclamation of my noble friend Lord Craigton, on December 13 last, and the ensuing discussion, which included re-use and recycling of materials, one can congratulate the Government very much indeed on having incorporated into this Bill the provisions of Clause 2(4). It would also appear that the definition of "waste" has been improved so as not to include waste which may be required for reclamation purposes. However, as I mentioned on December 13, recycling, while appearing an attractive proposition, is a somewhat complex subject; the noble Baroness stressed that point, too. In some cases it can be impracticable and uneconomical. Therefore, consultation with interested parties, which is allowed for in this Bill, by the disposal authorities is essential, duly taking into account studies carried out by individual industries, research organisations and so forth.
The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, referred to the useful work carried out at Warren Springs. I think it also interesting to recall the very useful work carried out—I am sure the noble Baroness, Lady White, will know about this—at the Cardiff University Industry Centre which includes also the Department of Mineral Exploitation, where I am advised "the trash-piles of to-morrow lose their terror". Another very useful service is provided by the Hazardous Wastes Service at Harwell.
The noble Lord, Lord Garnsworthy will be aware that I mentioned last December that the glass, industry is taking very seriously this question of recycling. In tact when the report The Glass Container Industry and the Environmental Debate came out last November, the Federation called for a national policy for the reclamation and recycling of all materials from waste. On the lines of a national policy, I think it is interesting to note that earlier this year the establishment of a waste exchange market was proposed to Government Departments, and I am particularly thinking of the Department of the Environment. I understand that a committee was set up in February consisting of environment specialists from ten of the major chemical companies in the United Kingdom, to promote a scheme which would publicise
428
certain waste products now discarded so that a use may be found for them. I feel that this may meet the point of my noble friend Lady Young, who was seeking for a market for the waste which was available. It would seem that the value of this idea, too, lies in the fact that the waste materials at present under consideration are those originating from manufacturing processes in general and not solely from chemical processes. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in the course of his remarks earlier on, referred to the fact that Her Majesty's Government were looking favourably on the idea of setting up a national advisory body on waste management. I am wondering whether the organisation to which I have just referred could not form the basis for such a body. At least it would provide the industrial expertise.
Turning now to the noise provisions of the Bill, I regret that under the rubric reduction of noise levels, in Clause 59 the Bill still specifies that where a person is served with a noise reduction notice with respect to premises within a noise abatement zone his right of appeal against the notice is to the magistrates' court. On January 29 last my noble friend Lady Young, speaking for the Government, believed that the magistrates would have the technical expertise for dealing with this particular kind of case. With the greatest respect, I query whether that would really be the case. Such an appeal would generally require an assessment of the highly technical considerations involved, and possibly a comparative evaluation of the merits of the differing proposals of, on the one hand, the local authority and, on the other, the company concerned. I think that decisions could be made on individual appeals without regard to general policy or precedent, and decisions on similar appeals could be different in different courts.
Finally, I should like to refer to the Third Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution of September 1972 under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Ashby, and in particular to the Minority Report of two members out of a total of nine members, for it appeared to be their recommendation which motivated the previous Administration and this Government to seek enabling powers for the Secretary of State to introduce at a later date the provision for charges to be made for discharges

429
to rivers, et cetera; in other words, a pollution tax system. I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, is not in his place at the moment, because he represented 50 per cent. of that minority. On this I feel that the need has yet to be proven, and I am informed, too, that there has been inadequate consultation regarding the introduction at a later date of such a pollution tax. The present system of control by the attachment by the authorities of conditions to consent to discharge works well, I am advised, and it can easily be tightened if needed.
I think it fair to say, as pointed out in the Minority Report, that it is often claimed that charges are impracticable because data are not available to permit an accurate calculation of the amount of pollution to be taxed. The Minority Report also recognises that in some cases verification difficulties may mean that the calculation of the charge will be inaccurate, and that in other cases the costs of operating a charging system would be excessive in relation to the damage done by the pollution. Therefore, in my humble opinion the inclusion of Clause 45 is premature if one bears in mind, too, the following words of the Minority Report, which I should like to quote because they are relevant and brief:
"The precise technical details both concerning the desirable level of charges and also the machinery for their collection are matters that will require a great deal of work at a local as well as national level involving administrative, technical, and scientific considerations on the one hand and economic analysis on the other."
Therefore, bearing these facts in mind, I sincerely hope that Her Majesty's Government will have a second look at this question. It might even be that, on reflection, the Government may feel that the directive powers of the Secretary of State contained in the provisions of Sections 30 and 31 of the Water Act 1973 are very adequate at this stage.
That is all that I have to say at this moment. I end by heartily congratulating the Government on introducing this Bill, and on the changes that have been made to it. I should also like to thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for his courtesy, and for the information he has given before this Second Reading took place.
5.55 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, it cannot be so very often that this House has had the experience of having substantially the same Bill introduced in such swift succession to the other. I have had the good fortune, owing to a case ending before it was expected, of being able to hear the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill. I also had the good fortune of listening to the speech made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in moving the Second Reading of the last Bill. They were both very good speeches. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, had much the easier task because he did not have to explain, as did the noble Baroness what all the clauses referred to. He was able to take that as read, and to draw attention only to the changes that had been made.
Sitting here and adopting, I hope, a wholly impartial attitude, I must say that the noble Lord had a still easier task, because it has been possible for him to move the Second Reading of a better Bill than the one that the noble Baroness was called upon to move. It is a better Bill because the present Government have wisely had regard to the views expressed in this House, and to the acceptance of Amendments moved in this House to the other Bill. The noble Lord was good enough to refer to some of my activities in relation to the last Bill, so I hope that it will not be taken amiss if I make a few observations with regard to this present Bill.
In relation to the last Bill, I confined most of my activities to Part II dealing with water pollution and I propose to do the same again. It is a greatly improved Part of this Bill. In particular, we have lost that iniquitous clause, Clause 36. How it came about that a Conservative Government introduced a Bill which restricted the legal right of private individuals to protect their rights by way of injunction, if they could obtain one, I simply do not understand. I am glad that that has gone completely. I am glad, too, about the change of Title. I only hope that this Bill will live up to its Title and be effective in preventing pollution.
I have referred to the noble Lord's excellent speech in moving the Second Reading. I think that it is open to only one criticism; that is, that he did not

431
stress sufficiently the importance of the subject with which this Bill deals. That being so, although one wants to see this Bill on the Statute Book, it is a Bill that must be carefully examined and, if possible, improved in the course of its passage through this House and the other House. There is one respect in which I do not find the Bill satisfactory. It is true that the right to obtain an injunction is preserved unqualified, but people do not lightly embark on the cost and risk of litigation. Usually it is only when pollution has been suffered, and is being suffered, that proceedings for an injunction are started. They could be started because pollution was threatened; but I have never known of that happening, for the reason that it may be very difficult to establish before pollution occurred that, in fact, there will be pollution by a certain discharge. Therefore proceedings by way of injunction are effective and have been effective to stop pollution which is occurring.
This Bill, however, is a Bill to prevent pollution, and it is in that connection that I suggest to the noble Lord that it requires strengthening. As the Bill stands at present, a person who applies for consent to make a polluting discharge has a right of appeal if consent to that discharge being made is refused. That is all very well, but the objector has no such right of appeal against his objection being rejected. One may get the case of a perfectly serious objection—I am not talking about frivolous objections; one can consider ways perhaps in which those can be dealt with and eliminated—but I am considering a serious objection by someone who has valid grounds for thinking that the proposed discharge will do a great deal of damage. If consent is given, that consent cannot be revoked—if I understand the Bill correctly—by the Water Authority, by a notice under one of those clauses, for a period which cannot be less than two years. If the consent is given, the person interested in the water will have to suffer that discharge for two years before he can get the Water Authority to alter it, or proceed by way of litigation. I must say that it seems to me that it would be much better that you should give such an objector also a right of appeal to prevent what there are good
432
grounds for believing will be a pollution caused by the proposed discharge.
The noble Lord in moving the Second Reading said that it was unnecessary to give a right of appeal. I think that it is inequitable not to do so, and in the absence of a right on both sides it seems to me that the scales are tilted wrongly in favour of those who want consent to making polluting discharges, when this is a Bill to prevent pollution. I should like to see that inequity removed, and I hope that I shall get support from some of your Lordships in the Committee stage to secure that that objective is achieved.
Apart from that, I assure the noble Lord that I shall not take such an active part, or perhaps some would say, "be so troublesome"—I think that would be the description of the noble Baroness, Lady Young—as I was in relation to the last Bill. I hope that this Bill reaches the Statute Book. I wish to raise that point and one or two other perhaps minor ones, but that is the one to which I attach major importance. I shall certainly not seek to obstruct the passage of this measure.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, because I was uncertain about my movements to-day—
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, perhaps I may say to my noble friend, that I understand my noble friend Lord Walston has already put his name down. Therefore if my noble friend agrees, perhaps my noble friend Lord Walston could make his speech first.
6.3 p.m.
LORD WALSTON: My Lords, I shall not stand between the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, and your Lordships for very long. There is only one aspect of this Bill to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention. It would be a brave man who would get up to-day and oppose this Bill, and I have no intention of doing so. I am a wholehearted supporter of it. We are all anti-polluters now and many of us have been so for a long time. But when we are discussing these problems of pollution and legislation to control it, it is well to remember who is going to pay for this control of pollution because the control of pollution is a very expensive business.

433
As I understand it, the theory behind this Bill, which is an admirable Bill and an admirable theory, is that it is the polluter who will pay; but in fact, unfortunately, that is not the case. With the possible exception (as is so often the case) of farmers, I doubt whether any of the organisations and the businesses which will be affected by this Bill, those who at the moment are polluting our our land, our atmosphere and our water, will reduce their profits by one penny piece. The cost of their product will rise. It is not even the polluted who will pay, but, on the whole, the consumers of the products which are produced by the polluting factories and businesses will have to hear the brunt of the cost and, to a certain extent—and I do not think we should lose sight of this fact either—those who are employed in what I shall call the "offending industries".
One particular case, which was drawn to my attention some time ago, concerned a factory in a certain area not very far from the Birmingham conurbation which, in the opinion of the Alkali Inspectorate, was causing considerable pollution. When this matter was drawn to the attention of the occupiers of the factory they accepted the findings but made it perfectly clear that if they were forced to take the necessary steps in order to reduce the pollution to acceptable levels, they would close down their factory and build a new, modern factory in another, more suitable district, or possibly enlarge one of their other factories to take care of the output of this particular factory. That is the sort of thing which we may well find happening as a result of the full implementation of this Bill: that the factory itself closes down and moves elsewhere, not only elsewhere in this country but very possibly to other countries in Europe, or indeed possibly to the United States. Therefore, we must be aware that the people who are going to pay in an instance of this sort are those who at present are employed in these factories rather than those who suffer from, or who cause, the pollution. I urge the Government to do all in their power to make quite sure that not only will our partners in the Community introduce legislation—many of them have legislation similar to this and at least as stringent as is ours—but will see that it is properly implemented, so that it will not be possible for a polluting industry or firm to close down its factory in this
434
country and to move quietly across the Channel to a neighbouring country, there to carry on with a similar amount of pollution but exempt from our own particular legislation.
The second class of people who will pay for this type of legislation may very well be those who live many thousands of miles away from the source of pollution. I am referring in particular to such types of industry as the fertiliser industry, the chemical pesticide industry, and so on, whose products are of enormous value for agriculture and enable food to be produced at relatively low cost. Any extra costs to which these firms are subjected by reason of control of pollution will undoubtedly be passed on to the food producer, to the farmer—not necessarily in this country, but in countries to which they export their products; so that the plight of the starving millions in Pakistan, in India and in the Sahelian region will in fact be exacerbated, and the people who pay for our improved atmosphere, water and land will be those who are least able to do so.
This is in no way an argument against the Bill. All I am doing is drawing your Lordships' attention to the fact that while we can sit here and endorse legislation which is going to make our lives more comfortable, it is not we who are going to pay for it, but it is those people who we should least like to see having to foot the bill. Therefore, as a result of this type of legislation which, I repeat, I wholeheartedly support, we must realise the burden, however slight it may be, that is being placed upon others and when on other occasions we come to discuss the difficulties of those who are seeking work in declining areas in this country, or those who are seeking food in areas of great shortage, we should bear in mind the burden that we, for our own convenience and comfort, are placing upon them.
6.10 p.m.
LORD LEATHERLAND: My Lords, as I was saying, my movements seemed uncertain this morning so I did not put my name clown on the list of speakers. For that reason, I shall not presume on your Lordships' time for more than two or three minutes. I am a waste paper fanatic. I suppose that this stems from the fact that for over forty years I worked in the production of newspapers

435
and so, perhaps, helped to produce more waste paper than any of your Lordships in this House. But it stems even more directly from the fact that before I degenerated into journalism I held a middle-grade executive post in the salvage department of Birmingham Corporation. There we carried on a very large traffic in waste paper recovery and sales activities with very considerable benefit to the ratepayers of that city.
This Bill states, with a little more precision than did the original Bill of the last Parliament, some of the factors relating to waste paper, but I do not think it goes far enough. When that other Bill was under discussion in your Lordships' House I moved an Amendment, which did not proceed, to the effect that local councils should be compelled to recover and sell their waste paper, unless they received exemption from the Ministry concerned. I feel that it would strengthen this Bill if a similar provision were incorporated at a later stage. This country produces 5 million tons of waste paper every year. About 2 million tons of that is sold, largely by the waste paper merchants who skim the cream of the trade, and a smaller proportion by the local authorities. The average dustbin in a normal household produces about 28 lb. of refuse every week and 10 lb. of that is paper; that is to say, about 30 per cent. of the weight is waste paper and this waste paper constitutes about 60 per cent. of the volume. At present, our local authorities are paying out ratepayers' good money to transport that waste paper over long distances to a tip or a refuse distructor to be tipped or burned, and this at a time when we are importing over £300 million-worth every year of pulp and paper and board, and when the prices of those commodities are rising almost weekly with a very severe effect upon our disastrous balance of payments situation.
Only about one-third of the local authorities in the country are taking the trouble to collect and sell their waste paper at the present moment, yet the mills are saying that they could take an extra 200,000 tons a year of the kind of paper that goes into the dustbins. As I said, these councils are paying out good money in order to destroy that paper when they could be receiving
436
from the mills revenue that could go to the benefit of their ratepayers. I know that for two reasons, some local authorities are hesitant. One reason is that at certain times of the year the mills may be overstocked and do not want the paper, and, secondly the accountancy systems of the local authorities sometimes convince them that they are not making money on the deal. I think that those two objections have now been overcome by recent announcements made by the mills. They are prepared to give local authorities long-term contracts at prices which have recently been increased, and which should make it possible for any well-conducted local authority to make a profit on the salvage and sale of its waste paper.
I asked your Lordships to permit me to speak for a few moments, so that is all I shall say. I hope that the Government will give some consideration to this matter between this Second Reading and the Report stage. It is one of very vital importance not merely to the commercial administration of our local authorities, but to the nation's balance of payments.
6.16 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, this has been an extremely valuable debate. We have had fourteen speeches, each one of them encouraging and, if I may say so with the greatest respect, constructive and very helpful. It may be that the debate has not ranged quite so widely as the earlier one when the noble Baroness, Lady Young, first introduced these proposals in her Protection of the Environment Bill, last November. But since then we have all learned a great deal about pollution, as we learned about the more intricate details of the earlier Bill as it made its way through the lengthy Committee stage lasting eight days, as the noble Baroness said. I think we are now able to discern much more clearly the points of greatest importance in the Bill, and its major strengths and possible weaknessess.
The noble Lord, Lord Craighton, used a phrase that was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Ashby, and I should like to re-echo what he said. He said,
"What we are dealing with is a Bill of importance to everyone."
If the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, thought that my noble friend Lord Shepherd did not show quite the

437
degree of enthusiasm which he thought he might, I can only say that I, and I think everybody who has worked with him in preparing for the Second Reading, have been tremendously impressed by his enthusiasm for this Bill. The House has this afternoon indicated its appreciation of the very great pains he has taken to be as helpful as possible, particularly having regard to the limited time that we have at our disposal. I believe that my noble friend appreciates, as I do, not only that a great debt of gratitude is due to my noble friend Lady White for the tremendous work that she did earlier, but that the House is also mindful and appreciative of the great work which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, did. We have been extremely fortunate in the part that those two Members of this House have played.
The subject of pollution is a difficult, complex and technical one to which there are no easy answers, and the proposals in this Bill derive from a series of lengthy and thorough studies by a number of independent committees and bodies set up specially for the purpose, including the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution. I think we all agree that that is the proper way to proceed in these matters. We first need comprehensive information and thorough studies of the problems before we can take effective action. The new Government hold the view that there is much that is good and valuable in this Bill, and we have no hesitation in commending it to the House. Indeed, I believe that the House has quite clearly indicated its acceptance of that viewpoint.
We think it right that we should make every effort to see that this measure is enacted in the current Session so that these environmental improvements can soon be brought about. Again that would appear to be the wish of your Lordships who have spoken this afternoon. But we by no means exclude the possibility that further measures in this field may be needed in due course. The reconstituted Royal Commission are labouring on a new report on the state of the environment which may require new Government action. My noble friend the Leader of the House, Lord Shepherd, has referred to the prospect of further studies in the waste management and reclamation fields which might of course
438
lead into the much wider field of resource conservation. There may need to be fresh studies in the air pollution field.
My Lords, in short this is a growth area, and the present Bill is by no means the last word. The Government hope that noble Lords on both sides of the House, who have pressed for extensions and changes of this Bill, will not therefore seek to hold back the present measure. I know that some of my noble friends and other noble Lords are disappointed that we have not incorporated all the suggestions they made in our earlier debates. But as Lord Shepherd pointed out, the new Government, on taking office, have gone through the Bill very thoroughly in the time available and have made a considerable number of changes and improvements. I hope that we shall now be willing to give it a fair wind.
My Lords, I should like to deal with some of the general themes that have come up in the course of the debate, before attempting to answer some of the more detailed points on particular parts of the Bill. I certainly shall not be able to deal with everything that has been said, but may I say that everything that has been said this afternoon will be studied most carefully. I should like to say further to noble Lords that if they want any further information, the Department of the Environment will do whatever it can to provide that information. If they would care to come along to discuss matters, we will do everything we can to arrange for discussions to take place. What we want to do is to secure maximum co-operation from all sides of the House in proceeding as quickly as we can with the Bill that everybody recognises has so much to commend it and is so very desirable.
The first major theme that I should like to take up is the question of information about pollution. As I have said, accurate and comprehensive information is the essential basis of effective action in this field. Since pollution affects the whole community, and any or all of us may need to take remedial action, it is important that so far as possible this information about pollution should be publicly available to everyone.
First let me say a word about the collection of information about pollution. This is a difficult technical task, because

439
the sources of pollution are so many and so various, and because the dissemination of its effects throughout the environment is so complex. It is a major problem, therefore, to settle how best to measure and to monitor pollution so as to provide adequate information. Obviously we cannot measure everything; and the problem is therefore to establish a reasonably effective and comprehensive monitoring system at reasonable expense. We have been greatly assisted in this by the recent Report on The Monitoring of the Environment in the United Kingdom which has lately been published by the Department of the Environment.
I imagine that most of your Lordships have read this Report, but if not, I think you will be able to get it from the Printed Paper Office. I warmly commend it to your Lordships. The report has reviewed all the sources of information in this field, and made proposals for developing and extending these sources where necessary. This is modest and backroom work, but it is obviously crucial to the formation and implementation of intelligent policies about the environment. Time and again we read in newspapers and elsewhere alarming stories of possible effects of this or that form of pollution, but it is only when we have reliable information about the incidence and effects of such pollution that we can react sensibly.
My Lords, the proposals in the Bill before the House will do a great deal to assist in this process of assembling information about pollution. We still know far too little about the arisings and destination of all kinds of waste in this country. The proposals for surveys of waste arisings in Clause 2, the licensing procedure of Clauses 3 to 9, and the special records of toxic wastes to be kept under Clause 16, will do much to remedy this. Under Part II of the Bill, the water authorities will have complete information about the nature and quantity of discharges to water. Under Part III, local authorities will be able to measure and record noise levels in a systematic way. Under Part IV, local authorities will be able to assemble detailed information about atmospheric emissions from all industrial sources. Moreover, the Bill provides that in general all such information shall be made publicly available and accessible. Under Clause 5 public Regis-
440
ters will be kept of waste disposal sites, and the wastes that are allowed on them. Under Clause 35 there will be public registers of discharges to water. Clause 57 provides for a register of noise levels. Clauses 71 to 74 provide for the publication of information about emissions to the atmosphere.
My Lords, the Bill has kept some safeguards for industrialists in exceptional cases. We have to recognise, as the Royal Commission did, that there may be circumstances in which an industrialist has reasons of commercial confidentiality for wanting to keep details of his processes and their discharges or emissions private to himself and the controlling authorities. These should, however, be regarded as the exceptional cases. The Bill accordingly puts the onus on the industrialist to apply to the Secretary of State to show reason why the details of his discharges or emissions should not be disclosed in a particular case. We have made some changes to Part IV to make clearer that the onus is this way round. I think that goes some way, at least, to meet much of the matter raised by the noble Earl, Lord Courtown.
One of the Amendments proposed in Committee in the last Session was the insertion of a new clause giving the Secretary of State the power to prescribe national standards and objectives pertaining to acceptable noise levels and to air and water quality. The Amendment was defeated on the grounds that it ran contrary to the philosophy which underlay this Bill, and indeed the methods generally, by which pollution is controlled in this country. These are founded on the belief that, far from being desirable, uniform statutory standards are not an efficient way of securing environmental improvements. There are a number of reasons why uniform environmental standards or objectives are not prescribed in this country except for widely mobile or traded products such as vehicles.
The reasons are as follows: (1) that the environment has a natural capacity to degrade and disperse wastes which it is legitimate, and makes economic sense, to utilise. This capacity varies from place to place according to geographical and climatic conditions, and the quantity of pollutants which can be released into any given environment will

441
therefore also vary from place to place; (2) the use to which different parts of the environment are put vary, and given limited resources and other social priorities it is wasteful to prescribe a uniform standard for environments put to widely different uses. For instance, to have to bring up to drinking-water standards stretches of river now only used to receive industrial effluence could be massive misallocation of funds; (3) our knowledge of the effects of pollution and the means of controlling it within economic limits are constantly improving. It is therefore essential to have a system which is sufficiently flexible to allow for continual improvements, if necessary on a plant-by-plant basis.
It is this principle which is embodied in the Alkali Act which does not precribe standards but simply requires that industrialists operate the best practical means to prevent obnoxious emissions to the atmosphere. "Best practical means" are interpreted by the Alkali Inspectors in the light of the latest scientific, economic and technical information and local circumstances. Statutorily fixed limits will have the disadvantage of needing to be set at the lowest common level with all the time lags in improvement inherent in measures requiring legislation. In many cases pollution standards involve a social as well as a scientific judgment. That judgment will vary from place to place as well as over time. Noise is the prime example of this. For these reasons policy has been for Central Government to allow maximum discretion to local government and other relevant agencies to set standards at local level in the light of local needs and circumstances. The role of Central Government has been not to prescribe national limits but to advise local agencies of medical, technical and other factors affecting standards which may be set and, in particular, to give firm guidance when necessary on minimum health requirements.
I hope the House will agree that the approach I have indicated is the best way to tackle the general problem of environmental or pollution standards. As I understand his remarks the noble Lord, Lord Ashby, is in general agreement on this approach, but he says that we might, at least, consider outside maximum limits on pollution on a national statutory basis. I have one obvious objection to this be-
442
cause there might be a tendency to regard such maximum limits as acceptable standards. However, we will certainly look at the point again so that we can return to it in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Barnby, asked about education in pollution matters. I am sure that the whole House will agree that the whole area of environmental and pollution questions is eminently one that should be studied with profit in schools, universities and elsewhere. In fact, I do not think that educational establishments have needed any prompting by the Government on this matter. There has been a tremendous development of courses and study in the environmental and ecological fields at all levels of education. The Government have noted these developments with the greatest interest and approval, but where in addition we can provide assistance and support we, of course, are glad to do so.
For example, I shall mention the valuable education and publicity role of the "Keep Britain Tidy" group which does such good work, with Government support, in dealing with the litter problem. There is perhaps a more direct role for Government in encouraging and promoting the development and vocational study and training in the pollution area. This, of course, links up with the whole question of staff development and careers structures in the environmental field to which several noble Lords and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, have drawn attention. This is where they feel that the various bodies in the environment and health field are very active. I notice that in the growing concern with the environment there has been a considerable growth in the number of such courses and that there is a great deal of consideration of the future role of the various branches of the environmental health profession.
I mention the various branches deliberately because I think we must recognise that there are a number of different jobs to be done within the spectrum of the environmental field. They have to be done by different authorities. It may therefore be something of an illusion to pursue the idea of a single environmental protection service. Having said that, I am sure that we should give the closest attention to the relations between the different branches of this profession and the

443
way in which they should develop to meet the growing tasks in this area. I cannot at present add to what is said in the Financial Memorandum about the actual requirements of the Bill, in terms of staff numbers, but we shall certainly keep in close touch on that aspect with the local authorities and other public bodies. The noble Lord, Lord Henley, raised the issue of penalties. I noted what he had to say about the level of penalties in the Bill, but if he examines the provisions closely he will find in a number of cases that where conviction is on an indictment, what is generally proposed is a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine.
A great many questions have been raised. I am particularly grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Zuckerman, and the noble Lord, Lord Ashby, had to say about the Alkali Inspectorate. We shall read what they have had to say with the greatest care. My noble friend Lady White raised issues about toxic waste, compensation for agriculture and a number of other matters, as indeed the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, raised a question about agriculture. I do not think that I can add anything of value to what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, had to say when he opened the debate. However, I think I can give the undertaking that we will do all we can to reply to the points raised in debate by noble Lords which have not been covered either by my noble friend in his opening or by myself in reply. I repeat what I said, that members of your Lordships' House wanting more information should get in touch with us at the Department of the Environment and we will do our utmost to be helpful. I commend the Bill most warmly.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: Before my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy closes his excellent and informative speech, may I ask him about Clause 16 and Clause 92 dealing with intractable waste and atomic energy. Is he prepared to provide a document on atomic energy? The pressure of using atomic energy for the nation needs checking, and consequently as somebody who has spent many months on the Committee concerned with radioactive waste substances, I will be grateful if, after my noble friend's informative speech, we can obtain more information
444
on atomic energy in relation to the environment. Finally, so that Parliament does not merely become an echo machine that legislates but a Parliament that epitomises efficient government, I shall be grateful if he will indicate his views following upon my line of thought on this subject.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: It will be most helpful if my noble friend would come along to the Department and discuss the matter.
LORD DAVIES OF LEEK: I thank my noble friend, and will drop him a note to save time.
On Question, Bill read 2a and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CONSUMER CREDIT BILL [H.L.]
6.39 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The Lord Nugent of Guildford in the Chair.]
Clause 127 [Jurisdiction and parties]:
On Question, Whether Clause 127 shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: May I preface the introduction of Part IX by saying two things to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd? First of all, I should like to thank him very much for the discussions that I have had with him and his advisers about this Part, which I think will greatly shorten what we have to talk about this evening, to the benefit of all those—particularly the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, and others—interested in Easter. We shall finish what we have to say before Easter next year. Secondly, perhaps I may say that I am a little sorry that both yesterday and to-day we should not have had the advice of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I entirely understand why, but this is a fairly difficult area. We are innovating to

445
some extent, and building on the experience of Common Law and Statute Law; and if the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, cannot provide me with all the answers I shall, of course, readily forgive him. Equally I hope there will be no doubt at all that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be here at Report stage, if we then have further queries and if there are Amendments put down by either side. I think we need a legal eye cast over this subject, and I do not say that mine is by any means adequate. So, perhaps, against that background and the discussions I have had, I may proceed.
I have only one point to raise on Clause 127, and it is this. The clause provides that the county court shall have the sole jurisdiction to hear and determine the three sorts of action set out in subsection (1). The definition of a "regulated agreement" is in itself fairly complicated under this Bill, and I think that in due course there is bound to be an argument whether or not a particular contract which has been made is, or is not, a regulated agreement. If this does not arise naturally, in view of the restraints that are placed upon creditors and other people who lend money, it is probable that people will seek to find ways to avoid the strict provisions of the Bill which protect debtors and other consumers against some of the more disreputable practices in this world. The county courts have a financial limit in dealing with contracts, and there will therefore be cases where the creditor, at any rate, will be saying that the agreement in question is not a regulated agreement and is therefore not something which is hound to be brought in the county court under this Bill; and where, moreover, the amount of money concerned will be above the limit of the jurisdiction of the county court.
The first argument will be about whether or not it is a regulated agreement. If the action is brought in the High Court, it being above the limits with which the county courts can normally deal, and the High Court decides that it is after all a regulated agreement, then the High Court will not have jurisdiction to do any more. In fact, I very much doubt whether the High Court will have jurisdiction to decide whether it is a regulated agreement. We
446
need some method of avoiding this dilemma. I am not quite certain what it is, but I believe there are precedents for this where the county courts have been given sole jurisdiction in other cases. Whatever they are, I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, that they should be studied and that the solution should be incorporated into the Bill, because nothing would be more absurd than to get into the dilemma where no court has any jurisdiction at all to decide anything. I would therefore ask that something should be done about this matter.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am very grateful to the noble Viscount for the manner in which he has dealt with this point, and for his words of appreciation about the meeting that we had earlier. I have long felt that a great deal of time could be saved in Committee if there were more exchange in a more informal atmosphere when a Minister was able to have official advice available to him. Those of my noble friends who have served in another place in Committee know that when a Minister is sitting in his place it is relatively easy for an official to pass the vital piece of paper at the right moment for him to be able to deal with a point. But taking a Committee stage in your Lordships' House, where one's officials are a fair way away, makes it more difficult to deal with problems of a highly technical nature and the sort of problem that the noble Viscount has raised.
May I make one point, however—because it has been twice referred to—about 1the absence of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor? It was referred to yesterday. This is not the first time—nor, I suspect, will it be the last, whatever be the Administration—that the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack at a particular time has not been available in Committee, but I know that, in the past, any noble and learned Lord who sat on the Woolsack has sought to make himself readily available for the convenience of noble Lords. But in this particular case my noble and learned friend sought the leave of your Lordships' House and has gone to Strasbourg—I will not say on ceremonial duties, but on a visit of considerable importance—and I am quite sure that your Lordships would not wish that my noble and learned friend had not gone. Nor do

447
I believe that it would have been your Lordships' wish that we should have delayed the progress of this Bill because of the absence of my noble and learned friend.
This is a matter which, if I cannot satisfy the noble Viscount, we can deal with on Report. But I am quite sure that the noble Viscount, in his comments to-day, was not in any way making any criticism of my noble and learned friend, for we know the heavy duties which any Lord Chancellor is required to undertake.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: May I at once respond to that? No, of course I was not. All I was doing was to commiserate with non-legal noble Lords opposite who have to do battle with some of this, and really with the Committee who have to listen to us on this subject without the advice of somebody like the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am very grateful to the noble Viscount. Frankly, I said what I did quite deliberately, because the noble Viscount will know that what is said in your Lordships' House, in the general spirit in which this House operates, and what is read in cold print in Hansard, may be totally different. I think I can now leave that.
The noble Viscount has in fact raised a new point, and one which in my view is not adequately covered in the Bill. We accept that there may be occasions when, in an action in the High Court for enforcement of an unregulated agreement, it is found to be a regulated agreement. Our initial reaction is that there needs to be some kind of power given to the High Court in such circumstances, so that the matter can be transferred to the county court, which has the jurisdiction under the Bill. I am grateful to the noble Viscount for bringing my attention to this matter, and I assure him that an appropriate Amendment will be laid before-your Lordships' House on Report to deal with this particular point.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I think it could work the other way round as well. I think that there could be an action brought in the county court by a debtor who says, "This is a regulated
448
agreement", where the sum of money is such that it is beyond the county court limit and where it turns out, after argument, not to be a regulated agreement at all, whereupon the county court will not have jurisdiction either, but the case would have had to be brought in the county court for decision. Therefore, I think the transfer should be provided for in both directions. Perhaps the noble Lord and his advisers could consider that point. One wants to have the position completely flexible, so that whatever court turns out to be the one which ought to have dealt with the case can, after all, be enabled to do so, if that is the correct way of putting it. If we can do that, then I think we are all right.
LORD SHEPHERD: Certainly I will look at this matter and, as I have at an earlier stage here, I will certainly consult with the noble Viscount, not only on this clause but on other clauses on which he raises points, to see whether our initial reaction to what the noble Viscount has said is right, and then make it possible for the noble Viscount again to put his views in that informal atmosphere which I think is most helpful.
Clause 127 agreed to.
Clause 128 agreed to.
Clause 129 [Agreements and security instruments improperly executed]:
On Question, Whether Clause 129 shall stand part of the Bill?
6.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: There is a small point I should like to raise on subsection (5)(b). In this clause we are really building on the experience of the old hire-purchase legislation, which was consolidated in the Hire-Purchase Act 1965. The area of transactions covered is now wider than was dealt with in that legislation. I wonder whether the noble Lord could give me an example of the kind of circumstances in which the court might wish to use its powers under Clause 129(5), which is the basic clause, as your Lordships will see, dealing with an improperly executed regulated agreement—not one which is wholly void but one where there is something wrong with the method of execution. I wonder how that failure properly to execute the agree-or hirer and what circumstances we had

449
in mind in legislating in this way. It may simply be copying, but I am not altogether content to take on board all the old hire-purchase legislation, since we have so wide a field to cover.
LORD SHEPHERD: In view of our earlier exchange, no doubt the Committee will not be surprised to learn that I have an example of the kind for which the noble Viscount has asked. Clause 129 permits the court, in certain circumstances, to allow the enforcement of an agreement against a debtor or hirer, even though the agreement was not properly executed. But the debtor or hirer may have been prejudiced in some way by reason of this fact. For example, the agreement may not have set out the terms properly, so that a debtor may have entered into it without fully realising how much he was going to pay. He may have thought that the total amount he was to pay would be £500, whereas in fact it would be £600. It may be that an error in the agreement was due to some unintentional slip by a shop assistant, so that it would be unfair on the creditor to deprive him of all his rights under the agreement.
On the other hand, it might be unfair to the debtor in such a case to make him pay the whole sum. In such a case we feel that the court should be able to act justly between the parties, and order the debtor to pay the creditor a substantial part of the £600, but not the whole of it. If the debtor had been misled into thinking that £500 was all he would have to pay, we think the court should be able to order him to pay £500 only. This is what Clause 129(5)(b) gives the court power to do. It should perhaps be added that subsection (5) is based on a similar provision—and the noble Viscount has referred to it—in Section 10 of the Hire-Purchase Act 1965, which permits the court to allow enforcement of an improperly executed agreement, "subject to any conditions it thinks fit to impose." In Clause 129(5), we have gone further, by spelling out the sorts of conditions which the court may impose.
Another example could exist when we make regulations under Clause 55, as we intend, requiring the cash price of goods to be purchased on credit to be disclosed to the debtor before the agreement is made. If this was not done, the debtor
450
would not realise how much more it was going to cost him to buy the goods on credit instead of for cash. Here again, the court may feel it just to reduce the amount which the debtor was liable to pay. That is the explanation and the example for which the noble Viscount asked. I suggest he may like to consider what I have said and, again, if he wishes to consult further I shall be very happy so to do.
Clause 129 agreed to.
Clause 130 [Instalment Orders]:
On Question, Whether Clause 130 shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Here we have another point on which I hope the noble Lord will be able to help me and also those who have raised this point with me. Under the hire-purchase and conditional sales rules and powers as they exist in the courts at the moment, if you have a situation where a hirer or buyer under a conditional sale agreement has not had the title to the goods transferred to him but is still in the process of paying for them and he falls behind in his payments, there is a piece of machinery—I think it is in Section 38 of the Hire Purchase Act—whereby the creditor can go the court and the court can make what is called a postponement order. That order may be subject to a number of conditions, one of which is that if the debtor or hirer does not pay the instalments under the postponement order, as the court has required him to do, then the moment he defaults the owner of the goods can come in at once and take them, without going back to the court.
Under Clause 130 as it stands, the instalment order system looks very similar to that, but there is one important distinction. We have departed from this provision in subsection (4) of Section 38 of the Hire Purchase Act, in that under the Bill as it stands if this sort of situation arises—and I appreciate that it applies to a wider set of circumstances than just the old hire-purchase or conditional sale—even after the debtor has defaulted on the instalment order or one of the instalments under the instalment order, the creditor has still to go back to the court yet again in order to reclaim the goods. Included among the things

451
to be dealt with under Clause 130 is the perfectly ordinary hire-purchase or credit sale agreement. I am told that the postponement order worked perfectly well and indeed it was very often used; and it seems to be fair and to fit in with the provisions of this Bill, because if one looks at Clause 134(7) we have the same situation in that the debtor in possession is to be treated as a baillee; in other words, the ownership will not be in his hands but will still be in the hands of the person from whom they are being bought or hired. I should have thought that a postponement order was a good option for a court to have in the right situation. It is not in the Bill at the moment. I do not suggest that it should be put in instead of the instalment order—I am sure that will be useful in a wider field—but the postponement order has worked well. Why not have that as an extra weapon in the armoury of the court which will, in a suitable case, be used by it in just the same way as it has been before? I think that the noble Lord may be able to help me on this. It will need a certain amount of amendment and I have not at the moment worked out whether it needs an Amendment to Clause 131 as well. No doubt his advisers will be able to tell him about that and I should be very grateful if the noble Lord would say what was in his mind on this point.
LORD SHEPHERD: I am very grateful to the noble Viscount. He is, of course, quite correct: the provision in the Hire Purchase Act referring to what is called the postponement order has not been included in this Bill. It was felt at one time that this particular provision was slightly unfair to the debtor. I am happy to say that after reflection we have come to the view that this is a fit and proper provision that ought to be in the Bill; it is our intention to move an Amendment on Report stage. However, I would advise the noble Viscount that, for various reasons, it will look rather different from the provision in the Hire Purchase Act because it is dealing with a much wider area of credit. Here again when we have the Amendment—and I suspect the noble Viscount will have a better understanding of it than some of us—if there is any difficulty we will be happy to have consultations.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I am grateful to the noble Lord. I do not know whether you can buy a rose satisfactorily on hire-purchase—it might fade a little—but if it smells as sweet in the Amendment proposed as what we have already I will be very content.
Clause 130 agreed to.
Clauses 131 to 133 agreed to.
Clause 134 [Hire-purchase et cetera agreements: special powers of court]:
On Question, Whether Clause 134 shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: I have two questions on subsection (3) of Clause 134. We are dealing with a rather complicated situation again in the hire-purchase or conditional sale field where there are a number of different items being hired or bought simultaneously, by the debtor. We get into a situation where he has not managed to pay for all of them and one of the things that can be done under subsection (1)(c) is to make a transfer order so that the debtor gets some of the goods, but not all of them, and the others go back to the creditor. When one looks at subsection (3) the transfer order includes a provision that the debtor can select which of the goods he is to keep and which are to go back to the creditor. I do not mind that the debtor should select them in the first place, but I do not think he ought to have the right of selecting them to the exclusion of everybody else. This is a matter of doing justice between at least two parties and involving a number of different pieces of merchandise of one kind or another. If one were to have a transfer order of this kind, the selection of the goods which will be kept by the debtor, as opposed to those that will be given back, should be part of the proceedines in the court and both parties ought to be consulted and the court ought to have a say in deciding whether or not this is a fair way of dealing with the situation. Therefore I ask whether we could incorporate the selection procedure as part of the proceedings which the court blesses as being a fair solution to the problem.
Secondly, after the semicolon in subsection (3) there is an interesting series

453
of words which looks to me as though it requires a mathematical illustration. It is probably only explicable if one sees some examples of it. Can the noble Lord give us one example? I notice that this was asked for when the similar Bill was being dealt with by a Standing Committee in another place. Secondly, can the noble Lord tell us why this provision, which has been inherited from the old hire-purchase legislation and which goes back a long time, is still thought to be necessary to be included in the Bill? Why cannot we leave it to the court to find some just solution to this matter without tying them clown to rather complicated mathematical and, for all I know, algebraic calculations? I should be grateful if he could deal with these points.
7.5 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: I shall be dealing with the second point first. A similar provision to this has been in hire-purchase legislation since 1938. When a hire-purchase agreement covers more than one item, and the debtor has paid a certain amount of the total due, it is necessary to have some formula by which the court can work out which of the goods should become the property of the debtor and which should be handed back to the creditor. Without such a rule the courts would have a difficult task and varying standards might arise from court to court.
Let me give an example. If under a hire-purchase agreement a debtor was purchasing a refrigerator costing £40 (including charges) and an electric cooker costing £75 (including charges), the total price of the agreement would be £115 (£40 plus £75). If the debtor had paid £79, the unpaid balance of the total price would be £36 (£115 minus £79). Thus in respect of the refrigerator, the court could make an order transferring title to the debtor since the paid-up sum (£79) exceeds the cost of the refrigerator (£40) by £39 which is more than one-third of the unpaid balance—that is £12 (36÷3). But in respect of the cooker, the court could not make a transfer order since the paid-up sum (£79) exceeds the cost of the cooker (£75) only by £4 which is less than one-third of the unpaid balance—that is £12 (36÷3).
We take the point the noble Viscount makes about the debtor's right to select
454
the goods which are to be transferred. The Hire Purchase Act does not make this provision and, on reflection, we think it right that, subject to the figures being right, the court should have a say in what goods are to be transferred although in most cases the court would obviously take into account the debtor's wishes. I should like to look at this and, if appropriate, introduce an Amendment at a later stage. This is a very involved example, but I have no doubt that courts which deal with this type of action are able to come to a satisfactory judgment.
As to the first point that the noble Viscount raised, regarding the debtor's right to select the goods which are to be transferred, the Hire Purchase Act does not make this provision; but on reflection we think it right that, subject to the figures being right, the court should have a say in what goods are to be transferred, although in most cases the courts would obviously take into account the debtor's wishes. It would take the wishes into account but not necessarily accept them. I should like to look at this and, if it is appropriate, introduce an Amendment at a later stage. I am grateful to the noble Viscount for raising this matter and giving me the opportunity of putting in Hansard yet another of these examples which one finds right through one's brief. The only difficulty is that I find the explanations and examples more difficult to understand than the Bill as drafted, which is saying something.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: There are two points I might make about this. I have the greatest admiration for those who write the OFFICIAL REPORT, particularly if they are assisted by a view of the figures that have been read out on the Floor of the House. Secondly, I have even greater admiration for county court judges. If the noble Lord would look at the first point I raised, I should be grateful.
Clause 134 agreed to.
Clauses 135 and 136 agreed to.
Clause 137 [When bargains are extortionate]:
7.10 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 137 shall stand part of the Bill?
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: Having covered the extortionate credit bargains under Clause 136, we enter a realm which has hitherto really been occupied by the Moneylenders Acts, which arose out of what was the inherent jurisdiction of the Chancery Courts in Equity. These clauses go very much wider; so wide that they cover any agreement. I regret that I have a rather involved argument or series of questions on Clause 137 which I should like to put to the noble Lord. It is interlocking to an extent, and it does not by any means follow that I expect the noble Lord to be able to provide an exact answer for everything this evening. It is a very involved state of affairs indeed.
Hitherto, the law has developed from the straight equitable jurisdiction of the old Chancery Division whereby they could put right matters that were monstrously unfair, even if the Common Law of Contract told them to the contrary. Then there were at any rate two Moneylenders Acts—one in 1900 and another in 1927—which improved upon the situation in Statute form. Of course, these were construed by the courts and a big body of case law has grown up. Two points have emerged. Under the moneylenders' code, as it were, the moneylenders' law as it has evolved, one cannot do without a remedy in the courts to lending money on terms that are harsh and unconscionable—those are terms of art which have been widely construed and carry a large number of implications with them.
The second point which has emerged is that one has seen the law develop so that the burden of proof has been carefully tailored to the circumstances. Under the 1927 Act, if the rate of interest was more than 48 per cent, per annum the burden of proof passed from the person who borrowed the money to show reason why it was exorbitant or harsh and unconscionable; so when it was above 48 per cent. it was for the lender to show why it was not harsh and unconscionable to lend at that rate. This did not mean that if the rate of interest was below 48 per cent. the courts would not interfere; they would. But in those circumstances it was for the debtor to show that the bargain was harsh and unconscionable. Many rules were built up about this. Many factors could be
456
taken into account; and, as I say, there were a series of cases which built up case law upon it.
In 1906, in a case called Samuel Newbold, the then Lord Chancellor, Lord Lawburn, said that he thought it was a great mistake to lay down an exhaustive category of the kind of circumstances one wanted to look at to see whether any bargain was harsh and unconscionable because, as in so many other fields, one never really got a proper list. Ever since then there has been no attempt by the Legislature to categorise the kind of factors that ought to be taken into account by the courts, although the courts have in fact taken into account a large number of matters, including the personal situation of the debtor.
The moneylenders' code in this Bill has been spread out to cover a large number of extra transactions far beyond pure money lending. So those who have drafted the Bill have had to see what use they can make of the experience that already exists in legislation and in case law, and see how they would like to adapt it. I can readily understand that, if one is venturing into entirely new fields where people are not dealing with moneylending as it is well known but many much wider transactions, one would wish to mark the occasion by making it perfectly certain that one is not dealing only in terms that have been familiar to the courts in moneylending transactions in the past.
In fact, one may want to try to get away from that in order to start afresh and not tie the court down to what has been decided before. I believe that that is what has happened in Clause 137. We have a situation at heart where the court will be able to decide what is or is not fair; what is or is not, in the old term, harsh and unconscionable. But it is not expressed in that way. In addition, there is a situation in Clause 167(5), to which I would invite the attention of the Committee. Clause 167(5) says that if
"the debtor or any surety alleges that the credit bargain"—
any credit bargain—
"is extortionate it is for the creditor to prove the contrary".
So first we have abandoned "harsh and unconscionable" with all the case law built up under it, and secondly we have

457
abandoned the watershed for the purposes of the onus of proof which used to exist at 48 per cent. And, on the second point, the onus of proof now relies upon the creditor whatever the rate of interest and whatever the bargain, if once the debtor says, "This was an extortionate agreement".
Let us just for one moment examine this. First one finds that we have written into the Bill—and this I believe is an attempt to express what has been held to be the case law—two adverbs which I would wish to lock at with some severity. We have in Clause 137 subsection (1)(a) the words "grossly exorbitant", and in subsection (1)(b) the words
"otherwise grossly convenes ordinary principles of fair dealing".
There has been a good deal of criticism and discussion about similar terms. For instance, "gross negligence" is just negligence only rather rudely described. On the other hand, in this case, when we use the words "grossly exorbitant" in the Bill we are saying in effect, if anybody chose to take the point, that a bargain which was exorbitant is all right—and that in itself is rather an extraordinary proposition—but a bargain which is grossly exorbitant is not all right. It is for the creditor, if the point is raised, to prove which, and to try to prove that it is not grossly exorbitant. The same thing applies when we are dealing with ordinary principles of fair dealing. One may contravene them, and do so with impunity, under this particular provision. What one cannot do is grossly to contravene them.
I think that when we look at the language in which we are trying to express these provisions, first of all we are getting into a fairly silly situation where Parliament says: "You can be exorbitant and get away with it", and secondly: "You can contravene the ordinary principles of fair trading and get away with it. The only thing that you must not do in either case is to do so grossly." It is a matter of pure verbiage, but it is very bad public relations, and it would be very unfortunate if the courts had to hold in either case that somebody was allowed to get away in law with either of these activities. I do not know whether the noble Lord and his advisers could think again about
458
this matter to see whether we can get rid of these rather unfortunate adverbs, because I believe that the Bill would look better, and indeed would probably work better, in practice if we did.
The second point is this. When we are talking about ordinary principles of fair dealing, let us remember that we are probably considering for the main part what is going to go on in the county court. The matter is one of evidence. A good deal of evidence is going to be brought in this kind of action anyway, because there must be evidence which will fulfil any necessity to deal with matters in subsections (2), (3) or (4)—all those are evidential. But the ordinary principles of fair dealing are something one would expect to apply across the whole of the country, and not to be different in Kilburn from what they are in Kensal Green, or in Wick (if this Bill applies to Scotland, about which point I have not looked) from Penzance. County court hearings and decisions are not reported. County court judges have possibly different methods of interpretation of what the ordinary principles of fair dealing might be, and one has a major problem in trying to discover what these principles as applied by the courts may turn out to be.
One must remember that all the time the burden is upon the creditor who may find that one county court judge will knock him down for what he does in that area, although precisely the same exercise, precisely the same deal, may be held to be all right in another. If, of course, I say that to the creditor, if you are dealing with an organisation which trades nation-wide, the debtor will be in precisely the same difficulty. My second point, therefore, is this: can we do anything about the evidence which is able to be adduced to the courts about what are the ordinary principles of fair dealing? They may not be instantly available, but, as the case law is built up, if it cannot be looked at in the Law Reports, is there anything that the Director could do? Is there any method whereby the courts should be entitled to look at some sort of code? I am really groping my way in this, because it is a new area but one which I think could be quite important and could save a good deal of money. We will not have to call in experts upon what is fair and what is not fair in a

459
number of quite widely differing fields of credit dealing of one sort or another. I wonder, therefore, whether we can have a look at this to see whether we can be a little more specific.
I pass to subsection (2). One observes here that, contrary to what has happened in other clauses in Part IX, we are not giving the court an option in this case: whether it shall look at the interest rates, any other factors mentioned in subsections (3) to (5) and any other relevant considerations. We are requiring it to have regard to them. This carries a rather wider implication, because if somebody who is providing credit or, indeed, lending money, knows that on the occasion when his bargain may be examined by the court the court is required to look at certain things, he is going to have to take the trouble in advance in every case, lest there should be a challenge, to go through all of them, and some of them will not be relevant in every sort of agreement that may be entered into. I would therefore suggest that as we are, after all, here doing nothing more than to list a number of things which I am inclined to think will probably always be available to the courts to take into consideration where they relate to moneylending—in so far as they could relate to moneylending; and I appreciate that two of them, perhaps, could not—we ought not to force the courts in every case to inquire into these. We should perhaps use the word "may" rather than "shall" at the beginning of subsection (2).
May I say one last thing. In subsection (3) we have factors in relation to the debtor himself. First of all, I find it fairly difficult to understand how, in the case of, say, the debtor's experience or business capacity—if that is something upon which the debtor is relying—the creditor can prove anything. Remember that the onus of proof is upon the creditor, and I think that there are going to be practical difficulties in the creditor being able to establish that somebody has or has not got a sufficient degree of business capacity to be able to sustain the imposition upon him of the full records of a contract into which he has entered. There are, therefore, difficulties of proof under
460
subsection (3) which again might be considered, because I believe that we are here getting into rather complicated areas of law and of practice.
May I just put the corollary of this: that the creditor at the moment, as the Bill is drafted, does not quite know what it is that he has to prove. If you look at these factors which are set out in subsection (3), it does not seem to me that they all necessarily pull the same way in any one transaction. If you have money lent to, shall we say, an old man who is not very well, who is not very experienced in business and has, by some good fortune, come upon something that is extremely profitable in the way of a high risk enterprise, it would seem to me that his age and his health might suggest that the rate of interest goes up or goes down before it is considered to be extortionate—I am not quite sure which—and that the hope of a large profit might sustain a higher risk of interest without being exorbitant.
At the moment I do not know—and in another place in Standing Committee this was never answered—which way these factors are supposed to go. My understanding and my guess is that they are not supposed, in any case, to go all the same way, and they may be taken in either sense in any particular set of circumstances. In fact, they are only listed as being things that the court can take into account. But when one puts the burden of proof explicitly upon one of the two parties, I think it would be helpful to make it perfectly plain that they do not all, for instance—and I do not believe that this is the case—mean that the higher rate of interest is likely to be exorbitant if one or other of these factors is present. I find it very difficult to explain this concisely, but I think the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, probably knows what I mean. Again, therefore, if one could give some indication—perhaps by saying that these factors could work one way or the other, as the case may be—we should, at any rate, have brought a little more clarity into the Bill.
This is a difficult clause. It raises a number of problems, and I think that it could do with a little combing through and improvement for the sake of clarity and in order to get things dealt with in the courts without an enormous amount of cost and complication. This, after all,

461
if we are trying, to protect the consumer, is just as much to his advantage as it ever is to anybody upon whom the burden of proof may lie. If, therefore, the noble Lord can help me on any of these things, it would, I believe, be a very great step forward.
LORD SHEPHERD: The Committee will be indebted to the noble Viscount for the very concise way in which he has dealt with four particular points. Perhaps, in view of the last few words of the noble Viscount, I can say this. We intend, between now and Report, to set down a fairly substantial number of Amendments with the object of tidying up the whole of Part IX. It may be that, in that tidying up, we can deal with some of the points that the noble Viscount has raised. Since again with this Bill there is a degree of urgency to get it into another place, if the noble Viscount would be willing I would be happy to have consultations with him in regard to the tidying up of the whole of Part IX. I think it would be very helpful not only to Her Majesty's Government and the Department but also in the interests of an expeditious Report stage.
The noble Viscount raised four points, and if I may I will take them in reverse order. I listened with great attention to what he had to say in regard to subsection (3), and I am advised that there could be a small amendment to this subsection which might deal with the matter to which the noble Viscount referred. It is difficult, but I think we may be able to overcome some of the difficulty. In regard to his comments upon subsection (2), and whether there should be an Amendment replacing the word "shall" with "may" to give discretion to the court, we are sympathetic to this point. We accept that there may be transactions to which all the factors mentioned in subsections (3) to (5) may not be relevant. Here again we shall look at the point in the light of all the circumstances, and if we think it appropriate we will bring forward an Amendment on Report.
The noble Viscount then went on to what are the principles of fair dealing. As he rightly said, the onus of proof is always upon the creditor to prove that his agreement is not extortionate. I believe the noble Viscount thinks that for him to prove that the method by which he trades does not contravene
462
ordinary principles might in future lead to difficulties. I readily accept that. I wonder—and I am merely wondering—whether this difficulty could be overcome if the Secretary of State were able to define by Order the ordinary principles of fair trading. To a certain extent I am speaking aloud. I think this is one way in which to proceed but, not being a lawyer, I am not quite sure whether it is acceptable. However, I will certainly look at it between now and the Report stage of the Bill.
I do not intend to debate with the noble Viscount the phrase "grossly exorbitant". When I took up this Bill my understanding was that what we had intended here was at least to have the same sort of meaning as we had in previous legislation—the money-lending Acts. If your Lordships will excuse my language I said: "Why the blazes cannot we use the same words?" It was pointed out that we are now dealing with a much wider field of credit and therefore such a phrase is not appropriate. I am advised that the Government would be unwilling to use the existing words of the Act because, as I have already explained, the provisions extend to a wider range of credit transactions.
At the moment I cannot hold out any hope, but since this is possibly a field more for my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, I will await his return from Strasbourg, and will tell him that the noble Viscount has raised a matter of definition within the proposed Bill. I shall see what advice he can give me, and again, if the noble Viscount is still unsure, perhaps we may have further consultations. I hope I have been able to deal, albeit in a layman's fashion, with the four points the noble Viscount has raised.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: The noble Lord has dealt with them most thoroughly, if I may say so, and very much to my satisfaction. I think the problem about the words "grossly exorbitant" really has two limbs: first, that one must look at the source and see whether one can find something that carries out the intention of the old words "harsh and unconscionable" by the use of some other adjective. Secondly, I seem to remember on a fairly large number of occasions in this House that noble

463
Lords have attempted to qualify an adjective by putting an adverb in front of it. It has always been resisted, for much the sort of reasons that I was speaking about. I suggest that we ought to be very chary of doing this, and that the Government draftsmen and those who consider this matter carefully ought to be very wary before they set such a precedent as this, which no doubt will be seized upon by one and all and is unlikely to be a success in terms of law.
As for the ordinary principles of fair dealing, I have no fixed views about the matter at all. As I said, we are talking about evidence. In what form the evidence comes I do not mind. The difficulty is to decide what is admissible as evidence. We have to make sure that if a code or a series of parts of a code which gradually get stitched together do evolve, then these are available for evidential purposes without calling an expert on fair trading in each petty case in the county court. Therefore any thought which can be given to this problem is most welcome. I thank the noble Lord. I am sorry that mine was such a very long speech on the Question, Whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill? The clause is a difficult one, and I think a key one in this Part of the Bill. Therefore I look forward to further discussions—and I hope amendments—in due course.
Clause 137 agreed to.
Clause 138 [Reopening of extortionate agreements]:
On Question, Whether Clause 138 shall stand part of the Bill?
7.35 p.m.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: There are two short points I wish to raise in regard to this clause. First, in subsection (1), both in paragraph (a) and paragraph (c), we have the intention to prescribe a period within which a credit agreement may be reopened. I wonder very much how on earth one is going to prescribe a period, or indeed a series of periods, which will be apt to deal with the enormous range of transactions which may be covered by the sort of area of credit that we are speaking about. I do not know whether the law has gone so far that we can no longer rely upon the ordinary principles of equity, but there is quite a good one, the technical term
464
for which is "laches", an old Greek word; but in practice, if I am not sounding condescending, perhaps I may just explain what it is. The court says: "If you are going to ask for equitable remedies you must not wait so long that it is no longer fair to reopen the bargain". In other words, you judge the period of time within which you may properly come to the court and complain that the thing is exorbitant by the actual nature of the bargain you have struck. If you borrow money over the weekend the court will not hear you if you come back three years later; if you borrow the money over 25 years, I have little reason to suppose that the court would not be prepared to reopen the matter at any time within that period. Therefore I am not certain, first, how we are going to prescribe; and secondly, I wonder whether it would not be better to leave it to the inherent and equitable jurisdiction of the courts anyway.
My second point is that under subsection (3) we have—and I entirely see the point—a provision whereby the re-opening of one of these agreements may have the effect of bringing an advantage—an unfairly enjoyed advantage—to a person who is involved in a linked transaction. Linked transactions of course come in under Clause 137(5). If we are dealing with what is fair all round, giving the court power to do justice to everybody concerned, and linked transactions are to be brought in, I see no particular reason why, if it is proper, and perhaps if either the creditor or the court asks for it, somebody else who will get an unfair advantage by a side wind should not be brought into the action as well and, if necessary, made to contribute. It need not happen every time; indeed, for all I know, it need never happen. But I think there should be powers whereby such a person can be brought into the argument; and if it is fair that he should pay something towards what the creditor is losing there should be power in the court to make him do so. I may be wrong but I do not think that subsection (3) allows this to happen at the present moment. I suggest to the noble Lord that we should improve the Bill if we set about inserting such an express provision.
LORD SHEPHERD: My reaction was identical to that of the noble Viscount in regard to the first point. When I saw my officials with regard to this particular

465
clause, and I saw the words "prescribed period", I asked, "Where is the prescribed period in the Bill?" I was told that there was no such definition, but it was put to me that this was something which was covered by the "Lord Chancellor's Rules", or some such phrase as that. Here again, speaking slightly aloud and probably getting into difficulties with those who advise me, it seemed to me to be of some importance that in using a phrase like this in a Bill which was very much for the consumer's benefit, then it should, if possible, be clearly stated. I think the noble Viscount is perhaps conscious that there may be difficulties in regard to making a prescribed period within the Bill itself. I have already asked for the matter to be looked at, and if necessary I will either put down an Amendment or communicate with the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. With regard to the second point, this is slightly more difficult, but here again I have a certain amount of sympathy with it. I should like to examine this point in the light of existing court rules. If I undertake to write to the noble Viscount or to introduce an Amendment at a later stage, I hope that he will be satisfied.
Since this may be the last occasion on which I shall be speaking on the Committee stage, I should like to express a very sincere word of appreciation to all noble Lords who have taken part, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, and the noble Earl, Lord Limerick, and others who have sat on various Benches in this House. I should like to express my sincere thanks to my noble friend Lord Jacques, who carried a very heavy burden during the Committee stage. I understand it has been agreed that we should take the Report stage on Thursday week, May 16, so we have very little time. I have asked my officials to put down all the Amendments as they come forward in order that there should be the greatest possible opportunity for consideration. I would not expect difficulty here, because I know there is continual discussion between the Department and those who are interested in the Bill.
I shall endeavour to ensure that explanatory notes on those Amendments which we intend to put down on Report will be made available to noble Lords
466
who have been interested in the Bill. Taking the Report stage on Thursday week gives us a little more time and a little more flexibility in dealing with the Control of Pollution Bill, and therefore it is a sensible arrangement. But I am equally conscious of the shortage of time. However, there is another place, and if we have not got the Bill exactly right I have no doubt that the House of Commons will be able to take up much that we have discussed, and will be able to deal with those matters with which we may not have been able to deal.
My Lords, may I also thank the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, not only for raising some valuable points but for having had the courtesy to meet me this morning to appraise me of what he intended to raise, and for giving me an opportunity as a layman to deal with some highly complex legal matters.
VISCOUNT COLVILLE OF CULROSS: My Lords, I will see that my noble friends Lord Aberdare and Lord Limerick are told of what the noble Lord the Leader of the House has so generously said. I did indicate to them that the subject matter of what I was going to talk about might be a little sterile from their point of view, and it would not offend me if they were not present. Of course, they did not expect the accolade that the noble Lord has given them.
My Lords, there can be no doubt that what we ought to be doing in this House is to make as much progress as we can with clarification and improvement. I understand the timetabling difficulties, and I have no doubt there have been discussions through the usual channels. My part has been small in this Bill but, quite plainly, the more we can put right, the better. If there is a rush it will apply to another place as well, so let us go on with this very valuable process of consultation. In my turn I was very grateful Ito the noble Lord the Leader of the House; I do not remember having had so many concessions made in such a short time on any other occasion that I have taken part in this Bill.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, it must not go to the noble Viscount's head!
Clause 138 agreed to.
Clauses 139, 140 and 141 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

EASTER ACT 1928
7.45 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR LORD MERTHYR rose to ask Her Majesty's Government upon what date it is intended to bring into force the Easter Act 1928. The noble Lord said: My Lords, on August 3. 1928, the Royal Assent was given in this House to a Bill to fix the date of Easter Sunday. There was a debate on the Bill in both Houses, but there was no Division in either House; in other words, the Bill was passed with almost no opposition. There were a few noises from the Opposition, but no Division at all. There was support from more than one religious body, including, I may say, the Roman Catholics. I should now like to say, very briefly, what the Bill did and did not say.
What it did not say was that there must be agreement between the Churches on the Bill. Ever since then, I have been told by Her Majesty's Governments, of various denominations, that they will do nothing until the Churches agree. Even the Sunday Times last Sunday got it wrong. They said that the Act requires the agreement of the Christian Churches, but that is quite untrue. The Bill did not say anything of the kind. What it did say was that the Bill was not to be put into effect without an Order in Council laid before both Houses and approved. It went on to say, and these words are very important so I will read them carefully:
"Regard shall be had to any opinion expressed by any Church or other Christian body."
My Lords, during the past 45 years I have asked in this House how many such opinions have been expressed. I have never received an answer. On one occasion I asked this question with great particularity, and the only answer I got from the particular Government which happened to be in power at the time was that there had been no opinion expressed. I think I am safe in saying that in all these 45 years no opinions at all have been officially expressed by any religious body. If I am wrong, I shall be corrected, but I have never been corrected up to now. So I can say, I hope truthfully, that I have never had an answer to that question. If I am right, then the last excuse that Her Majesty's Government can possibly have for not putting this Bill into effect disappears.
My Lords, I deliberately accuse Her Majesty's Government (and I have said this about Conservative Governments as well as Labour Governments, omitting only Liberal Governments because they have never been in power in this period) of writing something into an Act of Parliament which is not there. I further say that in our democratic country that is a very wrong thing to do. If I am wrong, and the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, who is to answer me disagrees, then I hope he will say so. But I challenge him to deny that that is the case. I challenge him to deny that Governments have put something into an Act of Parliament which Parliament has never passed.
The Government keep on saying that there must be agreement, but I would remind the House that on one occasion a meeting of 250 Anglican Bishops agreed on a fixed Easter without opposition. I would also remind the House that the last Vatican Council voted on this question, and the voting was: in favour 2,058; against 9. If that is not a big enough majority, I do not know what is. But, most unfortunately and most unhappily, they put in a proviso to this motion which was that it could not be put into force until the Orthodox Church agreed. That, of course, was fatal because nobody really thinks that the Greek Orthodox Church and the Russian Orthodox Church will ever agree so long as the two countries are constituted as they are now. So we go on. The Orthodox Church, of course, now has a different Easter from what we have; so why in the world we should wait for them to agree with us, I really do not know. Perhaps the noble Lord will explain that to the House, too.
I have very little more to say, because I have said a good deal about this subject on previous occasions. If nothing is done—and this is something I have not said earlier—I prophesy with some confidence, though with regret, that there will be a demand for a secular holiday in the month of April on a fixed date irrepective of Easter Sunday. I, as a Church man, would regret it, and I think many other Church people would regret it. The Church has already lost Whit Monday as a Bank Holiday; it is now only by coincidence that it occurs on the day after Whit Sunday. So we have already lost that. We are in great danger of losing Easter Monday as well, and I am

469
very much afraid there will be a great demand for something to be done on those lines if the Government persist in this stubborn attitude of refusing to do anything.
What I want them to do is, of course, quite obvious. I want them to lay an Order in Council, which they must do under the Act before it comes into operation. I want them to keep the Whips off, because this is not at all a Party matter. And I want by those means to see whether Parliament still wants a fixed Easter, as I believe a great number of people do. I have not spoken for very long because, as I have said before, I have really nothing new to say. I therefore ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
7.53 p.m.
LORD FERRIER: My Lords, in rising to support the Question which has been put by the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, I cannot promise to be as brief as he has been. At the same time, in the aggregate over the last 45 years, I imagine that my contribution will be very much less than his aggregate contribution in this respect. When he asked me whether I was interested in his Question, I looked back to the debate which I initiated on an Unstarred Question in 1962. I will not conceal from your Lordships that I was put up to it by the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, who at that time was Chairman of Committees. He had found out in conversation that I was very interested in this whole matter, having recently been in Australia. So I read through the Report of that debate, which I believe is a most interesting survey of the whole situation as it was then, and which contained a most masterly contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Crook, who made an extremely interesting speech going right back to his association with Cardinal Mercier just after the first World War.
Since that date in 1962, the importance of the matter to the man in the street has been to a considerable extent reduced by the fixing of the Spring Bank Holiday and the August Bank Holiday in terms of the Banking and Financial Dealings Act. If one turns to the Reports of the debates in both Houses on that Act, one gets a further insight into this problem of holidays, to which the noble
470
Lord, Lord Merthyr, has referred in very real terms, in connection with April. If your Lordships turn to the Schedules of the Act—though very few noble Lords, I imagine, will be sufficiently interested to study them—you will find the days there. Schedule 1 states:
"The following are to be bank holidays in England and Wales:—
Easter Monday.
The last Monday in May.
The last Monday in August.
26th December, if it be not a Sunday.
27th December in a year in which 25th or 26th December is a Sunday."
and so on for Scotland and Northern Ireland.
If any noble Lord cares to study those against pencilled figures of the existing dates of Easter and the dates that would be Easter under the Act, I think he will find it extremely interesting, if only because those dates—particularly the one for the August Bank Holiday which I have just read out—have been arrived at after trial and error. I know I am right in saying that the first Monday in August was first tried, and obviously the last Monday is much the best, but if that needs to be altered it can be altered. Similarly, with the Spring Bank Holiday—I have not been able to find the authority for this, but I understand that it is so—if Whit Monday falls on the last Monday in May, then the Government have the power to choose a Monday in June.
As the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, said, this is not a Party matter. This flexibility has been reached after Socialist Governments and Conservative Governments have dealt with it and handled the details practically in terms of the man in the street. I will not elaborate at this late hour about the relation between these dates in the Schedule and the date of Easter, but I will confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, has said; that the Churches have become more sympathetic towards the Act as it stands. I have already explained that the fixing of the dates of the Spring and Autumn Bank Holidays have reduced the real pressure which existed in 1962 to get something done.
But as the water has, as it were, flowed under the bridge, the Churches have become more sympathetic, and I will take

471
issue with the noble Lord who has asked this Question about the fact that nothing official has been said. The Church of Scotland has passed a resolution, in confirming the Report of the Church and Nation Committee—I think it was six or seven years ago—in which they approved of this arrangement under the Act. If one wants to turn to what the Church of England says, one finds that in a Question and Answer in March, 1962, the noble Lord, Lord Fisher, quoted Archbishop Davidson in his approval of this fixing of the date of Easter.
Apart from the man in the street, the education authorities, and particularly the universities and medical schools and the like, still suffer considerable inconvenience from this wide variation in the date of Easter, which affects their estimates of the length of terms and the dates for their examinations, and so on. It is still possible for there to be two Easters in one fiscal year, to be followed by a fiscal year with no Easter in it at all. This has a bearing on statistics, and the like, but in the Episcopal Church it also has a bearing on the Easter Giving in the hands of the priest and the taxation that he, the priest, pays upon it. The fishing trade is adversely affected. There is the problem of the enormous demand for fish on Good Friday and during Lent—a matter of real importance to towns such as Aberdeen. These difficulties could be avoided if the Act was put into force, in that you would not have these very early Easters which mean fishing in times of the equinoctials.
In that debate in 1962, the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, made a most interesting speech, in which, speaking as a North Countryman, he referred to the Wakes Weeks and the problem of fixing them in relation to Easter. In the North of England, as in Scotland, they have this sensible arrangement whereby they do not all have a spring holiday, or an August holiday, on the same weekend, and so you have your Yorkshire Wakes and Lancashire Wakes, just as you have your Glasgow Fair and Edinburgh holidays. The noble Lord pointed out to me, when he said that he regretted that he could not be here to-night, that this problem of fixing the Wakes Weeks could be settled once and for all if you had this Act in force. The problem of the
472
Wakes Weeks can have a bearing on the selection of a date for an election, because you cannot have a General Election if the whole of Yorkshire or Lancashire is on a Wakes Week holiday.
I shall not make more than a passing reference to the southern hemisphere. It is all very well talking of Easter and spring, but we must remember that for half the world Easter is in the autumn. There are various points that one could make, but I pick out only two of them. One is the Royal Easter Show in Sydney. If you had an early Easter, it would then fall at a time so close to their midsummer that it would be very trying for the animals. The conditions for the show itself, and for the growers of fruit and flowers and the other magnificent exhibits that you see, are very hot. I do not know how many of your Lordships have been to this Show, but if Easter is early then the heat is excessive and the fruit is not on top form. In South America they make a great thing of Shrove Tuesday, which they call Carnival. An early Easter makes it difficult for the big holidays that they have at Carnival and Shrove Tuesday.
There are a number of reasons why this Act need not be put into effect, most important of which is, "Why cannot we leave the thing be?", laissez-faire. But there are so many reasons why it should be put into effect that, in my view, they quite outweigh the objections. I look forward to the Minister's reply in the hope that, even if the Government cannot yet indicate a date for the implementation of the Act—and I would not for one moment expect that they can or will do so—they will take the initiative, which is what I think the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, suggested. Who asks whom? Where does it start? It must be for the Home Office to take the initiative so that Parliament's will, as expressed in their enactment of 1928, may be made effective before half-a-century has passed, as it will have in four years' time.
I would just cap what the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, said by quoting what was answered to a Question of mine in 1962; and I am referring to HANSARD of March 22, 1962, column 627. The Minister replied to me:
"Her Majesty's Government would not feel justified in initiating action …".

473
The noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, said further in the exchanges:
"I made it quite clear in my Answer that we believe it is up to the Churches concerned."
On July 24, 1962, at column 970, I went on:
"Is it, my Lords? With due respect, it can be maintained that the Act does not say that the approval of any Church must be obtained;"
this is the point which the noble Lord, Merthyr, made—
"only that
'regard shall be had to any opinion officially expressed'.
If no such opinion is expressed, it could be said that there is no reason why the Order in Council should not be made."
There is one last point which has been made to me recently in discussing this subject with a friend. To implement the Act might well be another step, however small, towards a better understanding between the Churches.
8.6 p.m.
LORD SOMERS: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord is able to give me some enlightenment on one subject. I am personally very much in favour of the attitude of the two noble Lords who have spoken, but there is one point which has been referred to me fairly recently, namely that, historically speaking, Easter is inextricably linked with the Jewish Passover. From those of my friends who are practising Jews I have tried to discover whether the Jewish Passover is a moveable or a fixed feast. Most of them seem to think that it is moveable, but what governed its movement I do not think any of them knew. Of course Easter would always have to be moveable within seven days because Easter Day has to be a Sunday, and therefore the date will not always be the same. I wonder whether that is the case with Passover. I do not think that is nearly so important as the points that my noble friend Lord Merthyr has raised, and therefore if it cannot be arranged to fit in with the Jewish Passover I am not prepared in the least to protest about it.
8.8 p.m.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, as I am here, I should like to say a few words on this point. As the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, is so well aware, Easter is a Christian festival and is basically a united day on which all Christians
474
should, and do, celebrate the resurrection of the risen Christ. Be one of any Christian faith or not, it is obviously slightly stupid to have a different face of Christianity celebrating this day of the risen Christ on different days of the year. Although I know and appreciate that the Act has been passed, I think that this caveat is important.
We are living in a Christian world, and we do not want to devalue Christian holidays into merely secular holidays. We must make a difference. What was Mary's day has become May Day and Labour Day. I am not decrying that because it is Labour Day—perhaps one day we may have a Tory Day—but I want to emphasise that holy days should be kept as something that is good. This is important, and this caveat upon which all Christian Churches should agree, is not something to be lightly shoved aside. This problem has existed for centuries. The great argument of St. Wilfred at the Synod of Whitby was the fixed or unfixed date of Easter. That was back, if I remember rightly, in the seventh century. This is not a new problem. I, as a Roman Catholic totally subscribe to what the Second Vatican Council said, and the Conservative Party, as your Lordships are well aware are totally in agreement with any point on which can be agreed this fixed Easter. But to have different Churches celebrating Easter on different days, and to have a United Kingdom Parliament legislating that this will be a fixed Easter, with the rest of Europe and the rest of the Commonwealth not necessarily following suit, is asking a little much of commonsense on what is essentially a day of Christian rejoicing. How can you have the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, and myself and the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, celebrating Easter here on one day, and our brothers or cousins in Australia on another day, and our brothers in Canada, perhaps if they have a Russian Orthodox Group there, on yet another day. We are bringing the matter more to an absurdity than we need.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, is that not what they do now, celebrate it on different days?
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, at the moment we have two days, but if the Act is now brought into

475
effect, we might have three different days. Instead of having just the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Easter, we would probably—for want of a better phrase—have the British Easter as well, and so we might have three instead of two different Easters. We may be making matters worse. In this case I think patience might be a virtue. I am not speaking for my Party, although I am speaking from this Dispatch Box, but I think I am speaking for a general consensus of opinion of my Party, which is why I am taking the liberty of speaking at this moment.
The noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, referred to the talks of Cardinal Mercier, the Malines talks, and the then Lord Halifax. This has been a matter greatly in men's minds, and nobody is keener on this than myself. I believe a fixed Easter is generally and universally wanted. But if it is going to make matters more diverse than at the moment, then I for one, speaking for myself rather than for the Party, but speaking probably for a consensus of my Party, would say, "Let us go slowly if there is a chance later of getting a general opinion of agreement".
8.13 p.m.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, with respect to my noble friend who has just spoken, I think you have to go back to 400 A.D. and remember that it was at that time that the Greek Orthodox, the Eastern Church, separated from the Western Church almost entirely at the date of Easter. The date that was fixed for Easter bears little relationship to the Passover, as the noble Lord, Lord Somers, was saying; indeed, it bears little relationship to the actual date of the crucifixion.
I am very much impressed by the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, that if we do not do something about this, then the nation itself will do something. People will not stand for what has now become a minority group of Christians in this country dictating to the rest, and I think something will come through. I have great respect for the noble Lord on our Front Bench here, the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, in his prosecution of the view of the Roman Catholics. I have for at least 15 years, possibly longer, been a member of the
476
British Council of Churches, and from my experience I would say, almost unhesitatingly, that the Reformed Churches, both in this country and in North America, have no real opposition to a fixed Easter. I have heard the subject debated from time to time. Admittedly, the Roman Catholic Church are not full-time members, but are just Observers at the British Council of Churches, where I have heard the subject debated from time to time, and always in an inconclusive manner.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, if I may interrupt my noble friend, I think he must have totally misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying that I totally agreed that a fixed Easter was a very good thing provided the other Christian Churches agreed. All I was saying was that I thought a proliferation of different Easters was a bad thing because it would tend to proliferate the Christian feeling. I do not understand where my noble friend got the idea that the Roman Catholic Church—which I am not speaking for to-night-is against a fixed Easter. The Roman Catholic Church, the Anglican Church, the Church of Scotland, and all the Churches, I understand, are totally in agreement that a fixed Easter is a good thing, provided we can get agreement on the date. But please do not say that I am against it.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, my noble friend advocated that we should proceed slowly. But has anything gone more slowly through the legislation of this country? It goes back a very long time indeed. I am sorry if I imputed something too strong to the Roman Catholic Church. I realised that the relative silence of their Observers in the British Council of Churches was not a matter without significance, although it was always pointed out at that time—a point that my noble friend has made—that so long as the Churches on the Continent would not agree to a fixed Easter, therefore we could not fix it either. I think that the time has come when we should ignore that fact. Even though we are in the Common Market, I do not see why we should not have a fixed Easter if we so want.
What strikes me about this matter to date is that if there was any substantial

477
opposition in the Churches to a fixed Easter, your Lordships' House would have been overwhelmed with Prelates, but we have not had one present here to support the idea of continuing Easter as it is just now. We should also have had the other professional ecclesiastics who are Members of the House present and speaking on the subject, but none of them has come along. My argument is that the Churches in this country would welcome the Government taking a strong line and fixing Easter, and I suggest that if the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, were accepted, then we should have a real test of what the Churches in this country want. I am pretty certain that they would be only too happy to have it imposed upon them. Therefore I beseech the Government to take courage.
8.20 p.m.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I have listened with considerable interest to what has been said to-night and I spent some considerable time reading what has been said on former occasions. At the outset let me say that I fear I am not going to be of much value to the purpose of the Unstarred Question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, this evening. The noble Lord, Lord Balerno, referred to the absence of the Bishops. I think, with great respect, that one would be entitled to say that the fact that there is no Bishop here tonight may indicate that a fixed Easter is of very little importance to them.
LORD BALERNO: Hear, hear!
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: I think that interpretation is a reasonable one, but may I draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that a succession of Home Secretaries, a succession of Governments, as the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, has pointed out, going back something like 46 years have found it necessary to stand by a sentence in the Act which reads:
"Regard should be had to any opinion officially expressed by a church or other Christian body".
The interpretation of that can be whatever one wants it to be, but as I said, a succession of Home Secretaries and Governments have decided to rest on the official opinion of the Church and other Christian bodies.
LORD BALERNO: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? Have the Government received from any of the Reformed Churches within the last ten years an indication of a desire that Easter should not become a fixed date and that we should continue as we are doing?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: If the noble Lord will allow me, I hope to come to that in due course. The requirement of full assent so far has not been fulfilled. I must point out to your Lordships that patient negotiations are continuing at this moment, but it seems unlikely that there will be progress in the near future. It is true that many Churches are willing to move to a fixed date but others so far have not yet come to any firm conclusion.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, we hear that these negotiations are proceeding. Is this between the Government and the Churches or between the Churches internationally or between the Churches in this country?
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if I may reply to my noble friend, it is between the Churches themselves. In 1970 an ad hoc commission with representatives from the World Council of Churches, the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church concluded that a common date could and should be reached, but that it was important to arrive at a common date by mutual consent. They recommended that the World Council should continue its consultation with the aim of making a definite proposal to its member Churches when sufficient support had been secured. These consultations are continuing and it is our hope that the matter will be placed on the agenda of the Fifth Assembly of the World Council of Churches which is to be held in 1975.
I do not think, with very great respect, that we can escape from the fact that Easter is a Christian festival and I think members of the Christian community wherever they may be throughout the world would want to observe the festival together on a particular day. One has to face the fact that the Christian community at the moment cannot make up its own mind as to whether to have it as the Act sets out. As your Lordships know, the Act provides that Easter Day

479
shall be the first Sunday after the second Saturday in April. The particular difficulty is that the various Christian communities are not able to come to an agreement among themselves regarding the fixed date.
The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, made reference to the Roman Catholic Church. We know the position of the Roman Catholic Church in this matter but I think I am right in saying that it is unlikely that His Holiness the Pope would approve a separate arrangement for a fixed Easter for the Western Churches without waiting for the concurrence of the Orthodox Churches. I think I am probably right in saying that.
LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is so right. Every Christian person from the lowest to the highest, from the most humble sinner to the holiest person, wants the acclamation of the living Christ on the same day. If you get this you get the meaning of Easter. If you get a proliferation of Easters, you lose the force of it. This is the whole meaning of what we are talking about.
LORD WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I would agree with what the noble Lord has said on this matter, but it is a fact that there is remarkably little public interest in this subject. I understand that the appropriate Government Department, namely, the Home Office, gets no correspondence at all on this matter. They get far more on British Summer Time than they do on this. I do not think we can claim that this is a matter of enormous importance or significance to the ordinary person.
I realise that it is frustrating. Some 46 years have passed since the Act was passed and it has not been brought into operation. It may be that some would go on to say that the wishes of the Churches should now be ignored and that the Government should act to fix the date of Easter unilaterally. If I may speak personally—though probably it is not wise for me to do so—I cannot think that this would be right. Good Friday and Easter Sunday comprise the most solemn festival in the Christian calendar, and I share the view that I think all
480
Christians hold, that so far as possible this should be observed and celebrated on the same day. It is of great importance to Christians of all denominations in this country and overseas, and although we have waited 46 years the matter is still being considered and I think perhaps we may have to wait a while longer in the hope that something may be achieved.
Something was said—I cannot remember by which noble Lord—about the action taken by Government in this matter. In 1964 and again in 1972 the Home Secretary wrote to the British Council of Churches and to the Roman Catholic hierarchy in England and Wales to draw their attention to the continuing Parliamentary interest in a fixed Easter and to express the hope that they would use their good offices to support the efforts being made to reach an agreement in this matter. In 1970 an ad hoc Commission with representatives from the World Council, the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, as I said a moment ago, concluded that a common date could and should be reached but that it was important to arrive at a common date by mutual consent.
One noble Lord asked what was the response so far as the Christian bodies are concerned. My information is that in answer to an earlier World Council questionnaire, some 130 of the 232 member Churches replied. Of those who had replied, the majority favoured a fixed date, and the particular date that they favoured was the one provided in the Easter Act 1928. But there is no unanimity at the present moment and I think the general consensus of opinion is that as this is a Christian festival one must try to get some sort of agreement between the Christian bodies wherever they may be.
The noble Lord, Lord Somers, raised the question of the Jewish Passover. It may be helpful to him, and to other noble Lords, if I say that the questions put to the Churches were whether they considered it desirable to have a common date for Easter throughout Christendom and whether they were of the opinion that the Church is free to re-examine the question of the date at Easter. They were also asked which of the following solutions they would agree to: fixing Easter

481
on the Sunday following the second Saturday in April; or a solution based on the resolution of the Council of Nicea, the Sunday which follows next after the first full moon of Spring; or Easter to be fixed on the Sunday after the Jewish passover, which I think is the practice now.
I think I am right in saying that Easter comes the week following the Passover. Furthermore, in the event of universal agreement not being achieved, the Churches were asked whether they thought it desirable and possible to establish a regional consensus where different dates are observed by different traditions. So far there is no indication as to what they feel in that respect. This is a matter which I think the Home Secretary, and Governments, find it extremely difficult to pursue.
I mentioned a moment or two ago that the Home Office receives very little correspondence on this subject. It is our impression that the vast majority of the public is content with the status quo. It may even be that some like the variety which a movable Easter brings with it. But my right honourable friend the Home Secretary does not think that it is right to make any change in the date of Easter until we secure the full concurrence of the Churches. We continue to hope that progress is being made towards this end and that ultimately agreement will be reached.
For their part, the Government will continue to take what initiatives are open to them towards the securing of an agreement of some kind. I do not think this is due to the lack of effort on behalf of successive Governments, or on behalf of successive Home Secretaries; rather it is that this is a difficult matter. As I have said, we have some reason to believe, because they have been asked to do it, that the World Council of Churches will put this matter on its agenda for 1975. With great respect, my Lords, I think that we ought to wait to see the outcome, notwithstanding the fact that we have waited so long, in the hope that this matter will be successfully resolved ere long.

  E.E.C.: BEEF IMPORTS
  E.E.C.: BEEF IMPORTS
  EIRE: CATTLE IMPORTS INTO THE UNITED KINGDOM
  EIRE: CATTLE IMPORTS INTO THE UNITED KINGDOM
  PUBLIC BUILDING: TRADITIONAL DESIGN
  PUBLIC BUILDING: TRADITIONAL DESIGN
  BRITISH AIRWAYS AND CIGARETTE ADVERTISING
  BRITISH AIRWAYS AND CIGARETTE ADVERTISING
  APSLEY HOUSE ATTENDANCE FIGURES
  APSLEY HOUSE ATTENDANCE FIGURES
  E.E.C. MEMBERSHIP AND FOOD PRICES
  E.E.C. MEMBERSHIP AND FOOD PRICES
  E.E.C. AND COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY
  E.E.C. AND COMMON AGRICULTURAL POLICY
  BEEF PRICES
  BEEF PRICES